Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096

Drama at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard
There's a thread Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard which I have been advised to bring here by other experienced editors. In a nut shell, User:Cleisthenes2, User:JezGrove and an IP SPA appear to believe that I'm pushing a racially-motivated POV with a series of biographies. I see these as part of a much larger series of more than a hundred biographies of New Zealand academics I have written, some of whom have been in the news for racially-charged reasons. A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article. For the sake of completeness, there is also a pending merge request at Requests_for_history_merge related to this work. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've copied my original notice below so other editors can view my concerns in full. I am not raising any complaint about Mr. Yeates' many other biographies (and his many other contributions to Wikipedia). My concern relates solely to the fact that he has declared an intention to write Wikepedia entries for a number of academics with a view towards damaging their reputations (as I see it), and because he views them as 'villains' (his word). That must raise some grave doubts about his ability to deal fairly with entries about those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, doubts which may well not affect any of his other editing. I think him recusing himself from entries on this topic would be the honourable course, and I for one would see it as sufficient.


 * Hi there, I'm unsure how to proceed with this, but I'm concerned about some of User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements concerning the Listener letter on science controversy and in particular about a number of NZ scientists involved in that controversy. The problem is that recent Twitter comments suggest that he is about to create entries for a number of people as a way of attacking them. On April 3rd, he wrote (with regard to a number of academics who signed an open letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand, 'You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ...' (https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1510566667990237185). On September 21st last year, he asked 'Which other Kiwi villains should I write about?' and 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' (https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440244134715932676) before listing a number of entries he created on the signatories to the Listener letter. (I also have screenshots of these tweets by the way, if anyone needs those.) My concern is not only that this may violate Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, balance in creating BLPs, and perhaps conflict of interest, but also that we may soon have a flood of some purposefully negative entires on NZ academics. I'm not aware of any other issues with this user and I appreciate he has done lots of work for Wikipedia, but I wonder whether he might recuse himself (or be removed from) editing entries on NZ scholars involved in the Listener letter on science controversy and those who signed the letter printed here (who he has pledged to create pages for 'just so I can include the fact that they're this racist'): https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/04/02/fellows-of-new-zealands-royal-society-demand-apology-and-full-review-of-the-society-after-poor-treatment-of-two-members/ If this is not the place for this concern or if I've made some technical faux-pas please let me know. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Finally, I would like to draw attention to this passage from the guidelines on BLPs. Note that in the case of the entries on Garth Cooper, Elizabeth Rata, Kendall Clements, and perhaps a few others, User:StuartYeates, as User:JezGrove has pointed out, appears to have created these articles solely with information about the Listener letter and criticism of it (both of which he apparently sees as damaging), without balancing it.
 * 'Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below...Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleisthenes2 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As mentioned and NPOVN, there seems to be major WP:outing concerns with what User:Cleisthenes2 posted above. I don't see where Stuartyeates ever linked a Twitter account on Wikipedia. I'm not redacting the discussion because it's already been on NPOVN for a while but it's not clear this is something can be dealt with on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, the User:Stuartyeates page has "Authority control" links at the bottom, including something called ORCID. Would that cover the outing-question? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Stuartyeates made this edit to his user page linking to Twitter but I don't know if it is relevant. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yeates links directly to his Twitter on his editor's page on Wikipedia, so there's no outing concern. I would be interested in how Nil Einne and others would address the ways in which Yeates has apparently strayed from Wikipedia's stated policies (e.g. on not creating negatively-loaded BLPs), as well as my concerns about his stated intention of creating a number of new articles in order to damage reputation (for more details, see above). As I say, my interest isn't necessarily to impugn any of Yeates' other work on Wikipedia, only to raise an urgent concern about his BLPs of those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, where Yeates appears to have lost his cool. I think he thinks creating biased entires on these scholars serves a good purpose (anti-racism); I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Stuartyeates has linked their Twitter form Wikipedia, then that removes outing concerns. I'm not sure why someone didn't just demonstrate this earlier rather than talk about nonsense like the similarity of the account names, the fact that the Twitter account said they edited an article and the Stuartyeates account Wikipedia did so etc. These details are irrelevant when it comes to outing concerns. As I said both at NPOVN, if you cannot discuss something on Wikipedia due to outing concerns you need to take it to arbcom not here. To use Cleisthenes2 own words "I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies". You need to follow our outing policy no matter your cause. If you haven't established we can talk about something on wiki then don't talk about it on wiki, take it to arbcom. Now that it's been established we can talk about it then we can, but this should have happened before posting links etc. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In his introduction at the start of this discussion,User:Stuartyeates says "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article".


 * As I mentioned in an earlier post before the discussion was moved here, Stuartyeates created BLPs for six of the seven academics who signed the Listener letter (the seventh signatory already had a WP article about them). Five were created in a single day and the remaining one the following day.


 * The page creations all differ in very minor specifics relating to the individuals' academic positions etc., but all are as lopsided as the Garth Cooper page creation example that I linked to and all but one include exactly the same text. (The text of the final one listed below differed from the others when it was created.) For the record, they are:
 * Kendall Clements
 * Doug Elliffe
 * Robert Nola
 * John Werry
 * Elizabeth Rata. (Stuartyeates subsequently readded some of his material with this edit when it had been trimmed down.)
 * Note that in the case of John Werry, the fact that he was appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2009 for services to child and adolescent psychiatry was not included in the page creation or added later by Stuartyeates. I believe that this is a significant and publicly available piece of information that any genuine and well-intentioned BLP should have included, and that its omission is telling.
 * I haven't looked closely at all of the BLPs, but see that Stuartyeates's page creations similarly failed to mention that Cooper and Nola were both Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi at the time, a considerable honour which should have been mentioned in a legitimate BLP.
 * Addressing the Twitter issue, Stuartyeates hasn't denied using the racial slur "turnip slapper" to describe some of those he had just created BLPs about. In the same tweet he said he would soon be creating BLP articles about the others involved in the Listener affair. By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site. JezGrove (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site". Exactly. More specifically, off-Wiki behaviour that made it entirely clear that Stuartyeates was creating biographies about living individuals (prominent academics) for the sole purpose of including material which cast said individuals in a negative light. While I'm not naïve enough to believe that biographies aren't created for such purposes on occasion, to do so in such a systematic manner, and then announce proudly on Twitter that it had been done, while referring to said academics in derogatory terms, can only harm the reputation of Wikipedia, as well as that of the contributor concerned.
 * The topic of discussion here then needs to be what has to be done to ensure that further blatant violations of Biographies of living persons policies are prevented. If this were a new contributor, I have little doubt that an immediate block would be the outcome for such behaviour. And even for more experienced contributors, blocks and topic bans aren't rare, even when the individual concerned has acknowledged that their behaviour was inappropriate. If there is any good reason why such an outcome should not be the result here, I can't in all good faith think of it. At absolute minimum, before anything else is decided, we need to see an acknowledgement from Stuartyeates that such behaviour was inappropriate, and a commitment that it will not recur. Failing that, Wikipedia will have little option but to ensure that Stuartyeates is prevented from doing so. Attack biographies do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, and long-standing contributors who appear to think otherwise, and then boast about their activities on social media, do not deserve immunity from sanctions that would have been applied without question to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I share the concern by other editors that some of the articles created by violate our WP:NPOV policies. Not only that, some of those veer way too close into attack page territory, with the majority of some of these articles being about the signed letter and its reactions by society. Had the articles not been improved, they sould've been deleted. If Stuartyeates is unable to see why other editors are worried about those creations, and their vow (outside Wikipedia) to create articles just to highlight those people as racist, then a topic ban should be in order. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see how the community has any option other than to topic ban Stuartyeates. They have publically stated a personal mission contrary to Wikipedia's mission. There is no going back from there.Slywriter (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Now that we've established we can talking about this without OUTING, IMO Stuartyeates needs to completely stay away from those articles. I have not inspected if those articles are biased as I think it doesn't matter. While editors often have personal views of subjects that they've expressed and we allow that, they shouldn't create articles in part because they feel we need to mention something negative. And Stuartyeates tweets gives the perception this is what they did. which means their involvement in them has troubling implications. Even if those articles were perfect I'd say the same. Heck even if Stuartyeates ended up not including the material I'd still think it's problematic for them to be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, with the key word being and. If the article subjects are notable to the point of meriting an enWiki page, and if they are not attack pages per se, and if the pages' content is supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources (i.e., the articles are likely to be retained and, hopefully, expanded over time), then calls for the articles' creator to be banned/blocked seem wholly punitive and disproportionate. Inappropriately crowing off-Wiki about their suspect motivations certainly merits a warning, and it also requires an explicit commitment from the editor to not repeat that behavior. But a ban or block as the initial sanction? No. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How can multiple biographies created "just so I can include that fact that they're this racist", each consisting almost entirely of the same content, not be attack pages? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And apart from the totally disingenuous "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article" remark in his introduction to this discussion I have seen nothing from the contributor involved to explain or defend their position in creating the series of connected BLP articles involved. JezGrove (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The relevant policy here is Attack page, not the short summary in the BLP page that only discusses poorly sourced BLPs. These pages are textbook examples of articles that were created, the comments on twitter make that clear. Stuartyeates needs a topic ban from BLPs at a minimum 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't get how anyone can defend this. "Looks like I'm on a roll writing @wikipedia biographies of kiwi villains ... Which other kiwi villains should I write about?", and on the same day, I'm finding at least five new BLPs:    . Each of these is a cookie-cutter attack page, completely WP:UNDUE in its coverage. Just look at them! Now this was September 2021, but it makes the recent tweet, "You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist" demonstrate that this problem is ongoing. Barring some assurances from Stuart, it's time for a BLP TBAN. We do not use Wikipedia to write attack BLPs, even if the LPs deserve it. This is the core of WP:BLP. What Stuart has done is the worst thing an editor can do: use their editing privileges, and this giant Wikipedia microphone, to attack another living person. Levivich 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW I just looked at the ~six articles Stuart has created since creating the five problematic ones I linked above and I don't see the problem repeated, which is good. I'm still looking for assurance, in light of the tweet from a couple of days ago, that this won't happen again. Levivich 16:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mass-creating articles about all the individuals involved in a controversy and copy pasting the exact same ~250 word boiler plate criticism of the controversy on each of their articles, with the self-professed motivation that he creates these pages just so I can include that fact that they're this racist, is unacceptable. I don't think we can move forward from this without a topic ban from BLPs at the least. Endwise (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment from non-admin: This may not be obvious to editors outside NZ, but "turnip slapper" is not a racial slur. Its difficult to take anyone who claims it is a slur seriously. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to say that by editing under my own name and tying my wiki identity to my real-world identity I have exposed myself to a level of scrutiny that I had not anticipated. No one else in this discussion appears to be open to the same level of scrutiny. This certainly feels like I'm being held to a higher standard than everyone else. I apologise for the confusion caused at the start of the discussions apparently caused by by my hiding of information on my user page. Is there a better place to put this information? User:Cleisthenes2 has said, without evidence, "[For the uninitiated, "turnip slapper" is a racist slur for a white or non-Māori New Zealander.]" This is not true. (a) A racist slur is a derogatory term applied by a relatively advantaged person/group to a relatively disadvantaged person/group. Pākehā / white New Zealanders occupy the relatively advantaged position so this cannot be a racial slur. (b) I'm a Pākehā and I use the term to include both myself and other Pākehā, as evidenced by the tweet "Us turnip slappers also need to get better at slapping other turnips when they need slapping..." https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440418741750145026 When writing the biography I was unaware that Garth Cooper was of Māori descent. His university profile doesn't appear to make mention of it and this article https://www.nzcpr.com/maori-professor-under-investigation-for-views-on-matauranga-maori/ was published months after I published the draft. The template I use for writing these User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio, assumes the subject is Māori and I would have included that info if I have been aware of it. The articles I wrote reflected secondary sources I found at the time. They were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced. As pointed out above, they don't rise to the level of WP:Attack pages. I didn't edit war (though there has been some robust back-and-forth on related Elizabeth Rata article). This is 100% my off wiki behaviour that I'm (potentially) being censored for. I note that my primary accuser here has greatly reduced coverage of these issues (whitewashed even) in these biographies when they have previously been sanctioned for whitewashing in relation to twitter. SeeAdministrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006. Not sure whether there's a connection there. If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, (including racism / anti-racism work, broadly construed). If not banned I undertake not to talk about / plan BLP creations on social media. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC) See below. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, I just want to clarify that I didn't say anything about the phrase 'turnip slapper.' That was JezGrove. I'd never seen that term before, so I can't really say if it's racist or not, although Yeates' argument that it can't be racist as it's used of white people doesn't seem right to me (and in any case, as a user below points out, it's out of line with Wikipedia policy). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Virtue signalling + deflection = bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * C'mon, you literally threatened, publicly on Twitter, to use Wikipedia to label 70+ people, fellows of the NZ Royal Society, as racist. And you're surprised at getting a reaction? The problem isn't primarily announcing your intentions, the problem is the intentions! I gather you were once paid by the Royal Society to write articles about NZ scientists, and this is part of how you developed a record and credibility at the site. Then you wield that authority against people who have day jobs & and don't have time to sit around editing Wikipedia in order to defend themselves or their colleagues? Note: I am a white New Zealander. I think "racist" is a bigger slur on someone's character than "turnip slapper", but, yes, "turnip slapper" (a) refers to white people and (b) is easily read as insulting. It's basically saying "dumb uneducated rural person/farmer" (to use the most polite translation I could think of). It's therefore racist.  But, seeing a white guy deploy some hierarchy-of-privilege argument about who can be racist to whom in order to defend himself from the accusation of using a racist slur is an interesting tactic I hadn't seen before. 222.153.123.28 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never been paid by the RSNZ to write for wikipedia; if I had, I would have had to do the COI processes, which I haven't. Despite the text of one of the tweets it was never my intention to use the word 'racist' in any of the putative biographies; BLP requires neutral wording on wikipedia. "Turnip slapper" is a folk etymology of the word Pākehā, until I read what you wrote above I didn't know it had a farming connotation. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Meetup/Wellington/Women in Science appears to be the event being alluded to above. I received no funding for this event, was not involved in the organisation or spending of any money; I just turned up and helped people on the day.  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether turnip slapper is a slur or not, but A racist slur is a derogatory term applied by a relatively advantaged person/group to a relatively disadvantaged person/group. Pākehā / white New Zealanders occupy the relatively advantaged position so this cannot be a racial slur is problematic, and out of line with Wikipedia WP:NPA policy which makes no distinction about whether an individual or group is relatively advantaged or disadvantaged. Whatever the result of this discussion is I hope that Stuartyeates will agree that racial slurs are unacceptable regardless of the target, and commit to not using them in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly dopey translation of "pākehā" (see also pākehā), first alluded to by John Liddiard Nicholas in the early 19th century is his account of accompanying Samuel Marsden, albeit that Nicholas merely compared it to the word for turnip rather than saying that that was what it meant.    Do not expect Wikipedia to explain any of this.  Uncle G (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, although Cleisthenes2 first (and accurately) quoted Stuartyeates's tweet 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' it was myself who attempted to explain the term "turnip slapper" to those unfamiliar with it. Since Stuartyeates admits it can only be applied to white New Zealanders and given that it is used in a derogatory way it certainly sounds like a racial slur to me. His "white privilege" defence that you can't be racist about white people is both itself racist (since it attributes a characteristic to people purely on the basis of their race) and an insult to the intelligence.


 * Contrary to what he claims, Stuartyeates is not "being held to a higher standard than everyone else", he is simply being held to account for his own behaviour on Wikipedia. He also claims that "it is 100% my off wiki behaviour that I'm (potentially) being censored for"; again, not true. But his off-Wiki behaviour certainly shed a useful light on what he was doing at Wikipedia. If he never tweeted again that still wouldn't make his editing of BLPs acceptable, because absolutely nothing he has written here explains how he justifies his belief that the BLP articles at issue "were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced", which is the problem that needs addressing:


 * Why, if his intention was to create balanced and neutral biographies, did he omit honours such as Werry's 2009 appointment as a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit and Nola and Cooper's Fellowships of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi from their respective BLPs?


 * The BLP articles were hugely unbalanced. They included a brief description (one sentence in the leads and another in the main text) of the subjects' academic positions etc. and the overwhelming remainder of the articles discussed a single open letter that they had co-signed. This latter part quoted at length from critics of the Listener letter, but not at all from the one source he cited supporting them. (Indeed, he devoted a single perfunctory sentence to any support for the subjects.)


 * Unless and until he acknowledges this particularly troubling aspect I don't see how he can be allowed to create or edit BLP pages. To be crystal clear, it is the creation of the unbalanced BLP articles that I strongly believe he should be sanctioned for; his tweets are relevant simply because they serve as a perfect illustration of his motivation in doing so.


 * If/when sanctions are decided it is important to remember that Stuartyeates also has other Wikipedia accounts. JezGrove (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * With a cooler head I can see that this group of biographies was a mistake; completely unbalanced, and the cut-and-paste was just poor editing. The twitter comment about writing biographies for the signatories of the most recent letters was just a train wreck.  It was meant in jest, which notoriously social media is bad at.  I'm sorry.  Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you going to leave your Twitter followers unaware that you have had second thoughts about this 'jest'? Because as it stands right now, they might well conclude that a major contributor of Wikipedia biographies on academics not only engages in the creation of such content for questionable purposes, but can apparently do so with impunity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the "I was only joking" defence, surely? I'm glad to see an acknowledgement that "this group of biographies was a mistake; completely unbalanced", but what is lacking is any real admission that 1) the series was purely created in response to the Listener letter, and 2) the lack of balance of the series, when compared to the contributor's other BLP articles, was deliberate. After all, while Stuartyeates now says that "The twitter comment about writing biographies for the signatories of the most recent letters was just a train wreck. It was meant in jest, which notoriously social media is bad at", this doesn't address the older and obviously non-jesting tweets he posted contemporaneously with the actual creation of the BLPs that he now accepts were unbalanced. For me at least, a (very) belated "I'm sorry" and a woefully incomplete acknowledgement of his past behaviour at Wikipedia doesn't cut it. JezGrove (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree that I don't think Stuartyeates' response is sufficient here, under the circumstances. We seemed to have a clear consensus for a WP:BLP topic ban, and nobody supporting it seems to have changed their mind after his last comment. 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Three month topic ban from BLP
I propose a three-month topic ban to protect Wikipedia. Whether this is a literal violation of policy or not, it is harmful to Wikipedia's mission, and threatens the neutrality of the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is really much room for doubt that WP:BLP policy was violated. I'd go further and suggest that a topic ban is more or less essential unless and until Stuartyeates acknowledges that such behaviour was improper. The problem won't go away after three months, it will go away when it becomes clear that Stuartyeates won't act in a similar manner again - any topic ban should be indefinite, with its lifting contingent on an appropriate appeal, based solely on a commitment to abide by policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Insufficient - the topic ban should be indefinite. These were flat out attack pages - articles on academics that contained next to no information on their academic work, had a massive undue focus on recent controversies and per the comments on twitter were deliberately created to try to portray people as racists. I don't see an editor of 17+ years changing their behaviour on the back of a 3 month ban. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * opppose 3 month ban, strong support indefinite BLP ban solely because this should be an indefinite BLP ban (honestly, a site ban is preferable given the WP:POINTY and highly inappropriate editing by Stuart.)  CUPIDICAE💕  16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd also change this to an indefinite site ban given their behavior. Grudge editing like this, where they've made their intent clear on and off-wiki to smear BLPs is reprehensible and not conducive to a collaborative environment or creating an encyclopedia.  CUPIDICAE💕  17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 3 month ban or longer Strongly support indefinite BLP ban - I've got no experience from which to judge what the eventual decision here should be. Is there any even remotely similar occurrence that serves as a precedent? In the absence of any acknowledgment of contrition from Stuartyeates I struggle to see how anything short of a total ban on creating or editing BLP articles will have any effect whatsoever, though. And even then there would be serious problems relating to the sincerity expressed, given that any such acknowledgment could have been offered at an earlier stage in this entirely dismal saga. The initial deflection of claiming that "A single diff has been held up as evidence" in full knowledge of the other almost identical BLP articles they had created (and publicly gloated about) on the same day suggests that this contributor has no shame. JezGrove (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)ban
 * Have amended my vote in light of further failure by Stuartyeates to confront the problem. JezGrove (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Opppose as disproportionate punishment, assuming that the editor unambiguously admits to their mistake, affirms that said mistake will not be repeated, and takes both of those actions soon. : if you fail to respond appropriately, this oppose !vote is likely to be changed to a support. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * this tweet by the editor in question (from yesterday!) should give you an indication what they're intentions actually are. CUPIDICAE💕  17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic ban from BLPs Three-months is insufficient, given that Stuartyeates has failed to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. The ban should apply to all accounts operated by this person (noting that their user page says they "own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy") and those accounts should be revealed to ensure compliance with the ban. Their actions in using Wikipedia to attack individuals were wrong. They've had time to acknowledge that and haven't.   Schazjmd   (talk)  17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any evidence of problematic behavior other than this very specific issue? Stuart's been around here for a while -- is there any other cause for some of the severe actions floated above? I think we should be content if he just expresses understanding that it was really bad judgment and pledges to voluntarily stay away from any BLPs related to the subject. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why I proposed a time-limited topic ban. Get away from the current event that triggered their current actions and let them then demonstrate that a lesson was learned, and in the meantime allow them to contribute in other ways to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: it is my understanding that an indefinite ban is for an unknown amount of time. It may be lifed after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, etc, depending on the circumstances. --Spekkios (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Indefinite does not mean infinite", as they say. Editors are usually recommended to follow the instructions at WP:STANDARDOFFER when considering to appeal their block or ban. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support three-month topic ban Support indef BLP ban - seems to be no sign of an apology, an explanation or even any acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour. Quite unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have adjusted my !vote in response to what others have written here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed Yeates's conduct on Twitter brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Given that they have displayed zero contrition for this behaviour or understanding why creating attack BLPs is wrong, I don't think that there is any reason to make the ban temporary. Temporary bans are just kicking the can down the road if the user doesn't fundamentally understand why what they were doing was wrong, as many admins at AE have come to conclude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed I should note first that I was the one who raised the original concern about User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements, so others are welcome to take that into account as they see fit. My intention in raising this wasn't to cancel Yeates or to get him kicked off Wikipedia. It was to make sure he didn't do what he said he intended to do, and create negatively-loaded entries on even more NZ academics involved in the Listener letter on science controversy. Whether he's violated Wikipedia policies or shown bad faith to a sufficient extent to merit harsher measures I'll leave it to more experienced editors to work out. He seems to have done good work on other sections of Wikipedia and I see no evidence that he won't be able to contribute positively outside of this topic in the future. When it comes to the topic of the Listener letter, though, and perhaps to NZ academics in general, he does seem to have a particular axe to grind, to an extent that he's no longer able to restrain himself from writing negatively-loaded BLPs with the declared intent of harming reputations. So, I would support preventing him from editing BLPs of NZ academics, especially those involved with the Listener controversy (which, at this stage, is a lot of NZ academics, since it's become a major debate among academics in NZ). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support three-month or longer topic ban. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef ban from BLPs Its up to Stuart to demonstrate why he should be allowed to edit BLP's again. Not us to assume that in 3 months time his attitude has changed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Indef ban from BLPs & Weak support Site ban The fact they have yet to respond on this thread but felt Twitter was appropriate outlet to make light of the situation brings into question whether they have the temperament to edit here at all but at minimum they can not be allowed near BLPs while a cloud hangs over their motivations and as a ban is preventative, not punitive, they need to convince the community that such trust can be restored down the road.Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * am I missing something? AFAICT, Stuartyeates hasn't done anything publicly on Twitter for over 16 hours which was a retweet of this [//twitter.com/GordyPls/status/1511270587205038087]. Please note that this thread only really blew up in the very early morning NZ time, indeed by the time of JezGrove's comment "In his introduction at the start of this discussion" it was already 2320 NZ time. It's currently 1318 so Stuartyeates may be at work or otherwise lack the time to deal with this since it blew up. Note that this [//twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1511060696167256064] was posted over 30 hours ago, well before this thread was started by Stuartyeates. It concerned the NPOVN discussion which was frankly a mess with no one even establishing that Stuartyeates had linked their Twitter account until after this ANI AFAICT. I mean if you want to blame Stuartyeates for not responding adequately to the NPOVN whatever, I don't want to get in to that. But blaming Stuartyeates for not responding yet to this ANI they started seems to be some combination of blaming them for not living on Wikipedia, and blaming them for living in NZ and keeping normal hours (unlike me). Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,I did indeed misread timestamp and which noticeboard was referred to in the tweet, though disdain for the NPOV thread isn't much better. I've stricken the weak support for site ban pending their response, my views on a BLP ban remain unchanged.Slywriter (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef ban from BLPs - this user's deliberate attempt to create what are in effect attack pages are absolutely unacceptable. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban from all BLPs The problematic article creation appears to have been highly focused on a topic which is mostly in the rear-view mirror. A topic ban from all BLPs would be punitive, not preventative. They've stated If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, which is a voluntary commitment to avoid a broader area than even has been found to be problematic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * N.B. The quote in green is from an edit time-stamped 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC), which is after all of the bolded !votes above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote above in no shape or form actually amounts to an admission that Stuartyeates did anything wrong. To the contrary, it appears to be trying to justify his behaviour, by implying that the academics featured in the biographies concerned met Wikipedia notability criteria for 'negative' reasons. Something that Stuartyeates, as someone who has created many biographies of academics knows to be false. The individuals concerned met Notability (academics) criteria, did so prior to the letter incident, and would have fully merited the same sort of careful, balanced coverage that Stuartyeates seems to have put into other biographies. A balanced coverage that by his own public statements involves taking time to do proper research, rather than churning out 'biographies' in a couple of hours each, consisting of nothing but the briefest summary of the individuals actual notable academic work entirely dwarfed by the boiler-plate material placed to draw attention to individuals alleged 'racism'. The biographies were created to cast the individuals in a bad light. They were grossly unbalanced. They should not have appeared on Wikipedia in the form they were in. Unless and until Stuartyeates is prepared to admit that creating such negatively-motivated 'biographies' is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a violation of trust put in someone who seems to have done much genuine good work on coverage of academia, it is my opinion that he should not be permitted to make further edits concerning biographies of living persons. Whether others who made similar suggestions above still hold the same opinions, after reading Stuartyeates' statement is for them to say - but what they wrote cannot simply dismissed because Stuartyeates has made an equivocal statement that fails to address the issues raised in any proper manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that several biographies were created in a bad state, and with a motivation that crossed a line. (I don't think that "I created this article to tell the world that so-and-so is racist" is necessarily a bad act; sometimes, what makes a person notable is that sources of indisputable reliability document them being a huge racist. That's not the case here, per your point about WP:PROF.) What I'm failing to see is the step from "they shouldn't create articles about New Zealand academics involved in one recent dispute" to "they should never edit any BLP of anyone, New Zealander or not, academic or not, embroiled in a controversy or not". The former seems pretty well justified; the latter still strikes me as punitive. No adding categories about where someone graduated from university ? No tagging deadlinks ? No trimming CV-spam ? Maybe I'm being a total milksop here, but I'm OK with that being my reputation. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Indefinite' doesn't mean 'never'. It means (in this case) 'not until you acknowledge that WP:BLP policy applies, and that editing to score political points in such a manner is entirely inappropriate'. If Stuartyeates is unwilling to make such an acknowledgement, it is unfortunate, but given the centrality of WP:BLP policy, I simply don't see how we can just act as if there is no longer an issue. There very much is one - a major contributor to articles who refuses to concede that policy applies to them. As I noted in this thread some time earlier, if this was a new contributor, they'd likely have been blocked immediately. Contributors with significant experience have been subject to similar broad topic bans before, and for similar reasons. The problem isn't just with specific edits. It is with a refusal to accept that he was in the wrong, or with a fundamental misunderstanding of core policies. Either of which is more than adequate grounds for a general topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the articles that set this off, I didn't see a failure to recognize that WP:BLP applies, but rather, poor judgment as to what sources are suitable and how much weight to give a topic within an article; in other words, they were a motivated attempt to create pages that would follow the letter of WP:BLP but failed to do so. Most of the sources in the boilerplate text being called "attack page" material would be acceptable in principle (there's a Google Doc that fails WP:UGC). Indeed, Listener letter on science controversy preserves them. The opinions are properly attributed. The wording is "neutral" in the sense of fairly summarizing the sources cited. It reads like effort was made to present the various opinions responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (WP:BLPBALANCE). The problem is piling them all together without regard for the rest of the material that such biographies ought to contain (thus imbalancing them) and repeating this across multiple biographies. I don't see a "fundamental misunderstanding of core policies", but an attempt to get one's way within the lines of those policies, driven by a topic-specific axe to grind. Problematic without doubt, but a different problem. Call it topical WP:BLP gamesmanship, perhaps. I'm not a fan of it, to say the least, but I think any ban imposed for it ought to be targeted. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The ban proposed is targeted. It is aimed directly at preventing a contributor who has (in Levivich's words below) been "weaponizing Wikipedia" from doing so again. Given Stuartyeates refusal to admit wrongdoing, this targeting is entirely appropriate, since we don't know where such weapons might otherwise be aimed in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By that logic, why limit the ban to BLPs? That sounds like an indef siteban argument to me; if we assume that an editor is willing to "weaponize Wikipedia", surely they'd weaponize any part of it. As usual when I drop by ANI, I am genuinely failing to follow the connection between the observed behavior and the proposed response. And as usual, I can tell I'm going to be in the extreme minority here, so I'll stop now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Misery loves company, I suppose! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my reasons for favoring an indef BLP TBAN and not a siteban in this situation are: the potential harm for BLPs is greater, and harder to reverse, than for non-BLP articles; it's been like six months since the attack BLPs were created; Stuart brought themself to ANI, for which some credit should be given; an otherwise spotless record; donated a ton of time to the project over many years; and, a TBAN gives Stuart the opportunity to go edit elsewhere for a while, reconsider this issue, and then ask for the TBAN to be lifted, which I think (and hope) is the likely outcome here. Levivich 21:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living people need to be written with care and with upmost compliance to all content policies because they have the potential to cause serious harm to their subjects - for most people their Wikipedia page will be the first result in search engines and will be scraped across the entire internet. Stuartyeates has shown that they are willing to abuse Wikipedia to write attack pages on people they dislike, so I no longer have confidence in their ability to edit BLPs. Their response here is completely inadequate and to my eyes reads like they don't actually understand what they did wrong - they are making ridiculous points like "it's not fair that I got caught on twitter, if I hadn't used the my real name here no-one would have noticed the attack pages I was writing" and are still insisting that there was nothing wrong with pages they were writing, as if an article on an academic where their entire academic career is condensed to a single line and 80% of the article text is a rant about them signing a letter is a fair and balanced representation of their career. Since Stuartyeates doesn't actually seem to have made any acknowledgement of wrongdoing here I have no confidence that they understand their mistakes and won't repeat them in the future. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef BLP ban because Stuart's response does not assure me that he understands BLP or NPOV policy, so I don't trust him to self-police, as I don't think he gets what he did wrong here. Just today he wrote, That's alarming to me, because those articles were very obviously not balanced or neutral. In addition, given the very recent public announcement of an intention to violate BLP and NPOV policy, I want to assure the rest of the world that no, this editor will not be writing anyone's biography on Wikipedia. I meant what I said that using Wikipedia to attack another person is the worst thing an editor can do editing-wise. Using Wikipedia as a tool to attack others can accurately be described as "weaponizing Wikipedia". The public, our readers, need to have absolute trust in us that we take this seriously and that we can, and will, act to stop and prevent it. Levivich 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef BLP ban says it perfectly above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef BLP ban, like with GeoSwan before, and Tenebrae before that; I take a very dim view of using our pages/processes to attack and harass people. This is contrary to the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef BLP ban, much for the the reasons as Levivich above. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to attack living people you have a disagreement with, and their responses to the concerns that have been raised by the community do not inspire much confidence in me. Endwise (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indef BLP ban. I these were pretty blatant attack pages even without knowing the creator had made his intentions explicit on twitter. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite ban from BLPs, broadly construed: Delibrate creation of pages for the sole purpose of attacking their subject for whatever reason is unacceptable. They clearly intend to continue to do so, and refuse to admit that there is an issue with doing so. Unacceptable. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 07:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They clearly intend to continue to do so based on what? Four days before your comment, they wrote If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, (including racism / anti-racism work, broadly construed).  --JBL (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef ban per XOR'easter: there is, in all the posts above, no evidence whatsoever of a broad problem with BLP editing; there is at worst evidence of a very narrow problem with editing around a very particular incident. --JBL (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose indefinite ban There is so much intent being read into these tweets (which are being viewed as 100% the truth), and yet Stuart's responses are not being seen as honest or in good faith (despite him apologising and stating he has no intention to further edit or create any of these pages). I feel that an indefinite ban from BLPs is unnecessary and would, at most, support a three month ban around this specific topic.


 * My understanding of Wikipedia rules is limited, however a strongly question some of the arguments being made, particularly in relation to 'turnip slapper'. From what I can tell, Stuart did not use the word on Wikipedia, so whether it exists as a slur or violates WP:NPA is not relevant IME. Regardless, the meaning and origins of the term has been misunderstood (and has nothing to do with showing us Pākehā as poor farmers). The term developed widespread use among twitter after a now-deleted account (deletion irrelevant to slapping turnips) joked about the meaning of the word Pākehā, breaking it down to pā and keha. I believe this was in relation to the issue where some Pākehā feel that the term Pākehā in itself is a 'racial slur', citing our sensitivity (the response from which has made this Wikipedia thread all the more of a joke on twitter). 'Turnip slapper' became widely adopted *particularly* among Pākehā on twitter, and is often used fairly neutrally.


 * To be debating on wiki whether its use (by Stuart on twitter!) is intended as a slur is a bizarre attempt at portraying intent, and trying to bring culture in from the twittersphere requires a lot of understanding of what are very different dynamics. If he's banned from BLPs for an argument that relies at all on him using turnip slapper as a 'slur' on twitter, so should myself and various other Wikipedia editors (whether they are Pākehā, tauiwi, or Māori).


 * Stuart made a poor decision, and one where his intentions were not neutral. They did not have significant consequences, and were easily remedied. He didn't partake in any edit warring (I believe). He doesn't appear to have taken any action since this thread that suggests he intends to repeat his actions or escalate anything, and demanding apologies which satisfy every wrongdoing (some more debatable than others) doesn't feel constructive IMO. Although I feel the pages now lack information about the Listener article which is relevant & a major reason for their names to have become more known in NZ, I don't have the wiki knowledge for BLPs to argue this.


 * BLPs DO need to be created with the utmost care, and Stuart did not do this. His failing in this regard imo should not require grovelling in order to be able to do good and provide constructive, helpful work for BLPs in the future — he knows he messed up, he's apologised for it, and he doesn't intend to do it again. That's been pretty clear, and he's not taken any actions that would suggest otherwise. I oppose the ban for this reason: is the punishment he is receiving really justified, constructive, or helpful given no evidence he wishes to repeat his actions, or is it to make others feel better? (apologies for any formatting mistakes, I'm not very good with the source editor on my phone) Pseudomugil (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how did you find out about this discussion? Did you read about it off wiki? I'm curious how an editor with 100 and something edits who has never touched project space came across this discussion, and why you've chipped in despite having (in your own words) a limited understanding of the rules and how BLP are supposed to be written.
 * I don't get why you're focusing on the "turnip slapper" parts of the tweet - despite Stuart spending multiple paragraphs writing about it above that's not the big issue here. The issue people have with Stuarts tweets is that he stated that he was specifically writing shitty copy paste stub articles on people just so he could make them look like racists.
 * Posting attacks on other editors on other sites absolutely could be relevant and can be considered as an aggravating factor by administrators - the policy you linked specifically mentions this - No personal attacks.
 * I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that there were "no significant consequences". For 6 months the biggest piece of internet coverage that these academics had - the first thing you would have seen if you googled their names - was an attack page. Pages that completely missed major academic academic accomplishments like being a Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand and instead consisted of a copy pasted paragraph that only presented one side of a major controversy in a manner that was specifically intended to make them look like racists.
 * Why have you mentioned edit warring? No-one has accused Stuart of edit warring, why is it relevant to a BLP topic ban? The only person who seemed to think it was relevant was Stuart.
 * Can you point out which of Stuart's responses made you think he understands the seriousness of his actions and won't repeat them? His first attempt was nothing more than ridiculous deflection and responses to non-issues no-one had even raised ("you can't be racist against privileged people" "I never edit warred" "I'm being censored") and his second attempt  apologises with the caveat that what he said was actually all just a massive "joke"! I don't see anything above that convinces me that Stuart actually sees the seriousness of what he did.
 * Stuart has shown that he is willing to create pages attacking people he dislikes, and from his responses here to be completely unsatisfactory. Indefinite does not mean infinite, if Stuart is willing to actually address the issues with his editing without trying to come up with stupid justifications for them then he can appeal. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban or any other sanction. The incident which prompted these articles' creation was the first time the authors who had stubs created had strayed far enough into the public eye to attract enough public attention to make a Wikipedia article necessary so it's disingenous to suggest that first explaining about this incident is somehow writing an unbalanced article. Anything else is based on statements apparently made elsewhere which is not under Wikipedia's jurisdiction. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh man... what you're describing is why we have rules like WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. If an otherwise non-notable person gets some bad press, we usually do not write biographies about then, because any biography article will be inherently WP:UNDUE. It's one thing to oppose a sanction here, but anyone who looks at those creations and thinks they comply with policy should also be TBANed from BLPs. These were attack pages; there is no question about that. They are quintessential examples of what the entirety of BLP policy is supposed to prevent. Levivich 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support BLP topic ban, per Levivich, AtG etc... Clearly this needs to be implemented in the absence of any convincing response (other than suggesting it might have been... a joke..?). Creating attack BLPs is the exact opposite of funny. Stuart can explain what it all meant in due course, during an appeal, if he'd like to, but in the meantime, and in the lack of any such convincing explanation/reassurance it's up to us to make sure the damage is prevented from continuing. Begoon 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from BLPs, ranging from 3 months to indef (with an inclination towards the latter). BLP is one of—if not the—most important real-world policy we have; it's literally the page that, while we adhere to it, effectively prevents WP/W<MF from being sued on a regular basis. Creating attack pages should be the very definition of NOTHERE. Or, to flip the coin, WP:HERETOFUCKUPTHEPEDIA.  SN54129  16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So, is anything going to be done? We seem to have a consensus for a topic ban.
As above. There seems to be a clear consensus for a BLP topic ban for Stuartyeates. His latest response seems not to have resulted in anyone changing their mind. In most cases that I've seen involving such a clear consensus, the topic ban is formally placed within a day or so of said consensus emerging. Not so here. Why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a thread up above where consensus was just as clear for well over a week which was only just closed. I don't disagree that this one seems equally, if not more, obvious, but I guess it just depends on someone deciding to do it or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Begoon 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * So, if nobody 'decides to do it', discussions here mean nothing at all? What exactly is the purpose of having them then? Perhaps we should close WP:ANI down per WP:NOTFORUM, and just leave the admins to do stuff as and when they feel like it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you need to be an admin to assess consensus for a topic ban? It doesn't need tools to enact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't think we can compel people to do stuff. It is what it is, I guess - but yeah, it can be frustrating if you're waiting for a close. I was following the one I linked to and amazed nobody got to it while piddling little things got a 10 minute close. I don't see how it can be any different though, when every closer is a volunteer. That's one of the reasons, which lots of folks know all too well, that bludgeoning a complaint into something that nobody can be bothered looking at works so well if you want to get it ignored. (for clarity, this was a reply to Andy (e/c- the reply tool put it here) but what SFR says is very interesting too.) Begoon 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Template:status idea is the most recent discussion around this that I can remember. Positive reception, but no critical mass. CMD (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CBAN requires an administrator, unless I'm misreading it. But status template we can just use. I never understood why that was stopped cold by a couple of naysayers. Levivich 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right on the first point: "an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion". Begoon 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, closing a ban is listed under WP:BADNAC. Shucks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if nobody 'decides to do it', discussions here mean nothing at all?
 * Yes. You've been here long enough to realize that sometimes ANI discussions fizzle out because there's not an uninvolved admin who is willing to take action. It's a volunteer project. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, someone can perform a BADNAC and either it goes to closure review, an admin takes some action, or the result is accepted. Assuming tool use isn't needed, that is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just my anecdotal impressions, but I think there are basically three categories of archived-without-closure threads at ANI:
 * No consensus threads that go quiet and get auto-archived: Almost all of these stay in the archives. Sometimes, someone thinks there's consensus and pulls it back out of the archives, but they are wrong, and get a good talking-to from the community about not un-archiving dead threads and prolonging the conflict.
 * Low-participation threads that appear on the surface to have consensus but go quiet and get auto-archived without closure: These are threads where there might be three or four people supporting a sanction, but all of them are "involved" (i.e., it's one side in an ongoing content dispute "ganging up" on someone on the other side), and despite ample time, uninvolved editors are not participating in the discussion. Experienced editors recognize that these threads do not have enough uninvolved participation to form a consensus. If these threads are un-archived, it's often followed by a bunch of "oppose" !votes from uninvolved editors.
 * Threads where there actually is consensus that go quiet and get auto-archived: These are very rare. Most threads that have consensus that go quiet do not get auto-archived because people will keep posting something within the archiving period, sometimes specifically asking for a close (as happened in this thread), or sometimes specifically to avoid auto-archiving. If they do get auto-archived, they're promptly pulled back out, and oftentimes someone (often an admin who !voted) will post at WP:CR or WP:AN asking for a close. The "talking-to" that happens for unarchived Category #1 threads doesn't happen for these Category #3 threads because everyone can see that there is, in fact, consensus. Eventually, they are are closed, though it can take weeks or a month.
 * Even if a thread is auto-archived without closure, I don't think that means discussions here mean nothing at all because if whatever problem arose repeats itself, editors discussing it at that time will have the benefit of the previous ANI thread to refer to. Levivich 18:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Closed. But Swarm has let us carry on muttering among ourselves :)    SN54129  17:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Better to keep us here lest we wander off into another thread. Levivich 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had closed it, I wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake. Rather, I would have closed the entire page by forgetting the bottom tag. Much tidier that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even worse is this appendicitis -- meaningless additions to a closed thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though... Begoon 02:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Coolcaesar and baseless accusations in vandalism
Today, Coolcaesar left a message on my talk page asking me not to vandalize Wikipedia and promising that I will be blocked if I vandalize Wikipedia again. I was a bit surprised, and, after some investigation, I realized that the user was unhappy with my edit made more than three months ago in which I removed copyright violation (which I have noticed through CopyPatrol) but restored an image added together with this copyright violation. I responded explaining this point but the user continued editing Wikipedia without responding. I went to their talk page, and they doubled down saying "If I mistook your clumsy cleanup for vandalism, then well then, I do have to apologize for my very poor choice of words" but insisting my edit was not appropriate. I noticed that the user was warned for baseless vandalism accusations last year (to which they have chosen not to respond) and again today. We are probably past the point when simple warnings suffice. I am not sure why I should be getting such messages at my talk page, irrespectively of whether the FeDex headquarters are in Memphis or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would seem that they do not understand what vandalism is and is not and appear to believe that anything that's not 100% accurate or doesn't jive with what they think is correct is vandalism... CUPIDICAE💕 16:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think they doubled down - they did at least concede that it was not vandalism and apologize. Perhaps we should see if they do heed User:Cullen328's warning, which I think should be a final one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested, there is further discussion of this matter at User talk: Cullen328. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have not seen this one. Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A review of Coolcaeser's talk page and its archive will show multiple cases of being called on for labeling edits he disagrees with as vandalism; which is just a specific case of his many incidents of gross incivility that are also documented there. It really is not behavior to be tolerated. TJRC (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

JGabbard spreading white genocide conspiracy theory on South African farm attacks article


JGabbard is an open racist who shouldn't be allowed to edit on Wikipedia.

1:

2:

3:

4:

Desertambition (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whew, JGabbard is wildly out of touch with reality on that talk page. Perhaps a topic ban would be a good idea. CUPIDICAE💕  15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * JGabbard was topic banned from "the subjects of vaccination, conspiracy theorists, and COVID-19, all broadly construed" in May 2020: see here. Given this rant I would suggest that if this isn't already a violation of the ban (which one might reasonably argue it is, given that it seems to be suggesting that the mass media are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide 'genocide' by the SA government), the ban should be extended to cover it. Or maybe we can do without JGabbard's 'contributions' entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an actual block is in order in that case. I don't see any value in denying factual evidence that's plainly written. CUPIDICAE💕  15:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Taking a look at his userpage, no surprises to see he lists violent racists such as Tommy Robinson and bigots such as Ian Paisley as inspirations. His comments regarding South Africa linked above suggesting the democratic, multi-racial society of today is inferior to the apartheid regime is frankly disgusting and unhinged. If not already topic banned from this area, one needs to be put in place urgently. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, I would think an outright block if they don't rescind those comments is in order, or is just in order anyway. Incidentally their Userpage is also a massive WP:COPYLINK violation, a lot of the Youtube videos they link to are copyright infringing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NONAZIS would seem to apply here. Supporting a racist regime (like apartheid) and actively spreading racist nonsense is simply incompatible with Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The present South African regime is a damnable, execrable, anti-white, genocidal institution, exceeding by light years the racism of the DeKlerk administration, and systematically replicating the 1804 Haiti massacre in slow motion, on a larger scale. is the kind of stuff that's rather uncontroversially described as racist nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's pretty shitty, and I can't fault you for for arguing for an indef block. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to refrain from passing judgment a la "User X is a racist"--that is not a thing we should be doing. Having said that, the editor's comments on that talk page are highly troubling. I just discovered, in the talk page archives, that I said in 2016 that I had worked on that article as an editor, so I'll stick to commenting. I believe that JGabbard should be topic-banned from that article AND its talk page. This edit and the linked ANI post from 2020 suggest they really need to stay away from any political article, including BLPs, which fall under disputed areas such as those governed by AP2, climate change, pseudoscience, etc., because of their totally skewed ideas on reliable sourcing. I'm unwilling to propose an indef block, since there are areas in which they can be productive (those songs and musicians), and for the same reason a NOTHERE block is not appropriate either. Also pinging, who has some experience with this editor on the South African farmers talk page, and , who closed the ANI thread in 2020. And yes, half of that user page needs to go, per NOTWEBHOST and possibly copyright problems. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indef per NONAZIs and they have been already TBanned for (roughly) similar behavior. The extent to which certain editors administrators can be willing to collaborate with racist editors, is troubling. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * indef per the above. There's no point in keeping a net negative around, especially when said net negative has, at best, a tenuous relationship with facts and the truth. It's obvious a tban didn't work, no reason to think another one would. CUPIDICAE💕  16:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indef Who cares that they contribute to other areas? The crap they expouse is damaging, that shouldn't be hand waived away. Comments stating otherwise is why we deserve the UCOC. Valeince (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, we seem to frequently dismiss bad behaviour simply because editors are productive in other areas, it's not something we should support or endorse. You can be an angel in 95% of your dealings, but if the other 5% are toxic then it's a hard no. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I do have some initial reservations about banning an editor who has been here since 2006 and done some genuinely good work. But, after having been told by the community to stay away from conspiracy theories, to be back again spreading falsehoods, this time about "government-sponsored white genocide in South Africa" is a major concern. The vile diatribe suggesting the apartheid regime was preferable to the current "genocidal" South African government is wholly, utterly unacceptable on an encyclopedia. Their understanding of what a reliable source is after 16 years on the project is also very concerning. Not sure how else these issues can be addressed. AusLondonder (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember one thing, it's an indef block not a permanent block, but it would force them to address the issues if they are to have a hope editing here again. Putting an indef doesn't necessarily mean kicking them off forever, that's a ban. Which means it can be an effective measure for dealing with things like this. Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are right to clarify my clumsy wording. AusLondonder (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeffed they are welcome to find another forum for their racism. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Star   Mississippi  17:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indef (non-admin comment) this guy would need some seriously broad TBANs to become a net positive, and at that point there's not much of a reason to keep them around. casualdejekyll  18:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

JGabbard's userpage
I see some users expressed concerns about the apparent WP:LINKFARM issues of the talk page (along with other objectionable content). Not to encourage grave-dancing, but what should we do about that? Would anybody object if one chose to just axe the whole thing? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the content on that userpage has to do with popular music. The links are mostly wikilinks, mostly to musicians and songs and the like. At the very end, they say that admire a variety of people, several of whom I do not admire. I think that it would set a bad precedent to delete this page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I reverted the speedy earlier as grave dancing because there's really nothing polemic on the user page, and if it was fine when they were unblocked, it's pretty likely to be fine now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally think it's wrong to delete the whole userpage, but some of the links might be WP:LINKVIOs. In that case I would support removing any links to copyvios while retaining the rest of the userpage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, however the effort to go through all the Youtube links and determine what is a violation is massive. However that being said I believe the worst of it is in the section User:JGabbard which we could just outright remove as webhosting and copylink violation. And most, if not all, of User:JGabbard is outright copyright violations. A lot of the rest is webhosting violations. And I think it's quite the feat that there are 1,082 unhypertexted external links on that userpage, plus others with hypertext. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, might need more of a precise scalpel than a massive axe. The effort to go through the whole of it, though, might just be overkill. If most of the content in a few of the sections is objectionable and links to copyright violations, removing those sections would likely get rid of the majority of the issues. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism by E-960
I'm expanding articles with sources and user E-960 deletes it groundless multiple times, , because this anti-German user is outraged just by fact, that I'm writing about the German past of some places. Hope this will stop. I'm totally annoyed by this vandalism. Right now I'm taking a pause. --Jonny84 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the information as well, adding so much general history to a stub article about a small village is undue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've start a discussion at Talk:Jedlice, Opole Voivodeship were this can be talked about, rather than in edit summaries. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have in fact just noticed that you are copy pasting the same information across multiple stub articles about small villages. Maybe this would be better discussed at WT:Poland. I would ask you to stop, as doubling the size of these articles with the same text seems extremely bundue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 you can't call edits (any edits) "vandalism" unless that editor is intentionally attempting to vandalize Wikipedia. This is not the case here. Please refer to this thread (just above) where an editor might be warned or even blocked for doing precisely the same.. Do you understand what "vandalism" means? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This user reverts whole edits which were sourced without reason for multiple times. Not for the first time. That is clearly vandalism or permanent Bias/POV. Do I need to explain more... --Jonny84 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe E-960 was the most gentle about this revert. But I don't see it as vandalism. There is valid reasons for removing this text. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jonny84 - Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, you know? Word “vandalism" should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Copy pasted from our policies. You should get familiar with them. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe in good faith after years of this disruptive edits.. Especially when he is erasing the information of German past in thousands of articles by a bot right now. I wonder if it would be called good faith, if somebody would erase information of Ukrainian past of Crimea, since it's occupied by Russia since 2014. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear. Are you saying these polish villages are currently being occupied by Poland but truly belong to Germany? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I've just said Crimea is defacto part of Russia, so we don't need Ukrainian history there, if we don't need informations about German history in Polish villages articles. I think you are mistaking this not by accident. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question ActivelyDisinterested. Do you think Jonny84 that these Polish villages in reality belong to Germany by bringing the Crimea example? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * never mind the user answered 1 second earlier -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading with understanding would help.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Commenting without personal attacks is better. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Discussion now here, as it concerns multiple articles. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Now, this is disruptive. Jonny84 nominates the page for deletion for no reason. Why did you do that? Can you explain Jonny84? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is really escalating quickly. Have they been informed of Eastern European discretionary sanctions? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, see here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and Jonny84 deleted the information calling a person -  ..a nationalist.. in the edit summary ...oh Lord. Come on Jonny84, what were you thinking? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a tiny insignificant village without any important informations about the village itself. Why do we need it in future? --Jonny84 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that now you're editing to make a WP:POINT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * GrizzCatBella edit conflicted me in reporting this. I'll just repeat my final sentence. "With that I'm off to bed, with all the good faith in the world I start to wonder if we are being trolled" A bit over tired, I retracked that. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand their behaviour. Editors sometimes go off the rails you know. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed your strikethrough formatting there, missed a \ Bsoyka  ( talk ) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First time striking a comment, of course it goes wrong. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 01:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 this edit of yours is exactly what vandalism is. You changed the article from this to this  replacing it with text --> Mnichus [ˈmnixus] (German: Münchhausen) is just a tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This edit I just reverted is also blatant vandalism by Jonny84. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm feeling bulled by some users right now, just for expanding stub articles with sources. Is it believable? I guess Wikipedia is based on fake and false informations nowadays.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not being bullied, and this definitely doesn't look like expansion with sources. Perhaps accusing other people of bullying isn't the best course of action here. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you linked the right diff there? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, fixed. Thank you! Bsoyka  ( talk ) 00:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't put this information (about population) into the article, so why are you expecting a source from me? --Jonny84 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, fixed the diff hopefully for real this time, referring to Special:Diff/1082767304. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This was referring to this, this and this.. But thanks for ignoring my initial edits like this, which was indeed sourced and reverted with dubious arguments. I already knew it's not about a neutral discussion here... If an extension of stub articles are not wanted, then there should't be a template, which asks for expanding.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't believe any admins have commented yet. We're all just editors like you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So are the administrators. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a break Jonny84 and cool off. Come back in a day or two. (friendly advice) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068 over German placenames has escalated. Note that unless it has happened again since, "nationalist" was addressed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No hasn't been repeated, that issue is stale. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

So the users are not able to use the inserted sources and deleting it with the question about where it is mentioned, while the place name is clearly mentioned on page 29... I would call it intention.. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not whether it's referenced, is whether it's due. These are different issues. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * &hellip; neither of which are appropriate here, any more than they were last time. Take them back to Talk:Jedlice, Opole Voivodeship, Talk:Samuel Ludwik Zasadius and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.  Here, we get to discuss tit-for-tat editing, deletion nominations when an editor does not get xyr way, and accusations of vandalism.  Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tried multiple times to move the content issues away, I was just reposting that message as you replied. This is obviously a heated argument, so let's all try and stay civil. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you expecting? If this place belonged to Prussia, I'm writing about that and I'm not writing about Italy or Rome, if this place has nothing in common with that.. This mention of due is silly.. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling something silly is not an argument, and this discussion (as it is about content) should continue at the link below. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, I ask people interested in the content issue to join the discussion here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have attempted (hope it worked) to ping all user who have commented on this thread to the content discussion, in case they are interested. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, are you simply constitutionally unable to have a content discussion on a talk page instead of here? Because I and others have the power to make you only able to edit talk pages. Now what on Earth were Special:Diff/1082767304, Special:Diff/1082767119, Special:Diff/1082769321 all about? Everyone else, who may not have been around at the time, might care to look at Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-07/Gdansk or Danzig and the background at WikiProject Cities/German names and elsewhere. This is not a thing that we're going to let blow up because of one editor mucking around with deletion templates and accusations of vandalism, note, and the way that it will be prevented will not be beneficial to said editor. So this nonsense stops, now. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your point, I've used the talk pages many times.. 2) If users are deleting my additions with the argument, that it has nothing in common with the village or same text on many articles, then there should be a consistent action with similar informations. So I took similar actions. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jonny84 please stop. Edits like this one were you intentionally vandalized ( yes, vandalized ) an article to make a WP:POINT replacing all the info with: tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest is not what other users were doing. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, edits like this are exactly the same.. And even more, suppression of history and facts and erasing of sourced extendings.. So this is my opinion against yours. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not only my opinion Jonny84. I don’t think you are understanding nor benefiting from this exchange so let’s stop it here. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You were looking in a German speaking source about Prussia from 19th century for a Polish place name, which was introduced after 1945.. THIS says everything about your ignorance and your lack of will in any cooperation or exchange.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you are calling me ignorant which is WP:PA. ("thank you") PS - Cool off Jonny84, take a brake, seriously. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So you see no difference between a content dispute about where and how the encyclopaedia should discuss some history, and your scribbling false rubbish into articles as a tit-for-tat measure? I am administrator.  Your editing privileges hang in the balance.  I don't muck around when it comes to blocking for vandalism.  Take time and think very carefully about what you say and do next.  Uncle G (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are accusing me now of putting in false rubbish into articles???? Now show and demonstrate me every single wrong information I put into articles.. Next you will tell me, that Prussia didn't existed... Go further, go on! Next you will deny, that there was an Expulsion of million of Germans.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Three other people have brought up the tit-for-tat vandalism with the point avoided each time. Wikipedia has no need of someone who vandalizes articles as tit-for-tat measures and doesn't even acknowledge the falsity of Special:Diff/1082767119. Editing privileges of Jonny84 revoked. I said that I do not muck about. Vandalism is unacceptable. Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

TE by Bloodofox
is engaged in WP:TE over at a WP:BLP JP Sears. Some WP:TE I will list a few from this month:
 * 16:11, 13 April 2022‎
 * 05:19, 7 April 2022‎
 * 16:35, 5 April 2022
 * 22:48, 3 April 2022

I have tried to get some outside eyeballs at times when I wade into this seemingly political article here Talk:JP_Sears and this Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Didnt think that ANI was needed until I noticed the TE continues against other editors as well, who maybe showed up as a result of the RSN or RFC? The whole purpose of these methods is to get outside eyeballs to a somewhat obscure topic. The article (while not seemingly about an overtly political subject, seems to be now given the discussion of the conspiracy theorist claim, which is a political term that bloodfox is pushing (and some other editors seem to support at least partially in the RFC).

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A little background: I'm the individual that has provided most of the sources on this article. Before I arrived, it was a puffpiece that did not reflect the reality of coverage of the article's subject. In turn, I've attracted much of the ire of the encamped editors on this page, including this one. In fact, this editor has been trying to scrub it of anything the editor deems "political" about the article's subject for years now. This includes sources like the New York Times (2022) description of the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" and this source from McGill University's Office for Science and Society discussing the subject's uploading of at least one now removed conspiracy theory-promoting video on YouTube, WP:RS be damned (and with it WP:LEAD—got to make sure those lead sentences don't appear in Google snippets!).
 * Having not gotten their way despite repeated, tedious RfCs (like this one) and even attempts at having English Wikipedia's conspirituality article deleted (yes, seriously), the editor now appears to be attempting to just bump me off from discussion. This editor has been watching the page since at least 2020 ( and I'd argue edits like these, where the editor less-than-subtle alters descriptions of individuals like Del Bigtree and Plandemic creator Mikki Willis, provide insight into the editor's motives). Further context: This article has recently attracted sympathetic editors who also appear to be keen on presenting the article's subject more as a concerned citizen anti-government freedom fighter (conveniently, just as the subject now presents himself) rather than, as the NYT puts it, a "conservative conspiracy theorist" headlining anti-vaxxer operated "anti-mandate" events. And so I guess it's now time to try this angle.
 * Anyway, classic pseudoscience and fringe article tactics that I've seen plenty of times in related territory, like over at Falun Gong, Epoch Times, cryptozoology—or, really any number of other fringe and pseudoscience articles I've had the, ahem, pleasure of editing and providing "inconvenient" sources for over the years. All meet with lawyering and tedious attacks (and yet all stay due to WP:RS). Anyway, in short, what you're seeing here can be summarized as 'when ya can't outright scrub the article, go after the editors themselves with whatever tedious argument you can make to at least try to slow the source additions down and maybe you'll get lucky with it'.
 * The article does indeed need as many eyes as it can get—and not just those whose beliefs align with the article's subject. That's all too often the case for these obscure figures promoting fringe and pseudoscience this or that. The aligned IPs we've seing drawn to the article lately have not been helping the matter either. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "I'm the individual that has provided most of the sources on this article." sounds a lot like WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR which states ""I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)". The ducks are quacking WP:FOWLPLAY... Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I have is with the frequent aspersions towards the motives of editors who don't agree with them. A reminder to "play the ball, not the man" might be nice. I originally saw this article on the WP:FTN thread, then took a deeper look when it came up at WP:RSN. I have no previous involvement with the article. The discussion is quite split at this point, but there is plenty of disagreement with Bloodofox's viewpoint that isn't from fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters or people with an angle, or encamped editors. Good faith disagreements can arise without someone on the other side being a shill or supporter. All of these examples are within the past week or so: So again, a little reminder to WP:AGF and comment on content, not contributor motives might help the discussion, especially when uninvolved editors show up from noticeboard threads.. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In their response here I've attracted much of the ire of the encamped editors on this page... got to make sure those lead sentences don't appear in Google snippets!.. This article has recently attracted sympathetic editors who also appear to be keen on presenting the article's subject more as a concerned citizen anti-government freedom fighter... and not just those whose beliefs align with the article's subject.
 * would seem to speaks volumes about your angle here
 * these discussions of fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters are so predictable.
 * I get that there's a desire to downplay the subject's involvement here either due to BLP concerns or editor personal beliefs
 * And you're aggressively lawyering to keep out of the article. Given that there's a concerted effort to present the article's subject here as a freedom fighter over a conspiracy theorist, despite WP:RS, I guess we'll just need to wait for more sources to pile up (and then expect subsequent lawyering to try to keep them out.)
 * Jt, do you have some connection to the article's subject or are you just a huge fan?
 * I get that you're also eager to scrub the article of any mention of Sears and his anti-vaccine activities—you've been trying this for years now
 * Ah, the joys of working on fringe articles, where the lawyering to censor an article in favor of the article's subject never stops.


 * Unfortunately, this is a common problem in articles about pseudoscience and fringe topics. Proponents will doggedly insist on keeping the article pro-fringe, and the editors who stick to WP:FRINGE and WP:RS get worn down dealing with it.
 * This has driven many a good editor away from such articles (and Wikipedia as a whole) because they have to constantly be polite while the fringe-believers continually keep pushing the boundaries. it's exhausting and frustrating. bloodofox is one of the best editors I've seen in this area, and I can't blame them for being a bit blunt with these other contributors. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that include myself? I'm not a pro-fringe editor, I was brought, initially, by a WP:FTN discussion they opened, and paid further attention when a second thread was opened on WP:RSN. Just because someone disagrees does not mean that they are pro-fringe. This is just a failure of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ITT: Editor who's tired and a little overcommitted talks to whitewashers, gets snippy, snippiness spills over to affect other good faith editors. I don't think this rises to the level where sanctions are needed but there might be an opportunity for Bloodofox to think about his word choices.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with fighting FRINGE is the same problem with fighting anything too much. Eventually, everything looks like a fight and everyone becomes either an ally or enemy.  FWIW, i agree with User:S Marshall, i dont see any official action as necessary at this time. Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and incivility by Sayurasem
Recently Sayurasem have been mostly editing food-related articles related to Indonesia, some of them overlap with the cuisines of neighbouring countries in the Southeast Asian region. Their editing seems to indicate a pattern of highlighting or promoting a nationalistic Indonesian point of view at the expense of neighbouring countries, aggressively removing legitimate sources that are not Indonesian in origin while not scrutinizing Indonesian-centric self-published sources up to the same standard of quality, even when they are objectively unsuitable for citation on Wikipedia, like personal blogs or websites run by non-notable people who have not had work published elsewhere by a reputable publisher: here is one example with one being cited as a source and the other as an external link. This is not entirely problematic in itself and perhaps could be a matter for dispute resolution to settle, except that their edits have been undone or reverted by many editors besides myself and it is quite clear they intend to continue the pattern of repeatedly reverting anyone who disagrees with their edits. Sayurasem would occasionally retort in an aggressive manner in their edit summaries whenever the content they introduced or removed is challenged, claiming without providing credible evidence that the article's contents are "destroyed" or alleging that there is somehow "manipulation of article references". They have retaliated to recent edit attempts with further edit warring, or making incivil accusations on user talk pages like mine, instead of making a good faith attempt to discuss their disagreements with other editors in the relevant talk pages of the disputed articles. My attempt to explain in an impartial manner my disagreement with their non-neutral point of view and disruptive editing pattern by highlighting relevant guidelines or policies here, and my later warnings requesting that they cease posting on my talk page with their personal attacks, have been met with further animosity or ignored. They continue to display WP:IDHT and ownership behavioural tendencies, ironic considering what they have accused me of.

I am also calling into question their competence as an editor: there are at least two instances I am aware of, here and here, where an article they had newly created was found to be in violation of copyright or are redundant content forks of an established page by more experienced editors, who promptly removed them from mainspace in response. If their behaviour is not considered to be serious enough to warrant a temporary block, I believe a warning should be issued to Sayurasem at the very minimum, and for any interested administrators to keep an eye on the topic areas they are active in for problematic behaviour or potential copyright violations. I take responsibility for minor transgressions like violating or close to violating 3RR, because I was under the impression that some of their edits constitute vandalism and should be reverted. From the way they aggressively asserted their familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and policies to me, it is possible that Sayurasem may have previously edited under a different account, but I do not have evidence as to whether this user is a sockpuppet/master. Haleth (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Response
I will answer briefly but first I have the right to say that these are all baseless accusations made by the "senior editor", he seems to want to blame and corner the editors who disagree with him. If you look at the talk page, he has also had conflicts with many other editors (actually he is not 100% wrong, but he is a little "selfish" and forces his opinion to be accepted by others")

Curry mee
My edit on 24 february 2021 destroyed by haleth (according to his point of view)  and this

Lemang
Haleth revision (admits lemang comes from Indonesia)  new editor attack (which only has 6 contribution history)  Previously, many ip(sock) attacked this page, tried to destroy the article many times    shocked, once again related to sockmaster

Dadar gulung
See my edit history on 23 february 2021, before it was tampered with by a malaysian nationalist editor Suspected sockpuppets

haleth seems to help The duck test editors and ip (socks)

And no, I'm not breaking any rules about "references" on wikipedia.

All sources that I have listed are from government websites (Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Indonesia) and National/international news portals that have high credibility. Sayurasem (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My interactions with the editor in question is limited to Mee rebus and their actions to attempt at content forking the article into Mie rebus and Mie kuah redirects. While I had not look at the editor's contributions in depth due to IRL activities, a combination of such actions and the perennial obsession by various nationalistic editors with respect to food in the region would usually require someone step in and check through their edits to ensure that POV/revisionist content do not creep in. – robertsky (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robertsky, stepping in and thoroughly checking through Sayurasem's edits to ensure that POV/revisionist content do not creep in was exactly what I did. Instead of addressing my criticism or making a good faith attempt to reach an compromise or understanding, all I got was for my time to be wasted by Sayurasem doubling down on their belligerence, conveniently ignoring the numerous instances where I had reverted editors who appeared to be pushing Malaysian nationalistic agendas or conspiracy theories. Instead of properly responding to concerns about their disruptive behaviour and incivility, they attempt to deflect by highlighting the behaviour of other editors who are not part of this discussion and doubling down on their aspersions cast at me. I now find it very curious that this editor, who have not joined Wikipedia for long and was fairly inactive for an extended period of time, appears to be aware of this serial Malaysian nationalist sockmaster @Awanama and seems to know a lot about the problematic topic of sockpuppeteering or concepts like the duck test. Haleth (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

”conspiracy theory" how can you call facts a "conspiracy"? edit history of all editors is not deleted, and can be seen by everyone, So stop accusing others of "lies and conspiracies", , WP duck
 * Remove Indonesia and Singapore, replaced exclusively with Malaysia (all Ip from malaysia )

I assume haleth is Malaysian so with an "invisible" nationalist she defends several unconfirmed editors, this is just my assumption, actually I don't want to accuse, the problem is she accuses me of not being "neutral", even though I use credible sources Sayurasem (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

btw this page Mee rebus has also been attacked by "malaysian nationalist accounts" (currently blocked)   Sayurasem (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sayurasem I suggest not using government sources and national sources for these articles. Each nation are more than likely not to push their own narratives that they are the origin of the dishes. That is unless that the competing claims are acknowledged (at the very least, even if it is not accepted) like that of Yusheng where everyone went 'dispute is meaningless' in the end, or in Chilli crab where the disputed origin is laid out in a coherent manner. – robertsky (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jv.anthonny
Jv.anthonny has been going around music articles adding unsourced recording years to infoboxes. They have been warned many, many times to stop adding uncited information, but it appears as if they are resolute to keep up this behavior, and they remain completely silent on their talk page. They were previously blocked for similar reasons in February 2022. Since they have been given a final warning yet again, I'm bringing this issue up here for an admin's judgement. ResPM (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Apparently they're an iOS app user, which explains why they're completely silent on their talk page -- they get no talk page notifications, and probably don't even know they have a talk page. Incidentally, they also don't see block messages. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: is the information they're adding factually incorrect? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no way to know if the information is correct or incorrect (recording years aren't usually printed on a song/album's liner notes or discussed by the musicians), and if they're taking the information from another article where it's also unsourced, then they're citing Wikipedia. I have no idea where they could be obtaining this information, but the main issue here is that they aren't providing citations for their claims. They're being disruptive. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If blocks are necessary here, it'll be yet another case that could've been rectified if we could actually... communicate... with the editor involved. It's been over a year since WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU was created, and even longer since when these issues have been present in the app. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning
The bot deleted a picture here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Utkin&action=history

"Removing Commons:File:Dmitry Utkin.jpg" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2B30:ABD0:5C68:181F:E14F:E884 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The bot did not delete an image, nor does it appear to be malfunctioning. The image was deleted on the Commons by an administrator, and this bot is simply removing the link to it now that it's been removed. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Filedelinkerbot is not malfunctioning, the picture was Deleted on Commons because it was an Copyright violation. Chip3004 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Bridgerton Cast List
A number of editors, including me, have been editing the cast list of the TV series. Majority wanted a separate division for the members of the eponymous Bridgerton family for clarity. At present, user Dmargi has been reverting these edits to follow MOS on cast list. But I argue that a simple alphabetical arrangement on a large ensemble cast is a disservice to the readers, especially when the focus of the story is obviously to the Bridgerton family members. It just does not make sense, style-wise, to let the protagonists of the show scattered and buried in the section. Maxen Embry (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Took a look at the page history, and saw only a couple of reversions of the cast list, unless something occurred further back in the history. I also looked at the talk page and found absolutely zero discussion of this issue. Where has the majority come to this decision? If there hasn't been talk page discussion to reach consensus, I'd suggest that it's awfully early to bring the concerns here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Have already raised the issue on the talk page. How do other editors access it tho? My worry is no one would reply to it. Maxen Embry (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Maxen Embry, have you considered notifying WikiProject Television? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 72.174.131.123
The IP 72.174.131.123 has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks over the past five months. As demonstrated by their talk page, they have engaged in an edit war every month since December 2021. Earlier this month, the IP repeatedly attempted to add unverified rumors to the Die Hard (film series) article. In defending their edits, they called a Wikipedia guideline "stupid" and insisted the rumors should be added because they were "pretty sure" of them. When another editor informed them that they needed proper references, they accused the editor of only making "non-constructive reverts".

On the Randall Cunningham article, they have repeatedly removed information about the subject being third in quarterback rushing yards with significantly longer and less specific wording. Their argument for not including this information is it's "subject to change", which ignores one of the main reasons Wikipedia allows for easy editing. In response to my edits, they said I'm "being ridiculous" with demands of "a very junior editor" and called my edits "boneheaded, not just here, but elsewhere". They also went on my talk page to interject in a conversation from over a year ago and accuse my editing of being "destructive to some degree". Bluerules (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. See Special:Diff/825559319 from February 2018.  It looks like our protagonist has been at this for several years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

NPA and CIVIL issues with user Adamant1
I stumbled on a discussion, Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have sadly seen the same pattern at Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you, and, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia.  After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay.  &#9786;  A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to.  Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I was referring to,, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005.  &#9786;  In any case,, whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account.  Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them,, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later.  Please don't tell the cricket notability people.  &#9786; As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous.  Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's.  Strewth! &mdash;  We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster.  It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me.  It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"  And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!  Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find". ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article.  Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time 's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. -- A Rose Wolf  13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,
 * 1) 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.
 * 1) 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.


 * 1) 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again?  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?
 * As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, "Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here.  SN54129  19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed
I'm basing this proposal on 's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Support Support tban from all deletion processes. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite tban from any deletion process, broadly construed, to be effective when the block expires. This is on the strength of the remarkable timesink and demonstration of incompetent battlegrounding which the editor treated us to below, subsequent to my original vote, and the bizarre revenge filing and flurry of talk page barbs. I get that they were upset at the looming tban, but they were surely given enough clues to back off and stop digging. I'm not confident this would not be a permanent, ongoing problem and resource drain, and I'm concerned about the good faith users it might hurt or drive away. I'm going to say that I also concur with those questioning general competence after this command performance, so if someone suggests something stronger and sensible the closer may interpret this comment as tacit support for that too, if it helps. Begoon 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: "battleground approach" 1. [|"No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]

2. [|"Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it."]

3. [| Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]

4. [|Keep now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article.]

5. [|I voted deleted and then mentioned a potential redirect target - "It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect."]

6. Me conceding that I was wrong about something not being a controversy - "Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy." So hostile of me.

7. Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it.

8. "Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed."

9. [|"Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward."]

Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place.  But this is not helpful.  It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!"  I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that.  I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have.  You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach.  Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things.  It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One.  Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future.  Having done that, never look at this thread again.  I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before.  I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it.  But I honestly think that would be the optimal move.  Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My behavior has improved a lot since the other ANI complaints as the examples I provided show. In no way is how I acted in the Combermere School AfD comparable to what got me banned before either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we do not "have long standing issues that he [i.e. me] is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss". We simply have differing opinions. The problem is, you get hostile and aggressive whenever I state those opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but your constant attempts to bully editors who disagree with you and your increasing hostility and aggression to those who don't cave in are getting out of hand. You seem to have the impression that no one has a right to state a contrary opinion, and that is not acceptable. You even wrote that you hoped someone would report me to ANI for stating those opinions and implied that I was a vandal and/or troll, which is really beyond the pale. You then made claims that were patently untrue about editors being sanctioned at ANI for stating opinions such as mine. You need to learn that anyone (you, me, anyone else) is entitled to express their opinion at AfD without facing a barrage of condescension, unpleasantness, aggression and suggestions that they should not be allowed to say it. But it is quite clear from your comments thus far in this discussion that you really do not understand why your behaviour is concerning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement.  Mini  apolis  22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs  At that time, Drmies wrote  And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction: The block was in December, 2020. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were blocked for, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors. What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * i that read wrong. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Adamant1's behaviour has been extraordinary. Support GirthSummit's proposed TBan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be a pattern here. I've found this user to be repeatedly dismissive of valid sources. NemesisAT (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support TBan due to long-term disruption and failure to learn from previous sanctions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I'd support a total XFD ban, but the initial proposal to be banned from education-related AFDs is at least a start. Adamant1 has a CIR issue, or they are being willfully obtuse, or deliberately ignoring when evidence to the contrary of their initial presumptions is presented.  Any of those is an anathema to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY in AFD discussions, where new evidence is often dug up, and we require intellectual honesty when assessing that evidence.  The WP:BLUDGEON issues at AFD as well seem a major problem, coupled with the tit-for-tat ANI report below, I think Adamant1 needs a formal ban of some sort.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for proposal at hand. Would also support a complete ban from deletion process, as it has been shown the BATTLEGROUND attitude is long term and not improving. It isn't out of range, per his behavior in this very thread, to consider a CBAN for CIR. It's seems that he's not grasping how Wikipedia works. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support full AfD ban How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD? That's enough. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ban from AFD discussions - this reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but even without all of the hostility and WP:BATTLEGROUND, this and this are good examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Adamant1's replying to everyone s/he disagrees with and arguing endlessly (rather than trying to find common ground and/or know when to let an issue go) and refusing to withdraw an AFD (even after having been shown multiple sources) is just more work that needs to be done for both the admins and non-admins closing AFD's. The writing large amounts of needless material and being a timesink at AFD makes it to where (as of right now), Adamant1's participation in AFD's is of little to no use versus the amount of disruption being caused and Adamant1's contributions to the project would be better served someplace else other than AFD.— Mythdon ( talk •  contribs ) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support full ban from AfD - I've never seen sustained worse behavior - a combination of dishonesty and WP:CIR issues - than this editor has demonstrated at AfD. When I looked back at prior issues with this editor, this is a persistent problem. We can't build the encyclopedia when we have to spend so much of our time dealing with a disruptive editor who is not here to build it.Jacona (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support T-ban A break from AfD is definitely necessary for Adamant1. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I won't support a complete ban from deletion related topics as some have offered here. That is a ban that would potentially keep an editor of this encyclopedia from being able to defend an article they have created from deletion should that day ever occur. However, the T-ban that was proposed that targets the specific area of concern might be the answer to stem the immediate disruption while giving @Adamant1 the opportunity to redeem themselves and have the topic ban lifted one day. After all, short of a sitewide block, isn't that the goal of these types of sanctions. Stop the immediate disruption but allow the offending editor the opportunity to correct their behavior. Sanctions are not meant to be punitive but they are a powerful tool of the community to help correct the trajectory of an editor that is acting in good faith but has lost sight of the overall goal of the community and the encyclopedia. -- A Rose Wolf  12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A topic ban is also to protect the good faith users who the hostile behaviour might hurt or drive away. It's not just a rehabilitation exercise. Since new or relatively inexperienced users can frequently end up in an AfD, and already feel disoriented by the mass of new rules and jargon they need to navigate I don't think having an editor so hostile and pointlessly aggressive in the mix is in anyone's interest. (Nor do I think experienced editors should need to be exposed to it...) You do make a good point that they should be permitted to defend their own creations though, should the need arise - that's a simple exemption to incorporate in the topic ban. Begoon 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that you honestly believe that Adamant is such a threat to new and inexperienced editors here on the encyclopedia then why not propose a site ban. Look, Adamant's behavior is unacceptable and I agree that this isn't a rehabilitation exercise but when sanctions are not punitive the hope is that the editor does rehabilitate themselves and correct their actions otherwise, if there is no element of good faith in their being here, then why are they allowed to remain here? Adamant has brought about a situation, of their own making, in which they are either here in good faith but are misguided in their approach or they are not here in good faith and should not be allowed to stay. A full ban from deletion related discussions won't stop the disruption if you honestly believe they aren't here in good faith and are a threat to the ability of the project to retain new or experienced editors through Adamant's interaction with them. But if you believe there is an element of misguided good faith then, regardless of whether it is a full ban or a topic ban of deletion discussions, the point is to stop the disruption, protecting the encyclopedia, and, in doing so, hopefully give Adamant a break to learn from their mistakes. We may differ in opinion of which ban is appropriate but once we start going into the realm of editors being a threat to other editors then we stop assuming good faith and move into the question of why we allow an editor to stay here. If you believe that then a full ban is of no use to support. -- A Rose Wolf  13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't propose a site ban, because, like you, I don't think the user is a complete net-negative. I'd have done so if I did. I'm not sure quite how to respond to the rest of your long (and, to me, quite unclear) post - you seem upset about something I said? What's the confusingly emphasised "threat" thing about, by the way? That, I confess, utterly confused me. Begoon 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset, in the least. It was in response to you saying that new and inexperienced editors frequent AfD discussions, which is true. But they also frequent other areas of the encyclopedia, obviously. You did not specifically use the word "threat" but it was implied in regards to Adamant driving away or hurting good faith users which is also an implication that Adamant isn't acting in good faith, albeit misguided. We are not as far apart in our positions as my words may have given the impression. Just having a discussion about the subtle differences. I apologize if it came across otherwise. -- A Rose Wolf  14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I accept your apology. I'm not sure if it "came across otherwise" because I'm still trying quite hard to understand it, if I'm honest. It felt like a bit of an odd post which kind of threw me - but this is the internet, after all. Begoon 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support T-ban Many problems here, battleground, cir, just plane rudeness. Paul August &#9742; 11:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal for education related T-Ban, at a minimum, along with th a formal caution not to continue the issues elsewhere, at risk of a full AfD ban. Whilst I was initially somewhat neutral regarding (or even slightly supportive of) Adamant1, their conduct above has erased any objection I might have had to the proposal. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support TBan from all of AfD. This comment is beyond the pale. Minkai  ( boop that talk button! -contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support For all the reasons listed above. Temperment seems to be an issue here. Nemov (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked
Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure needed
Can someone please close the topic ban section one way or another before this gets autoarchived? Fram (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Another bump here, discussion has stalled out & we need a admin to make an assessment. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling at the article Turkish War of Independence
On March 9, I made a request to add a content in the article Turkish War of Independence regarding killing of Muslim Turks during the war. It was rejected same day by Buidhe, stating that “It is not clear what specific edit is being asked for and if so, whether it has consensus.” However, prior to the edit request there had not been any discussion about the content, therefore it is unclear how there was no consensus against the content at the time.

Again, on March 9, I made a second request improving the content with more references and an explanatory foreword. This was also rejected by ScottishFinnishRadish, who claimed that there was no consensus about the content and asked me to discuss it first without himself/herself discussing the content.

On March 11, I wrote a critique of the abstention of discussing the content I proposed, this critique is available at Turkish War of Independence talk page.

On April 3, I created a request at the Noticeboard page of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View under the heading Turkish War of Independence & Atrocities. As of April 16, it is yet to be answered.

On April 11, I started a “Request for comments” to discuss the content I proposed. The engagement was very limited: Buidhe, seemingly cooperative at first, stopped replying after two responses given by me. On April 14, another user Alaexis stated, without elaboration, that the content would not be “DUE”, because according to he/she there was no section that discussed civilian loses. I explained that there was a section that covered civilian loses under the heading “ethnic cleansing” but he/she too did not reply.

So far, nobody was able to challenge the content from a factual perspective (i.e., disprove the massacres against Muslims). The limited amount of criticism emerged from editorial concerns that, I believe, are specific to Wikipedia. I even offered some compromises to satisfy these concerns but did not receive comments on them.

It has been over a month since the content has been proposed and whilst I made every effort I could think to cooperate and create a better article, I did not receive proper feedback from Wikipedians. Under such conditions I believe my efforts to add the content regarding atrocities against Muslims Turks during Turkish War of Independence are being stonewalled.

My request is either discuss or add it to the article.

Best regards.--176.219.152.58 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment given that a RfC is underway, the best course of action at this stage would be to get more input by publicizing it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Observation. Part of the problem may be the wall of text approach to your requests. Nowhere was the a clear indication of what text should be inserted or where it should be inserted into the article. Sometimes shorter is better in requests: I've frequently advised editors to break long multi-part requests into smaller requests that go one item at a time.
 * M.Bitton is also correct. There is participation in the RfC that you started three days ago. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty evident that 176.219 is User:AdaletAdam, indefinitely blocked since 11 April. Compare, for example, AdaletAdam's comments in this talk page section. Someone let me know if they need more proof, or if this needs to go to SPI, but it's fairly quacky and I urge admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. A wicked spirit bamboozled me into comparing AdaletAdam comments against other AdaletAdam comments, which resulted in my confidence that the comments were made by the same person. My apologies to 176.219 and anyone who wasted time investigating. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. 'A wicked spirit', a.k.a. the 'Will Smith defense'. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated topic ban violations by EnlightenmentNow1792
Timeline of events
 * 12:30 EnlightenmentNow1792 is left a notice that they have been topic banned per a complaint at WP:AE
 * 12:39 EnlightenmentNow1792 leaves a rather unpleasant message towards the enforcing administrator, indicating that they are aware of the topic ban
 * 13:49 They re-join a discussion about how the article on the holocaust should present its impact on other groups, including Eastern Europeans . The specific edit being discussed is this one,, which directly deals with the Eastern European related parts of the article.
 * 15:09 They leave a comment in a discussion about the Azov Battalion
 * 17:26 They leave another editor a message about an article on an RT journalist, indicating that they have been discussing this by email. This message asks another editor to, among other things, edit the article on their behalf to include information on the journalist supposedly being controlled by the Kremlin and pushing Pro-Russian Warmongering.
 * 17:53 I leave them a message telling them that their edits were in violation of their topic ban . They remove the message, falsely calling me a sock.
 * 18:05 They leave another message discussing the RT journalist's article and asking another editor to "rectify it".
 * 18:21 They rejoin the discussion on the holocaust, claiming that the section of the article dealing with the holocausts effects on the Poles, Soviets and Ukrainians is not within their topic ban
 * 18:23 Another message in the discussion about the RT journalist, although this message is just a thank you
 * 18:27 Another message in the discussion about the holocaust, making ridiculous statments like

I have tried, in good faith, to inform this editor of what the extent of a topic ban is on the assumption that they did not realise they covered all content on the project, in response to which they reverted me and called me a sock. In less than 4 hours they have made a number of edits that are in direct contravention of their ban, even after I had informed them of its extent. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Obvious sock is obvious. Not going to waste my time on addressing the substance of this complaint (almost every single diff is a grossly misrepresented). Permanent ban of the very obvious sockpuppeteer responsible for this "wikistalking" will benefit the Project on several fronts. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a sock – the IP is well known to many editors as a long-time productive contributor. DanCherek (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty clear to me that you have been repeatedly violating your TBan and engaging in attacks on other editors. Exactly how do you see the linked edits as not falling within the scope of your TBan? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , before you called the IP editor an "obvious sock", it would have been wise for you to take a look at their contributions. You would have seen that they have been editing for five years, have made thousands of useful edits on a wide variety of topics, and have never been blocked. Would you like to withdrawn your false accusation? Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The single IP has not made "thousands" of edits. However, assuming it's the same person, Special:contributions/192.76.8.0/24 has, but that would not have been obvious to many editors. That said, there was no basis for calling the IP a sock regardless.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Re the 15:09 edit: it was striking a number of the user's prior comments and withdrawing from the subject, so that's within the spirit of the topic ban if not the letter. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have blocked EN1792 for the topic ban violations, but it's been a long time since I've done an AE block, and I was concerned I'd screw up the paperwork.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The 17:26 edit is the only one that's blatantly violating the topic ban. Some of the others are tangential subjects, and it depends how broad one wants to get with "broadly construed". On the one hand, I'm not quite ready to block EN1792. On the other hand, if they don't scale back the scope of their edits, they're on borrowed time before they do get blocked for violating the topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * EN1792 has been just issued a topic ban, so their emotions are running high. Also, they appear to be inexperienced and might not totally comprehend what TB actually means. I understand that, but what I can't tolerate is calling other Wikipedians humourless bullying sociopaths. -->. I asked them to remove what appeared to me a WP:PA --> but the response was ...I have asked you to stay away from my talk page... (in the edit summary -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This ANI is TOOSOON. the 17:26 edit was made to my talk page in response to my email. It did not occur to me (or probably to ) that a Brazilian journalist who may be a "useful idiot" for the Kremlin was in "Eastern Europe."  And 's  crabby general remark, on his own talk page, about humorless bullying sociopaths...that frequent the Wikipedia Admin/Arbitration/incident/enforcement noticeboards is not the kind of PA that people get blocked for...I hope. Give him some time to figure out the TBan. It's for the good of the project. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for giving them time but the fella needs to back off with that battleground mentality. Seriously. I haven't seen such outrageous behaviour for a long time. Perhaps they might benefit from a couple of days' break. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sent me an apology by email and may well have sent one to this editor. If so, it wasn’t all that graciously received, but this editor did go back to a place where I had pointed out that they were berating the wrong person and made an apology of their own. I call that positive. Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC) The alleged personal attack is a different editor, not a party to this complaint, not an admin, who is blissfully unaware of it. So it might be a bit thin to call it a personal attack. The people complaining went through the editor’s edit history talk page to find this remark that they object to. Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC) And it’s actually quite nuanced, if you looks at the links, and it’s in a *thank you note* Elinruby (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Nawabdera
They were soft-blocked a few months ago and have been using their user talk page to spam. Please revoke TPA. Thanks in advance. 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've sent the required notification for you. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've revoked talkpage access and removed a lot of promotion, inappropriate personal details, and other things that don't belong on a Wikipedia talkpage. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC).

Troll
New user Xani LapZerin is engaging in disruptive racially motivated POV edit wars and was subsequently banned from editing the page, and has now resorted to posting pictures of Hitler to his profile. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

How's that putting a portrait of Hitler makes a troll out of me :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xani LapZerin (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are incapable of understanding why it was inappropriate, you clearly lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. I have removed the image, and suggest you find something more useful to do, if you wish to continue contributing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Xani LapZerin for disruptive editing, specifically plagiarism, Hitler trolling and general incompetence. The recent discussion at Talk: Kirkuk is illuminating. Cullen328 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockmaster reviewed own article with a sockpuppet account to promote it to a good article in less than a day
There is this article, Penang, which was promoted to a good article back in 2018. However, perhaps because no one else realized, but the reviewer and reviewee were eventually discovered to be both the same person using sockpuppet acounts.

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's procedures, but shouldn't it count as an instant WP:GAFAIL back then considering that the GA Review was helmed by, a confirmed sockpuppet of , who was the user who has made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination. One thing that also stands out is that the article went from nomination > review > pass in less than a day, and was passed by their own sockpuppet account.

This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. How does Wikipedia deal with situations such as these? Paul K. Sutton (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t know whether we have anything that says the GA is automatically invalidated - although there may be. There’s WP:SOCKSTRIKE which says none of the SOCKSTRIKE measures should be used for closed or archived discussion. If comments by sock puppets may significantly affect the outcome of the discussion, a new discussion should be opened in a proper venue which suggests it should just go back to WP:GAR. I note that an experienced legitimate third editor was also involved and seemed to like the article. DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I don't know. The purported "boosterism" also comes with heavy use of inline citations, so unless you're impeaching the citations as well, I'd think we're talking throwing out the baby with the bath water.  Honestly, this looks at least GA-level to me.  If you have issues with the article, that's a content dispute not suited for ANI; if individual citations are flawed, that's something you can correct yourself, as any editor can.   Ravenswing      14:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question is not really whether the article is indeed GA-level on its own merit, but the dishonest methods taken by the sockmaster to deliberately mislead others (WP:BADSOCK) to make it a GA in the first place. Is it even normal for an article to be promoted to a good article that quickly, especially when they did it themselves? In addition, they seem to be accounts passionately focused on Penang and Penang-related topics, with definitely some level of boosterism involved looking at some edits of theirs. One could argue that the intention of promoting their own content and the city to the extent of resorting to deceiving methods such as the usage of sockpuppet accounts for GA nominations is pretty much boosterism in itself. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel like WP:IAR is an option here if someone wants to just yeet the GA tag. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even if there's no rule written down about this, I think it makes sense to just delist with no further ado per WP:NOTBURO. The Sock's approval is meaningless (and, even if they weren't a sock, would be questionable given the brevity of the review relative to the size of the article). The third editor who commented on the review only commented on the use of images. It seems very unlikely that they evaluated the other 5 criteria. In particular, the article has well over 300 inline citations. If it's going to be marked as a GA, we should be confident that a reasonable number of those have been scrutinized for verifiability, and I doubt that has happened here. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They could have at least reviewed mine while they were handing GAs out. Not only a sock, but inconsiderate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Having taken a quick look, I can confirm the article meets my personal 'not-obviously-crap' assessment, and suspect it may fall somewhere within the broad vaguely-defined range of 'goodness' as seen in GA assessments generally. Accordingly, I'd recommend just finding someone willing to do a reassessment, and leaving as is for now. I doubt that our readers are going to up sticks and move en-masse to Penang just on account of a questionable badge on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This would be much better discussed at WT:GAN so editors familiar with processes can opine and also so any decision can be more easily found if this happens again. We have had socks pass their own articles before and they are dealt with quite harshly (indefinite blocks, GA removal and review deletion). In all the cases I remember the sock has been found because they review their own article. I don't think there have been ones four years after the fact, but given the GA pass was deceptive I think removal is still very much warranted. Maybe with s comment copied onto the talk page. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I was just posting a link to here from WT:GAN when I noticed that discussion was stared there at the advice of Colin M. Could we close this so we are not cross posting and that is the much better location. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk)
 * There are other examples with this pair of socks, e.g. Talk:George Town, Penang/GA2, which SounderBruce put in for GA Reassessment but (mostly per AGF it seems) it was kept. Doesn't seem like an actual review was done on any of these, even though (from a cursory glance) they seem like decent articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any lingering issues with George Town. By reassessing it the article has been reviewed by an independent editor. I can't find any other Good Articles passed or nominated by this editor looking at their contributions. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say SonderBruce's judgement at George Town, Penang (the editor that reassessed it) was clouded, they did not know they were dealing with sockpuppets. I have tagged them about it on the GAN discussion to let them know about it. I guess deny recognition could apply here, as the the original GA review was done in the same deceptive method as Penang, with both the sockmaster and sockpuppet pretending to be different people and it being rushed in a short span of time. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to massdelete pages created by impersonating account
User: is an impersonation of software-backed sysop account User:Edit filter (on Special:ListUsers). They are currently reported at UAA. Not just impersonation, but the user has created a number of random talk pages, with WikiProject help banner, where the banners simply shouldn't have been placed because those pages doesn't fall under WP Help's scope. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 14:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user for their username, and personally place the chances of this being a malicious actor somewhere below 50%. As for the pages they created, I've deleted some. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Master Vampire Shihab and 89.147.140.163
The User:Master Vampire Shihab has had multiple warnings on his talk page regarding his troublesome edits by multiple users, and actively edits with his IP too. On 24 March 2022, I raised the issue on this noticeboard and he was subsequently blocked for 31 hours. Despite this, the user continues to vandalise Wikipedia, refusing to engage in a civil manner. UserNumber (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

This is the umpteenth time they have been told to be more careful, to listen to onjections, to follow policies, ... all to no avail. Can we please just topic ban them from either using semi-automated tools, and/or from capitalization changes? Fram (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The listing Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. I've also worked through a lot of others on that list without issue (though less concentrated to one editor's watchlist I admit). I'll hold off on such work if it's deemed too useless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you instead commit to holding off on such work until it's deemed useful? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the "Test Match" fixes, there were only a few dozen, and I had noticed and avoided Test Match Special in most, but yes I agree I was not careful enough. I promptly fixed them all after the error was noted. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...an error which wouldn't have been seen if your previous advice to "hide minor edits" was followed of course. Fram (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a general guideline that if there are tasks that are doable by both and large enough in scale that they should be left to be done by a bot? If there was only 20 or 50 such fixes I can see this being done by an editor. But higher counts should be left to bots. --M asem (t) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a guideline, but I'd be happy to have bot help when there are more than a few hundred edits needed. However, at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5, where 16,000+ edits were needed, I got slow-walked and pushback of the form "why is Dicklyon asking for bot help instead of just doing this himself?"  So I did; I got into efficient bot-like clicking and did all of those with zero complaints (except a few redlinks caused by not also moving redirects back at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, which we're now trying to get fixed by bot at WP:RFBA since I can't do creations or moves with JWB). Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think 500 edits in 12 minutes is the very definition of a meatbot. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those link updates were completely safe, so could be done quickly with bot-like clicking (unlike the Test Match fixes which I did more slowly and still made a few mistakes on). I accept your complaint that many of them had no effect at the level of the reader, due to piping, so maybe the link fixing to avoid redirect through a miscapitalization should just not have been done.  But don't mix that up with how quickly and efficiently I did them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at just one of the many edits that flooded my watchlist, surely this is a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN? I can understand edits such as this more which affect the displayed text, but the Battle of Rocroi edit doesn't change the visual text in any way. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless.  The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations.  I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that reducing a software-created 'complaint count' that almost nobody seems to be aware of is more important than the time wasted through actual contributors having to look at invisible changes in article space. I've got to say that I don't think such arguments are very convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One of User:wbm1058's complaints was that nobody but him seemed to be aware of that list of errors. He asked me to help, so I've been doing that.  I make no judgement, and express no opinion, about which kinds of contributions are more important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's only showing up in that list of errors because you tagged links to it as an error, a tag that is completely incorrect anyway since "Not in Wikipedia's style for article titles" is NOT the same thing as a miscapitalisation error. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dicklyon: I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to get that page to zero entries. rcats aren't this black-and-white thing, and I personally think you mistagged when you added R from miscapitalisation to it. That's very clearly a R from other capitalisation kind of deal (which I went ahead and corrected). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait.. you actually reverted me. "Habsburg Monarchy" is in no way incorrect just because "Habsburg monarchy" is preferred (Habsburg Monarchy is literally a proper noun, and a differing style guide would say it's fine to write out. Also, literally the article Habsburg monarchy literally leads with Habsburg Monarchy... is a modern umbrella term coined by contemporary historians...
 * You are misusing the the rcat system right now by claiming that this is a miscapitalization (something that literally unnecessarily adds to the database report you are claiming to care about). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What I care about is the over-capitalization, not the database report (though the main purpose of the revert was to get it to show up on the report so I could illustrate that). If the RM consensus is that WP uses lowercase, doesn't that make it an error to use uppercase on WP? Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm wrong, then probably most of the others in that report are also wrong and don't belong in a list of things inviting fixes. Other than RM discussions, I don't know of any mechanism for deciding what capitalizations are wrong for WP, and I'm guessing that's how most of those got labeled as such. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is an actionable complaint. Fixing linked miscapitalizations isn't a high priority, but it is a worthwhile task. We shouldn't tolerate errors in our articles, no matter how minor. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. And we should not tolerate errors in our page source, either. There's a reason we fix Linter errors, even though they often don't have an impact on the displayed page. Tolerating errors is bad practice. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. works fine for me, but regardless, wouldn't this happen for any example of WP:NOTBROKEN links? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * An alternative capitalisation, one which until very recently was the actual article title (and also occasionally appears in sources) is neither a spelling error or a mistake; even if it is not the preferred option according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Fixing this non-problem, at a rate of 100s of edits an hour, is a disruptive exercise in time-wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify my comment, I'm referring only to this diff, which you seem to have acknowledged. Those are WP:NOTBROKEN issues, but I'm assuming that is script error. The rest, which result in visible changes to the page output, are not WP:NOTBROKEN issues (and I'm making no comment on those). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not 'script error', the hundreds of WP:NOTBROKEN violations (the ones with a piped link) were deliberate. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To open an ANI over this matter seems petty to me. Dicklyon is a reliable and well-respected user who contributes invaluably to this site. I understand some mistakes were made like in regards to test match, but does this warrant an ANI? We all make mistakes some times, but Dicklyon is constantly contributing valuable material and to frame this as "User and his pointless work" seems unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon is adept at creating busywork. So he pitches up at Habsburg Monarchy instigates a page move to “correct” the title which then creates a “miscapitalization” in redirects … only solvable by Dicklyon saving the day by dozens of corrective edits to those links to the self same article. What a waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. How long ago was that whole WP:JR deal?  Exact same thing.  In all fairness, go check out WP:MAW sometime and you'll see editors who specialize in polluting watchlists in like fashion but have orders of magnitude more edits to their name.  Not only do they get usually get a pass, they're even rewarded for such behavior. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The amount of time and effort (and other people's time and effort) a few editors are willing to expend either making or complaining about these kinds of edits is mind-boggling. Like it or not, one of the groups Wikipedia attracts are the kind of people who really get into formatting, organization, and style, and spend a lot of time thinking about, finding, and fixing this stuff. On the whole, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but for everyone else, IMO the sooner you learn to ignore or work around/with it, the happier you'll be. This is the sort of nearly pointless edit that we could devote a few hundred k of text on or just say "meh," futz with your watchlist settings a bit, and do something else. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This complaint is without merit. Dicklyon is fixing capitalization errors, which is entirely allowed.  He has found an efficient way to do that by targeting the miscapitalizations list.  If no one does that the list will grow.  Is the list to be ignored?  Is the complaint that he is too fast?  Would it be better if he strung it out over an hour instead of 12 minutes?  The watch list sometimes gets flooded.  If it bothers you, take a break.  If you miss some vandalism, don’t worry. There will always be plenty of vandalism.   This discussion should be closed with an apology to Dicklyon.  Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The "errors" being "corrected" seem altogether more minor than some of the ones caused in the process. Had they been done over a hour, they might have been done more accurately.  And if there are sub-tasks here that can "safely" be done at bot-like speed, why not use an (approved and flagged) bot to do so?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the process being complained about (the bypassing of thousands of links through the miscapitalized redirect Habsburg Monarchy) did not create any errors. And the few errors I made with the much smaller and slower batch of "Test Match" fixes created only 6 case errors, which I fixed quickly. Let me know if I'm wrong.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't distinguish sufficiently clearly between the two cases. For clarity, I'm saying they're on the one hand being done needlessly and with human error, and on the other, needlessly and unapprovedly in a manner you don't even claim to be supervising.  "Only six errors" isn't an especially great accuracy rate, and it's not clear to me that there's no possibility of false positives in the Habsburg Monarchy case, as opposed to merely good fortune none occurred.  Or at least were detected yet.  Which is kinda the point of prior discussion of full automation of such things, so as get more than one set of eyes on agreeing "yes, no possibility of error here, can be done by bot in the way described".  The remedy in the former case seems to be a little more careful;  and in the latter, to follow the bot policy.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Before this also becomes a 600k timesink like the last one, can I just say that if people want to help clear down lists there's nearly 24,000 articles with WP:V issues right here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It would likely be a better use of time than this thread, or arguing over capitalisation. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks like an unambiguous violation of the bot policy (which includes WP:MEATBOT), all for a very useless edit (WP:NOTBROKEN). Since this is not the first time this has happened to Dicklyon, I would support an editing restriction from any such high speed semi-automated edits (unless prior approval has been sought and obtained as per the bot policy).
 * The WP:Bot policy is there for good reasons, and if you're going at a speed of several hundreds of edits an hour (just over the first five days of April so far, Dicklyon has over 11000 edits (and then there's the whole month of March, at a similar pace: who knows how many other problematic edits have gone unnoticed?) - which, even assuming a very generous "awake 16 hours a day and only editing Wikipedia all the time", comes out to nearly 140 edits per hour - and we all know, realistically speaking, it's far faster than that) then there's not much room for wiggle room. Such large scale edits must get community consensus first, even more so if they are purely cosmetic. If they're not willing to abide by the established consensus regarding such edits, well then they shouldn't cry foul when people understandably get upset about it, and they most certainly should not ignore such complaints. This is a collaborative project, and if you're not willing to collaborate with others (which includes, occasionally, disagreeing), then it's time for a trip to the sin bin until community concerns are addressed and corrected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not so. I repeat what I said above, since you missed it:  WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Habsburg Monarchy" is neither a spelling error nor a mistake - it's an alternative stylistic option (which happens to not be favoured by Wikipedia practice, but is entirely legitimate). And, on top of that, it's not even visible to the reader, so it's entirely inconsequential. But, even if you were right, such a large scale editing spree affecting hundreds, nay, thousands of articles should have been checked with other of your fellow editors to see if there was an issue instead of acting like you're all alone and can do whatever you want. Speak of failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Over-capitalization is an error with respect to WP style. It's fine elsewhere.  As others point out, it's visible in mouseover tips.  If people would rather these be not fixed, we should revise WP:NOTBROKEN to say something different about that.  The numbers for Applied Mathematics and Valide Sultan there are much lower than they were a few days ago too; these were much more complicated and took a lot longer each due to the variation in the first word capitalization in different contexts, which is not a problem with Habsburg.  Several others no in the list today were due to my efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As for "should have been checked with other of your fellow editors", I think they have been by now, and no errors have been found. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is you that you're fixing a problem which is not a problem. WP:NOTBROKEN says rather explicitly that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.. Whether somebody bothered to create a list of redirects from "miscapitalisations" is entirely that person's problem. Wrong capitals would be a problem if they actually appeared in article text. Given they appear in a redirect, (and given on top of that that until recently, the article was at the capitalised version!: should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?), and are thus not reader-visible, this is entirely an exercise in time-wasting and in irritating your other fellow editors. To take a real-life lesson, there are lots of things you need to get prior permission before doing. Justifying after the fact with "oh, but I didn't do anything wrong" shows that you're not getting the message. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. But when linking through redirects with piping (or without even) when the redirect is an "error" w.r.t. to WP conventions, fixing it is OK, even recommended, per WP:NOTBROKEN, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that many of these fixes DO affect the article display. Fixing only those would leave a big number listed in the report of linked miscapitalizations, so you could never have confidence in whether the job was done or not.  It's better to fix them all, so the count tells you if there are more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re "should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?" that depends. In many cases, yes, changing incoming links is part of the normal page move cleanup process; but it's sometimes hard and complicated, so it doesn't get done.  When wbm1058 pointed me at the database of linked miscapitalizations, and suggested that would be a good thing to work on, I was happy to have it as a way to identify such clusters of linking errors.  Fixing the visible ones worked best if also fixing the piped ones; I understand from this discussion that some regard that as busywork that serves no useful purpose and just pollutes Fram's watchlist, so maybe I should stop that.  Other seem to think it's a good thing; we should probably get to a consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN instead of flogging me about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As others have said, there are good reasons to take care and establish consensus for mass changes across a broad swathe of articles. I'd just point out that the community usually loses patience with people whose only edits are tinkering with things that have little or no effect on the reader, especially when done by the thousands, cf. Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, and many others. <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?  22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you're certainly not talking me then, are you? I've recently created multiple new articles, and new illustrations, and lots of other things besides this one bulk case-fix operation across a narrow set of articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They just need a flat out ban from all automated editing and a strict rate limit. Then when they (as will almost certainly happen) refuse to abide by it, they can join the ranks of the indef blocked editors who dont learn. We went down this road for years with editors like Rich Farmbrough, RAN etc. This is just another example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No specific accusation, just lump me with others who had problems? Or my work quality is OK, it's just that the quantity is too large?  That's not fair to me or anyone.  If I've done something wrong, say so specifically. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the benefit of having correct capitals is much less than the harm caused by irritating good editors. Whether a particular edit is "good" or not is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it: no such thing as a "good" edit, but Fram is a "good" editor and I'm not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only real policy violation that I see alleged is that Dicklyon edits too fast, and I think it's fair to ask him to slow down. Otherwise, fixing capitalization seems to be within the realm of permissible cosmetic edits, yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon is too fast too furious. He save his time by Automatic mass edits. Some other slower and more careful editors spend their time to find his mistake Manually - a few found in thousands check - and get upset. Whose time is more valuable? Leemyongpak (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast.  Show me an actual policy that says a human correcting capitalization in a bot-like manner is a violation.
 * Per WP:MEATBOT “merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.” The gist is to avoid high speed editing that causes a lot of errors.  No policy violation here.
 * WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and not a policy. It makes no mention of miscapitalization.  There is no basis to infer that NOTBROKEN applies to the correction of miscapitalization.  No violation here.
 * Per WP:COSMETICBOT “this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance.” The editor is in violation of a should and not a policy.
 * The existence of the Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is tacit approval to resolve items on the list.
 * Incorrect capitalization is a grammatical error, not a cosmetic error.
 * Overloaded watchlists are an irritation. Incorrect capitalization is also an irritation. Who's irritation matters more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs)
 * I think WP:NOTBROKEN applies in support of what I did here. And WP:COSMETICBOT, which I just looked at, has Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as ... the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs.  That's what I was doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Utter bonkers. Point by point: "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time" - as has been shown, this was at the rate of several edits per minute (I think there's one stretch of nearly 500 edits in half an hour, which comes out to one edit per less than 4 seconds: no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so - and when edits are done at such a rate, there is a policy, WP:BOTPOL, which needs to be followed, and which was obviously not followed at all). Nor was this for "a short time". Over the past month (March and the beginning of April), Dicklyon has more than 30,000 edits. That's a lot of "short times".... is a guideline and not a policy is the most utterly ridiculous WP:WIKILAWYER that can be said about absolutely anything. It's still a community-accepted norm and simply because it hasn't been given the golden stamp of being a policy does not mean that you can just ignore it as some form of rounding error. Policies and guidelines have been agreed upon over years of collaborative editing, and they obviously set out accepted practice. As for WP:COSMETICBOT, simply because it is a "should" and not a "must" doesn't mean it should be ignored, either. The bot policy also says (WP:MEATBOT) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. and Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. If you're going to be making thousands of edits at rates of over a dozen a minute, there should clearly be some doubt... Obviously, both of these statements are valid concerns (which thankfully happen to be from a policy and not a guideline, so no more silly nitpicking on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so. No, of course not.  You take precautions to avoid errors up front, just like when making a bot; you don't run fast until you're sure it's right. If you think this is problematic, show me an error.  I admitted to the 6 errors on the smaller slower batch of "Test Match --> Test match", where I was actually paying attention; I agree I'm not perfect, but if an error is found, I'm all over making it right. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, that fine. In the case of the bulk Habsburg Monarchy that Fram is complaining about, there was nothing "contrary to consensus", and there were no "errors an attentive human would not make".  and re: If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request., there was no doubt.  If you'd like to look at the particulars for why no error was likely to be possible, I can show you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re policy vs guideline, I agree it's not a very useful distinction. I respect both.  I happen to do a lot of work based on MOS:CAPS, guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Constant314. No policies were violated, but it sure is a good thing that we're spending a lot of time talking about it. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose any sanctions per Constant314. The time sink is not someone doing WP:WIKIGNOME work such as this, the time sink is discussions such as this.  There's no rules against working fast, and these kind of periodic ANI discussions are starting to feel like a personal vendetta against Dicklyon.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are different persons bringing these issues here, then it is incorrect to make the claim that this is a "personal vendetta against Dicklyon". As far as I remember, this is my first ANI discussion of Dicklyon's edits (or else it has to have been in some distant past). There are rules about working fast (WP:MEATBOT), and stating that they are gnomish edits doesn't mean that anything goes or that e.g. WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply. The timesink is that these unvetted, unnecessary edits are not error-free, and shouldn't just be ignored. For nearly a month, some of his semi-automated "case fixes" ruined a template on a number of pages (e.g. here). This "case fix" of Habsburg monarchy also case fixed multiple cases of "Dual Monarchy" to "dual monarchy" despite this (in thin this context) almost invariably being written with a capital M, it changed "Central Europe" to "central Europe" even though this is commonly capitalized... Just ignoring his gnomish edits will only let such errors proliferate, for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those downcasings of dual monarchy and central Europe were done by hand, based on my interpretation of the evidence in light of guidelines; nothing to do with JWB or the class of edits that polluted your watchlist, annoying you. If you think I'm wrong there, then per WP:BRD, feel free to revert, and we can discuss. And while I did mess up a bit on the Dallas Cowboys (see my talk page), that was while developing patterns that I applied across all the other teams; I verified that I got all those right, but I failed to notice that early mistake in developing the patterns; I own my errors, and quickly fixed it when it was found (11 articles total). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Constant314 nailed it with "An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast" (and all the WP:POLICY citations backing that up). This is yet another case of people with a "pet" style they like, trying to defy guidelines and "go after" those who make our material compliant with those guidelines.  If you want to propose that WP should  use the capitalization that overwhelingly dominates in reliable sources, and should  default to lower-case when in doubt, feel free to propose such a massive change at WT:MOS. It is not a behaviorial matter and thus is not an ANI matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * were the one who proposed that! In your essay Specialized-style fallacy. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  12:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Still work to do
I'm not going to do any more bulk case fixing in piped redirects, but there appear to still be about 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of monarchy. I'll need to go slow to only fix those. I did a few as an example (see edit summaries with case fix (visible text only) (via WP:JWB)). Any reason not to finish those up now? Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't do any more bulk case fixing or any other mechanical-style bulk editing without approval at WP:BRFA first. I'd rather that such edits not be done at all since random minor inconsistency in such things doesn't bother me, but that's just me.  I don't agree with Rhododendrites that this stuff in the aggregate is a good thing.  It has caused astounding amounts of pain in Wikipedia over the years.  Remember the date delinking arbitration, remember Betacommand, it goes on and on.  RGloucester made a non-suggestion (i.e. he considered it unthinkable) that I thought was brilliant, that of demoting the WP:MOS from "guideline" to something like "suggestion" in order to shut all this down.  That is something to take to heart. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon has used semi-automated tools to do an enormous amount of cleanup on tennis articles, the vast majority of which has been completely uncontroversial. If the issue here is that the Habsburg Monarch → Habsburg monarchy changes are unnecessary, then it and redirects like it should be removed from WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations (by replacing r from miscapitalization with r from other capitalization). If the issue is that changing the capitalization of piped redirects is unnecessary (which I tend to agree with), then the database report generator should be modified so that piped redirects aren't included if possible. Regardless, the report only contains 3400 articles, so we're not talking insane numbers of edits to clear it (assuming highly-linked redirects aren't added to it). Letcord (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See below. Dicklyon put the Habsburg Monarchy redirects in the Database rport after the complaints about his edits, and after I said I would raise it at ANI: and he put it back into that Database report after yet another editor had removed it (by, indeed, putting it back to "other capitalization" instead of "miscapitalization"). It wasn't an error when Dicklyon started his "cleanup", it became an error when Dicklyon made it so after he received pushback, and it isn't an error now when another editor reverted him again. This is not an editor trying to clean out error reports, this is an editor creating errors so they can then clean them out... Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If Habsburg Monarchy is indeed an incorrect capitalization, and therefore linking to it erroneous, then regardless of whether it was officially tagged as such (and thus included in the report), it would have been valid to fix those links. So it comes down to whether Dicklyon's considering that redirect's capitalization to be "incorrect" was correct (I have no idea). Perhaps it should be required in future that redirects with over a certain number of non-transcluded links to them be discussed on the report's talk page before being categorized as "incorrect"? That would prevent issues like this from arising again. Letcord (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's what r from other capitalisation says: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. That is exactly what "Habsburg Monarchy" is. It being not the option preferred according to Wikipedia style does not make it incorrect. And messing with this ex-post-facto in an attempt to justify such edits is pure disruption and busywork-for-the-sake-of-busywork-style time wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at the history, this is worse than it appeared. Dicklyon's defense for the Habsburg Monarchy edits is "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. " But the Habsburg Monarchy redirect (until very recently the actual article title) wasn't on that list when Dicklyon started making these edits, nor when I complained at his talk page, nor when he restarted the same edits, nor when I complained about them again on his talk page. He rapidly added them to that list after I had said I would take him to ANI over these issues, and when that edit was undone (not by me), he reverted it. Basically, he is using his own after-the-fact unilateral actions as a justification for his need to clean out that database report: he creates an issue which he then has to work through, against objections from others. In what way is this acceptable editing? Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fram: what. the habsburg monarchy page was moved to the current capitalization. dicklyon should be very well allowed to change those capitalizations. if readers hover over those piped links, they will not see a preview, they don't have a quick summary of that article. raising this on ani seems to me a severe overreaction. the thing is an issue, but that's an entire separate thing from what you raised up here! 晚安 (トークページ) 09:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The issues are carrying on when there are objections, instead of dealing with these objections first; making errors when doing these things (the second batch); WP:MEATBOT issues; the creation of an "error", a listing in a database report, to justify his changes after the fact; his edit warring over this. We have guidelines that say that redirects shouldn't be changed to point to the target table instead, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Perhaps that guideline needs changing, but until then it shouldn't be ignored by editors who feel like it. I am now testing the previews (I hadn't enabled them, find them annoying), and for direct links and piped links, they work perfectly (i.e. when a page links to Habsburg Monarchy or to Austria, the hover is for Habsburg monarchy). So as far as I am concerned, the reason you give for these changes is not correct. If it is different for others (mobile, other browser, ...) then please enlighten me: but until then, this change doesn't bring any profit as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was fixing it "preemptively", that is, before setting it up to appear on that report. I later labeled it miscapitalized to show how it would appear there (just like most of the others there have been labeled as miscapitalized after an RM discussion decided they should not be that way).  How is this "worse than it appeared"?  It's exaclty what I said. Dicklyon (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A post hoc justification of creating an error for things you were already removing but which were objected against, and edit warring over it to be kept labeled as an error, is a worse look than finding something on an error report and starting to remove them. "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing", so instead of simply doing case-fixing, you put things on that report and then do case fixing, or (as here) you do casefixing and put them on that list when people complain... Fram (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't create any errors, so no such justification was needed. And I did most of that case fixing before marking the miscapitalization, to avoid it showing up in the report with big numbers.  You interrupted that work, leaving errors, so then I marked it. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "I didn't create any errors" ... "leaving errors": it was only an error (the capitalization) after you turned it into one by labeling it a miscapitalization instead of a different capitalization. Your excuses here don't make any sense, apparently you had to mark the capitalization as an error because I interrupted you? Fram (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * you need a break. 晚安 (トークページ) 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @晚安: No, Fram is absolutely in the right for pointing this out. was incorrectly tagged and placed on a database report it had no business being on. I don't think you seem to understand the situation here based off this reply. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion, not absolute. As I see it, Habsburg Monarchy fits very well into the class of redirect titles on Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations; it seems to belong there.  Why do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As pointed out already by above, just because something does not conform to Wikipedia's specific manual of style does not automatically make it a miscapitalization. The RM did not get consensus for "Habsburg Monarchy is invalid and miscapitalised". The consensus was the article title should be sentence case because our manual of style proscribes that and both capitalization schemes saw about roughly equal use in reliable sources. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I find this to be a novel and odd argument. The whole point of the RM discussion and move was that the capitalized form of the phrase was wrong for Wikipedia, per MOS:CAPS, which is about capitalization, not about titles. What do you think sentence case means?  The phrase is not "invalid" or "miscapitalized" in some other styles, but it's wrong for Wikipedia, and ought to be fixed, at least where it shows up in articles.  Either that or everything I've been doing for the last 15 years to help Wikipedia move closer to implementing its guidelines has been a waste of time. That's why such things get tagged as miscapitalized, and why we work on fixing them.  Numerous respondents here have supported such work.  I'm flying out in a few hours, so won't be back to argue this further. Feel free to get the last word in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * HabsBurg monarchy would be a wrong capitalisation (no serious source capitalises it like that). Habsburg Monarchy is an alternative capitalisation (not a mistake) which does not conform with the Wikipedia style guide, but might conform with another (or be part of an upper-case title): therefore, it is not "wrong", it is, just as the redirect categorisatio ntemplate says, a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. Wikipedia naming conventions are not divine truth; and simply because something does not match them does not make it wrong, it just makes it different. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the pushback and misunderstandings, and my upcomnig wikibreak, here's what I propose to do: Thanks to all who have supported me here; but let's not further pollute Fram's watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I will leave these 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of Monarchy to others to fix over time to be consistent with the RM consensus.
 * 2) I will stop responding to further cleanup requests at the tennis project, referring them instead to list at AWB task request and/or to seek bot approval (one such is pending and will complete without my further involvement).
 * 3) I will stop interpreting the database report on linked miscapitalizations as suggestions for useful work to be done.
 * 4) I will completely stop using JWB until at least after my upcoming long trip and wikibreak (returning mid May).
 * 5) I may start an RFC on the interpretation of NOTBROKEN, to see how the community feels about fixing very minor errors.
 * 6) While traveling with intermittent Internet I'll restrict my limited WP edits to more creative work like uploading photos.

Actually, I'm going to do a bit of JWB just now to repair a goof I made on a few articles on March 9 that was just pointed out to me. Just a dozen or two articles with about three things to replace, in football. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Just 11 articles. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Given that 'Habsburg Monarchy' is as or more common in prose than 'Habsburg monarchy', it seems silly to have a guideline that mandates the second usage throughout Wikipedia. I'm fine with enforcing such a standard for article titles, but shouldn't article text be governed by something like WP:ENGVAR or WP:ERA? At least in cases like this where there are two competing conventions of capitalization in use in reliable sources? I suspect that this is a very common position with historiographical terminology. 'Byzantine Senate' is given as an example at MOS:CAPS, but when I check ngrams it appears that it should be 'Byzantine senate'. A whole lot of historical terminology will probably fail the "substantial majority" test. (Abbasid Caliphate does.) I don't think it is the right test, but even if we use it for titles I see no reason to force it on prose across the board. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean to question or change MOS:CAPS on the basis that it's "silly", this is not the place for that. As for that Byzantine Senate example, I agree, that's a bad one and should be removed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't read all of the above and I won't, but what I will do is comment on the pagemove Habsburg Monarchy to Habsburg monarchy. Look at incoming links from templates for the old title, and then read WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. I have previously tried to get Dicklyon to concentrate on links from templates after his "oh so important" pagemoves, but he seems incapable of "fixing" those redirects which actually DO need fixing, instead preferring to concentrate on those which do not. See his talk page a year ago. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Duncan, greetings from Amsterdam. Thanks for reminding me about fixing template links first.  I didn't forget them, but when I generated the list of files to edit in JWB, from main and Template spaces, it put the Template ones last in the list (I could have done them first if I had thought it would be an issue).  Within a day of the move, my process was stopped by Fram complaining here, so didn't get to the templates; and yes I had forgotten after all this discussion to get back and take care of those.  As I said, though, there's still work to do and I think I didn't count templates in the 267. Dicklyon (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I updated 13 templates. There's more to do, like other articles and templates with still-overcapped titles, but those will wait.  Off to Cape Town in the morning. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page previews
Above, the claim was made that such changes to piped links were useful because "page previews" (the popups you can enable in preference / appearance) don't work for redirects. In my experience (confirmed above by Procrastinatingreader if I read it correctly), page previews work perfectly for redirects as well (e.g. Habsburg monarchy, Habsburg Monarchy, and Austria all give the same result). Can some people test this and indicate whether they see any difference between those three popups? Fram (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say page previews don't work. I said they show the miscapitalized text even when the text is hidden by piping:  Habsburg monarchy.  My claim was that the hidden text with wrong capitalization (what I was fixing), is "not invisible to users".  But the RFC I started at WT:Redirect indicates that people aren't bother by that kind of variation showing up as an extra line in the article preview, so I won't be fixing those anymore.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oddly, it seems to fail intermittently this way, even in exactly the same context. I can't figure out how to make this reliably repeatable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's this: the normal non-redirected preview always works, but the preview through redirect (piped or not) only works the first time after a page load; after that it just shows like this screen clip.  Reloading the page resets it to work once again.  Or so my limited testing suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I'm right, this piping through the article title should keep working: Austria, while the ones piped through redirect don't: Austria. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So it seems that piping through redirects is indeed somewhat broken, miscapitalized or not. There should be a global technical fix for that, I would presume (or maybe it's working as intended?). Dicklyon (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Turning off the "Navigation pop-ups gadget" gives a more reliable and completely different looking preview, not showing the redirect name all. So that's where the oddness is, and the behavior I was noting.  Resolved.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can confirm, the popups for the redirect are supposed to work but frequently fail to load, whereas they work 100% of the time without a redirect. Turning off the gadget does not display any alternate popups whatsoever for me. ~Swarm~  {sting} 20:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We have, under appearances, a "page preview" toggle that works all the time, it seems, unlike the more buggy gadget. Fram (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:GenoV84


On April 14, 2022, I removed a minor sign from Islamic eschatology as it was based on a hadith that was graded as Da'if (weak) meaning that the hadith is unrealiable and should be disregarded. The sources that the user included also state that the Hadith is Da'if as can be seen here:. Another editor indicated this to the user on January 25, 2022. (see edit history) but he ignored the comment. Weak Hadiths are disregarded by the Islamic community either due to discontinuity in the chain of narrators or due to some criticism of a narrator. If a narration cannot be traced back to its source then the narration is unreliable and there is even a chance that it was fabricated therefore hadiths like these which are classified as Da'if should not be used. The user "warned" me on my talk page that I was commiting vandalism but when I tried to engage in conversation he deleted my comments on my talk page and gave me a "third warning." It's clear that the user does not want to engage in conversation. He claims in the edit history that "No academic sources have been provided to support these unsubstantiated claims" yet as i've indicated above, his own sources claim that the hadith is Da'if. 190.83.141.216 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't base that article on which hadiths are reliable - they are all made up. Besides, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at Ani. 107.115.5.118 (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


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


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


 * As a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove sourced informations with references from the encyclopedia without consensus, in accordance with the WP policies WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOVHOW, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia which holds a neutral point of view regarding all belief systems, including political ideologies, conspiracy theories, and religious traditions. Posting a warning message on a user's Talk page for their repetitive disruptive behavior and unjustified intentional vandalism is not "nasty", is just the way Wikipedia works: revert, warn, and go on. That's all. GenoV84 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * that's not correct, and none of the policies you linked to really say that. Here's a better policy to read: WP:NOTVAND. Levivich 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


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


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


 * The editing policy of Wikipedia is based on collaboration between editors and providing references. I haven't seen one, single, reliable academic reference which attests that this hadith is weak, and even if that was the case, the Islamic eschatology article contains a list of various events related to the end times, and there are plenty of other hadith related to the minor and major signs of the end times, regardless of the varying grade of reliability or chain of transmission. As I stated above, Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, not an "Islamic" encyclopedia. Therefore, we are not obligated to follow the rules of Muslim scholars regarding the religious texts of Islam (or any other religion, for that matter....), and anything significant related to the Islamic religion, including beliefs and practices, can be mentioned and cited here, and that also applies to the hadith and the Quran. If you are not willing to discuss with me or other users, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Plain and simple. I was right in my judgment to revert and warn you for your blatantly disruptive behavior, it's the standard way to deal with vandals and lots of other users do exactly the same everyday, but you got so butthurt about being reverted that you singlehandedly decided to bring me here hoping that this report would help your case against me, yet you clearly stated that you're not here to discuss or compromise, only to complain. Dear, stop feeding the trolls. GenoV84 (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those edits were not vandalism. You're spending your time here arguing the content instead of addressing your improper accusations of vandalism, warnings and reverts. Lindsay is not feeding trolls and is not the only editor with concerns about your edits. Levivich 15:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ricky Luague and image uploading


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

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

I suggest a partial block from the file namespace, as they are a longtime contributor to the wiki, but I leave that up to the community here. Bsoyka ( talk ) 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to have been given any particular non-template warnings of any sort to date, so I've left one. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Stifle: They did the same again. Still no response on their talk page. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 03:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked from File namespace. This is indefinite strictly in the sense of "having no defined end date"; any administrator is hereby authorized to unblock as soon as they are satisfied that Ricky Luague understands and will comply with policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Djm-leighpark bullying
Polycarpa has requested I self-refer at Special:Diff/1083071207 to ANI where tehy will present evidence of my bullying of Polycarpa & Aviram7. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear at the outset Aviram7 had explained and removed the somewhat disturbing (at least to me) monetizing word from their user page and replaced by monitoring the issue probably arising from English not being there native language tongue and I fully AGF monitoring was the word that they intended to use. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * All of your actions surrounding this article here and on Hindi wiki are nothing short of mind boggling. Do you really think @Polycarpa aurata I confirm I have not had intercourse with that woman or that man to my knowledge. I have not been a member of Wikimedia UK but have had virtual intercourse with one of more members of Wikimedia UK and have sent an email to them from Arnold/Daybrook MacDonald's on the morning of 1st April 2022 waiting 2 hours from an NHS professional in West Sussex which never happened. Now if you want further information you'll need to jump and raise a WP:COIN. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 4:43 pm, 12 April 2022, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC−4) is appropriate? CUPIDICAE💕  22:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a language/WP:CIR issue. I hope.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd hope, but I'm fairly sure Djm has in the past said they're a native english speaker. If it is a CIR issue, well they've been around long enough that they should know better and should be CIR blocked in that case. CUPIDICAE💕  22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've re-read that quote multiple times now; it's nothing short of mystifying. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Intercourse' has the meaning of 'communication' here but it is very poor phrasing. "...I have not communicated with..." / "...have had virtual communication with..." would be sooo much better. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * El_C 18:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually you know, reading through this behavior, I think a boomerang and block is in order. Djm has a tendency, as noted in several different ANI threads to fly off the handle and spout nonsense at the drop of the hat whenever there is conflict involved. So to save on the long winded non-explanations, we should just cut to the chase and stop the disruption. See below:
 * Implied intent to reveal personal information - a year ago
 * AFD interference and allegations 6 months ago, which features these gems: Djm-leighpark requesting self-block: @RandomCanadian: Given that's the way you wish to play that AfD farce which I have been requested I not to comment on I am not becoming inclined to take WP psychotic actions and therefore requesting you or some other admim block me (& Djm-mobile ^ bigdelboy) on english Wikipedia for 2 weeks to avoid me making uncharitable personal attacks which I now feel is inevitably welling up within me an would likely result in a likely indef block. I understand it is reasonable to make this request. While I use WikiBreak enforcer I will not use it for this purpose. Given my previous block history is is reasonable for me to make this request. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:21 am, 10 October 2021, Sunday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4) among others
 * continued disruptive COI editing where Djm...booomerangs himself? Pure disruption to ANI, just as this ridiculous thread is
 * another disruptive ANI thread where Djm talks to themselves the whole time.
 * I could go on but I think there's a point at which we as editors have had enough disruption. CUPIDICAE💕  22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Comment. This exchange is straight up wild to me: I've interacted with both Djm-leighpark and Polycarpa aurata before. I can't say I have had a negative experience with either of them, but... my gosh I have no clue what Djm-leighpark was thinking here. It's so guilt-trip-y, and it makes me question whether Djm-leighpark can actually edit Wikipedia without seriously adversely affecting personal life. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Djm-leighpark blocked indef
User_talk:Djm-leighpark. El_C 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good block (per my above comment). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Related ANI discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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

Repeated Copyright violations from User:TheGreengiant23
User:TheGreengiant23 continues to insert repeated copyright violations into articles. In June 2015, this user was blocked for copyright violations.Back in January of this year, an unrelated discussion unearthed multiple violations of copyright, but nothing came of the discussion. There appears to be a Competence issue with this editor. The latest example is this. I reverted their edits at 2030 Winter Olympics because the opiniated text. On a hunch, did a check to see if there was a copyright issue, and there was. Some of the text is copied from here Note: I have not left a warning for them or notified them of this discussion as per their wish for me to not write on their talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have notified TheGreengiant23 of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This user have been told to let me (and others he's bullying) alone. It's a little game he's playing with others, accusing users whom he dont like the contributions to revert without asking their opinion and than accusing them on anything possible (pseudo vandalism, copyright, harassment, etc.) This user have clear mental illness and i wont go further in this non sense. I dunno if their is a rule for falsly reporting users and intimidate like hes doing but plz adm have some lil judgment and don't take his word like cash. Thank you very much. (Speaking in the name of all his victims, who are in vast majority experienced and fabulous and positive contributors) TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you retract your comment about mental illness. Like, immediately. – 2 . O . Boxing  10:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And looking at diffs from the previous ANI discussion regarding these two, GreenGiant seems to enjoy using mental health issues as an insult. Id support an indef just on this. Utterly pathetic. – 2 . O . Boxing  10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see GreenGiant has been rightly blocked. That'll be that issue solved then. – 2 . O . Boxing  10:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes utterly pathetic to use mental illness as an insult, but the key issue here is the repeated copyright violations. I do not think this editor understand the policy. From 2015 till now, there have been repeated violations. When will this be dealt with? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Cullen328 What are the next steps in relation to the copyright violations? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you see any clearcut copyright violations by this editor in the future, bring the matter to my attention and I will block the editor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The revert looks good to me. In addition to copying that article's title and subtitle verbatim, a sentence was copied from the first source, and the Akimoto quote doesn't appear. The second paragraph's quote is actually from a creative agency's blog, which was not cited. If you have five examples, you can list at WP:Contributor copyright investigations. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

Update : UK706 operates - CCU-DEL-IXC & UK707 operates - IXC-DEL-CCU using A321N. 649pardeep (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess with only 1509 edits you're still somewhat inexperienced even if you've been here for 4 years, but really you should know better already. This is a WP:content dispute, take it to the article talk page. Talk:Chandigarh Airport has had some activity like bots edits, moves and assessment but doesn't seem to have received a comment in over 9 years! Instead of posting to that most important location, you've managed to post all over the place about this dispute many of them inappropriate both in message and location, like here and ANEW [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=1083136885&oldid=1073697285] and to a bunch of random editors talk pages [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LeoFrank&diff=prev&oldid=1083090298], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Espresso_Addict&diff=prev&oldid=1083137790]+[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Espresso_Addict&diff=1083204177&oldid=1083157133] & [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enterprisey&diff=prev&oldid=1083138009]. You've also posted on Wikiproject Aviation talk pages [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Members&diff=prev&oldid=1083263420] & [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Coordinators&diff=prev&oldid=1083263580] which while normally okay should only generally come after you've at least opened a discussion on the article talk page. And maybe more importantly I don't think either of those talk pages are really intended for such messages (putting aside the block request). You did at least try discussing with Andrewpgrout on their talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewgprout&diff=prev&oldid=1083091538] although I'd note that came only after you asked LeoFrank for help and you posted all over the place before trying one more time [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewgprout&diff=prev&oldid=1083317638]. However even if you'd done those from the get go, it's still no excuse for not posting on the article talk page when you weren't satisfied or received no response. And importantly, if posting on the article talk page while giving ample time for responses (i.e. days not hours) doesn't achieve a result, you need to use some form of dispute resolution. That involves seeking more responses to resolve the disagreement about you two on whether the information you're adding is supported by sources sufficient for our purposes, rather than asking for Andrewgprout to be blocked which is most of your messages elsewhere did request in part. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


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

I request you to check the first link about airport page - that clearly mentions the same procedure and I cannot understand if Wikipedia procedures clearly states what to do then that is not followed. I came here for the resolution. 649pardeep (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have no way of knowing who will comment until you've tried. At the very least, editors involved in a dispute are often more willing to comment when you start a discussion on the article talk page since many dislike discussing content disputes on their talk pages yet editors are generally expected to discuss when there is a content dispute. Yes Andrewpgrout could have started the talk page discussion too, but you're the one who came here and posted all over the place without ever posting on the article talk page, not them. So please just post on the article talk page already and wait a few days, it's the most basic step you've failed to undertake. If that doesn't work, I've already provided a link WP:Content dispute which is a link to our guideline on dispute resolution. As I said, dispute resolution does not entail asking for Andrewpgrout to be blocked. And when you report a editor you're basically asking for them to be blocked otherwise there's no point in reporting them. Often there's no need to even mention the other editor in a content dispute and definitely not their behaviour, focus on the dispute. Note as I've already said the first step should generally always be to post on the article talk page no where else, especially if you're an inexperienced editor. Most forms of dispute resolution assume you've already tried on the article talk page in part since they assume all editors involved made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute which entails talking to each other which cannot be done via edit summaries. So unless you're willing to open a discussion on the article talk page, there's a fair chance you're just going to be ignored, or wind up blocked yourself if you keep at it, even if you ask for help in better venues. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have followed your step - started discussion on article page. Please clear me one thing if Wikipedia procedures directs what to do then still we need to have discussion?? I apologize for the use of wording reporting that I never intended to for blocking user but you are giving warning for the blocking myself is very rude (seems like you are taking it personally) 649pardeep (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's simple, if you try to make a change and another editor reverts you, you need to discuss it on the article talk page. Maybe the other editor has already started discussion on the article talk page, if they haven't then you start it. Per WP:BRD and WP:Edit warring rarely should you make the change again until you've come to a WP:consensus. It does not matter if you're sure that your edit is supported by our policies and guidelines, discuss don't edit war. If your change is clearly supported by our policies and guidelines, most of the time the discussion will be short since you'll just explain your change, other editors will consider it and say you're right and it will end there. Note there is never any editor who will rule on a content dispute, it needs to be resolved via discussion. At most, an editor may assess a discussion and find if there's consensus.  There are a few exceptions especially WP:BLP where it's acceptable to force a change but these only apply when the change is absolutely necessary because the consequences of not keeping the change are severe; or the other editor/s are not acting in good faith or not allowed to be here. None of these remotely applied here. Rarely even without an exception it's acceptable to make a change more than once but without violating the bright line no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, even without consensus. But these require good editorial judgment, so especially if you're inexperienced it's better to just discuss.  Note an important point here, an editor being blocked or an article being protected doesn't generally resolve the dispute, it just forces discussion. So even if Andrewpgrout had violated 3RR, while it may be acceptable to report them you'd still need to discuss on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. (If the other editor is never going to be allowed back that's an exception but one with almost no chance of happening here.)  Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Carletteyt
This is concerning a message that left on my talk page. Here are the diffs. 

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


 * I´m 17 too and i´m just trying to meet people with same interest about politics, conspiracies etc. Believe me, it´s my date of birth on discussion page...
 * Thanks dude Carletteyt (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will happily work with you to improve Wikipedia, but I do not feel comfortable discussing my personal life or views here or anywhere else, and I will not be contacting you on social media. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okey don´t worry, i understand the reason.
 * I just pretended make some new friends out my daily life for feeling a bit alone.
 * Have a nice day and for help you can talk with me :) Carletteyt (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Iamreallygoodatcheckers, if you ever feel unsafe concerning "underage"-related issues you can always consider contacting WMF Trust & Safety if you feel intervention necessary. You are under no obligation to have contact with Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia. If you not feel comfortable doing so, you are free to ignore the request. Not passing judgement on you Carletteyt, but On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd advocate for a full block as the pblock didn't work and this user doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia and all of their edits save for maybe 3 have been reverted for the same exact reason. A prime case of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT and it doesn't appear that mentoring has worked. CUPIDICAE💕  11:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, I and others warned them just yesterday here, which they acknowledged and removed and continued the same exact behavior.. Perhaps a few years to mature and understand the purpose of Wikipedia would do them good, as their reasoning for all errors and continued disruption is "I'm 17" which isn't ever a valid reason. CUPIDICAE💕  11:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Gendalv WP:NOTHERE
User:Gendalv has been here since 2012 and has edited infrequently, but almost exclusively edited talk pages. It is useful to note that of their three article space edit since 2018, one was revdeled as copyvio (see contributions). They seem to have an axe to grind about Gynocentrism. See here for their callous remark about women in the Rwandan genocide. More gyrontrism complaints here. There are legitimate arguments to be made about balance and the proliferation of literature specifically devoted to women, but this seems to be simply griping. They seem to be treating talk pages like forums offering their general opinions on things, but not really addressing the content (example). This from earlier in the month is not even a content suggestion, just petty gossip. They aren't doing much damage to Wikipedia, but I really think this user is WP:NOTHERE and we should send them on their way. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Gendalv. El_C 10:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Continual unsourced edits
Not sure if this is the right place for this - apologies if not. Ip 2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D has been making unsourced edits, possibly original research, to Naporitan. I've messaged them and given warnings, but I'm unsure how to proceed as I think they genuinely don't realise what're they doing wrong (as they added msn after a request for sources, although obviously it's not an applicable one) and it's not quite the definition for vandalism for me to report it on the vandalism noticeboard. -- NotCh arizar d 🗨 12:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is communicating on their talk page and it looks like they stopped reverting, so admin intervention is not yet needed at this time. El_C 12:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Crusading movement
Help please!

I have had previous WP altercations with, in the last of which an admin advised we stay away from each other. I have largely kept to this but he now appears to be stalking me at this article. The behaviour is always the same in that this editor indulges in excessive pedantry and refuses compromise or consensus at the talk page. When he doesn't get his own way uses edit warring, banners and tagging to bully other editors. This editor is admittedly a useful Wikipedian on articles that are uncontentious and where his concentration on chronological detail is of benefit.

Crusading movement is a gnarly subject and there has been widespread debate on the scope of this article and the Crusades. For some time this editor wanted the article deleted or merged with Crusades, when consensus wasn't achieved for that he is now trying to edit this article without consensus into something else, a pseudo-crusades article.

Editors, , among others can probably comment usefully on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolkbigfish (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a side remark. I do not want to develop "something else, a pseudo-Crusades article". I still respect the consensus about the article's scope. As a matter of fact, I had not edited the article and allowed the main contributor to develop it for several months. Yes, "excessive pedantry" describes me well. I do not like original research, close paraphrasing and original synthesis. If this is a deadly sin, please punish me. I have not been involved in edit warring. I have not used banners and tags to bully other editors but to indicate the problematic sentences. Sincerely, I have never felt bullied when articles that I created or heavily edited were tagged: editors placing tags in those articles have always helped me to improve them. I think this is primarily a WP:OWN issue. Editors who are dedicating their time exclusively to a single article or a specific group of closely related articles tend to think they are that article's or group's exclusive owners. That is why I never edit the same article continuously and attempt to distribute my WP time between editing and reviewing articles of different topics. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ragnarvrollo
There is a content dispute regarding the chart of Parisian universities: which one to use (the one before was more detailed and without his inaccuracies, but his only argument is "no need") and where to put it.

Ragnarvrollo has a history of content removal and POV pushing and is doing it again:

1. Worldbruce let him know that he should stop on one page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragnarvrollo&diff=1076512493&oldid=1071643977

2. Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim : let him know that he removed a template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragnarvrollo&diff=1071643977&oldid=1068204597

3. defcon5 told him that he removed a template: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ragnarvrollo&diff=1025597596&oldid=1016066604

4. Now he removed a template I put to push for discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris&diff=1083397946&oldid=1083395096

5. AFTER Deep fried okra  asked both of us to stop edit warring in both our talk pages , I stopped on both page but he continued on BOTH pages to revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_universities_and_higher_education_institutions_in_the_Paris_region&diff=prev&oldid=1083402769 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Paris&diff=prev&oldid=1083403954 (My only edit after the messages was to put back the template that the other user removed: )

--Ransouk (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I will partial block for the edit warring. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:partial block Ragnarvrollo for gaming the system by edit warring after my warning and then going to talk to demand the other disputant explain themselves. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of notifying the other party, as per the instructions at the top of the page. Best. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Deep fried okra : Thank you! Could you also revert his changes on both pages, so that it is not a winning strategy from him to revert anyway?
 * This user does not seem to understand the rules. Now he argues from French Wikipedia and says "if the former chart wasn't accurate" "it would be removed by administrators long ago", even though it WAS changed one year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_universities_and_higher_education_institutions_in_the_Paris_region&diff=1083407617&oldid=1083407045
 * --Ransouk (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I do not involve myself in content disputes. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The second line was more for the other admins. Anyway, ok, I will wait for 24 hours to make any edit and see how the discussion goes and follow the rules. Thanks. --Ransouk (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Thesaurus33
User:Thesaurus33 has currently been engaging in disruptive editing on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees by changing the tenses from former to retired. I have already notified the user of their behavior on their talk page, but am not sure if they should be blocked or not. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there anything more than a semantic difference between 'former' and 'retired' in this context? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What sort of difference other than a semantic difference would you expect? "Former" simply means that a person used to be an athlete, but "retired" can mean that a person no longer has any gainful employment - it is rather ambiguous on that point. The difference is semantic, but important. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a change of word, not a change of tense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia articles of retired athletes (eg. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc.), they all say former, not retired. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:7807:3148:4619:EC7C (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC) This user has already engaged in disruptive editing on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees twice by changing the tenses from former to retired, but both edits have already been reverted. I'm currently worried that they will still continue this disruptive behavior, despite leaving them a message on their talk page. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Ok, sorry for overreacting. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we maybe dial down the "disruptive" accusations? They've made 4 edits you disagree with, none of those edits are in the article now, no one explained why they were reverting him, he has not made those edits again since you left an unnecessarily threatening message on his talk page, and nothing at all has happened between the time you left that first aggressive message and you reported him here.  You didn't even tell him about this report.  It is possible to be a new good faith editor making small mistakes without needing to be threatened.  Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fairly new to editing on here so please bear with me as I continue to explore with the "training wheels" approach to editing source content. I am not a writer by nature but am trying to improve and get better at it especially for college. Thesaurus33 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All you had to do was message me, I'm easy going enough to work with and would have respected your input. Thesaurus33 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


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

User:Telex80
Please look into. They make quite a lot of small edits that look OK, but every single substantive edit they have made, as far as I can see, is nonsensical (representative example). Edit summaries like "Copy paste from web" suggest further significant problems on top of the incomprehensibility. They have also conducted nonsensical "reviews" of good article nominations: ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2018/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1074599491 I think this article is summarized for unusual points of shaggy and disploted description at the beginning or start-point of this page. Well, it should be pass instead]''. They have never responded to any message left on their talk page.

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


 * User_talk:Telex80. El_C 10:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Note that was range blocked 3 times in 2018/2019 noted as block evasion in one block. Seems never stopped. That range seems exclusively used by this editor so a range block would have little or no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, good catch. I would love to see another rangeblock on the /23 but with a lengthy duration. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. As mentioned, there's practically no collateral damage so blocked for a year. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Marvelous. Thank you, Black Kite. We will revisit the issue in a year! Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption again started by Mrvillainwolf
Mrvillainwolf got blocked by Daniel Case Special:MobileDiff/1076443409 for one month. After their block expired they are back again at disruptive editing as can be seen Special:MobileDiff/1082870333, Special:MobileDiff/1082869951 and even here Special:MobileDiff/1082870537 Please take care of it. Thanks. Packer&amp;Tracker «Talk»  16:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Cordless Larry +1
appears to have been set up to impersonate me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To upvote you, surely? Or help you out at the last minute for a friend's wedding?  Or just to demonstrate Peano's axioms?  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is no way to treat your wedding date, Larry, just because they want to edit Wikipedia... Levivich 17:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Undue harrassment from User:Praxidicae on my talk page
I'm reaching out to request assistance with a problem I'm having with another user on my talk page. I feel that is unfairly targeting me and my publishing to a degree that makes me feel unsafe continuing to act as an editor on Wikipedia, and has caused me distress offline as well. I do take editing BLPs serious, as evidenced by my many well-cited contributions to figure skating related pages, but I now feel as though I am being stalked by this user for editing in a way that many other users in the figure skating editing community subgroup edit and have not been targeted for. Please advise. Clemkr (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First, a courtesy ping to .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You were warned by other users for your editing and use of unreliable sources. This is not harassment, just unpleasant. You should not feel unsafe though as no one is threatening you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevetheless, I do. I would very much like to be left alone and not have every single one of my edits moving forward scrutinized. This happened today, and I am extremely uncomfortable. Clemkr (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this about the discussion at User_talk:Clemkr, or is there more to it than that (if so, please provide diffs). On the face of it, I see Praxidicae and Drmies giving you some advice about not editing BLPs without citing sources; you continuing to edit BLPs without citing sources; and then them reminding you about those earlier warnings. The solution to this is always to cite a source when editing a BLP, not to complain about people scrutinising your work. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. They began immediately by threatening to block me, then proceeded approach me in what I feel is an unnecessarily aggressive manner. If there is an issue, I would appreciate being addressed in a collegial and educational manner, and to not continue to be monitored by another user who has no authority to do so. I am citing my sources. Is there truly nothing that can be done to prevent further contact with this user? Clemkr (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Every edit by anyone can be scrutinized. If there is an issue with your editing, it makes sense that others would go through and check your edits to see if the problem is widespread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It does look like they were reverting rather quickly, not giving you time to find sources and fix the issues. However, verifiability is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and the burden is on the person adding information to provide reliable sources. Once unsourced information is removed it should not be readded without a source. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * contrary to your statement, I was not "going too fast" - Clemkr first created a biography was largely unsourced, I edited said biography a full 24 hours after they had even touched it, four minutes after my removal - not a revert Clemkr reverted my cleanup of unsourced BLP content without so much as a single explanation as to why, nor a single source. The second BLP I edited, much the same as the first, was 24 hours later. If that is defined as "too quick", well that's not congruent with our WP:BLP policy or WP:V. clemkr isn't a new user, their desire to be left alone is also irrelevant if they aren't going to abide by Wikipedia's core tenets and the bare minimum of sourcing. CUPIDICAE💕  17:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say you were "going too fast". I said you were "reverting rather quickly, not giving [Clemkr] time to . . . fix the issues".  What I was referring to there was .  At 10:16 you removed some unsourced text Clemkr added to Anastasia Golubeva.  Clemkr reverted your removal at 10:17, and you reverted Clemkr at 10:18.  That did not give them a chance to do anything to fix the unsourced issue.  Admittedly, they should not have readded it without fixing the issue, but personally I would have waited at least a few minutes to see if it got fixed in a subsequent edit. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. The problem that I take issue with is the fact that they continue to badger me without giving me any chance to find sources. I do not want to continue to be a part of this community if I'm going to constantly have to answer to this one person who is looking over my shoulder and waiting for an opportunity to pounce within moments at any move. Clemkr (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't add statements to a BLP unless you have the sources to back them. It's that simple. Favonian (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you would need time to find sources. Presumably, if you are making a change to an article, you have already found the sources? Simply cite your sources at the same time as changing content, and you won't have any further problems. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it does look like they were moving rather quickly. Perhaps it would be better for them to slow down a little.  That said, you should make sure everything you add is appropriately sourced going forward. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring over an unverified BLP. How you get "unsafe" out of that is not clear to me. That Praxidicae is looking over your shoulder constantly is a ridiculous claim. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's is the bottom line, . Adding unreferenced biographies of living people is contrary to policy, namely Verifiability. You are not allowed to add unreferenced content and then maybe sometime later, add the references. No. You are not being harassed. Add the references as you add the content. The warnings you received were proper, and if you continue adding unreferenced content, you will surely be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I told you before, I was not edit warring. I wanted to be able to access my content so I could add sources. Simple as that. Please do not tell me how to feel in a situation that does not involve you. This is the second day in a row that Praxidicae has monitored my edits and behaved aggressively toward me. Clemkr (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you needed to see the removed content in order to add sources, you could do that without reverting/readding the unsourced content using the preview button. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * or even going into the history and clicking on the old id to see the page as it was. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) The purpose of Wikipedia editing is to create an encyclopedia. Anything else we try to do, such as not hurting anyone's feelings, is subordinate to that. Some experienced users have simply given you some advice. If good advice makes you feel uncomfortable then just stop editing Wikipedia, as that makes you unsuitable for the task. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and block me. If I can't at least be given the benefit of the doubt in this community, I don't want to be here anymore. Fucking years of producing quality work and this is how it ends. Whatever. Clemkr (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have (some) sympathies for the OP - reverts like this are in breach of established policy. Fwiw, I did not evaluate Prax's reverts. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an undo in twinkle which can be done by anyone who has twinkle installed, it is not a revert in the sense of rollback and thus not against any policy. The user who undid their edit was entirely correct. CUPIDICAE💕  17:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know about Twinkle. So, it is your claim that we cannot source statements of retirement from social media profiles? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another useless revert from Prax. The source was already in the body; Ref 3. Clemkr did add nothing except putting the table to text, and only the last line (factoid about third Australian pair team) was unsourced. Inline citations are only a requirement for controversial (or likely-to-be-challenged) statements in BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel like this could be resolved amicably if everyone gave the dispute some breathing room.  But that doesn't seem to be happening, and I feel like I know where this is headed without any way of stopping it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) added and after reading posts made since I started composing this... I was right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:HA would be a good read for the OP, as I don't see anything to indicate that what Praxidicae is doing is harassment. Reversions of policy violations, especially BLP violations, is perfectly within policy and does not constitute harassment. If Praxidicae were hounding the OP and constantly following the OP from page to page, that would be harassment, but simply cleaning up after someone not editing within policy (especially when it comes to BLP's) does not constitute harassment and accussations of harassment of that sort can in itself constitute harassment. As WP:NPA itself states "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.", for which the OP has insofar failed to provide any diffs that prove or suggest that what Praxidicae is doing is harassment.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, they have followed me from page to page. I do not edit WP frequently, but after writing on my page yesterday, they followed the two edits that I made today, one on 2021-22 figure skating season, and one on Nicole Della Monica, which was relevant because of the previous edit I'd made, which was cited. I believe that my edit of Nicole Della Monica was proper, and yet they left another talkspace message demanding to know what'd done. Clemkr (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that Praxidicae did NOT edit Nicole Della Monica that was me I reverted your edit because Instagram is not usually considered a reliable source, but I reverted myself here because the content (her retirement) is not contentious. User:Praxidicae has not edited 2021–22 figure skating season either? Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The edits weren't "unsourced". They were almost entirely sourced to the ISU website. There was a couple lines that weren't sourced, but were very easily verifiable. Also, the sources weren't unreliable. The ISU website is a reliable source for skater statistics. What Clemkr did was build a BLP based on primary sources, and that's not great, but it's not the same thing as being unsourced or unreliably sourced. Meanwhile, Prax's first interaction with Clem, AFAICT, was to place a level 4 BLP warning. Drmies did in fact threaten to block. Both of them did "follow" Clem to other articles and also removed "unsourced" info that was actually sourced. Both handled this poorly IMO, and now Clem has retired. That's too bad. A better way to have handled this would have been to leave a non-template message about not using only primary sources for BLPs. No template warnings or threats to block were needed here, nor was the removal of content (no inline cite, but a reliable primary source at the bottom of the article). , sorry you were treated this way, hope you return. Levivich 20:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Levivich Nicely put. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. - WP:BLP - you don't get to be the sole determiner of "challenged" and further, the op even admitted to not sourcing content. Until and unless our BLP policy changes, unsourced, undersourced and poorly sourced content will continue to be removed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * If you wanna put me on the chopping block for that, be my guest. CUPIDICAE💕 21:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Malicious compliance etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not malicious. I, like others have a more conservative approach to WP:BLP and it is supported by policy. Some people have a more conservative approach toward, say, deleting G11s and the like. If you'd like to show me diffs proving I'm being malicious about my approach to be BLP, I'm all ears, or in this case, eyes. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕  21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ( Non-administrator comment ) @TrangaBellam I would urge you to strike that comment. "Malicious" or "malice" implies specific, nefarious intent, and I would interpret that as a personal attack. Singularity42 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can assume that you are unfamiliar with the usage of the part. word in different contexts? EBC, Encyc. of Arbitration Law, 2018: Mal. compl. has also been used, outside civil law, to characterize executive actions effected in the most literal way without caring about the conformance of outcome to the intended goals of the legislation. [..]
 * Our BLP policies were not meant to screen out content, which was already sourced in a table, from being reproduced as text in a section, just above. Neither were they meant to prohibit usage of self-declarations about retirement in social media profiles from being used as a source about retirement in our articles. Prax defends both.
 * Nobody is calling for Prax to be put on the chopping block (except OP; I, Lev and ONU merely claimed that they should have had handled the situation better with some of the reverts being unnecessary) but she ought be receptive to feedback. Her continuing to insist that the reverts are technically covered under a literal reading of the policy while choosing to remain unaware about how her actions compelled a well-meaning editor to retire is sub-optimal.
 * Once again, I am calling for nobody's head or accusing that they acted in bad-faith. That's the last from me in this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that it was malicious compliance is indeed implying that there was malice which would require bad-faith. But this is pointless. Our BLP policy is very clear. CUPIDICAE💕  22:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK let's do the diff timeline thing:
 * April 18 14:14 and 14:14 #2 were not unsourced at all; they were sourced by Reference #1; though there was no inline citation, one is not required, and the lack of one is no reason to remove the content
 * 14:14 #3, edit summary, and 14:16 were only partially unsourced (and uncontroversial, and verifiable)
 * The first post on Clem's talk page, 14:17, thread entitled, with a DS warning (you know, the one that says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.", emphases in the original), followed by the note , was extremely unfriendly and uncalled for
 * 14:18, level 4 template warning, was also over the top and uncalled for
 * 14:19 was partly unsourced. The first part was sourced to Reference #1. The second part was sourced to an unreliable source (but was nevertheless uncontroversial and easily verifiable).
 * Drmies threats to block at 14:20 and April 18 14:20 #2 were similarly over the top and uncalled for, even though Clem had reverted Prax, given the rapid timing of these edits.
 * At 14:21, Clem asks, Prax's response:  It went further downhill from there.
 * This is an example of the toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia. The project is not benefitted when editors act like "BLP cops" who are "busting" "BLP criminals". This was a ridiculously heavy-handed approach to a minor issue about inline citations and primary sources. I would also feel harassed if I were Clem, and I feel ashamed of our community's collective response here. Levivich 22:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal Threats made by Editor DenverCoder19

 * User DenverCoder19 made subtle legal threats on 2 different occasions on the talk page for Amy Wax:

[] "Per BLP, this introduces legal issues. "racist", or any other "-ist" or "-ism" that could introduce legal issues at a public-funded university."

[] "Any accusation that could be grounds for legal action (at a university that accepts public funding) introduces a lot of complications, per BLP."Moses Blomstein (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I would say these are less threats and more inelegant attempts to make BLP objections, which are founded, if not necessarily persuasive. I don't know if you have notified the editor, but they should indeed be phrasing things a different way.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * DenverCoder19 is right, even if he could have worded it better. Any biographical claim that involves potentially libelous claims or allegations of criminality must be kept out of Wikipedia absent VERY strong sourcing. These aren't legal threats. Not even close. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've taken to the user's talk page in an attempt to explain Wikipedia vernacular, and they seem receptive.  As such, I don't think anything else needs to be done here.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note here for wider audiences, there are very much BLP concerns here under WP policies, but there is precisely zero legal exposure. A statement of opinion based on disclosed facts can never be defamation in the US. Just in case anyone was actually worried about being sued. I know we hold ourselves to a higher standard, and rightly so, but our handwringing should be about BLP policy and not court action. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK error needs correction or removal from main page
Currently on the Main Page, we have a hook about "Disney's support for Florida's House Bill 1557" (bolded there), but this was raised more than 10 hours ago at WP:ERRORS, has since hit the main page, and is not being dealt with, despite most commenters seeming to agree that the hook is inaccurate. WP:ERRORS seems to be rather hit-and-miss, but as it deals with things seen by millions of people, and this is a rather sensitive issue, it should be dealt with ASAP. Fram (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made a change, we should discuss whether it can be finessed at WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fram (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of StripedOkapi
This user created various of invalid unblock requests and attacked me using his talk page. A TPA revoke seemed needed.PAVLOV (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Pavlov - please don't take this the wrong way, but why are you engaging with someone like that on their talk? A couple of essays I recommend to people are WP:DENY and WP:RBI. Don't feed them... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Forgot to hit publish and/or EC'ed when I did. I took away talk page access and if they decide they're actually interested in editing they're welcome to use UTRS. Star   Mississippi  02:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted lyrics in sandbox
this is the full lyrics to 99 Red Balloons and is a WP:COPYVIO. Policy didn't say where to report copyvios in the edit history so I'm reporting here. 184.170.97.79 (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the sandbox's deletion log, WP:RD1 has been used before. I believe that |1083638027&limit=6&action=history this is the relevant history range, with a clean revision on each side. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleted. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the future, copyvio-revdel can be used to request RD1 redactions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mishra18Hex keeps adding unsourced rumored info
On their user talk page, there are many warnings regarding unsourced non-GNG article creations. Yet, he keeps creating those articles. But, this is not the main issue. According to their contributions, they keep adding info that is unsourced and rumored on pages such as 2022 NASCAR Xfinity Series and Joe Gibbs Racing. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 02:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be a history of problematic editing here. What is more disturbing is the failure of this user to engage. I don't see a single response on their talk page to any of the numerous messages/warnings/notices posted. That said, it is fairly late here and this user may not even be awake. But they definitely need to come here and give the community some indication that they are aware of its concerns and take them seriously. Otherwise, I fear this is going to end badly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE and potentially WP:RADAR Oz\InterAct 08:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Ohio school rangeblock sought


Lots of troublesome edits appearing from the Ohio school range Special:Contributions/66.114.27.0/24. For example, we just had some major vandalism at the album article Sonic Origami. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Spot checking the range, there's no positive edits dating back to before the new year.  Blocked for 3 months, which should last until well into summer break.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Oklahoma City bombing
Hi - I'm about to log out, but it might be useful for an uninvolved admin to look at Oklahoma City bombing, and the recent spate of edits there by, which seem to me to be removing sourced content in a somewhat POV manner. I've reverted a couple of times, so am not taking action there myself to avoid any accusations of WP:INVOLVED, but I believe they have already blown past 3RR, despite my (non-templated) messages on their talk, and discretionary sanctions notifications. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 20:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User reverted and warned - and I will block if they remove anything from there again. GiantSnowman 20:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ....and they've done it again so they've been indeffed. GiantSnowman 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Return to Monkey Island editing
I noticed was making weird edits on their userpage. They have also trolled admins in the sandbox and when warned about it, said the warning was abuse and that nobody was allowed on their talk page. They also like to remove links without a proper explanation. They have also personally attack admins in their sandbox. Overall, this pattern shows should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:612A:5550:531E:89C0 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree but started with a message at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. If even half of that is true, then me thinks that what we have is a young person who needs to develop more writing skills before editing Wikipedia.  The editor's very odd userpage kinda confirms this.  A loose necktie (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * They backed away from this comment after making it and reverting it, but it demonstrates a lack of self control, as that was a wildly inappropriate response to what was a very mild and relaxed discussion.  I just backed out and prepared to watch the crash and burn that was inevitable on some page or another, to be honest.  I get the feeling the WP:CIR issues are at play.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear, I don't think this user should be editing here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * I think you're missing the point, or at least my point. I'm not really concerned of your opinion of admins, or redlinks.  What concerns me is the fact that you seem to have a problem with self-control. THAT causes problems around here.  Just because you think of something, doesn't mean you have to leave it in a post.  Your knee jerk reaction on  was unexpected and a bit disturbing, particularly since he and I were simply explaining how redlinks are useful.  I expected "oh, I get it, although I don't like the look of it" or similar.  Instead, you start telling us when we can and can't block you.  I think I can speak for both of us when I say, a block was not remotely in our mindset.  We were just being helpful, what you called "insanity".  That makes me question your competence; your ability to function in a collaborative environment.  If you react that poorly when someone tries to help you, I can't imagine how you are going to react when there is an actual dispute.  Well, actually I can:  very poorly.  I'm not sure if it is your age, your situation, I don't know, but I don't think you have the competence to be here, honestly.  To me, it's just a matter of time (say, 1 week or less) before we are hearing more of your disruptive reactions to what most people would consider are ordinary events.  WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But I apologised and for my outburst like if I do it again then you'll be like "HA I knew it" but If I owned up said sorry and haven't done any of the things you said not to (all before this admin page thingy) then surley you could give me a chance. . Return to Monkey Island (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nice. But you seem to have a problem with going to 11 when responding to ordinary interactions and explanations. I am not encouraged by the way you keep responding. You're being given a chance. Please make use of it and learn from experience.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Return to Monkey Island is a video game that is slated to be released this year; it was announced on April 4. User:Return to Monkey Island was created on April 7. Maybe I'm off base here, but am I the only one who thinks that "Return to Monkey Island" is an inappropriate promotional username in this context? It strikes me as a type of product placement. Levivich 17:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just hpyed about the game I don't work for anyone or trying to sell it Return to Monkey Island (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to lie, this user name alone got me hyped. It's kinda weird to be suspect of someone naming their account after what will likely be one of the best releases in a decade. 107.115.5.107 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Same I was so happy they were making a new Monkey Island I saw this guys name and thought wow a super fan who edits we can be friends and edit Monkey Island pages together and then I see he's retired looked at the history and saw the staff bullied him off! Well I'm not making an account if this is how you treat fans who want to edit pages they care about. 51.9.73.127 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear a WP:DUCK quacking...--WaltCip- (talk)  12:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * is that a three headed monkey?
 * If gets a pass here, they need to understand they are skating on this ice, and this discussion should be viewed as a last warning.  Lashing out over normal things, acting childish and pouting or striking out, these are things we don't have time for.  Even this discussion is a time sink, time that would better be spent working on articles.  If there is anything in the future like we've seen in these diffs, I will block on the spot, no more second chances. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they've now logged in to an old blocked account and requested an unblock after trying unsuccessfully to log into another (unblocked) sock account of theirs. This is just a mess of WP:CIR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of 109.185.107.64
misused their talk page after blocked, TPA revoke seemed needed.PAVLOV (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like revoked it a few minutes after you posted here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PAVLOV (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive unsourced editams/edit warring to Tutsi by IP.
An IP editor (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2404:3C00:903F:F800:253A:9493:9DA1:2DE2) is making unsourced edits to Tutsi, intially removing a large amount of sourced material and replacing it with material sourced to a non-peer-reviewed blog. I reverted them here [], first explaining the issues with their edits. They then reinstated material derived from the conclusion of the blog (in contradiction to the reliable sources) without explanation here []. They were reverted by User:Melecie here [] who also left a template message on their Talk page regarding reliable sourcing.

They ignored Melecie and reintroduced their edit again here [] without explanation again with another unsourced edit, and I reverted them a second time here [] with a warning that they would be reported if it continued. They reinstated their edit again (with no explanation) here [] (along with four other unsourced edits)

The user seems intent on edit warring, to push their POV regardless of sources, policies and explanations and and to show no willingness to engage.

Here is the page's edit history for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Tutsi Skllagyook (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I've done this for you. Quid Est Squid (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't realize you had already notified the IP. Quid Est Squid (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * /64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Prolific sock master? auto generated account?
Draft:BilCat was created by an IP, I noticed on that page it says (among other things), "User:I'm a sockpuppet of User:BilCat, but you'll never figure that out!" I haven't figured out if he is a sock or not. But in looking at the user logs of BilCat, he has been editing hundreds and hundreds of article and user accounts in a rapid-fire manner. Is this an automated account of some type? — Maile (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User talk:Maile66 - Message on my talk page from BilCat threatening to block me. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI - I left them a talk page message about this discussion here, and they deleted it.— Maile (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , Someone probably compromised his account. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 04:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My account hasn't been compromised. I haven't "been editing hundreds and hundreds of article and user accounts in a rapid-fire manner". A hundred edits in a day isn't that much. The OP is making unfounded accusations. I have know idea who created Draft:BilCat, nor what it even said, as it's been deleted. I would be nice if users here would assume some good faith. BilCat (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I might be missing something here, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary in Bilcat's user contributions or user logs. BilCat has made 481 edits in the last week, which averages out to about 68.7 edits per day, and 1,794 edits in the last month, which averages out to 59.8 edits per day. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see any rapid-fire edits. What user log are you talking about?  signed, Willondon (talk)  04:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * From User:Maile66's accusations and false assumptions, including taking a standard warning as a "threat" and misreading edits logs, I assumed this was an inexperienced user. Then they fully protected their user and talk pages. This is all very strange behavior for an admin. BilCat (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a uw-npa4 is not a "standard warning", it's a "you will be blocked if you do that again" warning. I suspect it would have been better to write a personalised message on Maile's talkpage along the lines of "what on earth are you talking about?" Black Kite (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's just call it a comedy of errors and let all this go. I checked the IP range, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly weird going on.  No vandals, no sock puppets, etc.  The IP editor is already blocked, and the draft is deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It could have been dismissed as a comedy of errors if the OP had simply said "Oops, sorry. I made a mistake", but instead that admin protected their own user page, which nobody else had edited for over five years, for "persistent spamming" and their talk page for "persistent sock puppetry" when nothing of the sort had happened. I'm afraid that that statement just looks like a closing of the ranks by admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For anyone else still confused by this, the draft was an exact copy of BilCat's user page, which (among other things) contains those words, "I'm a sockpuppet of User:BilCat". Do think twice before accusations of sockpuppetry and claims of compromise. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole reason I opened a thread here, instead of opening a sock puppet investigation, was to get other opinions of what this was. As I said when I opened this thread, I simply didn't know. If someone on their user page claims to be a sockpuppet, it does raise questions. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BilCat doesn't claim to be a sockpuppet on his userpage; he mentions two silly "options for a new username": User:I registered on Wikipedia, and all I got was this lousy username and User:I'm a sockpuppet of User:BilCat, but you'll never figure that out!. It's an obvious joke.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the claim was not on their user page, but on their now-deleted draft above. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which a) wasn't their draft, and b) copied their user page... Fram (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, as zzuuzz said, the draft is a copy of BilCat's userpage, and the only mention of "sock" on the page is what I noted (I searched). Besides, even if the deleted draft did make a "claim" of sock puppetry, why would you give credence to anything an obviously disruptive IP said? As an admin, the only question in my mind - and I would have not bothered tagging the draft but just deleted it - would be whether to block the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's great that you sought other opinions here rather than blocking anyone (though I still think a second thought about the content would have provided the clue you were looking for). Novel things and confusion can happen. I am frankly more concerned about the first substantive response of "Someone probably compromised his account". -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Full protection of an admin talk page?
User:Maile66 has fully protected their user talk page for "Persistent sock puppetry" despite there being no trace of any problematic edits to their talk page, and very shortly after receiving this warning. I thought this kind of apparently self-serving protection wasn't allowed? Or is there a lot of oversighted sock puppetry? (As it is fully protected, I can't notify them of course, nor discuss it with them first...). Fram (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, I now see that the above section deals with elements of the same issue, but ignores the admin tool misuse (with false edit summary). I wanted to talk to Maile66 about a DYK incident from friday (haven't been online since), where they were rather pompous and wrong, but the above issue seems worse. No idea what's going on, but doesn't look to good. Fram (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made the notification(since Fram cannot). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fram (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the documentation, I think it's (almost?) unheard of for WP:oversight to be used nowadays, only suppression. And generally, any suppressed edits should be visible in the page history (but not the deletion log). Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway unless there's something I missing, I have to agree that this seems wrong. Even assuming Maile66's incorrect view Bilcat was a problematic sock was correct, a single templated warning is very unlikely enough to justify full protection or even semi protection (if that were sufficient). I'd note that for a single account, Maile66 should have blocked Bilcat if they were confident enough in their suspicion to justify protection. (In certain cases with persistent sockpuppetry where the editor is known to use a bunch of accounts, it may still be okay to protect the page but it would be exceptionally rare it makes sense to protect the page while not blocking the account.) For clarity, blocking Bilcat would have been a serious mistake but this just further illustrates why the protection was wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Everybody get unexcited now, please. I have been offline since I protected my page.  It is now unprotected.  As for you,  the DYK issue involves other DYK editors, and should be discussed on the DYK page, not my user page.  — Maile  (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't explain at all why you protected these two pages in the first place (you gave a reason in your edit summaries, but these were obviously incorrect). Fram (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As for DYK, it is your admin action of going to WP:ERRORS and there, instead of taking the appropriate action, berating me for being "out of touch" and "over the line" and adding some dubious WP:OWN argument "But leave DYK to the editors and admins who daily work within the project's structure.". Bizarrely, you do nothing about the error, but also do nothing about the page which no longer contains the DYK fact; and 5 minutes after the hook is of the main page, you rapidly remove the Errors discussion which you hadn't the time or guts to reply to earlier. But the next day, you go to WT:DYK where you start explaining why the hook shouldn't have run, with a frankly farfetched reason ("it's promotional"!) instead of the actual reason (it's complete and utter trivia which was only included in the article to make the hook possible, and which has been removed from the article the day after). So at WP:ERRORS you berate the one pointing out the error, but then the next day at WT:DYK you berate the ones that have proposed or promoted the hook, not for the actual reason the hook was an issue, but for something you grasped at to be able to blame both sides apparently. Which, coupled with the above incident, means a lot of very erratic, admin-unworthy behaviour in just a few days time. Fram (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I vouch for BillCat being a longstanding editor in good standing and one of our top aviation contributors. Like others here, I am mystified by the protection action and... other stuff. El_C 13:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Look, having watched this discussion develop over the last several hours, appears fairly simple. We have two long-standing editors, both of which with a spotless record.  We have Maile who got confused, over-reacted, and then self-corrected.  BilCat has still done nothing wrong.  Unless I have misread the situation, other than an application of WP:TROUT to Maile, I can see no reason to keep this thread open any longer.  Anyone else concur?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Maile66 still seems very confused, believes the deleted page is by Bilcat, has not explained why they used completely incorrect edit summaries to support their protections (even if Bilcat had been a sock or compromised, the edit summaries would still have been wrong), they haven't acknowledged anywhere that they falsely accused Bilcat, and their DYK shenanigans are problematic as well. Just closing this because they unprotected one of the two pages as if that somehow removes all concerns is not right. Fram (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, if they accuse an editor like this "But in looking at the user logs of BilCat, he has been editing hundreds and hundreds of article and user accounts in a rapid-fire manner. Is this an automated account of some type?" based on, well, nothing at all really (the most I found in the last few 100 edits was 3 edits in a minute, which is not a lot when dealing with vandals or other unconstructive edits), then the least they can do is explain their reasoning a bit further and perhaps apologize or at least acknowledge that they were wrong? Just closing this seems, like Phil Bridger says above, too much like admins closing ranks. Fram (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not going to rest until you have someone's head on a platter, are you? You know, we don't have to make sure people are punished everytime they do something wrong.  Sometimes, we can leave them with their dignity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Or you can keep this open and give them a chance to get some of their dignity back, instead of this? Fram (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why, to give you a forum for your highly repetitive, WP:TLDR/WP:BLUDGEON demands for satisfaction? You have a strange sense of granting dignity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR? Grasping at straws much? Fram (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A little extra I just noticed; Maile66 opened the above section at 03.55, Bilcat posted on their talk page at 04.08, then Maile posts that threat here, and only then posts a notice at Bilcat's user talk. So yet another failure on the part of Maile66. Fram (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's rewrite WP:ADMINACCT then as well. Apparently you can
 * Make completely ridiculous accusations at Ani ("prolific" sock master based on one ip edit, not even by this user? "Auto generated account", which makes no sense?) without the need to withdraw them
 * Don't need to inform the editor about this thread until after they have already found out
 * Protect pages for no actual reason and with made up reasons in the edit summary

...and still be considered to have accounted for all this by simply removing the protection from one of the pages without any explanation whatsoever about the underlying issues. Fram (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that User:Maile66 still seems to be protected for "persistent spamming" despite nobody but the user themself editing it for over five years. Can't we at least expect admins to say something remotely defensible? I'm sorry, Girth Summit, but this closure leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Maile66's initial mistake could easily have been corrected, but wasn't. What has happened since needs a better resolution. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see an issue that needs fixing here - can you think of a valid reason for anyone to edit Maile66's user page in the next few hours? Or is there something else that needs to happen? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Kum Ba  Yah. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

She is not alone, although she may be alone in adding the category to people who are not openly LGBTQ. Several other people have been eagerly adding this category to everyone from mayors to state legislators. We need to have a discussion somewhere about exactly what constitutes a "head of government". In my opinion, that does not include mayors. Where should this discussion go? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article Head of government that pretty clearly explains what one is. Deor (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Which I linked them to on their talk page. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw the "LGBT heads of government" category pop up on some LGBT mayors I've watchlisted and at least one legislator's page. They are not heads of government. I set up a SPI thread for this at Sockpuppet investigations/Ivance1027 prior to seeing this thread (no idea who the "master" is, but it could be Sarahlundell is the "master" account). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had just commented on the SPI before seeing the thread here. This appears to be part of a WikiEdu course on LGBTQ Wikipedia editing. The stated goals are "adding tags to LGBTQ+ individual's Wikipedia pages as well adding people to lists of LGBTQ+ individuals" - unfortunately it seems like the students did not receive adequate instruction on categorization. Pinging the course instructors, and  to inform them of this thread, and will crosspost to the education noticeboard. Spicy (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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


 * It seems that these class editing projects, and editathons etc are almost continuously causing issues. I came across another one a few weeks ago where people were assigned articles to edit, and almost every edit had to be reverted. I'm starting to wonder if serious restrictions and rules should be put around these sorts of activity. I don't advocate banning them, but they need to be controlled in some manner as they are very clear net negatives at this point. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi MelanieN - we did teach students that categories need to be documented in the article. The articles targeted for adding categories all came from Wikipedia Lists of LGBT people - so if there were people wrongly categorized as LGBT this was a mistake already on Wikipedia. Students were directed to use the citations in the Wikipedia lists to add such information to article to back up categories if it was missing. In this process, we did run across missing or inadequate documentation in the LGBT lists - which we tried to improve when better sources could be found. Awatkins123 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the educational benefit from having students add categories to articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Idk? Wasting server resources? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need Wiki-Ed? It causes more problems then it solves. What is its purpose? Teaching? There's like, you know, education for that?? Is it to teach people how to edit Wikipedia? Fact is that most people in their life will never edit Wikipedia after Wiki-Ed. The student accounts are a drain on server resources. There's no reason to do this. It's also MASSIVE spam on talk pages. Why does this even exist? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 02:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiEd editors are in education. They're undergraduate students, making these edits as part of an undergraduate course, under the (sometimes not particularly helpful) direction of their instructor. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that Wiki-Ed is useless. And as part of a course? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 21:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a village pump matter. Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Same IP user likes to edit a page
This IP user 103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) somehow continue to disrupt edit page on Myanmar National Airlines by adding widebody aircrafts (although no announce from the airline) and adding a country with no reliable source provide. I even left a warning to stop but did not listening. Hopefully this IP user will be block. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain but it is necessary to explain issues to editors, and that includes IPs. Talk:Myanmar Airways International (their most recent edits) was last edited in 2013 and the first step would be to put a new section at that page and explain why unsourced additions are not supported. You could ask for opinions at WT:WikiProject Aviation. Put a polite request on the IP's talk with a link to the article talk section and ask them to participate. Myanmar National Airlines has been semi-protected for a month which will resolve problems there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Need a new rangeblock on LTA Dolby–Blob–Cars

 * Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal
 * Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal

Two IPs involved in recent disruption related to the case Long-term abuse/Dolby–Blob–Cars vandal, the two being Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD61:2500:E0DB:E3E:3971:713D and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD61:2500:8DBA:C236:F169:65A4. Looking back to November, the disruption widens to a /50 range.

Whatever range seems appropriate, this persistent vandalism needs to be rangeblocked. It's been going on for 15 years. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that two months ago, Black Kite blocked the range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD46:6400:0:0:0:0/64. The person has hopped to nearby numbers. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ x 6 months. Nothing but reverted edits in that range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeking a second rangeblock for Mauritius film fan and music maven


Someone on the island of Mauritius has a longstanding passion for film topics—actors, actresses, film awards—and a keen interest in music topics. The issue is that they keep causing problems with their edits, and they don't ever communicate. They were rangeblocked for one year as Special:Contributions/102.163.30.0/24, after which they switched back to Special:Contributions/105.235.158.0/24, which has been blocked three times. Blocking admins include, and.

Today at Jane Fonda, they changed the birth name to be wrong. Sometimes they get into genre warring. They introduce many grammar errors, poor English, and they often show incomplete comprehension of the topic. The person has competence problems, yet they are prolific. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Range blocked for a year this time. Almost certainly the same person as the CU blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing from user:Sloppyjoes7

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1082592810 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1062741551 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)#Erroneous_sentence_was_corrected,_then_reverted_by_an_administrator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloppyjoes7#April_2022 denies transwoman is female, repeatedly, backing their claims up with misinterpreted information
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082592098 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082593422 whitewashing anti-trans sports bill twice
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Sky_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1082590965 not offensive in a vacuum but the summary + overall edit history implies whitewashing under the guise of “correcting bias”

This isn’t a new phenomenon, in this editor’s meager history they’ve also made edits like:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347606 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347764 pro-creationism POV push
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=507175376 fake balance inserted into another religion-related article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=500347056 another extremely weasely POV edit to same article

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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1082592810 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1062741551 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)#Erroneous_sentence_was_corrected,_then_reverted_by_an_administrator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloppyjoes7#April_2022 denies transwoman is female, repeatedly, backing their claims up with misinterpreted information
 * This is false, as nothing was misinterpreted. My edits and comments were absolutely factual, and not a single editor or admin has presented any evidence that my edits contained misinformation. A few days ago I asked for any such evidence, and to date, no evidence has been presented. Literally just accusations without any reason, explanation, or defense. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082592098 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082593422 whitewashing anti-trans sports bill twice
 * Eliminating extreme bias is not "whitewashing." Please refer to Neutral point of view and follow those guidelines. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When multiple reliable sources have reported that the law's phrasing regarding "of the male sex" is focused on barring transgender girls and women, trying to say we can only use the law (which uses the phrasing it does probably for a few reasons which likely include trying to cover legal challenges with a plausible denial) as the source is cherry picking sources that support a particular view and is in fact contradictory to the very first sentence of WP:NPOV you cite. Describing the views reported in reliable sources with a reasonable amount of weight is not "extreme" bias. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The law in question literally does not "bar" transgender persons. It does, however, prevent male individuals from competing in sports deemed for females. Therefore, male individuals are still allowed to compete, so long as those individuals compete in sports deemed for males. So, even now, you are misrepresenting the facts by claiming it is "barring transgender girls and women". This is why it is important to maintain a neutral POV and state the facts. Opinions may be included in articles, as well as alternative points of views, but they should be adequately labeled as such.
 * As for the claim that quoting a law is "cherrypicking" in an article about said law, this claim is so patently bizarre, it defies reason. No, it is not cherrypicking to quote a law in an article about said law. Laws are a subject where the wording of the law is *particularly* important. So, while the arcane nature of many laws often justifies interpretation or clarification, it is not reasonable to say that quoting the applicable portion of a law is "cherrypicking."
 * As for the WP:NPOV, the actual concern is you calling it "whitewashing" to correctly describe a law. The term "whitewashing" implies that the law is wrong, bad, or otherwise offensive, and that attempts to explain or describe it (as opposed to condemning it) are "whitewashing." Your usage of the term "whitewashing" suggests that you are not willing and/or incapable of describing the law in question without introducing your personal bias. This should be taken into account regarding this situation. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of time to address all the parts of this reply (I just have a habit of refreshing tabs before I close them, maybe I'll revisit this response later), but I wanted to note that I'm not the one who used the term "whitewashing" at all; that would be the person who opened this section, who I am not. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the person who used the phrase "whitewashing" multiple times was User:Dronebogus Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to correct you but you beat me to it. I'm not the one who is trying to "push a certain narrative" here, and you're the one who introduced the "confusing formatting" with your in-line replies, FWIW. Funcrunch (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Sky_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1082590965 not offensive in a vacuum but the summary + overall edit history implies whitewashing under the guise of “correcting bias”
 * You can be an advocate, but Wikipedia is supposed to present factual information, not be a place where people can twist facts to push narratives and advocacy. I did not "whitewash" anything, and the record is clear on this. I removed biased non-neutral information, and replaced it with correct and accurate information. (Which has since been twisted back into non-neutral POV, and is still non-neutral as of today.)Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As the article on Florida House Bill 1557 states that it is commonly known by critics as the "Don't Say Gay bill" I thought that saying "Florida House Bill 1557, known by some as the Don't Say Gay bill" was a reasonable thing to say but I admit that I did not include citations when I made that change. Following your comment here I have added 2 citations to the article to support the fact that it is known by some under that name which I hope deals with your concerns about NPOV editing. Gusfriend (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t a new phenomenon, in this editor’s meager history they’ve also made edits like:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347606 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347764 pro-creationism POV push
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=507175376 fake balance inserted into another religion-related article
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=500347056 another extremely weasely POV edit to same article
 * It is true that I have made edits to articles that flatly call the Judeo-Christian worldview a lie. Those corrections were to fix articles that violate the WP:RNPOV of Wikipedia. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting WP:NOTHERE vibes. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then these "vibes" are not based in reality. While I am not saying every edit is perfect, they have been made in good faith, and I try to include sources/citations wherever applicable. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This person's edits seem... I don't want to overuse this term, but... tendentious at best. They read as advancing a particular POV and bias hiding behind a civil veneer of misapplying policies in a way that seems meant to advance their views. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth. Being assigned male is not necessarily equivalent to being of the male sex. Calling trans women male, or saying that they are not female, is misgendering just as much as calling them men or saying that they are not women is. This is not just my personal opinion or "fringe", this is the current consensus of the Wikipedia community. Funcrunch (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not the consensus of the Wikipedia community, which makes a distinction between an individual's sex and gender. It is also a belief held by a minority of people. Furthermore, and more to the point, the terms "male" and "female" refer to an individual's sex, not their gender, and therefore have nothing to do with misgendering. While I have very strong views on the subject, I did not include my personal views, and the edits in question were not about the word "woman" but rather the word "female." This is an important distinction when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I carefully looked through Wikipedia's entire article on Trans woman to see if I was conflicting with that article, as well as a few related articles, and found no conflict. Those articles clearly assert and describe a distinction between an individual's sex and gender. If there is evidence to the contrary, (as I have already said days ago), I am open to seeing such evidence. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * . Trans woman says, in its second sentence: . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase "female gender identity" is, indeed, a phrase, and those three words should be taken together, not apart. Therefore, there is a distinction between "female" and "female gender identity." In fact, that article delves into that very distinction. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Any editor who believes, in spite of the reliable sources, that the term "female" always refers to "sex" and never refers to "gender" is simply not competent to edit in the domain of the gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions. Any such editor who is not topic banned from the area will simply continue to waste the community's time, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Yale, https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-sex-and-gender/ "In 2001, a committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a nonprofit think tank that took on issues of importance to the national health, addressed the question of whether it mattered to study the biology of women as well as men. [...] The committee advised that scientists use these definitions in the following ways:
 * In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].
 * In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation." Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have cited a source that does not support your own language preferences - according to this source, "male" and "female" are terms for gender or sex depending on context. You edited as though these terms always refer to "sex". Hmmmm. Newimpartial (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The very next line of your source is: "These working definitions were a good start in recognizing the value of studying sex and gender and their interactions, yet they were always meant to evolve. Now, we are learning more about ourselves and so must adapt our terminology to be inclusive, respectful, and more accurate." You seem very intent on not hearing or understanding views other than your own. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be right, of course I think so. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And the very next lines give examples, none of which appear to apply here, or have already been thoroughly addressed. Context is important, and should not be cherrypicked. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the prior statement Calling trans women male, or saying that they are not female, is misgendering just as much as calling them men or saying that they are not women is does, in fact, reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. MOS:GENDERID says not to do that in article space, and many, many editors have been topic- or site- banned for doing that in Talk space. Trying to edit in the area of gender and sexuality without understanding this will inevitably result in incompatibility with Wikipedia as a project. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is not correct. The Wikipedia guidelines you linked (MOS:GENDERID) do not support your assertion. It never says anything about calling trans people "male" or "female", and does not say that describing their sex is "misgendering." And talking about biological sex is not banned on Wikipedia when it comes to gender identity. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not realize that "male" or "female" are gendered terms in the sense of GENDERID, (1) you haven't been paying attention to the way the guideline is actually used and (2) you don't seem COMPETENT to edit in this area. We don't edit trans BLPs based on editors' opinions about biological sex. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the guideline is being used incorrectly, that is a separate issue, and perhaps should be brought up separately. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The guideline is written correctly and is being used correctly. Even you admit, below, that "male" and "female" are used to indicate gender. I might be curious in an abstract sense to hear how you would WP:LAWYER MOS:GENDERID to allow the description of BLP subjects based on your notion of biological sex, I am not really interested, because whatever your personal views are ''they do not give you an opt-out from site-wide consensus, especially not concerning WP:BLP information. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree lack of competence is the takeaway here. It's obvious Sloppyjoes7 should not be focusing on this subject, especially in BLPs, as they are refusing to listen to any viewpoint other than their own. --Kbabej (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said, or as you put it, "admit" that "male" and "female" are used to indicate gender. Even if I said that, there are two wildly different ways it could be interpreted.
 * Nevertheless, there is no such "site-wide consensus" that gender and sex are synonymous and can and should be used interchangeably. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In a previous comment, you said I never denied that "the terms 'male' and 'female' are used in the context of gender". But now you are saying that I never said, or as you put it, "admit" that "male" and "female" are used to indicate gender. If there is a non-sophistical way to reconcile these statements, I'm sure you will share that with the class. As far as your STRAWMAN supposition that gender and sex are synonymous and can and should be used interchangeably, literally nobody has proposed that (obviously false) premise, nor is it assumed by Wikipedia policy or community consensus. The principle that has community consensus is that we edit biographies based on gender, not sex so far as the subject matter permits. This has been pointed out to you over and over again, and your refusal to hear that is plainly disruptive at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


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

@Sloppyjoes7: Don't ever do that again. When you respond in-line like that, it makes everything impossible to keep track. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. replied to  original statement in flagrant violation of WP:INTERPOLATE. I'm slightly disappointed that no one in the above exchange noticed this (except Funcrunch) and corrected it. I have restored the original post as a collapsed statement.

Proposed Topic ban on gender related topics broadly construed
You said the claim that Amy Schneider is "female," is false and unsupported by any source. You are being given the chance to clarify what you meant and what you actually believe. The sentence you were disputing was citing this source which pretty clearly states: On Wednesday, Ms. Schneider, 42, an engineering manager from Oakland, Calif., became the first woman in the show's history to achieve 21 consecutive wins, surpassing Julia Collins, who had set the record of 20 wins in 2014. I don't know why you thought that was unsupportive of the claim that Amy Schneider is "female," but I don't want to assume bad faith. Therefore, I am going to ask for a final time what you actually believe, so I can understand why you said what you said. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC) If you recognize that "male" and "female" are also used for gender, then what was the basis for this edit summary?Or this one? Perhaps I was trying too hard to WP:AGF... Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that a topic ban on gender replated topics is called for at this point. My proposal is partially based on a desire to short circuit the discussion before it reaches the point that Sloppyjoes7 talks themselves into a site wide ban. Apologies if that is not appropriate reasoning or if it is too soon to propose. Any other editor should feel free to suggest a different course of action. Gusfriend (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely too soon, and is unfounded entirely. What is clear, as evidenced from the handful of editors replying here, (seen in their own self-descriptions on their profiles), is the people calling for such a ban are advocates. A neutral POV is unsatisfactory to them.
 * In other words, a few advocates pushing a certain POV are trying to not only silence opposition to their POV, but (in this case) silence accurate information that they don't feel is adequately biased enough. So it's not only about silencing one point of view, but actually silencing a neutral point of view. Therefore there is a stronger case to ban User:Gusfriend, User:Isabelle_Belato, and User:Dronebogus than there is to ban me. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By your logic, shouldn't you be suggesting that (an administrator) be banned as well, for warning you about this edit summary? Funcrunch (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe that, at the very least, should lose administrator status, as being an admin requires greater dedication to neutrality and accuracy, as well as more trustworthiness. That warning was unfounded, entirely. Furthermore, I believe the warning was a form of abuse of authority, and therefore, I would consider a ban justified. (Obviously I have no way to enact or enforce this, that I'm aware of.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarify - Are you claiming that Amy Schneider is not a female? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sloppyjoes7: Can you answer this question? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an inappropriate question, is out of place, and is bait to create an off-topic debate/argument. Please do not engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary that got you a warning, you stated: The sentence claims that Amy Schneider is "female," which is false and unsupported by any source. Fixed language. The request for clarification seems perfectly appropriate to me. Funcrunch (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The question is somewhat pertentant. If the charge against you is that you are pushing a specific POV, then a defence to that accusation is that you don't hold the POV. Another defense would be that what you are pushing for aligns with what reliable sources say on the matter.
 * Note that the same source also explicitly refers to Schneider as female, both in the title (Amy Schneider Wins the Most Consecutive ‘Jeopardy!’ Games of Any Female Contestant) and in the sentence referring to her prize winnings: the highest amount won by a female contestant in the show’s history. Funcrunch (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That discussion is already started on other pages. It is inappropriate to discuss it here, as I already stated. Furthermore, any witch hunt to try and get me to state my personal beliefs, then use my personal beliefs to try and topic ban me, violates Wikipedia guidelines. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, entitled to hold whatever views you like. But you must accept that Wikipedia may not hold those same views, and must either abide by Wikipedia's standards or advocate within the rules for changes.  It does not seem to me as though that is what you are doing, but I am often wrong.  Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the issue people are raising is that your personal beliefs go against what our reliable sources, the ones cited in the articles you edited, say, so it seems like you are adding your own point of view to those articles. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, you know the answer will get you topic banned. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what has been said so far, I fully support a ban. I do not believe this user is giving edits on here in good faith and is coming to edits with a biased, partisan viewpoint, even questioning "female gender identity" as a concept, in one of their above edits, claiming it is different than "female" but offering no evidence to support their assertion. Sloppyjoes7 appears to be, from what I have looked at and seen, bad news. Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - From what I've read in this thread. Their understanding of laws as sources is also deeply problematic, and I would encourage them to read WP:RSLAW to understand when and how to use sources of or about law in articles. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 06:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI: I have read those articles. I believe this is in reference to me quoting a "primary source", which Wikipedia says to do "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and must be a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and "reputably published". The edit in question followed every single guideline in WP:RSLAW and every guideline in WP:PRIMARY. The article in question is still heavily based on secondary sources, but in this case, a single sentence from a primary source was added by myself. It is that single sentence for which I was criticized, with some arguing that quoting the law was entirely inappropriate in an article about that law. Yes, I find this absurd, and there is no standard practice or guideline that bars primary sources entirely. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You have also said that Edits should be based in the facts, not in (possibly erroneous) interpretations of said facts. Therefore, actually quoting what a law says and does is more useful and introduces less bias than using an article that potentially twists and distorts its purpose and intent. Is this still your belief? Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky issue, and I'm concerned is being taken out of context. I stand by my statement that edits should be based in the facts. Yes, this includes quoting, citing, and using secondary sources, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. However, secondary sources should not be treated as infallible, as others appeared to be doing. It is that specific approach I was criticizing in the quote you provided.
 * Furthermore, I was responding to strong criticism for daring to quote a primary source. While Wikipedia guidelines say to use secondary sources in general, it does also allow primary sources, and this is actually common. For example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article not only includes the full text, but even includes an image of the text. If "no primary sources" were taken to the extreme, then this would not be allowed. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you see why your statement, as quoted above, would appear to me to be contrary to Wikipedia policy? Dumuzid (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The main issue is adding your own interpretation of a primary sources. Your edit quoted a small part of a law, but excluded how it defines "the male sex", which in this case is sex assigned at birth. As many reliable secondary sources note, that includes definition includes transgender girls and women. There's nothing contradictory in those secondary sources that would make them incorrect. But this is just one example of your editing that led to this ANI, that appears solely focused on calling transgender women males, to the contradiction of reliable sources. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 20:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Supoort per evidence I presented, WP:NOTHERE and IDHT problems. Wouldn’t mind a complete ban since they’re also engaging in vindictive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior against everyone they disagree with, demanding arbitrary blocks left and right, which is unrelated to the topic of LGBT issues. Dronebogus (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never seen this "Administrators noticeboard" before, so this is new to me. So, not only have I not seen this process, I am now subject to being banned through this process. Is that correct?
 * If so, is it not reasonable to reply to others civilly, calmly, and in good faith in order to address personal attacks that threaten to delete my account? Is that not precisely what I have done? Can I literally be considered as violating rules for simply responding to accusations against me that I see as totally and utterly false, and explaining why those accusations are false?
 * At this point, I think I may need WP:DR, though I'm not totally sure that's appropriate here. Again, I am a casual editor who only edits from time to time, and this whole thing has blindsided me, and I'm not sure where it's all coming from, or why it's attracting such attention from censorious individuals. I don't know what is typically done in these matters. Perhaps most people are simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board. I don't know.
 * (Note: no, I have not "demanded" anybody be blocked, much less arbitrarily. You will see no such thing in my edit history.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of this page, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You were notified. No, most people are not "simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board". Funcrunch (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a minor note: I said "Perhaps most people are simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board." Just because someone was notified doesn't mean they saw the notification, or if they even saw it, understood it. I said this specifically because I usually don't notice notifications, never knew what they were, I would go months without checking messages, and generally don't live on Wikipedia. This site has a steep learning curve, and I suspect your casual editor doesn't understand the bureaucracy. I didn't even know anything about admins until one warned me last week. I believe a rather large percentage of Wikipedia editors are similar, and thus could be notified and still not see or even be aware of this board. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Casual editors still need to follow the rules. You can configure a setting to send you an email whenever you get a talk page message. And if you don't do that or don't check your email regularly either, well, that's not really our problem. Funcrunch (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Evidence here is clear that Sloppyjoes7 has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially in regards to editing related to gender issues. Their WP:BLUDGEON-type behavior in this discussion alone is enough evidence that they don't recognize the problem with their own behavior.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - User clearly is pushing an agenda, while claiming everyone else is attempting to eliminate accurate information that they don't feel is adequately biased enough. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - let's prevent additional time-wasting before this editor really gets going. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Their responses continue to show they're trying to appear as what they think comes off as civil while pushing a POV and misinterpreting policies to try to suggest they're not. In particular, their recent dancing around attempts by others to clarify what they mean by phrasings they are using as edit summaries as well as arguments in discussions here and elsewhere suggests they know their "personal beliefs" (quoting from upthread for a reason, not intended to be scare quotes) are directly influencing their editing in a disruptive way they're trying in increasingly antsy fashion to direct attention away from (and thus they appear to be concerned if they answer the question people will "use [their] personal beliefs to try and topic ban [them]", though in context this would actually be people recognizing their personal beliefs are influencing their editing in a way which is disruptive and thus might be worth exploring a topic ban for the purpose of preventing that disruption). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Editor's responses show a willful disregard for Wikipedia consensus regarding gender related topics, and a refusal to accept explanations on what is wrong with their edits in this area. (Note to : The discussion in this section is not a vote. It's up to the admins whether or not to topic ban you, and if you are banned you may appeal.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add clarification to that - what's being discussed is a "topic ban", not a "community ban". Based on the number of edits by Sloppyjoes7, that distinction may not be as obvious to them.  Butler Blog   (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is what I intended to convey in my note; sorry if my language wasn't clear. Funcrunch (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the arguments above seem to be in-line with my parsing through their edits. They appear to think Wikipedia is their place to POV push their views on this subject. It's not. Sergecross73   msg me  21:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The editor is purposefully disregarding WP consensus to push a POV agenda regarding gender-related topics and is engaging in a BATTLEGROUND mentality. If they truly want to support the project, they can do so outside of gender-related articles. --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - But noting, what one believes or might believe, doesn't quite cut it on the project, if there's no consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. I likely would have opposed if it wasn't for their behavior in this thread (remember, preventative, not punitive), which clearly shows that they wish to push their own position over what the sources say even after being told to stop, in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. casualdejekyll  17:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where have I said I want to "push [my] own position over what the sources say"? Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't say that, but you have showed that you don't seem to care about what sources say despite multiple good faith attempts to clarify what your intentions were with this edit summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where have I "showed that [I] don't seem to care about what sources say"? I believe a count would show I referred to and cited more sources than everyone else in this discussion combined. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As one example, in this edit. When presented with a source that's generally considered reliable (NPR), you assert without evidence that its interpretation is erroneous. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 20:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did assert, in that case, that a source had a biased interpretation. I did not, as you claim, do so "without evidence." In fact, I presented such evidence, cited that evidence, and quoted that evidence. Furthermore, a single example of me saying a source may be biased, and then presenting other information that appears to contradict said source, is not me showing I "don't seem to care about what sources say". I literally added another source that appeared to contradict the first source, and this is a far cry from not caring about sources.
 * A better solution would be to add further sources, not attack me for quoting and citing a source you personally disagree with. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked for an example where you didn't care what sources say, so I shared one. I haven't attacked you here, or elsewhere. I didn't even remove the citation to the primary source law, but returned the reliable secondary source and quoted directly from the primary source law. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 20:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Making reference to a source that supports the precisely point you were arguing against should cast some doubt on your claim to referred to and cited more sources than everyone else in this discussion combined - normally, at least, we expect editors to present sources that are relevant to the text they are proposing for articles. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't support the point I was arguing against. It flatly contradicts the point I was arguing against. But I understand that someone has already made the assertion you're making again now. You are free to hold that opinion. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the diff I literally just presented, I told you that the terms "male" and "female" are used in the context of gender as well as sex. In attempting to argue against me, you presented a source (in the diff I linked) that also supports the use of "male" and "female" in the context of gender as well as sex. This is clearly a WP:CIR issue at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I never denied that "the terms 'male' and 'female' are used in the context of gender". That's moving the goalposts, and putting words in my mouth. I said they are not the same words and should not be used wholly interchangeably. And the linked article supports what I said. But I think this topic is now exhausted, and there's no point in arguing or going in circles. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I gave sloppyjoes7 many chances to clarify what they meant in this diff. They've doubled down and refused to actually engage with people's concerns here. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I answered you. I said that discussion is already being held in the appropriate place (you can see the talk page of the article in question, which doesn't need to be rehashed here). You wanted to argue and attack my personal beliefs, by stating "I am going to ask for a final time what you actually believe". I explained, again, why this was inappropriate.
 * Furthermore, you accuse me of refusing to actually engage with people's concerns, while other editors are accusing me of engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So if I respond, I'm violating the rules, and if I don't respond, I'm violating the rules. This doesn't seem fair. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sloppyjoes7: I am not sure how I can help you understand what you are doing wrong here. You are obviously very passionate and probably want to do the right thing, but you are going about everything in a way that is only going to hurt your future prospects here. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Passionate and rightful transphobia - ahem. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sloppyjoes, are you still under the impression that your Julia Collins edits, linked at the opening of this section, and related edit summaries, were absolutely factual, and not a single editor or admin has presented any evidence that my edits contained misinformation? If so, you should probably be offering to voluntarily remove yourself from the gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions area, because you quite clearly have not understood the obvious problems with your edits in question - problems that have by now been explained to you many times over. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time, nobody had presented any evidence. Since then, someone has linked an article from the NY Times. However, that article was after the quote you're referring to.
 * Also, while I am open to information, (and have indeed asked for information many times), I would appreciate you not talking to me in a demeaning manner like I don't understand this topic and need to have things "explained" to me. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The information that you need - and have been given, but seem reluctant to accept - is that on Wikipedia we use gendered language, including such terms as "male and female", to refer to biographical subjects based on their most recently expressed gender identity. We do not speculate on people's chromosomes or birth certificates to come up with pretexts to misgender them. MOS:GENDERID reflects what is actually a long-discussed and well-established site-wide consensus. If you are, as you say, open to this information, then you should be prepared to say so and to edit accordingly in future. Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article that referred to Amy Schneider as female both in the title and the article itself was literally cited in the same sentence that you "fixed" with the edit summary The sentence claims that Amy Schneider is "female," which is false and unsupported by any source. Fixed language. I have zero belief that you are acting in good faith at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TBan Acutely and intentionally disruptive in pursuance of a bigoted cause. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per MJL - they've been given multiple chances in this thread to defend their behavior, but they've only articulated that they're on a crusade to rewrite articles mentioning trans people and deliberately misgender them. They are apparently of the belief that it violates WP:FRINGE to affirm trans people? If they ever go further and purposefully misgender individual Wikipedia editors, more than just a topic ban would be appropriate. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 06:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hemanttantia1966
The above user is edit-warring to add unsourced promotional content to his biography, after being informed of WP:CoI guidelines etc. Frankly, I'm surprised that the article has existed on Wikipedia for so long, but even in the unlikely chance that the subject is found to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, it clearly isn't appropriate to have it written by the subject himself. At minimum, a partial block would seem necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user from that specific page for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets his attention. Oz\InterAct 11:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the article itself, if it's in doubt whether the person is notable, it should be nominated for deletion. Oz\InterAct 11:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Inter: it has been nominated for deletion. 晚安 (トークページ) 11:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:BobNesh impersonates admin to libel, threaten, intimidate
User talk:BobNesh left realistic-looking warning complete with stop symbol and false libelous accusations of policy violations on my talk page threatening I will be "blocked from editing without further notice" if I do not obey. The user is not an admin. I never interacted with user before. BobNesh made his first edit of article he mentions to remove content he personally did not like, then left message appearing to impersonate admin to intimidate me from editing with threats of administrative actions he has no authority to make. Some people might fall for such deceit and be intimidated into silence out of fear of being blocked, when user has no right to engage in such bullying and deceptive threats over any apparent personal content dispute. (To be honest, based on user's past, and due to my edits pertaining to Ukraine/Russia current events—like merely creating the article in question: this seems to fit a recent pattern of being ganged up on and targeted by politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users trying to game system using technicalities to harass and intimidate as part of Kremlin information war to shape message on Wikipedia...) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inqvisitor (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet examined this matter but I can say that one need not be an admin to issue warnings. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've provided the required notice for you; it appears you placed it on this page by mistake, instead of the editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think libel means what you think it means. I recommend the op heed warnings and get a big ol' trout. This is a pointless thread. CUPIDICAE💕  15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in our guidelines prohibits non-admins from using user warnings, not even the highest level 4 and 4im ones. To paraphrase a comment I made from yesterday time, writing what you don't want to hear libel. If you really do have any valid complaint of that, you're free to take it to court (since libel is actually criminal); just don't expect to be able to edit Wikipedia if you do. As demonstrated, aspersions such as accusing editors against you of being Kremilin POV-pushing without evidence is incompatible with how we work here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 01:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for Inqvisitor. I've looked into what led the OP to get warned, and discovered the following: All in all, not great behaviour from Inqvisitor here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Between April 11 and 14, Inqvisitor got into a bit of a content dispute at Denys Prokopenko. I haven't looked too much at the content dispute itself, it's the behaviour afterwards that is concerning.
 * On April 14, the other editor in the content dispute started a discussion on the talk page about their content dispute with Inqvisitor. In an initial reply, Inqvisitor called the the other editor a "Kremilin POV-pushing" editor, a "biased Russian imperialist", and concluded his reply with "And don't give me orders, I ain't your serf.".
 * The other editor raised WP:NPA and said they were politely asking Inqvisitor to strike out their personal attacks. Inqvistitor replied by continuing to infer the other editor was pushing a POV, without addressing the personal attacks.
 * It turns out the subject of the article's grandfather fought for Finland Soviet-Finnish Winter War. So over the next few days after the above discussion, Inqvisitor decided to add a very lengthy content about the history of that war even though that has nothing do with the subject of the article.
 * BobNesh reverted those edits, noting in the edit summary that it had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and placed the warning on Inqvisitor's talk page.
 * Only reason I made edits to add sourced historical details (which I had always thought should just be referenced by links to articles about the subjects, e.g. Winter War) was because it was demanded by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject (Denys Prokopenko) alluded to in referenced quote. It's not so widely known history what happened during and after Winter War, and I assumed the critique was made in good faith even though it wouldn't apply in most other cases where history is referenced. It would be like if an article subject who had relatives killed in Nazi Holocaust says in a quote they are angry at what Nazis did to their grandparents—and some editor comes along demanding sources proving what did Nazis do.
 * But in any event this was not about any article edits—I did even not revert Bob's edit or anything. Bob never said anything to me; we never interacted. Bob just dropped warning on my page of being blocked without further notice, while making false accusations of violations (which Bob did not even explain) broadcast on my talk page. I do not want controversy. I rarely even create pages outside of Wiktionary. I just don't see how Bob's conduct was meritorious—user could have left normal talk message. Other younger editors might get scared away by such ominous warnings dropped out of the blue with no explanation on their talk page by someone with whom they had never even interacted—having a chilling intimidating effect. That's all. Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Inqvisitor, invoking a Think of the children argument does you no favors. To avoid a WP:BOOMERANG I suggest that you withdraw this complaint. Now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting also that your deletion of the warning message (plus another editor's helpful comment) with an edit summary that reads, in part, removing deceptive "only warning", further undermines your position. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to clarify something: I believe what Inqvisitor is referring to by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject [...] alluded to in referenced quote is when I put a tag on a sentence referring to the Winter War. That seems like an unfair characterization of my actions, given that I actually made sure to specify in my edit summary that I wasn't disputing the historical veracity of the events, and was just putting the maintenance tag on there so that an editor more knowledgeable about the event could patch up the text-source integrity. If I had been less busy, I probably would have found a source myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * BobNesh left Template:Uw-biog4im on your page, Inqvisitor. Anyone who feels that a template warning is needed can utilize that template, not just administrators, and I've done it many times with the other templates at WP:WARN and WP:WARN2. So no, there was no 'administrator impersonation', 'Kremlin information warring', or 'libel' from what is a common warning template, and like JJA said, you need to withdraw this complaint, because this is an extreme overreaction to a template warning.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, in the talk page of that article Denys Prokopenko a few days ago, I explained to Inqvisitor why I removed some of their edits. In response they resorted to personal attacks against me and even though I asked them not to do that and very clearly reminded them of WP:NPA, they continued with this. Now I see that this behavior has not changed by still calling other editors politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users who are part of the Kremlin information war... instead on ANI. Mellk (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's better when warnings are issued by someone who isn't actively involved in the dispute with the editor so the fact there was allegedly no previous interactions between Inqvisitor and BobNesh is probably not the bad thing Inqvisitor is making it out to be. As others have said, anyone is free to leave warnings, it's not something restricted to admins. And if an admin is involved in the dispute most of the time they shouldn't block the editor themselves anyway. So warnings should not be taken as a threat to personally block the editor, unless the editor makes it clear this is what they are saying. Even if the are, it's IMO mostly moot. The warning is either justified and the behaviour may lead to a block if continued or it's not, who will do the blocking doesn't matter. I have not looked into the content dispute but BLP is a serious issue and I personally often issue 3im or 4im warnings when people make serious BLP violations. Especially if they've done it more than once but not been warned yet or at least not warned in a clear way. So if Inqvisitor did violate BLP and to be clear I'm not saying they did, they should not be surprised to receive such a strong warning. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Inqvisitor once again refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. In my eyes, this aggressive behavior including personal attacks will only continue since this editor refuses to take responsibility. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole thing needs to be read in the context of the diffs at Denys Prokopenko. First direct attacks were by Mellk, characterising Inqvisitor's language choices as "propagandaistic" in edit summaries here and here and as "puffery" in an edit summary here.  Mellk then opens a talk page discussion with this and I invite you to read it for yourselves.  Inqvisitor, who's clearly new to Wikipedia, proceeds to respond with a similar level of hostility that he's been shown by those he's met and I think that's understandable.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

COI/UPE bullying


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * If you don't have a COI, it's best just to say so. That said, we have high standards for notability of corporations precisely to avoid poorly sourced boosterism, regardless of whether it's well intentioned creation or not. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, due to the spectre of spammers, passions sometimes run high in deletion discussions for companies, and the independence of sources can be debatable. While the launch of this AFD unfortunately followed some snarking by the nominator Chris Troutman to the article creator Husond upon his return, discussion was proceeding quite well. Unfortunately, Scope creep joined in with a rather passionate Delete, and reacted to my answer to his comment by wholly reverting my response . I think this was a decidedly suboptimal reaction, but that happens. Things degenerated from there. As pertains to me, he's now responded to 3rd parties calling him out on his conduct by accusing me and Husond of being corrupt on his own talk page. I've asked him to withdraw the accusation, but he does not seem inclined to do so. I do think a 3rd party look into the conduct issues here all around would be helpful, hopefully leading to a deescalation and withdrawal of rash accusations. Moving from conduct to content, I shake my head sometimes how much more scrutiny we place on articles about 2nd tier but (arguably) notable companies versus minor celebrities, all from a fear of COI which actually arises just as frequently for personal vanity articles. However, this is not new (see for instance from 2006!) and probably not solvable at ANI. Martinp (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that scope creeps reversion was totally out of order and their corrupt accusation is not ideal either. As to the COI insinuations it just makes me uneasy. I can see why they were made and companies are notorious for it, but Husond explanation is also entirely plausible. Overall I think the evidence is a weak to go all out on UPE and it is really just a red herring as regards the AFD anyway. It would be great if scope creep could restore Martins comment and editors could leave out further accusations of COI at the AFD and just focus on sources. If non-neutral editing or spamming results then the COI accusations can be revisited. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally agree about the odd imbalance between the treatment of notable companies and minor celebrities. People tossing COI accusations around should really check the sources more thoroughly first to determine whether a subject is credible before assuming corporate articles are being put up in bad faith. Sure, there are a lot of crap, spammed company articles, but it is also normally pretty obvious whether they are credible or not from the sourcing. It is also pretty normal for a Wikipedia editor to see a company in the news, go to check for it on Wikipedia, note an absence and then try to do something about it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Martinp had only made two comments in the discussion prior to the one which scope_creep removed, one of which was Martinp's !vote and the other of which was expanding on the !vote. To say that Martinp bludgeoned by posting a third comment, which was the first time they had replied to another person in the discussion, would stretch the definition of the term "bludgeon" beyond its breaking point. scope_creep should voluntarily restore Martinp's comment at the AfD. I also feel the need to point out that scope_creep has a history of playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations, so it does not surprise me that they would refer to Martinp as "corrupt" solely because Martinp disagreed with them. Mlb96 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, things have changed a lot since the early days when you were highly active before going pretty much silent for a decade or more. You have been an administrator off and on, and have lost your administrator's tools twice, I think. One thing that has changed for the better, in my opinion, is that we work much harder to control the promotional contributions of spammers/paid editors/COI editors. As an administrator for almost the past four years, I have blocked 5849 accounts and about 80% of those were spammers and COI editors. One useful tool is the direct question to a possible COI editor: "Do you have a conflict of interest?" This is not bullying. It is protecting and defending the encyclopedia. You seem to consider this entirely legitimate question to be unacceptably intrusive and are refusing to give a direct answer. Your refusal reflects very poorly on you, because you could have easily and promptly and conclusively denied all accusations of COI editing and PAID editing. But you have declined to do do, which leaves these possibilities open for editors who patrol COI and POV editing. Let me be crystal clear with you. If you harbor any wish to be an administrator again or return to the status of a respected and trusted editor, you need to answer these questions frankly, honestly and fulsomely. Your reluctance to answer places you firmly into the informal category of editors who cannot be trusted. Is that what you really want? Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The direct COI question might not be bullying, but it can be presumptive and certainly feel quite rude depending on the context. A more astute accuser might have AGF upon seeing an editor with 36,000 edits under their belt, a history of adminship and a gazillion barnstars and perhaps recalculated, especially when the article was clearly being built with quality, guideline-compliant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization of the article and its sources. I wouldn't have AfD'd it if it didn't look questionable. More to the point, our deletion discussions are not political events where the consensus casts !votes based upon who's hot and who's not. An editor with longevity isn't given special permission to do undisclosed paid editing. Barnstars don't earn an editor the right to use vulgar language aimed towards another editor. And editors like you create our Super Mario problem, making adminship a big deal, by intoning that if you were once popular and now seem to be violating policies and guidelines a regular editor like me isn't allowed to say so because I'm not of the ruling class.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't make adminship a big deal, or trust editors solely based on counts, but historic access to admin tools does, by definition, carry the implication of a certain level of past community trust, and might give one pause for thought before exercising an itchy trigger finger ... unless one is to totally distrust the whole foundation upon which this community is built. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We certainly have different views on the question "do you have a conflict of interest?". You find it a useful tool, I find it a tool for fomenting discord. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion that may easily poison the process - as seen here. Even if an editor denies COI when asked to disclose, other editors in the room will still wonder if the editor was being honest. So I can't really see what's the point of the question. Unless of course you get a lot of editors saying "why yes, I do have a COI, thank you for asking" - but even those, I'm inclined to believe did not require the question in the first place as their COI was probably pretty obvious anyway. Now of course you may claim that demanding a user to disclose COI was actually instrumental for increasing your prolific COI block tally - and I would love to learn more about that - but in any case I have serious doubts that it offsets the damage the demand may cause when aimed at the wrong users.
 * You think my refusal to acquiesce to Chris's demand to disclose COI reflects very poorly on me - that is your opinion, and I can live with it. I never asked for respect or trust - if the community indeed saw me as a respected and trusted editor, that was probably because I was consistent, reliable, and unafraid of expressing positions that may not please everyone but were backed by sound reasoning. You can rest assured that that has not changed, and it is definitely not the mop that is going to make any difference. Hús  ö  nd  18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a COI, it's really very simple to say, "No, I don't have a COI." You're well within your rights not to do so, but if you had simply done that from the beginning, I'm quite sure everyone would have assumed some good faith and all of this suspicion and acrimony could have been avoided. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I wasn't particularly discussing Martinp in any accusation about being corrupt. I didn't believe at the time, they had a handle on the policy, although I've since found out they have written some of the NCORP policy. I was speifically speaking about the behaviour about editors who are trying the game the system, that I believe is happening here on a regular basis. I shouldn't have reverted the comment by Martinp but by the same token, this type of behaviour where editors now try to for push for a no conensus, so the article is kept, by continually pushing the conversation in the same direction that it becomes bludgeoning, is now common. It is standard pattern. I thought it was that. Even after I called out the references, where 6 out the 9 were press-releases, and 2 of the remaining were 2 sentences each, still the comment, ignoring the references and there is no other coverage. Mlb96 above makes the comment about me, playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations. To a certain extent I do, but nobody seems to care about it. I thought by now, there would be sea change, but no. I will stop working on coin and Afd and cat:nnn from this point forward. I think about 60% of the articles are now paid for and that it's now de-rigueur to pay for articles on Wikipedia. A few days a sock master self-confessed to running a farm on the coin for four years. That is the tip of the iceberg. I really don't understand why we are doing this. Its madness. I rail against the 1000's of hours I've wasted working to keep it out, that could have going into writing new articles and and there is so much still to be done.   scope_creep Talk  07:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Through comments here at on his own talk page, scope_creep has effectively withdrawn his accusation against me, so that side-show is over. That said, it feels like his accusation of corruption against Husond still stands, though maybe he means it as a general accusation against "spammers" and just assumed Husond was one (and lumped me in briefly too). And I think there's the rub:
 * (and others): for better or worse, Wikipedia is now pretty merciless regarding COI and UPE, for companies in particular. On Wikipedia, one rarely has to do anything, so formally if someone asks you if you have a COI you don't have to answer, but in practice if you want to Get Things Done you have to answer queries about COI swiftly, truthfully, and nonevasively, even if they raise your hackles. Otherwise your contributions may be treated as suspect. Specifically - asking you to declare whether you have a COI about an article you created that is up for deletion is not inherently out of line; and while you may not have felt the way it was first raised was appropriate, when multiple people are asking, you more or less have to reply.
 * , and others: The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own.
 * Everyone, at AFD it's good to actually evaluate sources and engage in discussion; and opinions may vary. Be wary of conclusory thinking, especially if there are accusations flying around. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own." Well said. I think Nietzsche said something about staring into the abyss... Begoon 12:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at your methodology for determining who's an UPE, I'm surprised you think it's only 60%. You accused me of being paid to edit WP, still no statement that there might be a possibility that you might be wrong (let alone a retraction), and now you go on a rant on why the process is broken. At the risk of generalising your contributions to the COI/UPE fight based on my encounter with you, I can't say I will be sorry to hear you intend to be less involved in these matters going forward. Hús  ö  nd  18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As the guy implying I should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE, no, only if you're an undisclosed paid editor, then, yeah, taxi to Inglewood for you. But, why did you never answer Randykitty's question at BN? That seems a dead cert way of stirring suspicion before you've even done anything.  SN54129  13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he felt it was ever so slightly akin to the idea of being asked when he had stopped beating his wife? Not everyone takes questions like that in good spirit. I certainly understand why they might sometimes need to be asked, and I'm not saying they should not be asked - but nobody is under any obligation to respond to interrogation and, while you may infer whatever you wish from a non-response such non-response is perfectly valid. We allow (no, we insist on) anonymous editing. There's a huge disconnect between that and the additional step of allowing interrogation of those anonymous editors about their connections. We're not going to solve the tension between anonymity and COI in this thread, and it leads to horrible situations. I'm not sure there is a solution, but I'm damn sure we won't arrive at it here. Begoon 14:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a polite question, one asked in good faith, about a reasonable clarification. Interrogation it was not. Those questions are asked (no, insisted on) every day, and—far more to the point—they were asked back in the OP's own day. This isn't some radical new expectation created just for them. And what makes a refusal to answer worse was that it was in the context of requesting tools back. Frankly, if anyone thinks it's OK to request "powerful" (in-Wikiverse) tools, but refuses to answer basic questions as to account security, then either their competence or good faith absolutely needs to be questioned: asking the community for advanced rights but unwilling to respond to a polite question? The odd thing is, they haven't demonstrated such a thin skin since, either at the AfD, or here...  SN54129  14:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was making a more general point about the ludicrous position which we take that anonymous editing is fine unless we wish to question people, in which case they must answer. I haven't looked at anything else, so if you've had other discussions with people mentioned in this thread they didn't factor into my response at all. The "beating your wife" thing was just an aside about how we think it's ok to ask unanswerable questions - well, unanswerable without prejudicing the things we say we hold inalienable. I've generally tended to agree with you in the past, and I'm sure I'd probably agree with some of whatever personal points you're making here. None of that was my point. If it's about some "resysop" request, well, ok, I haven't looked. What I'm saying is that you cannot fully allow anonymous editing and then quiz people about their identity/affiliations. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible. But, as I said, we won't solve that in this thread. Begoon 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) I very, very rarely visit BN but I think if someone mentions a question at BN, you can assume it's probably a resysop or desysop request even without knowing that Húsönd used to be an admin which was sort of indicate in this thread. But anyway, you're free to check out BN to see if you think it could be something else Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46. You can see it was indeed about a resysop request and the question had zilch to do with identity/affiliations.  I actually don't think what they said is particularly surprising given the edit history. They edited on "2020-04-30T21:09:21" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husond&diff=prev&oldid=954133378] and then next edited on "2022-04-05T13:09:15" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1081123370] which was their request on BN. So "" seems a reasonable thing to say, as they may have lost access not that long after their last edit in 2020 and then only were able to gain access again it nearly 2 years later. If I'm reading the logs correctly, they were doing enough (maybe just enough at times, not sure) to keep the bit since losing it for about a month in 2012 until they lost it in 2021 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husond&diff=1020780733&oldid=1020013923] which would seem to further support the notion they may have lost access to their account which distanced them from Wikipedia.  OTOH, I also don't think there was anything wrong with RandyKitty asking that question, it was a reasonable thing to query especially since Húsönd was asking for the bit back. If Húsönd saw it but refused to answer it that IMO does reflect poorly on them, my assumption is they just didn't see it. (They did reply twice in that thread after the question was asked [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1081136939] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1081139527] so it can't be a matter of them not checking the thread.)  I'd note that unless Húsönd transverses time in a different manner from the rest of us, whatever people may feel about the way they were treated and the questions they were asked afterwards in relation to the Remote article etc cannot be the cause or an excuse for them failing to answer Randykitty's question since all that stuff happened after the BN thread was basically dead.  Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you misunderstand the question? before anyone asked him anything. Perhaps this was a sheepish bullshit (untrue, but not meant to deceive) excuse for not having edited. RandyKitty questioned if this statement was in fact a lie (meant to deceive). 54129 knows about WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and so questions Husond's apparent need to deceive, about which the community is concerned. Husond could've just been honest and said he wants the tools back and so officially be above the law. He didn't have to excuse not recently editing, but now  if Husond didn't return to Wikipedia for honest reasons, hence the immediate and unnecessary deception. That Husond started this post at ANI only after editors started supporting deletion of the apparently-CoI article indicates his need to punish those who point out his seeming dishonesty. Of the many problems Wikipedia has, one of them is that the editing community no longer silently adheres to the political agreement that might have existed in 2006 and the oldtimers can't figure out what to do about it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While there was definitely nothing wrong with Randykitty asking the question, it's IMO also silly to make a big deal over what Húsönd said. They did basically disappear for nearly 2 years which included them losing the bit in 2021 after they'd been doing enough to keep their admin bit since briefly losing it in 2012. It seems entirely plausible that what they said is basically true, they lost access to the account for 2 years. Technically it wasn't quite 2 years, but people don't have to be that precise over timeframes. I'm reminded of a maybe somewhat unPC joke I once heard about a girlfriend questioning her boyfriend about an ex they met and then questioning him again and making a big deal when he said they dated 3 years the first time and 4 years the next time. (It's also possible they don't quite remember when in 2020 they next tried to access their account and realised they could not. And remember that people's perceptions and memory of time can often be inaccurate, I'd suggest COVID-19 has thrown it out of wack even more for many.) Of course Húsönd should have just clarified if they saw the question and if they intentionally didn't then that does IMO reflect very poorly on them. But it seems easily possible they just missed it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF didn't die out in 2006 and you need to go back to basics. Hús  ö  nd  19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply because honestly I didn't understand the point being made so I didn't give much thought to it. But going back to it, I think the user is implying that I couldn't have forgotten my password because I edited in some recent years. I can't see what's suspicious about that. I had access until one day I was prompted to type in my password and realised I didn't know what it was. I used to be permanently logged in and can't even remember when did I have to type in my password prior to that time. Hús  ö  nd  19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bit of a weird coincidence - minimally active editors suddenly creating controversial articles I mean - Remote is a character from Battle for Dream Island. It's a small world, or something. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting it in the record: Battle for Dream Island is NOT a children's show. not all animation is for kids, aight? casualdejekyll 15:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Threat of violence
An edit-warring IP editor is making threats of violence at Greeks for the Fatherland:. Can we please have the revisions deleted, and the page temporarily semi-protected? Storchy (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for making threats. Not sure we need to revdel and protect the page. Lets see where it goes. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is block evasion by /. I'm not giving away any CU results there - I can't remember their IPs off the top of my head - but from the editing style and the choice of articles, it's pretty ducky. Feel free to report future occurences to SPI (or AIV when it's this obvious). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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


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


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

I was only removing your fabricated false definition and following what other ethnic Australian wikipages have defined. Chinese ancestry are those of full or partial Chinese roots just like the wikipage African Americans identified Barack Obama as African American despite his mother being of European and the wikipage Cornish Australians identified Robert Menzies as Cornish Australian even though his father is not Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You continuesly refuse in constructive cooperation in the creation of the encyclopedia and continue to project personal attacks, accusing me of "false fabrication" of something. And what does this have to do with African Americans and Barack Obama? In the United States, a different definition of ethnicity has historically developed in the context of blacks, and even more so, Barack Obama associates himself with African Americans, which is confirmed by sources. Even before you registered an account in the project and started making changes, the Chinese Australians page had a well-established definition for a long time, and if you do not like it, you must first come to a consensus in the discussion in order to change it. Wikipedia does not standardize definitions from other articles. It is also unacceptable to make unconstructive edits, replacing quotes from reliable sources with your own thoughts. TyronMcLannister (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OR and CIVIL issues with user Rooveaouravevo


Rooveaouravevo this is a new account created less than a week ago whose entire field of interest is original research of citing sources in specific two articles: and, as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own without consensus with other contributors. To my friendly and polite attempt to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he made a false claim that his edits were based sources  and then began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators talk pages as we can see,. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, it seems way too early to conclude Rooveaouravevo is NOTHERE. Yes they don't seem to understanding our sourcing requirements and are way too quick to throw around accusations but I see no reason to think they aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. While you have made an effort to engage with them on their talk page, it's often difficult especially for a new editor to see the other editor is right when they're in direct dispute with this editor. Also while your earlier effort was decent [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARooveaouravevo&type=revision&diff=1082891521&oldid=1082249826], you too seem to have descended into false accusations of vandalism [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rooveaouravevo&diff=prev&oldid=1082929650]. Since you yourself have seemingly been here for less than a month, I guess this can be forgiven but it's a little bit silly to complain about an editor falsely accusing you of vandalism if you've decided to give as good as you got. I'd also note that the article talk page doesn't seem to have been touched by a person in 3.5+ years and I don't see any significant discussion of definitions even in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that your boorish opinion is somehow appropriate here? Don't project or mirror yourself in me, because that's the only thing "a little silly" here. I did 100% right in interacting with this user who was unwilling to cooperate constructively and deliberately changed the meaning of source citations, wherever he made any edits. But you twisted the whole context of my actions in your comment. It even looks like you are interested in this controversial account in some way. TyronMcLannister (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedians who have the time should speak up when an editor is proposing action against another editor without evidence or reason to support such action. And no, you were not 100% right. You cannot falsely accuse an editor of vandalism just because they falsely accused you of vandalism, that's ludicrous. It's actually still a personal attack which could lead to you being blocked just the same as Rooveaouravevo, but Rooveaouravevo has already been warned by the IP above. Since you yourself apparently a new editor, we can be taken as a case of the blind leading the blind, but we can fairly say perhaps one of the reasons Rooveaouravevo is confused about what vandalism is is because they were unfortunately taught incorrectly by you. Also, to some extent Rooveaouravevo is now starting to "win" this content dispute in behavioural terms (which is what interests us at ANI) since they've made it to the talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Australians&diff=prev&oldid=1083116639] while you have not. While it was perhaps a good thing to approach Rooveaouravevo directly especially as a new editor; as always teach don't preach. Since you yourself are involved in the content dispute and edit warring to boot, at some stage and especially before you came to ANI to complain, you should have started the talk page discussion and invited them rather than waiting for Rooveaouravevo to do so. Whatever WP:ONUS says (and it doesn't say it's okay for either party to edit war), it's incredibly lame when an editor comes to ANI and there's zero talk page discussion because one or both editors are insisting the other editor needs to be the one to initiate it.  My earlier point is an important one, we don't deal in content disputes here so it doesn't matter much to us who might be right in the content dispute with the possible exception of cases where the content changes are so terrible that no editor can reasonably defend them, simply the editor's behaviours in the content dispute and starting a talk page discussion is one of the very basic requirements.  Again, I'm taking you as your edit history suggests as a new editor so won't bring WP:BITE etc in to it, however you still should not expect to be treated favourably at ANI if you're going to propose severe action against another editor and your own track record in the dispute is very far from the ideal.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If they have nothing to say other than baseless accusations to "defend" someone who is wrong but has a similar view on the "topic" being contested, then they should not speak up. TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For once I have to agree with Nil Einne, who has perhaps been a little harsh on you, just as you are being harsh with Rooveaouravevo. It's inconsistent for you to complain about someone else's incivility and then call his opinion "boorish". Deb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another mushroom after the rain... You seem to have misunderstood my comment, just as Neil Einne misunderstood my actions towards the user: I'm not "complaining" about his tone, I'm not truth sensitive and I'm proud of it. I complain about his hypocritical passive-aggressive false accusations that I am "not sincere" in my actions, he literally projects himself and mirrors these qualities to me, and everything else is a rhetorical device. Again, you do not need to project to me the qualities that you yourself have, but ask directly. Better to be honest but rude than pseudo-polite and projective. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Best of all to read WP:CIVIL before you get a well deserved block for aggressive assholery. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to scare me, it won't work anyway, better turn your advice to yourself. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Tread carefully. Between this and your attempted refactoring someone else's edit, you are on very thin ice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How about the comment right above yours. This is not even rudeness, but something more. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have used another term. But the principle difference is that your uncivil commentary looks like an ongoing pattern of behavior compounded by a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you have such a view of the situation. Because i'm actually sincerely support constructive criticism with facts and logic and i'm ready to change as soon as there is a reason for it. But i can't tolerate slander and manipulations. I am ready to admit that I am a bit rude in rhetoric by American standarts, which means Wikipedia standards (but I am Russian and this is not "rude" here) - there is a factor of cultural differences but I can adapt, also I mistaken in editing another answer, but I do not admit rest of the accusations, such as accusing me of being "insincerity" about my concerns from one of the local "rules experts". He initially stated that I allegedly "out of revenge" warned the editor about vandalism on his page, such an accusation does not hold water, because I left evidence that the editor was first warned about the rules of Wikipedia in a friendly and polite manner, but Rooveaouravevo not only didn't listen and consciously continued to do what he did, but also went to slander me, accusing ME of vandalism. Nil Einne literally rearranged the context of my actions, created strawman to make my complaint look irrelevant and absurd. So I reacted to his comments as I reacted. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , since the issue is already being discussed here at ANI, it's unhelpful to also raise the issue on individual admins' talk pages. Please see WP:FORUMSHOP. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no reason to poke other admins. Especially if they do not respond in your favour (Prime example of WP:BOOMERANG. Sorry, but I'm not your friend.) . — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 18:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not the first admin to approach this situation in this way: with harsh criticism of my actions. I'm not blaming anyone, perhaps i look like a wolf near a flock of sheep. I have already explained, in detail, to another admin my point of view on this situation and why my (unmistakable errorenous) tone was the way it was, and it looks like he changed categorical judgment some way, at least didnt challenged and didnt banned account. You can read this explanation some above. In turn, I already carefully studied the rules and will change my tone towards "controversial" acts of other users. Not because of the risk of a ban (I don't care and I can finely live with it), but because I don't want to bring destruction and more conflict to the encyclopedia that I have been using in many languages for many years. I don't intend to bother you anymore, good luck! TyronMcLannister (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out something I wasn't aware at the time of my earlier replies. This isn't the simple case that I thought it was where Rooveaouravevo was trying to introduce a change and TyronMcLannister was reverting. In fact, TyronMcLannister had recently removed a bunch of names [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Australians&type=revision&diff=1080549353&oldid=1080420198] and even more in another article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_Australians&type=revision&diff=1080552136&oldid=1078110469]. While it was a few days before Rooveaouravevo came along, it hadn't been long enough that TyronMcLannister can reasonably be consider the stable version or WP:status quo ante bellum. I didn't check when these names were added but I'm guessing it was over time, long enough that most or all of them can be considered part of the status quo. While Rooveaouravevo was also trying to make some other changes which were IMO unhelpful to the situation, and also unnecessary since there was nothing in the article restricting it to people of full descent as TyronMcLannister seemed to suggest, the reversion of the removal of names could reasonably be considered a recent change being reverted. This doesn't mean it was a good idea, notably a number of those people removed are living persons and there are no sources for anyone so removing them is likely justified although this does apply to everyone whether full or partial descent. However it does IMO further emphasise my point of why most of the time it's spectacularly unhelpful for one editor to be insisting that the other editor needs to be the one to start the article talk page discussion since without considering BLP, BRD would imply we stick with the reversion before TyronMcLannister removed those names. Someone just needs to do it and get on with it (there are exceptions where we can understand an editor leaving it for the other party). Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * > While it was a few days before Rooveaouravevo came along, it hadn't been long enough that TyronMcLannister can reasonably be consider the stable version or WP:status quo ante bellum.
 * In fact we can consider my edits as a reasonable status quo, since there is no rule ANYWHERE specifying from when an edit can be considered as such. It's been more than a week since my edits to the article since user Rooveaouravevo started disputing them, so there's no contradiction in the rule that EXACTLY this account should have started a discussion in order to change something that causes controversy. Also, the article prior to Rooveaouravevo's edits did not suggest that it was appropriate to include people of mixed ancestry, that why user changed defenition in lead to make his edits appropriate. It seems that I have already made a compromise - I removed all people without clear reliable sources that points their ethnicity. If there still need another compromise that suits both, then I'm ready to hear suggestions from Rooveaouravevo in the already ongoing discussion on the Talk page TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is... a novel take. No, a week isn't enough to establish the status quo, and Wikilawyering about the timeframe not being codified isn't a good look. I am glad you're discussing it on the talk page, though. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So you also have the opinion that a week is not enough to establish the status quo in the article. But what are your considerations and how much is enough then to approve this status? Considering the fact that it is not my edits that are not inconsistent with the spirit of earlier version of the article that are being disputed, but the edits of another user who even registered week after my edits. I don't consider my previous statement to be some kind of "wikilabel" just out of a desire to be clear and reach constructivity, otherwise anyone can name a convenient time for them and use it as a rhetorical device to point out that the other editor is wrong. We don't want that here, do we? The main thing is that the dispute is already being actively resolved on the talk page and it seems to me that Rooveaouravevo suits my compromise. TyronMcLannister (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Trolling, possible compromised account or just an editor with an agenda?
I came across what I assumed to be vandalism from a new account at Jack Posobiec by. I was surprised to see a long term editor thought inserting their personal commentary into a mainspace article was appropriate, so I left them a warning, which they responded with some pretty nasty statements, including some anti-semetic remarks. I'm asking for an idefinite block at this point because it doesn't appear they're here to contribute meaningfully and only here to support their personal agenda, as evidenced by their past edits and block history CUPIDICAE💕  18:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Slanted political opinions are dripping from every word. Do you truly lack self-awareness? Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting. Your day is coming. The world is not taking this crap any longer.
 * Grow up, you childish, petulant, globalist drone. There is no originality, critical thinking or open-minded acceptance of opposing opinions. You are driving our society directly into the evils of authoritarian control. No debate means no originality.


 * Yeah, I don't think we can just ignore that. This is laced with WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  I would support an indef, but prefer it be a community decision.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially given their most recent response...I'd say a cban is warranted. CUPIDICAE💕  19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems kind of weird. I went through their contribution history (last 1000) and they seemed to make anodyne edits until suddenly going off the rails today. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Schazjmd: is there a possibility of a compromised account? This seems like a weird time, place, and manner for an editor to just snap that way... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspected the same but I'm fairly confident they're not actually compromised, but given they gave their real identity, a quick google search shows this to be...part of their personality to say the least. CUPIDICAE💕  19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ah. that's a real shame. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A cban would definitely be overkill here, there is no long history of problems. This was sudden, but severe.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a cban is ever inappropriate for someone who is spouting racist and anti-semetic dogwhistles (really, it's a vuvuzela.) CUPIDICAE💕  20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * erm... Whats racist dogwhistles? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I linked it in my opening statement, the use of globalist is a known alt-right/far-right/right-wing dog whistle usually referring to Jews. More context, and more and even more CUPIDICAE💕 12:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the chance you're asking what a dogwhistle itself is, there's an article for that: Dog whistle (politics) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Role account
Two years ago this account was changed to a role account.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to do in such circumstances, but it does seem to go against WP:ROLE. What are we supposed to do in such circumstances?

jps (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It hasn't edited for a while, but I'd suggest soft blocking it, and putting a polite notice inviting any individuals involved to create their own account, with a suggestion that they create usernames that indicate their involvement with the project (e.g. Joe@CMUHCI). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  12:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize this is tilting at windmills, but every time I see a report like this somewhere, I feel irresistibly compelled to point out that, while technically against The Rules, there is no rational basis for preventing this kind of account. IMHO, the correct response to "What are we supposed to do in such circumstances" is: Meh.  Nothing. Don't worry about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. However, then we should modify WP:ROLE. I don't know why that rule exists; maybe it shouldn't. jps (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a CC copyright attribution issue with role accounts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. CC requires attribution to the creator of the work, or attribution in accordance with the Licensor's wishes, and there is no reason the Licensor and/or creator couldn't be an organization rather than an individual. The CC Wiki says: I don't see why a role account would be a problem from a CC standpoint.
 * I think a bigger challenge is verifying a role account. If there was a "User:Acme, Inc.", we'd have to somehow get some kind of verification that Acme, Inc. authorized the user account to be its official account (and to create copyrighted works in the name of the company, and to license them under our license, etc.). We'd have to have a "verified" status much like other social media, and then we'd have to have someone (volunteers? WMF?) to process verification requests.
 * Without verification, I'm not sure how we can rely on the license. I suspect that's the reason behind disallowing role accounts. Levivich 15:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is an argument for making sure that attribution is to the username only and not any external identity be it individual or group! If an account is declared to be a "role" account and the account chooses a name against WP:UNAME policy, then that's one thing. But if it is a role account and has a username like Bobo.03, I don't see the problem being one of "verification". jps (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, it appears I'm repeating much of what Levivich wrote) That's what people say. But I've never heard a good explanation of why that would be true, BUT it isn't a CC violation when a role account explicitly approved by WMF makes an edit (remember CC violations are legal, not local policy, so if it actually is a violation, WMF can't say "it's OK because it's us").  Also, that would presumably preclude IP edits, too, but no one is preventing those.  If someone makes an edit from a shared IP, why is that OK, but not when they make an edit from a shared account?  I really think the copyright issue is not true.
 * The only actual rational reason to prevent role accounts is, if we give one to Coca Cola Co., then we have to start policing them to make sure it isn't someone from the social media dept of Pepsi Co. having a troll. Or a disgruntled Coke employee changing the password and email and now Coke doesn't have an account anymore.  We don't want to get into that large scale, I suspect.  But this is not a concern for the current situation, hence my suggestion we simply chose to not worry about it. As long as everyone involved with a role account is behaving themselves, and understands that the role account will be blocked if any one of them acts up, it isn't an actual problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Floquenbeam: dewiki does exactly that, see de:Kategorie:Benutzer:Verifiziert (most of these users are role accounts, many of them paid). I always weep when I see one of these accounts that have gone through the hoops of verification via VRT (see de:Wikipedia:Support-Team) blocked on enwiki. We have SUL, but behaviour that is encouraged on dewiki (editing from an authenticated role account) earns an instant block on enwiki. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent argument for trashing the rule. We can discourage role accounts, but to eliminate them entirely seems like a rule that is causing more problems than it likely solves. jps (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am writing an OER textbook right now and am pretty aware that a CC license does not care whether the author is an individual or a group. That this argument forms part of the WP:SOCK policy might indicate that it was a result of concern over weird gaming of the sort where people with individual accounts sockpuppet with role accounts? I could see this as a concern over someone perhaps trying to skirt around a block/ban... but that would be an illegitimate use of an account in any case and does not seem a justification for simply banning all role accounts. jps (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have started a VP thread on this matter. Feel free to comment there: Village_pump_(policy). jps (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. I see from the comments above that my initial suggestion seems a little out of step with the way me learnèd colleagues are leaning. I've always assumed that the policy enjoyed strong community support because, well, it was policy, and I've enforced it as such. If none of us can remember why it's policy, and we're happy to ignore it, then a move to change it is the way to go. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not just imagining things, the last discussion on this issue was here. That looked like pretty thorough agreement. Not that things can't change, but it certainly was strong at the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. Weird that the proposal was to combine this with OTRS verification scheme. I don't understand why we can't just allow role accounts and leave it at that... but I'll defer to the Village Pump discussion to consider this question. jps (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Frediemie
This is an editor who replaces WP:DEADREFs with working URLs, where any given day of edits from them has several neutral replacements of dead references, and one or two terrible affiliate-link blogs about household appliances, mostly air purifiers or dehumidifiers. They received a level 4 warning for spamming last July. Draft:Air Purifier CADR Determination was an article they created in October that got moved to draft space, and where five of its eight references point to affiliate-link blog entries on cleanairdeliveryrate.com. This is either a persistent spammer promoting the same few blog domains, or a well-meaning affiliate blog fan doing as much damage as one. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To clarify, are they replacing the entire source or only the URL? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sometimes just the URL, sometimes the website field as well. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, they are clearly are not attempting to fix these dead links before replacing them, since I quickly found this for the second diff, and they need to change the entire citation when making those changes, not just the URL; e.g. this edit fundamentally changed whatever resource was being pointed to. I think it will probably be necessary to rollback all of their edits, but I'm not immediately convinced a block is necessary; has anyone tried to explain to them why what they are doing is problematic? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To some extent. There's a discussion at User_talk:Longhair from last July, immediately after they received a level 4 warning, where they're asked to be more careful about what links they add, and told that commercial links are generally not welcome. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at that thread, I'm not convinced that has the competence and/or sufficient grasp of English to be able to understand our sourcing guidelines and the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable sources. I'm actually at a loss for what to do here. On the one hand, I am not convinced that they are a spam account; I think they might genuinely be clueless. It looks to me like they are searching the title of the dead link, then replacing the dead URL with a similar-looking search result. Maybe start with a stern warning not to do that, followed by a ban from changing citations to dead URLs if they continue? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If they were searching for replacement URLs each time, they wouldn't be repeatedly finding the same few obscure commercial blog sites (eg., , , ). For the first of those they're removing a dead dictionary definition of "air mattress" and replacing it with a mattress comparison affiliate-link website which isn't about air mattresses at all. It's hard to imagine how they would have got there in good faith. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeat violations Qaumrambista


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

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

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


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


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

Let me answer the allegations one by one. First of all, I acknowledge that before creating this account I used to edit with an ip address. But since the account creation, I have edited only with this account. I haven't edited in Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. And the alleged desktop ip address that initiated the discussion in Syro-Malabar Church is not mine. Secondly, the block was extended to my new account only in the article Eastern Catholic Churches, and it was due to a misunderstanding. I thought I was allowed edit if I created an account as the message that I got from Wikipedia implied. Meanwhile, Pbritti is constantly and continuously vandalising articles related to Syro-Malabar Church. For example, Pbritti was repeatedly removing the sourced content in Eastern Catholic Churches and reverting to an erroneous date 1663 which one new user had added very recently. The article actually had the correct version before these erroneous edits from some ignorant users. I tried to correct it but was again reverted, this time by another user due to block evasion accusation placed by Pbritti. I urge Pbritti to avoid these kinds of vandalisms and request administrator intervention into these matters. Thirdly, I have no plan to do any sort of sockpuppetry anywhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that Pbritti is editing in bad faith; please do not label their edits as vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the IP that the user claims is not them appears to be a dynamic IP and when was tagged, that IP ceased editing entirely and the logged in user joined. This is by no means absolute evidence, but compelling enough that I had felt the need to include it. Almost too pointedly, they can't refrain from calling a user "ignorant" in this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Don't get me wrong, has a lot to learn (especially in the way of Civility), but Pbritti is a major contributor to the article for the Syro-Malabar Church. should have known when the modern day church hierarchy was set up (or at least have been willing to double check). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think either user in this scenario acted perfectly well. Per this source, I have restored the 1923 date. I think it is.. odd that was insisting on the 1663 date. That isn't reflected in the article on the Syro-Malabar Church nor cite_note-93.
 * With all due respect to, the 1663 date is the documented as the return/reestablishment of the Syro-Malabar episcopacy within the Catholic Church, which is the way other particular churches have their foundational date reckoned. The date the user offered was either the arrival of Christianity in India (irrelevant) or the latter date of a reordering of Syro-Malabar structure. The "current hierarchy" as described for the 1923 date has more relevancy to a debate over whether the Syro-Malabar would be insular to the Chaldeans or otherwise–something I can elaborate on in the talk page for this topic if you'd prefer. All of this is rather irrelevant to the matter here, where I am requesting intervention after a user repeatedly behaved uncivilly and against the standards of this website. If they disagree, they can go about it the proper way without issuing false accusations, which they have done in this thread and every other thread. They have ignored admin encouragement to improve their editing ethics. They have repeatedly demonstrated a personal agenda and engaged in personal insults. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


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

See these two discussions. Pbritti is pushing their pov.  The last discussion was initiated when I was editing with my ip address. There you can see Pbritti blindly lying. They said that the source provided backs their statement in that specific page. In reality it doesn't.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Literally, just stop assuming Pbritti is acting in bad faith, apologize for what you have said to thus far, and focus on content rather than the contributor. Do all that, and you will have a better time getting your arguments towards consensus. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear as to the POV you claim I am pushing. I say the articles suggest that the Syro-Malabar episcopacy was restored in 1663 and that this is generally the way the establishment date of particular church is reckoned. Similarly, I point to ecclesial documents and RSs for the official naming convention, which you dismissed out of turn. This is all without addressing your rudeness and apparent evasion over the use of an alternate IP. If there is an admin willing to mediate here, please intervene. It has been two days, for goodness sake, and the only one to show up ignored a talk page discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Qaumrambista: Pbritti has done nothing that can be considered blindly lying so claiming that's what doing would be uncivil.

just for consensus sake, I am not going to agree with anyone's lies. Pbritti is undoubtedly lying there. Otherwise from where did Pbritti get the date 1663 from that book. There is not even single mention of 1663 in that book as google shows. Then, from where did Pbritti alone find it.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I would like anyone passing by to know I am in a disagreement over definition, rather than reality, I'll engage with this accusation by referring to Donald Attwater's 1937 edition The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome, specifically page 213. While the date "1663" is not typed out, the phrasing used refers to the year 1662, followed with "In the following year". While I will not go so far as to call the user accusing me of "lying" as lying himself, I might encourage him to do better than pressing Control+F before impugning the character of a stranger. As an aside, I don't think I ever mentioned this message he left for me, but suffice to say that sums up my engagement with . ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

at the same time, you can find 1923 date in the same book page 203. However I did not find 1663 anywhere there. Pbritti said that they found the contrary, the date 1663, in page 213. They also said that they have the book in front. When asked to show the citation, they stopped the discussion.Qaumrambista (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, Now I see why you accused me of lying. Rather than assuming good faith when you failed to see something in a photocopied book you lack access to, you accused me of lying. Simply searching a book with the word-search feature of Google Books is an inefficient way to fully examine a text. While I would share a free PDF of the book, none seems available. Willing to post a picture of the book if needed! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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


 * As I just mentioned: a PDF is not freely available. I, being a massive fan of David Attwater and having made a point of owning nearly every book he (and his wife) wrote, own that book. I refrained from continuing that conversation because I went to bed (I live in the United States) and because I rather felt like I did not feel like typing out a full page to convince you when you had been anything but polite to me and accused me before even considering you could be wrong. However, since I'm feeling especially done with your accusations, deflections, and crassness:
 * "...and by 1662, 84 of the 116 Indian 'parishes' had returned to Catholic unity. The remained became the schismatic body now known as the Malabar Jacobites (see Vol. II). In the following year the Dutch drove out all other Europeans from Cochin. Before he went, Mgr. Sebastiani consecrated bishop, as administrator for the Indians, a native priest..."
 * ~ Donald Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East: Volume I: Churches in Communion With Rome, Pg. 213
 * Additionally, I would like to point out that the IP edit I linked to is you, something you've previously admitted to. What is up for discussion is not the account, but the person that is behind the IP and the account: you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the quotation says that the Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established in 1663. Pbritti claimed that the present hierarchy of the Syro-Malabar Church originates from 1663. Pbritti is pushing pov out of nowhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC) It's hard to figure out what the remedy for the conduct issue is here. If Qaumrambista makes another personal attack, I would just suggest finding a random admin to apply an indef block. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting out of hand. WP:DROPTHESTICK. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This editor has been abusive from the get-go and has ignored multiple other warnings/requests. Can't more action be taken? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, so I can't really do much on the conduct side to resolve this. I've opened up a new section of the talk page to try and get clear consensus for the date.
 * Thanks for the advice, sorry for presuming you're an admin! Thanks for starting that discussion. There are some other details that could be hashed out, but your proposal seems more than sufficient until the day there are more editors who focus on this topic who are willing to contribute to a new consensus. More of a question about how all this works because this is the first time encountering a repeatedly mean editor: how does one go about getting the attention of admins? I sourced some very flagrant diffs and priors, and all I received was your input (no offense, yours has been substantive, efficacious, and patient input). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Guerillero could you help here possibly?
 * Maximilian775 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been summoned. Thank you,, for alerting me to this. I just formally alerted you both to the existence of discretionary sanctions that apply to all India-related topics. These sanctions allow administrators to unilaterally impose topic bans and blocks. I also just full protected Syro-Malabar Church for the next month. That means neither of you will be able to edit the article. Please come to a consensus on the talk page. My talk page and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard are open if either of you stonewall the conversation, bludgeon the process, use an IP address to edit improperly, or are otherwise uncivil. --  Guerillero  Parlez Moi 10:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not abused anyone in my account and I have not edited via ip address since this account creation or alternatively created another account. Hence Pbritti's unnecessary complaints are aimed at getting rid of me so that they can edit without being checked or questioned. Qaumrambista (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting immediate admin action for an Indef
As detailed in my above messages and by themselves here, they are unwilling to treat editors in a polite manner when they disagree. Further, the editor is willing to ignore 18 years of precedent because their edits were left up for a day. They have told me to "piss off," called my edits "ignorance and stupidity," wrongly accused me of "brazenly lying," been deceitful about IP usage, and been unreasonable when mediation was offered. Per the advice of, I am seeking an indef. I will remain outside of deliberation unless there are questions–I'm at the end of my straw. Taking the random admin recommendation to heart, is there any way could intervene? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I deny Pbritti's allegation. I haven't done any personal attacks on them. When I have raised the contradictions in their argument, they are calling it "unwilling to treat editors in a polite manner when they disagree". In reality, Pbritti is hesitant to create a consensus in the article talk pages and is pushing their pov. I am only requesting status quo ante that prevailed for years before Pbritti's questionable edits in both articles. Pbritti is, meanwhile, pushing their pov despite after other users having opposed it. Qaumrambista (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There has been a very long discussion about this before and a consensus was created, which Pbritti, alone is challenging.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Jstar Ahmed
User:Jstar Ahmed has resumed adding unsourced, gushing fan prose to articles about Indian films and film actors, following their week-long block on 29 March. A good example is this edit:, made 10 hours after I cleared out most of the fan language in Uttam Kumar. They also like to add unsourced claims of awards and films' gross revenue:,. A few editors have been cleaning up after them since their block, but Jstar Ahmed doesn't seem to take any notice of the warnings about unsourced puffery on their talk page. Storchy (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The gushing prose is indeed terrible, and their first edit stripped out all references in the (introductory) segment they edited. There may be deleted edits I can't see, but they appear to have edited in the Talk namespace only when creating the talk page for a new article, in the User talk namespace never, and I don't see any edit summaries either. All edits are tagged mobile and mobile web; so I conclude this is another victim of the horrible mobile apps who has no idea we're trying to communicate with them. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user for 1 month to ramp up from the previous 1 week block to prevent further disruption. If this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU then we may just have to indef them. Oz\InterAct 08:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Egregious talk page message
Hello, I think this message needs a revision deletion, and the user who left it probably needs a block. Endwise (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk page message in question
 * Talk page message in question


 * A look through this editor's other contributions suggests a WP:NOTHERE block would be a good idea. Some other diffs full of racial slurs, insults   , conspiracy theory rubbish  . 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Gone. El_C 12:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Endwise (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Odd behavior and probable sockpuppetry - CIR or LTA?
For a couple of months now, there has been editing from a wide array of IPs and at least three registered accounts that ranges from puzzling to clearly disruptive. (I have compiled a list of the IPs and a bit of detail on editing patterns here.) List of Ford vehicles has been a favorite target; the history is filled with disruption from what is likely the same person.



CornyTheEditor has been on WP since August 2021 and claimed to "Be Retiring This User For Good" and the OffifialEditor account subsequently commenced editing, including re-adding the same nonsense that the IPs and previous account were. ObjectAnimator's earliest activity included edits to CornyTheEditor's sandbox, just days after the latter began editing. Then, stopped editing for months, until re-starting just after OffifialEditor stopped.

One IP is apparently static and is currently under a block for making edits like adding nonsensical car assembly locations. ObjectAnimator is doing the same but usually self-reverts.

Should I open an SPI for this? I didn't want to go there straight away since this is a bit on the confusing side.

In any case, ObjectAnimator is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia as nearly all edits are self-reverted vandalism. OffifialEditor is mostly here to do... something on that user talk page, and CornyTheEditor's most recent activity was to add on random articles in response to List of Ford vehicles being semi-protected after a spate of IP vandalism; even without the likely sockpuppetry, I think all could be blocked for either CIR or NOTHERE reasons.

I can provide more detail if needed but I don't want to create an even bigger wall of text here if not entirely necessary. --Sable232 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Provide more details. Gimmie everything you got. I have a hunch this could be an SPI and CIR editor, but I need more info on this to confirm my hunch before I start marshaling the fleet as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the editing is very fishy, so I took a look. is  evading their block;  and  are ✅ to one another; they might very well be DavidWittas/Corny, or they might be someone else, but they're both heavily editing out of an IP that is currently blocked for the same kind of disruptive editing so I'm going to block them as well. Feel free to present any more evidence, if there are more accounts involved (but I didn't see any in the checks I made).  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on this which I just noticed, it's clear that it is in fact all the same person. I think I got all the accounts; if IPs keep doing the same stuff, let us know. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I had a gut feeling that this wasn't the editor's first time - I guess I was right. Interesting how the area of interest changed from the original account to the socks, but it should be easy enough to identify new ones going forward. --Sable232 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

3G article problems
I've been dealing with the user Nightwalker-87 on the article 3G; where he is insisting on reverting to an older, somewhat outdated version of a table and making completely incorrect comments about policies/guidelines.

It starts when I attempted to add a table about 3G shutdowns in various countries to 3G; I did not see or know of a table like this that already existed on the page (definitely was my mistake). However, I did put good effort into the table, and it was somewhat more up to date than the previous table (see my table vs. the current table that Nightwalker is pushing).

Another editor then reverts the duplicate table correctly (I thought they were wrong at first), but another IP gave me pointers and told me that I should merge it. So I decided to. (yes, I am the user of the IPv6 range that made these edits; yes, it is allowed, I'm not deceiving others and will happily connect me and my IP range if asked)

While I was working on the merge of the two tables, Nightwalker performed "formatting corrections" on the table that I was about to merge to. I merged the tables, not knowing about what he was doing, and then he immediately reverted saying that I was "messing up the table formatting" and "adding unnecessary descriptions" (not true at all). I figured he may have been confused, so I reverted again and left him a note in the edit summary basically saying that I was merging two tables and also trying to make another edit in the process (changing some original research dates).

He then reverts it again, saying that he was "updating several countries", the thing is that he reinstated the original version of the table.

I decide to leave him a talk page comment after this, about what I felt was wrong with the original table and why he should have not reinstated it, including that some of the dates were based on outdated information and not newer sources that had different, more up-to-date information (ex. in the Lithuania part of the table, it originally said December 31, 2022, which was cited to an older source, but a newer source from February of this year says by Christmas 2022 instead) and that the South Korea part of the section was actually about 2G and not 3G.

He then moves my talk page comment to Talk:3G and states that me telling him about some problems I have with his reversions is "misuse" of his user talk page. I do not know of any policy or guideline that states this.

He then posts a response, which I feel is underwhelming and wrong in many ways because:
 * "Has there been an intervention from the administrative side" - There was no administrative action taken at all at that point
 * "The two recent reverts I've been notified about seem to have vanished" - None of my reverts have vanished, they are still in the page history of the 3G article
 * "All points can be verified ..." - Some points indeed could not be verified, were incorrect, or had no source, like the South Korean part of the table (which was about the 2G shutdowns there and said nothing about 3G shutting down) or how one shutdown date in Taiwan (Asia Pacific Telecom) had no source at all.
 * "... and therefore were present in the list for a long time without any second guess by anyone though several contributors interacted in the meanwhile" - Sometimes incorrect or out-of-date information stays on WP even though edits were made in the meantime. It's a normal thing, and not a reason to reinstate said incorrect or out-of-date information.

I responded this time logged-in, addressing his points. I figured that it must be a mistake, but he responded saying that it was not, I felt as if this was wrong again because:
 * "It is a matter of fact that a whole bunch of information vanished without any reason since 06 Mar 2022 in a sequence of obviously unorganised an chaotic edits - and that is definitely not in common interest" - Nothing vanished... I was merging two tables together, and removing some things that I found to be wrong or inaccurate. The purpose of my original talk page messages was to explain most of what I removed and why.
 * "So against this background I clearly request to quit any further destructive approaches ..." - Nothing was destructive! I was simply merging my duplicate table with an existing one.

I'm lost as to what to do here; I'm unsure if this is just a weird language barrier issue, intentional bad faith, or WP:OWN behavior, but it's gotten past a point where I could use another opinion or some help; WP:3RR has probably been broken by this point at the main article already and I don't wish to cause more conflict.

wizzito &#124;  say hello!  08:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , Your interpretation of WP:LOGOUT is plain wrong. You edited the article interchangeably as yourself & your IP for over a month. That is WP:LOUTSOCK sockpuppetry. You took no steps to contact an oversighter. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I count 35 pages in which both you and your IP have edited, including four in which you have reverted the changes of another editor to the revision made by your IP. Three days is a customary first block for this level of sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but just to comment, I don't see this as an ANI issue. It is a content dispute that should be handled in other ways. The poster's inadvertent outing of themselves as a possible WP:LOUTSOCK notwithstanding, the content dispute could do with attention from outside the current active editors of the page, and I've started having a look at it. Of course, to get this attention the issue should have been posted elsewhere. SamBC(talk) 15:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Block of Wizzito
Why did you block without giving him a chance to respond? Yes, he misinterpreted the policy. But we have an enormously productive editor, 1000x WP:HERE, who made a single mistake. I truly doubt he intended to engage in deliberate deception. This seems WP:PUNITIVE, and a complete failure to WP:AGF. Or have WP:LOUTSOCK issues been discussed with Wizzito before? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Especially if there's no evidence of the user trying to act as if their logged out self was a separate individual (such as gaming 3RR that way or pretending to be separate people in a discussion). Silver  seren C 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. In the discussion at that talk page ; while I can understand the concern that they might have been unintentionally misleading, as they have not tried to deceive other editors good faith should be been assumed and the issue explained to Wizzito rather than jumping straight to a block - they should be unblocked with a note stating that the previous block was in error.
 * I'm also not convinced they have breached LOUTSOCK; the closest they come to doing so is with the rule on Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, but there is an exception for clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts and given they disclosed on the talk page that they were the IP I believe that exception applies - although it is generally inadvisable and would suggest that Wizzito avoid doing so in the future.
 * As a side note, whoever redacted the IP address in 3G may want to do the same on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 72 hours for an editor with no previous blocks and no warning on their talk page is out of line. IMO this is punitive rather than preventative. Please explain yourself . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Cabayi has on their user page a notice saying "Feel free to revert any of my admin actions without consulting me (we're all trying to enforce the same policies)", any other admin should feel free to unblock Wizzito. And I think there's enough of a consensus here for any admin to do so. Silver  seren C 01:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this one looks kinda questionable to me. I dropped a line on Cabayi's talk page asking them to either take another look or offer a more detailed explanation that addresses some of the above concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Cabayi above: "I count 35 pages in which both you and your IP have edited, including four in which you have reverted the changes of another editor to the revision made by your IP." If this wasn't a prolific editor, this would have been an indef, and nobody would have thought twice about it. A 72-hour block is being pretty nice about it. It's a pretty clearcut violation of LOUTSOCK, and is precisely the problem that LOUTSOCK is intended to address. There were zero contacts to oversighters from Wizzito about accidental log-out, although we have plenty of evidence that they know how to reach out to us. Risker (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would he contact oversight when he is open about the connection with the IP? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What is this block preventing? We could just ask the editor not to edit logged out... Levivich 05:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wizzito asserted above "yes, it is allowed, I'm not deceiving others" and linked to the policy on sockpupptry.
 * The policy's 6th example is "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts:" Wizzito did that on 35 occasions.
 * The policy's 1st example is "Creating an illusion of support" which Wizzito did on the 4 instances where he reverted another user's edits to restore the revision of his IP, with an interval of just one minute for one of those. That was neither accidental or casual.
 * The policy's most lenient outcome is a block. Three days is a standard block for a an account's first socking case.
 * I self-reported both the oversighting and the block to the oversighters' mailing list for review as soon as I was done. Cabayi (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sixth example, there is an exception for clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts. As Wizzito has clearly disclosed the IP as his, I believe the exception applies. In general, though I haven't seen specific examples outside of the 3G article, I believe based on that most of their edits as an IP are by mistake, such as forgetting to log in, either in general or when switching machines. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This looks like a simple misunderstanding of the rules on Wizzito's part, followed by a punitive block due to an overzealous application of a rule which probably shouldn't apply in a case like this.  Tewdar   09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * (Crocodile Dundee voice) That's not a sockpuppeteer! This is a sockpuppeteer!!!  Tewdar   09:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The IPs have been OS'd (an action I'm not sure I agree with, for what it's worth), so I'm not sure how productive a block review by non-OSers will be, since we can only speculate about whether or not abuse occurred, and if yes, to what extent. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the diffs can still be linked (such as ) BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * can you please explain what you meant by ? Cuz WP:NOTPUNITIVE, etc. We don't do mandatory minimum sentences here, surely you're not suggesting otherwise. What is this block preventing? Levivich 13:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a note on Wizzito's talkpage with the hope of helping to resolve this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * for the avoidance of accidentally getting myself hauled in front of ArbCom: this is not a Checkuser or Oversight block of any kind, right? It doesn't say it is anywhere I can see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like Cabayi isn't around right now, I've re-read this thread and Wizzito's talk page and they don't seem to be calling it a Checkuser block anywhere, they say on their talk page it's OK to undo their admin actions, and there's a very clear consensus in this thread to undo the block. So I'm going to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me join the chorus of other editors who note that the block is not within policy here. Wizzito serves no continuing threat to the encyclopedia, there is nothing the block is preventing, WP:AGF should have been applied regarding accidental logged out editing, and Wizzito has been publicly owning the IPs they used.  This block needs to be undone, if not by Cabayi, then by consensus demonstrated in this discussion here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this was plain insensitive, and not at all "genuine". You blocked a kid, who has been a frequent target of some disgusting harassment, who has been a member of this community for a third of his life, for doing something he thought was right, without a hint of warning. And the next step is for you to sneer at his utterly understandable reaction to this by dismissively calling it a "ragequit". Have you lost sight of the fact that there is a human being at the end of every connection? I feel sick. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unblock I appreciate Cabayi's work as an admin and I'm painfully conscious that we all make mistakes now and then. So this is not an indictment. Wizzito's editing was in fact dancing a bit close to being inappropriate. But there are several things that cause me to believe this block was too hasty.
 * I see no clear evidence of bad faith in their actions.
 * They made no effort at all to disguise their identity. Quite the contrary, they were totally open about it.
 * No warnings were given and this does not strike me as rising to the level of a no warning block.
 * There is no evidence that this block serves any preventative purpose. Wizzito is not a threat to the project and I have a high degree of confidence that they will be extremely careful about this sort of thing going forward.
 * I recommend they be unblocked with a notation in the block log to the effect that the block was overturned on review at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Unblocked already since I may have buried this information when I noted it further up in the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No,, it wasn't a CU or OS block.
 * No,, it wasn't "accidental logged out editing". 800+ logged out edits, with 35 overlaps over several months is in no way accidental. Using both account & IP on a page within a minute is not an accident.
 * "Fuck it. I'm leaving this website" reads like a ragequit to me, . No sneering, just a straight reading of the edit summary. Cabayi (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective Cabayi. How's that going for you?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Good unblock, thanks Floq. I hope Cabayi and anyone else on the OS team who thought this was a good block takes away that no policy's most lenient outcome is a block and there is no such thing as a starting block, because blocking is WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Except in extreme circumstances (and this was not an extreme circumstances), blocks shouldn't be issued unless a warning was first issued, because, and it's worth saying again, blocks are WP:NOTPUNITIVE. That means if you can get someone to stop doing something by asking them to stop doing it, you should do that, and not block the person. Until and unless you've talked to the person, you have almost no reason to use admin tools; this is especially true when there is already an ongoing discussion with the person about the conduct at issue. There are no minimum blocks, no starting blocks, no mandatory blocks, and a block is never the most lenient outcome of any policy. Everyone on the OS team who thought otherwise should read this discussion and take it on board. Levivich 16:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Initial report remains
Just wanted to point out that as the dust settles, the aftermath seems to be that a prolific editor has retired while his initial report has seemingly been forgotten. Zera/talk 20:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and bot-like editing
has started the task of adding Use dmy dates to thousands of articles, a template that for the vast majority of them results in no change at all in the visible page.

This was brought up with her at User talk:BrownHairedGirl. I've asked her to pass that through WP:BRFA, but she apparently doesn't wan to do it. I've asked her to stop several times, each time she replied that she'd explain in the morning, but instead went back to making those bot-like edits. – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of this template is part of a continuing effort to monitor the date formats used in articles, to assist in maintaining consistent formatting within an article."
 * I will explain in the morning, as I have promised to Uanfala 3 times already. I am not sure what part of that is unclear.
 * (I have still had enough brain energy to process some already-set-up some mechanical tasks, but not to write a long explanation).
 * Unfala misunderstands the purpose of Use dmy dates; its primary purpose is to guide editors (and maybe some tools) on which style of date to use. Its secondary purpose is to alter the display of dates in citation templates.
 * I am going to bed now. Good night.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl, if you want to pause your response, that's fine, but in the meantime, you should in turn also pause any of the related mass-edit tasks that are being contested. Thanks. El_C 02:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe BHG is in Ireland where it's ~ 3:30 in the morning. I'm not going to speak for her but I assume she meant morning waking hours, not technical morning hours. I have been involved in one of the threads on her Talk about a DMY-adjacent issue and she's been responsive. While it would be nice to be able to filter out these edits (and other technical fixes from a number of editors who work through backlogs), the inability to do so is a Wikipedia technical issue not a BHG issue. Star   Mississippi  02:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the question of whether these edits are needed or not, my problems are that she's effectively running a bot without approval (per WP:MEATBOT) and that she simply keeps ploughing on after each time she's asked to please stop. – Uanfala (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Many other editors commented on these edits.  Nobody else asked me to stop, and several were explicitly supportive.
 * Uanfala took up lots of my time pursuing their own false interpretation of the purpose of Use dmy dates. Maybe I should have been more blunt and told them go off and seek a consensus for their view, but I was trying to be friendly.
 * Anyway, when Uanfala failed to persuade me of their odd view about Use dmy dates, they then turned to demanding that I stop. The only editor to do after I have been doing this for several days. They demanded a preview of the explanation I was going write in the morning, and even went so far as to explicitly assume bad faith, at 01:48 You don't want to apply for bot approval because you expect people would point out WP:COSMETIC and you'd get refused?.  Nasty.
 * I dunno why Uanfala wouldn't wait until the morning for the explanation I promised, but there was an unpleasant tone to their whole approach -- in complete contrast to everyone else who discussed this work.
 * And now I am going to be feeling stressed at a time of day when I should be winding down, because I will probably have to spend a lot of the morning replying to this drama, knowing that it will probably have piled up overnight without my input. Sigh.
 * Now, back to bed. Maybe this time I will sleep.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * their own false interpretation – this apparently refers to my observation that date-formatting templates don't do much for articles that don't have dates to be formatted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting very wearing. It would be a great help to everyone if Uanfala would finally go and actually read Template:Use dmy dates, to disabuse themself of the false assumptions that a) the primary purpose of Use dmy dates is to alter the format, and/or b) that a stub article which currently has no date will never have any dates and therefore never need this template.
 * I quote from Template:Use dmy dates:
 * "The template is useful to the editors to quickly know which date format is to be used when adding new dates into an article. It also facilitates article maintenance by enabling bots to recognise use of this format, and by adding the article to the hidden category Use dmy dates.
 * The whole raison d'etre of a WP:STUB article is that it should be expanded. This template helps its development, albeit in a small way.
 * If Uanfala (or any other editor) wishes to amend the guidance on the use of the template to say "DO NOT USE THIS TEMPLATE UNLESS THE ARTICLE ALREADY HAS DATES", then they should seek a consensus for that change, rather than unilaterally demanding I adopt their view.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on, this wasn't me coming out of the blue and being blunt for no reason. Several people had already come to you with concerns (like watchlist flooding): see this thread from a week ago (where, incidentally, there was also a link to a proposal for almost exactly the same task you were now running, which met with strong opposition). And then this thread, and this one and finally this one. If you keep going with something that people have kept very gently and politely raising objections to, then you shouldn't be surprised at the moment when you're finally just asked to stop. And absolutely none of that would have happened in the fist place if you hadn't decided to go about your task in a way that breaks the bot policy. – Uanfala (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Until Uanafla got stuck in on their own personal preference for not using the template unless it alters the display, the previous concerns were about watchlist flooding, rather than about the substance.
 * The rejected proposal to which Unanfala refers (at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive_161) was drawn to my attention by @. That proposal was rejected mostly because of concerns about scope.
 * I have a lot of previous experience of handling those scope issues, through WikiProject tagging, which I first did back in late 2007 (see WP:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot). After 15 years, I have confidence in my ability to achieve a high level of accuracy in assessing these national ties at scale, and my additions of Use dmy dates have borne that out with a very low false positive rate.
 * It is frustrating to find that this non-problem is being used by Uanfala as another stick to beat me with.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * now that you both have given your respective summaries, in the spirit of de-escalation maybe take a breather from this for a short while and let others review? And BrownHairedGirl, by all means, sleep. Nothing major is going to happen while you do, so do yourself that kindness. El_C 04:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @El C. I will try again to sleep. But this drama-at-bedtime thing doesn't make sleep come easy.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope you're still able to get a good night sleep, BHG. Sweet dreams. El_C 04:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there does not appear to have been a need to bring this here to begin with. Let's please jettison it elsewhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As one of the handful of editors who have come to BHG's talk page to discuss this project, let me quote what I said: "Hallo BHG, I've got no complaints about your addition of the DMY dates template to my article creations, a lot of which are UK-based, but, belatedly, I wonder if you know any easy way that I can hide your edits (while this project continues), or your edits with that particular edit summary, from my watch list?". So I, for one, was explicitly not "Raising objections". The temporary watch-list bloat is a minor irritation, worth tolerating for a permanent improvement to those articles. But improving the functionality of the Watchlist filtering would be a help, to enable chosen edit summaries to be excluded. Pam  D  05:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a UK-based editor with (just checked) 1,862 pages on my watchlist. I reckon more than 80% of these are UK-related articles so over the past few days I've seen a lot of BHG edits. As every single one is adding something positive to articles I have zero objection to the contributions. I have done a few similar edits myself - for example modifying almost every single Scottish railway station article to change the operator from Abellio ScotRail to ScotRail - sometimes this sort of action is needed/warranted. I'm not an admin, I'm just a regular editor who happened to be passing after commenting on another ANI entry. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the issue here? The articles all look appropriate to have such a template. I wish someone would add Use mdy dates to all the Canadian articles - because I can't be bothered to put dates in references in any consistent format - and don't notice the template is missing until I see 3 different date formats in the references. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be reasonable, adding it to those articles that use day-month-year date format.   scope_creep Talk  07:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BHG's edits have been flooding my watch list as of late. It's annoying. But what's the problem? Uncontroversial and helpful edits being done at a rapid pace? Or that BHG ignored the OP's requests to stop making uncontroversial and helpful edits at a rapid pace? This seems like a fat juicy nothing burger. Do continue to annoy us, BHG. Please and thanks. – 2 . O . Boxing  08:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen about a dozen of these DMY edits in my watchlist and I must say how much I appreciate them and it reminded me to add it to a few articles that I worked on. In response to this thread I keep on thinking that a bot that looks at the WikiProjects on the talk page for an article and then sets the DMY on the page would be interesting as would a bunch of similar logic applied to a bot. Thanks again BHG. Gusfriend (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am trying to understand what the actual issue is that warranted a discussion at the incident noticeboard? What is the specific concern? AusLondonder (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sneaky forum-shopping by Uanafla
Having pestered me on my talk for hours about this issue, came here to complain about my additions of Use dmy dates. That discussion above was closed at closed at 09:27 by @Blablubbs as clear consensus that no actionable policy violation has occurred here.

However, Uanfala has WP:FORUMSHOPped this issue to at least two other venues (WT:BOTPOL) and WT:DATESPROJ.

In both cases Uanfala has failed to notify me, either by ping or by message. I became aware of this only because another editor pinged me from the discussion at WT:DATESPROJ, causing me to check Uanfala's contribs.

This sort of forum-shopping is disruptive and timewasting. The failure to notify me after 9 posts on my user talk and this ANI thread is thoroughly sneaky. It at best highly anti-collaborative, and at worst it would not be out of place in some sort of campaign of attrition against me.

Timeline: Note that there is still no notification to me of that WT:DATESPROJ discusion: not at the ANI discussion above, not at my talk, and not at WT:DATESPROJ
 * 14:40, 20 April 2022‎: Uanfala makes the first of 9 posts to my user talk about Use dmy dates
 * 01:13, 21 April 2022: Uanfala opens at WT:DATESPROJ a new discusion about the issue they had raise on my talk, without notifying me.
 * : 1:55, 21 April 2022: Uanfala opens ANI complaint about my additions of Use dmy dates. There is no mention of the parallel discussion which Uanfala had opened at WT:DATESPROJ
 * 01:57, 21 April 2022: Uanfala notifies me of the ANI thread
 * 09:27, 21 April 2022: the ANI discusion of Uanfalas's complaint is closed by @Blablubbs as clear consensus that no actionable policy violation has occurred here.
 * 12:25, 21 April 2022: at WT:DATESPROJ, Uanfala unambiguously refers to my editing, but without naming me or pinging me ... and sneakily omits to mention that they had made an ANI complaint which had been rejected
 * 12:19, 21 April 2022: Uanfala opens a 4th discussion about the same issue, at WT:BOTPOL. Again, no notification to me, and no mention that they had made an ANI complaint which had been rejected

Uanfala's drama wasted several hours of my time last night, and wrecked my sleep. I hoped that today, with the ANI thread closed, it was all over ... but instead I find it being sneakily forum-shopped to at least two other venues. So I have had to waste another hour documenting this latest mischief.

And two other discussion pages have been disrupted by Uanfala's forum-shopping, with editors at both venues not being notified that Uanfala's complaint had already been rejected.

I want to get back to work and catch up on sleep, rather than dealing with this disruption. Please can some admin make this stop? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The WT:DATESPROJ thread is about a content question ("Should all articles have a dmy/mdy template?"). The ANI discussion above was about a conduct issue. I think it's appropriate to discuss these at separate venues. Colin M (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Colin M: I appreciate that distinction. But the various discussions are closely-related, so should have been cross-notified.  Per WP:FORUMSHOP: "it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question".
 * In particular, it was invidious of Uanfala to both pester me on my talk and create an ANI drama, but not notify me that they were starting substantive discussions elsewhere on the issues involved. That was sneaky.
 * It was also disruptive not to notify participants in those other discussions that Uanfala had raised the same issues in other recent discussions.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, for the DATESPROJ post. But the BOTPOL post was clearly focussed on an individual from the opening. It was not, by any means, a neutral question regarding bots or bot policy in isolation. It is, if nothing else, common courtesy to notify an editor when one discusses them at a noticeboard.  SN54129  18:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I closed the WT:BOTPOL discussion, as it seems to be a fork of this dispute. That closure is not an endorsement of any specific edits or edit patterns, or an endorsement that the prior ANI discussion that closed in 8 hours represents a "clear consensus", nor that the suggested workaround there is effective -- just that spilling over to WT:BOTPOL at this point isn't the right place for that dispute. — xaosflux  Talk 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing that, @Xaosflux.
 * When I went to read your close, I spotted that Uanfala's opening post asserts that the issues even ended up at ANI. That use of the passive voice is an obfuscation technique to avoid acknowledging that Uanfala had themself opened that ANI discussion ... which would have revealed the forum-shopping.
 * Sadly, that obfuscation to avoid transparency is one of the forms of WP:GAMING which usually goes unsanctioned, while an editor who responds harshly to the misconduct will be pounced upon for being "uncivil".
 * Is it too much to hope that this occasion might be an exception to the pattern of giving a free pass to this sort of conduct?  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @BrownHairedGirl I try to avoid ANI stuff, I'm usually better elsewhere. I don't like the pretty obvious forum shopping, but I'm not going to hand out a block for it. I have certainly not read all of the components of this, but unless there was a lot more elsewhere (which there very well may be), I don't think the very short ANI thread above was open long enough to fully work through dispute resolution. Thinking of this from only a WP:BAG perspective, I do think that many of your recent edits would be better made with a bot flag (they are repetitive, and they should not require the same scrutiny that other edits do) - but if a community consensus has emerged that it is better that they aren't then so be it -- I don't have time to jump in to that argument right now. — xaosflux  Talk 22:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux: I too much prefer to avoid ANI stuff. But having been brought here and to several other places, the mischief of the original complainant has been highly disruptive.
 * I too would prefer that these edits were done as a bot job, but the dysfunctional bureaucracy of BAG has made that unfeasible.
 * I am not going offer any further detail here of how I reached that conclusion, because I don't have the energy for the drama. But if you would like a private discussion about it, then please email me.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I get it, I'm only trying to act in a de-drama mode right now :) — xaosflux  Talk 23:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I get that too
 * But since the multi-venue drama has brought us here, I hope that this doesn't close without at least an admonition to Uanfala to desist from sneaky forum-shopping.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the shift in tone in this conversation :) I even think that this thread may inspire me to stop doing any more "mischief" or other "sneaky" stuff and instead switch to something that the community would find more agreeable, like running a rogue bot of my own. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Uanfala here. When starting a discussion of a general question, I don't think it's good practice to frame it in a way that invites spillover from ANI drama. Was the post at the bot policy page inappropriate? Yes, I started it because I was puzzled by the opinions in the previous ANI thread, which seemed to be at variance with what I thought were the community expectations around mass edits. If an editor is to use a script to make 10,000 mainspace edits a day over a long period – so my thinking went – then they need to 1) make sure there's solid community consensus for the actions, and 2) adopt either a throttle or a bot flag so that the process doesn't wreak havoc on people's watchlists. Apparently I was wrong. I don't think I'm any nearer to understanding those elusive community expectations now, but I'm not interested in pursuing this question any further given the drama that it generates. – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Uanfala did frame it in a way that invites spillover from ANI drama, by making their first sentence all about the ANI issue ... but Uanfala accepts no responsibility for having done so, and no responsibility for their failure to notify.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop it. Now. Drop the WP:STICK. I don't care why you have a vendetta against BHG. You're being disruptive and trying to cause a nuisance for no good cause.
 * Admonishment has been given, it's not going to become a block, time for you to move on too. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mfikriansori
On Republic of Artsakh: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083792110

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083791916

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083777382

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083771809

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083722596

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1083611848

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1076808447

on Dimdim Castle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083784705

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083788546

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimdim_Castle&oldid=1083789022

Mfikriansori is conducting pro Azerbaycan edits, putting Azeri name to Kurdish castles in Iran, and doing own research on Armenain separarist region in Caucasus.

He is now banned for all deleting of edits, but i want to make the others aware of his actions thank you.

Əfşar Əliyev (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for both violating 3RR. Some of their back and forth on talk pages also crosses the line into personal attacks. I'm hoping that the 24 hour block will allow for a cool off and will be enough to remind the editors in question that we take edit warring and personal attacks seriously, but if there's further disruption this can be revisited. signed,Rosguill talk 19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Rosguill- Not to sound pessimistic, however, I believe we are dealing with a larger issue then just a WP:EW violation here. Based on Mfikriansori's talk page, the user has been warned multiple times (by multiple editors) for pushing what may be a POV agenda (or at the very least, highly disruptive edits). Mfikriansori has made hateful/WP:RUDE remarks towards myself and their editing tactics are generally not helpful nor conducive to building this encyclopedia. The user has been warned multiple times (within the past few days alone) of Wikipedia's ethos and several editors have provided policy guidelines for reference. Despite multiple attempts to engage constructively, the user has yet to comprehend- or apply- any advice given. Editors ZaniGiovanni, El_C, Laurel Lodged, Semsûrî, CMD, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran, <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><b style="color:#d90012">3</b><b style="color:#0033a0">2</b><b style="color:#f2a800">7</b>, and myself have either had to revert their disruptive edits, provide talk page warnings, or have been engaged in various discussions (on multiple article talk pages) warning/advising the user. For those reasons, it seems doubtful Mfikriansori is here to genuinely WP:BUILD this encyclopedia and this case should probably be re-examined with greater scrutiny. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't respond based on the case being filed here, but rather because I was watching Republic of Artsakh and saw the dispute unfold, so my action shouldn't preclude any actual investigation of the case as filed here. I should have been more clear about that in my first comment. signed,Rosguill talk 00:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, no worries. Thank you Rosguill for taking swift action following the edit war on Republic of Artsakh. I believe these actions further confirm Mfikriansori has been engaged in disruptive editing on multiple fronts. I will leave my above noted concerns for Admins to review/consider. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh, oldids instead of diffs, my one weakness. Erm, anyway, I think there's ethno-national disruption on the part of both users that's worthy of an indef (or a WP:TBAN if not acutely WP:SPA'yyy), but I suppose this bought us a day, so let's have cake. El_C 02:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d support a tban or indef of both users. Mfikriansori didn’t show much change even after the warning, and the other user seems to be as disruptive. I don’t see how both of them are a net benefit to the project. Especially given how much disruption AA sees weekly if not daily. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since last warning (19 April 2022) posted on my talk page, I tried to change, to learn and understand more, and avoid any edit war. You can see it through my contribution at []. I ceased my activities like removing Armenian name, deliberately adding Azerbaijani/Turkic name without consensus, or adding template. For the lattest, it is not improving. Instead I wrote a new subsection in the section of Artsakh's current status, I added new content to the demography of Georgia and Armenia, and providing sources to Hadrut Province which later reverted because seen again as not an improvement and POV push.
 * My latest edit war was with Əfşar Əliyev, not only in Artsakh's article which led to my blockage, but Dimdim Castle and Armenian mouflon. I feel justified because he clearly edited based on his hatred towards Azerbaijan. Just checked the revision history of those respective article + the reason why he did it like "whu are you abi ne yapıyorsun piç" whenhe reverted Justlettersandnumbers's contribution to the Armenian mouflon.
 * People changed and I vow to be better and to contribute positively to this free encyclopedia. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Archives908, first of all, I apologize my well-known harsh and rude remarks on you and several other experienced editors. I know it was wrong, but at that time I thought and perceived not only you, but also ZaniGiovanni, El_C, Laurel Lodged, CMD, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran, <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><b style="color:#d90012">3</b><b style="color:#0033a0">2</b><b style="color:#f2a800">7</b> as pro-Armenian editors, and I placed myself as pro-Azerbaijani editor to balance the weight, which according to my thought that time as bias towards favoring Armenia.
 * I fully acknowledge my previous mistakes and misconducts. Everyone can watch that I have been warned mutliple times through my talk page. One person asked why I didn't reply almost at all? I explained to him that my English is not that good because English is not my mother tongue, and I thought I have been ganged up when I upholded different view.
 * Since last warning on 19 April and my encountered with Əfşar Əliyev which is clearly anti-Azerbaijan looked at his edits, I began to realise that my edits, eventhough I think I am right and can freely do it, maybe not accepted by some others, as I as well do not accept Əfşar Əliyev's edit. You or other guys can see from 18:59, 19 April 2022 onwards, except for edit-war by reverting Əfşar Əliyev's edit, generally I avoided conflict and focuse on adding or expanding content. Eventhough my edits on current status of Artsakh was reverted because it's perceived as disruptive.
 * I have been watching this section since my blockage and just now get a bit free to write my self-defense and justification.
 * Since last warning, I am aware that other editors might be report me and I can be blocked soon, which I will lost one of my privilege (to join this wikipedia environment/society, which I started from Indonesian Wikipedia), so I ceased my disruptive activity and try to learn and understand various policies, specially about consensus, which honestly I don't know exist.
 * As other suggested, I refrained from adding template as usual I did to many pages, because instead of doing that, it is better for me to add an actual work/works and cite them, then replaced  completely. You can look them at [], which according to Archives908, is not an improvement hence got reverted.
 * I also read several documents and online source, then when I saw something valuable, I added them to enrich the content. One example is the number of Jews and Germans in Georgia, specially in 1922, you guys can see it here [], or adding specific number of Azerbaijani in Armenia in 1922 and work I cite, see it here []
 * Archives908 falsely mentioned that Semsûrî provide talk page warnings, or have been engaged in various discussions (on multiple article talk pages) warning/advising the user. However, as far as I am concerned, my interaction with Semsûrî is limited to the Dimdim Castle case. He never engaged with me in discussion, neither he provided talk page warnings like you did. Semsûrî also just reverted my edit once on that article, then after read his reasoning, I stop to edit the article anymore. My (likely) undisruptive edit on Dimdim Castle could be seen here [].
 * Then, this whole problem started after I began to revert Əfşar Əliyev's edit. Some of them is very serious and he didn't even shy to show his discriminatory view. You guys can look at []. He also accused me of using what he said as an IP from Baku, like this [].
 * I know edit war needs to be avoided at all cost. But, I really couldn't stand with Əfşar's edit, the same way other editors couldn't with my stubornness shown by my edits prior to 19 April 2022. Last but not least, from now on, I will keep learning and contribute positively in order to build this beloved free encylopedia together. Thank you . Mfikriansori (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You realize you just admitted to being a WP:SPA, right? Archives908 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't realised it at all. Because other than this Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, I also edited on other topics. By the way, I am waiting for your response on Hadrut Province and Mugham talk page. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't even realize you just admitted to editing because you sought to advance a "pro-Azeri" agenda is very worrisome. One of Wikipedia's basic tenants is not to pursue any personal agenda (WP:BASICS) and you have been warned about this several times now. Your confession and subsequent denial of what that implies leads me to believe that you are here to provide WP:WEIGHT on articles based on your confessed agenda. Your sudden outpour of apologies will not fool the Admins. Archives908 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Your sudden outpour of apologies will not fool the Admins." wow, very strong message, I truly like it. I am here not to fool anyone, because after realising I was wrong, I didn't continue to do so, and now, I don't . As I said with my apology and justification, I can prove that I am not breaking any Wikipedia's policy or rule. I am changed, and as proven, people could see through what I did here [].
 * Anyway, your response on Hadrut Province and Mugham talk page is waited, because you are the one who always SAID we need to seek consensus BEFORE any change could be made. Go on and say something there.
 * Lastly, you also accused me of using an IP (89.219.167.14) to push similar disruptive edits, which is unproven and hillarious. When I respond to them, you suddenly quiet. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to stop harassing editors. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, editors are not forced to edit. Please stop demanding that I reply to your messages within a time frame that only you deem appropriate. Your actions confirm that you are still ignoring Wikipedia's basic ethos, despite countless warnings. Several editors have provided you with policy guidelines recently, have you read them? I will leave a few more for your review (WP:HA, WP:BUSY). In terms of the IP (89.219.167.14) suspicions...it was actually Əfşar Əliyev that brought up your possible connection to it. And while that user is now blocked for inappropriate behaviour, I do find it odd that the IP in question targeted similar articles you did during your 24hr block. The IP also used similar vocabulary and editing tactics to your own. And now that your block is over, the IP has gone silent. Coincidence? Let's take a look at Battle of Nakhchivan (1406), you, 89.219.167.14 and 89.219.166.70 all seem to be fixated on "adding sources" to it within the same time frame (April 18-22). Let me guess, just another coincidence, right? Archives908 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For awhile after my block is over, I never harass any editors as far as I am concerned. But, I don't know if my words hurt you, because it's written in normal manner, not to threaten.
 * I asked you because suddenly after reverting my edits and created a section in the talk page titled "Recent disruption" or something like that, I replied yours and at the same time created another section, you are gone and no response from you at all. I feel cornered as apparently, no matter how hard I tried to be better and contribute positively unlike before, it is still wrong. I did once again is wrong.
 * Yes, I am slowly-reading policies other editors reminded.
 * Keep guessing, please. 89.219.166.70's lonely edit was on 05:14, 18 April 2022, which unlike your accusation, doesn't fall within the 24 hours of my block. My block started on 19:04, 20 April 2022, and 89.219.167.14's three edits, specifically on Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) started from 16:55 till 16:56. Why should I use them if I wasn't being block? My only IPs are both my laptop and handphone. If you are still suspicious, we can ask the authority to investigate my IP, those two IPs, and whether I was the person behind them or not. It should not be hard.
 * Okay, I think we need to look at what 89.219.166.70 contributed to the Battle of Nakhchivan (1406), can be seen here []. Then 89.219.167.14's edits, here [], [], and []. Now, take a look at what citation I added to the very same article, here [], [], and here []. Please, compare those of mine, with those of them (two IPs).
 * Last from me, I do not appreciate this words -> "all seem to be fixated on "adding sources" to it within the same time frame (April 18-22). Let me guess, just another coincidence, right?". Regarding why my edit is fixated on adding source, couldn't you see that Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) was unreferenced at all and on the brink of deletion. No one seems to care to find the resource and add it, then I did it. I did simply because THE ARTICLE NEEDED THAT. Guess what, I did find the article yesterday (22 April 2022, Indonesian Time UTC+7) through WikiProject Azerbaijan when I saw Battle of Nakhchivan (1406) on Proposed deletion by <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><b style="color:#d90012">3</b><b style="color:#0033a0">2</b><b style="color:#f2a800">7</b> on 18 Apr 2022. I thought, why not, I could give a try and looked for resources needed by the article, then after that, added it there. I don't think my edits are disruptive, not an improvement, or inappropriate.
 * My hobby to add new sources is well known in Indonesian Wikipedia. One of them is attached here [|Masjid Al Ihsan Balikpapan: Riwayat revisi]. I rescued that mosque article from speed deletion by adding appropriate sources.
 * Good night, thank you. Mfikriansori (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

if you think Indonesian and I are equal then ben us. i would like to get banned if it means Indonesian gets benned too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Əfşar Əliyev (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And this strays too far into racial bigotry for my liking. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * has gone ahead and blocked indefinitely with no TPA per the above comment on the grounds that it's bigotry. To be honest, my initial read of Əfşar's comment is that "Indonesian" was an autocorrect "fix" of "Mfikriansori", as I don't think there's been any reason to believe that they were Indonesian or that Indonesia has any relevance to this whatsoever. That having been said, this is clear battleground attitude and an indef block was probably coming down the line anyway... signed,Rosguill talk 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure from User:Mfikriansori's userpage they're Indonesian, it translates as "Indonesian Wikipedia User". <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...never mind then. I am once again amazed by people's ability and willingness to shoot themselves in the foot. signed,Rosguill talk 20:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like Mfikriansori is using an IP (89.219.167.14) to push similar disruptive edits on the same articles targeted prior to their 24hr block. I agree with ZaniGiovanni that this user has ignored all warnings and is evidently here to push an agenda. An indef is justifiable at this point. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof Archives908 that I use that IP to push similar disruptive edits?
 * However, your reversion of my edits on Mugham article is considered as double-standard and for me, disruptive. You asked me to seek consensus where I merely changed Shushi to Shusha, which previously without reaching any consensus Əfşar Əliyev edit it from Shusha to Shushi to fit his narrative view that Azerbaijan is fake or doesn't exist. But you which championed consensus never looked into what Əfşar Əliyev's did with the very same page. Mfikriansori (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Canterbury Tail, yes I am from Indonesia. Before Əfşar Əliyev, I also received condemnation for being an Indonesian but engaged in edit/edit war of Armenia-Azerbaijan topics from Indonesian Destroyer on 04:26, 3 March 2022. Mfikriansori (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ibawim
I attempted to request a block for this user at AIV but it was declined because the user was not "sufficiently warned" but my issue isn't with that admin. It's with this user because every edit has manual reverts to out of date information, most recently at Danny Manning. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, which I've requested blocks for violators of that policy in the past and have been granted it without the editor needing warned.-- Rockchalk 717 20:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST
Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows. They may need blocking for abuse of Wikipedia for webhosting purposes. Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't notified the user, and you have provided zero diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dronebogus's assessment. The editor's entire contribution history is clear that they're using Wikipedia as a webhost and are WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Notified. Also I peovided “diffs” in the form of statistics because literally their whole edit history counts as evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly why do you care, secondly they're user pages, I wasn't trying to record notable information cuz the info I was recording was relevant to me, obviously no one is gonna look at those pages so idk why you are calling it "web hosting". Also like i'm gonna use wikipedia of all things to self promote lol, I was just recording info related to my projects cuz it was fun, stop going to furthest extreme, It's just harmless pages I was just practicing the wikipedia source with, calm yourself Ryan Jay (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC) That's not exactly fair is it, I admit I got carried away and made a few too many pages, and forgot to actually edit other pages, so I apologize for that, honestly the one user page I care about rlly is the Snowtab in the Void one cause of the amount of time I put into that one Ryan Jay (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not “practicing” if you never put your skills to use on actual articles. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How to use your user space and WP:USER. Many, if not most, users who have been around for any amount of time, create user sub pages for any number of reasons.  There's no limit on how many a user can have. How do any of us know they aren't working on ideas for expanding an article, or building ideas and sources for a new article.  And as these guidelines say, "You can put more or less anything on your user page, as long as it does not break any other rules (for example, no copyright violations or insults directed at other users)."  — Maile  (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that, but this user hasn’t spent enough time anywhere else on WP to justify making 500+ edits in userspace Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space”) Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I could easily change that though, I mean I believe I contribute to episode list pages occasionally I could just do it more often but with other pages Ryan Jay (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Fandom exists. They have practically zero standards as long as you don’t add porn, slander, or hate speech. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ok Ryan Jay (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fandom" is a more general topic. It would appear to me that the wiki-hosting website Fandom (website) is what might have been intended here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fandom does not like falsehoods any more than we do. wikia:User blog:Wikiatastic/A perfect rules article for your wiki. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve seen some comically terrible wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of "fanon" wikis on Fandom which blatantly lie and are allowed because they admit they're not true. I'm not going to take a stance on the content issue, and much less the behavioral one, due to my lack of experience. However, I do think the user starting his own wiki could be helpful in solving the dispute. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , please save whatever content you want from these pages ASAP as they will very likely be deleted, either as WP:U5 violations or through WP:MfD.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This user’s mainspace behavior also includes personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariofan3#March_2020 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes#This_is_annoying), blatant vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=838356166 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Screams_of_Silence:_The_Story_of_Brenda_Q&diff=prev&oldid=956108419) and a general flippant and hostile attitude towards editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=945408058). Honestly I’m not sure why they expect us to believe they can actually edit the wiki competently. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 Years Ago -_- Ryan Jay (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also not gonna lie now is when you are starting to be a bit of an ass about this, I already agreed and have been as close to “nice” about this situation as I can be, all your doing now is just bringing up random stuff from 2-4 years ago that doesn’t affect this current situation, what are you, a twitter user? Quit it already, I already agreed to the page deletions (or well even if I disagreed I wouldn’t really have a choice now would I), I don’t care about this situation after this point, so can it just end now lol. Ryan Jay (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal indef block

 * Support indef block as nominator for User:Mariofan3. This thread proves itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) – Reinitiated my support due to very uncivil behavior of Mariofan3 at this thread. Even if they are let go, they will surely going to cause headaches and cost editors valuable time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the evidence presented so far. No one is born magically knowing that WP:NOTWEBHOST exists. Dronebogus should have discussed this with Mariofan on his talk page and explained the policy to him rather than taking this to ANI and demanding a block that sounds more punitive than preventative. Mariofan hasn't engaged in any more NOTWEBHOST violations since this thread was started, and seems to understand the policy now, so a block would prevent nothing. And I don't think throwing into the mix some juvenile edits from two years ago changes that. Maybe there's a case to be made for an indef, but the above ain't it. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I said a block may be necessary. I did not demand one, let alone an indefinite one. Dronebogus (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you say at a village pump or on a talk page that a block "may" be necessary, you're saying it may be necessary. If you say it at AN/I, you're requesting one. You came here guns-blazing without attempting to discuss with the user, concerning their violation of a policy that they had no way of knowing existed, and their reaction to that has been predictably one of surprise. If they're indeffed, and/or if they stick to their retirement, that's no great loss to the project in terms of what they've contributed so far, but we'll never know how they would have reacted to a polite explanation of NOTWEBHOST here. Maybe they would have decided to contribute more productively. If you ask me, your starting this thread less than a week after  is further evidence that your fixation on what others do in their userspace is becoming a net-negative to this project.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 12:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the thread went nowhere. Dronebogus (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically everyone who participated in that thread agreed that your conduct was problematic. If what you're saying is "I won't listen to the community's concerns unless there's a consensus to formally warn or sanction me", that's rather troubling. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No consensus is no consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Boomerang who? I assume me since I get this threat every time I’m at ANI. Dronebogus (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * weak Oppose I’m unimpressed with this user’s attitude and behavior but we have no reason to assume they’re going to keep violating policy per WP:CRYSTAL. Support on top of the utter lack of meaningful productive editing they also have consistently behaved in a flippant and immature manner towards literally everything outside of their little bubble of vanity pages. No reason to have faith in them at this point. They had their chance right here and they clearly blew it. Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support despite the nom striking their !vote. I really was right about to oppose per Tamzin, but the diffs Dronebogus provided, as well as how User:Mariofan3 reacted to them, suggest that WP:NOTWEBHOST is far from the only reason to not keep them around. I don't agree that a block would prevent nothing. Yes, it was in 2020 that Mariofan3 called other editors retarded and vandalized multiple articles (it's a miracle they weren't blocked for that at the time), so it's possible that they've changed since then; I believe their recent behavior demonstrates that they're no less juvenile today, throwing out WP:NPA like "what are you, a twitter user?" or replying to MfD notifications with a disinterested "did i ask", etc. If they ever choose to use Wikipedia for legitimate purposes, they'd certainly be a problem editor and wind up back at AN/I. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 06:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will give them a chance. The reason I strike my proposal is per WP:ROPE: give them another chance, and if they are indeed a problematic editor, they will come back here and get blocked indef. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They are indeed a problematic editor, and their second chance was now. Dronebogus (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will say my piece now as you guys have essentially raided my email box with this for the past week, I literally have no clue what is going on and what exactly you guys are trying to say, the original point was that I had pointless user pages, to which have been deleted and I agreed to their deletion, all you guys are doing now is nitpicking at me for no good reason at all, all my "juvenile reactions" were literally me reacting to this random ass situation like a human being, "are you a twitter user" may sound harsh but to me it just sums up what this is, I made a mistake, and you started picking at my history on the site to make me look even worse for some reason? Also responding to a notification that way in my own talk page should not be an issue lol. So yeah all you've done is ensure that I don't want to ever use this site again, you've made it clear that you just want me gone so i'll just go lol Ryan Jay (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then go. Bye bye. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * jeez, no need to be so rude about it. 晚安 (トークページ) 12:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not that something shouldn't be done about the WP:WEBHOST, personal attacks and battleground mentality, but all of the warnings and diffs the OP provided are from two years ago and the OP seems to be (somewhat) piling on and basing their arguments on edit counts rather than entirely on the substance of Mariofan3's edits (with comments like "Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space” and "Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows."). Recent warnings and lesser sanctions (such as a definite block and a restriction from using their userspace for webhosting) have not been tried and the OP has failed to provide sufficient evidence than an indefinite block would be absolutely necessary. From what I can see, the WP:WEBHOST did not get brought up until this thread and a look here shows that Mariofan3 does in fact contribute to mainspace. While this doesn't in any mean that Mariofan3 is right or that the OP's concerns about WP:NOTHERE are illegitimate, if after sufficient warnings, Mariofan3 continues to use Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST and the personal attacks/battleground behavior, then I'd say block indefinitely.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tamzin. The user figured out what they did wrong. casualdejekyll  13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't see why this came here instead of MFD - though who really cares? If the user learns some skills in their user pages and sandbox, isn't that a good thing? Why chase away a potential user, and poke them with a stick until they bite? Nfitz (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary as the user appears to have WP:VANISHED. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are you kidding me? Mooted. Mariofan3 has been run off. This was completely ridiculous, excessive, and uncalled for. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Dronebogus warned
Dronebogus has said above that they do not see the previous ANI thread as having had a consensus, even though almost everyone agreed that Dronebogus' conduct was problematic, simply because no one bothered to formally close it. In light of that, I propose that the community formally warn Dronebogus that their actions regarding user subpages have been disruptive and have wasted other editors' time for minimal benefit, and in particular warn them to not use MfD and ANI as venues of first resort for cases that might be solved by discussing with users directly. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 13:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support  This has all been clearly excessive  and disruptive, and devoid of the collegiality and WP:AGF editors should show one another.  I just rejected a vanish request from, so harassing other users off the project is certainly not what we should be doing. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 14:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 18:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Liz below. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS. I vanished Mariofan3. Per their request. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't have anything to add. casualdejekyll  15:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - bordering on bullying. There's no need to be censoring Wikipedia to this degree! Nfitz (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with everything the nom said. I would like to reiterate to Dronebogus that if they are to nominate dozens of related items for deletion with the same delete rationale, they should be a single nomination so editors don't have to copy and paste their !votes over and over again, this is disruptive and far more time consuming than it needs to be, I asked this of them in the previous ANI too. I do also agree in principle that it's better to discuss with users before going to AN/I (despite me agreeing that the user they brought to AN/I was NOTHERE). I wouldn't agree to warn them not to bulk nominate userboxes in the future, though, as it's still true that most of what they nominate for deletion results in a delete consensus. The nominations themselves aren't the problem, but the way they've gone about them is an issue. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 16:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Dronebogus's focus on putting a wide swath of userpages up for MFD is tendentious; whether or not those pages need to be deleted or not, pursuing a campaign like that is itself disruptive because it inevitably and invariably involves the pursuit of a goal rather than actually resolving the dispute. Judging from this thread and based on the link Tamzin has provided, if we're going to have a conversation about WP:NOTHERE, that should also include Dronebogus's approach and their obsession with what it's in others' userspace. As I've said above, Dronebogus was right as far as Mariofan3 using Wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, but the method by which Dronebogus went about bringing those concerns —going straight to ANI, digging up stuff from 2+ years ago that's nothing to do with the original complaint, WP:BITING Mariofan3 even after Mariofan3 agreed to stop, taking it upon themselves to act as a sort of userspace police putting stuff up for MFD that they don't like or find offensive— is bordening on harassment. Like I said above, Mariofan3 did indeed violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, but how a user approaches whatever they perceive as a violation of policy matters just as (if not more) important than the violation itself. And how Dronebogus approached this (in general and with Mariofan3) it itself a case of WP:NOTHERE and I think Dronebogus should find something better to do than going around policing other users userpages, because all policing does is insists on drama and confronation rather than an amicable solution. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- Dronebogus has an abrasive approach that needs to change. --JBL (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unfortunately, xfds are adversarial by their nature. Sometimes we learn the wrong lessons. I do. As I'd mentioned (and was demonstrated) in the previous ANI thread, Dronebogus has this habit of lashing out, then telling others to drop the stick. I call attention to the back and forth between they and I following this edit, where they attempt to explain calling another editor a name (which they later properly retracted). Dronebogus admits humanity, and then when I'm thinking I'll let it go, I read another un-aimed attack: "double standard much?" They have this history of adding inflaming comments (like the ones I'm trying to redact through my drafting process at this moment, not letting the user continue to effect me). I wish they would learn not to do this; such interjections undercut otherwise good contributions to the pedia. It's great with me that Dronebogus tries to prune dead wood; I'm glad we have sensible and intelligent people thinking this perfectly valid way. If they can get over trying to "win" they could be better at what they do. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to stir the pot, but I have to say, if I'd noticed this at the time of starting this subsection, I might have suggested more than a warning. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Explains the RTV. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing comments from other users with an edit summary like "Nobody asked for your opinion" is definitely not okay. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 23:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. No matter how pure the intention, that invokes a visceral reaction from  me. Dumuzid (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't believe DB MFD'd Mariofan's userpage today, after all that's transpired, and then removing the user's comment with that edit summary... Levivich 23:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't participate at ANI much any more but I just closed 6 or 7 MFD cases brought by Dronebogus after the pages were speedy deleted and had to see what was going on. Tamzin makes absolutely reasonable suggestions that more editors should abide by. I see a lot of new editor's talk pages and I more often see warnings and threats than welcome messages explaining information and resources that could help new editors navigate the confusing world of Wikipedia polices and guidelines. This was not a new editor here but what I'm alluding to here is preferring templates and noticeboard complaints over starting an actual conversation with a editor, explaining how what they are doing is problematic and what changes are called for. Bringing this to ANI after tagging all of their user pages for deletion was over-the-top and unnecessary. I'm not sure what is appropriate here but maybe a simple admonishment would alter Dronebogus' style of interacting with other editors. We are colleagues, not adversaries and vandals. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just came across User:Dronebogus/Unpersoning which I agree with. The generous attitude you express here seems at odds with your behavior at times which seems very defensive. I understand that no one enjoys their behavior being scrutinized (I speak from experience) but you have to sift through all of the remarks that are made and accept the criticism which is constructive and intended to make you a better editor. I realize this isn't easy but it's a challenge we all can face at some point here. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. Dronebogus (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well said. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 02:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree my conduct was aggressive and out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, I shouldn't have proposed an indef block and unstrike my nomination. Sorry for me causing this fuss to the already heated situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What's needed here is for Dronebogus to refocus away from userspace. A clear commitment from them to involve themselves with mainspace, project space and talk space instead should be sufficient, and would in my view obviate the need for any kind of logged sanction.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a warning about their vexatious litigation at MFD and ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support more than a warning Frankly, I can't see how a warning is sufficient given the conduct has engaged in. Removing another editor's comments for no reason at MfD (the user whose content was in question) and using an abusive edit summary to do so is just completely unacceptable. All this drama was so utterly disproportionate to the issue at hand. An inexperienced editor, who sounds quite young, made a minor mistake about the kind of content we should have on the project. Dronebogus decides to unleash what can only be described as unacceptable, persistent bullying. I found it quite appalling reading some of the above. I can't see how this behaviour simply warrants a warning. AusLondonder (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also briefly, in what world was bringing this to ANI in the first place necessary? ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The only behavioural problems I am seeing is from Dronebogus. And not for the first time. Their behaviour at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Malvinas, where they got on their soapbox to polemically claim a userbox was supporting "ethnic cleansing of British Falklanders" was also completely toxic and ridiculous. AusLondonder (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve already stated that my conduct is out of order, I haven’t engaged in similar behavior since, I can’t un-bully MarioFan, that discussion about the Falklands box was weeks ago… I respect all the above criticism from other users as totally fair but you’re seemingly looking for punishment and not reform. Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * People will assume that what they've seen is what will happen in future. That's human nature. What people have seen is you perpetually popping up here as an irritating problem. I guess if you think that's not what's going to happen in future you could try to convince everyone of that, but, honestly, it's now up to you to do that, not others to assume it'll happen. Begoon 13:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider any sanctions in this case to be preventative, not punitive. WP:BLOCKP states that blocks should be used to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Preventative in this case would be to stop what happened to Mariofan3 happening to anyone else and stop editors time being wasted. I am glad you acknowledge what happened was wrong and I'd personally suggest you should apologise to Mariofan3 even though they have now left. I agree with that's it now up to you to show you've learnt from this. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I suggests Dronebogus avoids MfD for a while, stops patrolling user pages and finds something more productive to do. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I confess I am struggling a bit to not simply vent emotionally here. I find Dronebogus's apparent self-appointment as Wikipedia's witchfinder general and random persecutions to be reprehensible, and diametrically opposed to the ethic of this website which I so admire.  I'd like to believe they have seen the error of their ways, but the recent "no consensus is no consensus" reaction to criticism makes me skeptical.  A formal warning should be logged so that when they cyberbully the next user (as I fear is inevitable) further action may be taken. Dumuzid (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This user is a timesink. I'm supporting this because this is what's here. I honestly can't see how we are far from a siteban. I'm also proud to comment here at all - an ANI vote for a warning? Must be new ground... Begoon 13:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Noting post close that Mariofan3  unvanished. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 21:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
IP 58.110.245.204  has been adding the word "affluent" to the lead paragraphs on town in New South Wales without providing a source, and getting into edit wars on multiple pages because of it. I was going to list exampels but there's too many; just view their contributions to see the same edits on certain towns multiple times. -- NotCh arizar d 🗨 08:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. Two purported sources are given in the edit summary at Special:Diff/1079942603, and the reason stated for then reverting that was not a disagreement with the sources, or even an evaluation of them in any way, but that the content was in the wrong part of the article.  The problem editors here seem, conversely, to be the people who are not checking sources when they are explicitly given, and who are edit warring to maintain a status quo simply because they cannot apparently move content to the right place in an article themselves, or collaboratively make someone else's source citation better.   Of course, the sources do confirm, when read, that census data puts Sydney's upper north shore at number one according to socioeconomic data.  As does, randomly .  How apt that "boomerang" is the word, here, for people who are just not bothering and starting an edit war because they think a word should be somewhere else.  Uncle G (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many problems with that argument. Firstly, these sources were not cited for most of the changes to articles - this was just in the comments when one of the changes was reinstated after being reverted.  Secondly, even if the ABS data says that a region scores high on the "Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas", that does not mean that the same can be said for every individual suburb in that region - at most, it could be put in the article about the region.  Thirdly, those sources are inconsistent: some say it is the "upper North Shore" and others say it is Ku-Ring_Gai local council area.  Fourthly,  the term "affluent" may not be suitable - according to Wiktionary it means "having a moderate level of material wealth".  But the bottom line - this editor persists in making unsupported changes, and absolutely refusing to discuss them with other editors on the Talk pages.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Second report on same issue
An IP editor (using different IP addresses, often 58.110.245.204) has been systematically going through the articles on many Sydney suburbs, updating the lead sentences to say they are "affluent". Examples include Mosman, New South Wales, Northbridge, New South Wales, Pymble, New South Wales, and Beecroft, New South Wales. Many of the changes have been repeatedly reverted by many editors, but the IP just keeps putting them back and refuses to discuss. No source is ever provided; the descriptions generally say something like "consistency" or personal attacks like "Are we just going to keep blinds over our eyes?". Does anybody know how we can fix this? --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Another IP used is 120.21.193.80 --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being raised at ANI. At a stretch the IP's behaviour could be raised here. Ie, maybe, uncivil edit summaries that suggest a lack of collaborative ability.

As for the actual issue (a content question for which ANI is not the place), the argument is not whether the North Shore is affluent. That is plain to see and easily referenced. It is however a question of how the lead sentence of a wikipedia article is written. There are 600 suburbs in Sydney each with their own article. Is the opening sentence now going to provide a word describing their residents' relative economic position? And why should that be in the lead sentence. Nothing else is apart from "Blah is a suburb in Sydney".

If people want to argue about whether suburbs on Sydney's north shore are affluent or not, then you've missed the point of the issue. --Merbabu (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Rando88888, User:ShqiperiaSocialiste, User:Stalinist-Hoxhaist


From late 2021 to early 2022, these three users did remarkably the same type of non-constructive editing on the same document. I think that the actions of these users correspond to Sockpippetry.Marxist-Leninist and Anti-revisionist (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Cranloa12n
Could someone have a look at the edits of this account, especially their involvement in behind the scenes areas? They're a relatively new editor who is obviously enthusiastic, but they're trying to have a go at doing everything at once despite them obviously lacking the understanding of policy to do them properly. They've made quite a few messes and have wasted a lot of time in discussions with daft comments, but because they're only making one or two disruptive edits in each area before moving on to something else they're managing to fly under the radar. Would it be possible to get some kind of mentoring or something set up?

Some examples:
 * Jumping into threads on the administrative noticeboards with stupid and inflammatory comments that don't help resolve issues.
 * Declining a perfectly clear and well written edit request for an utterly nonsense reason
 * Opposing requested moves on the basis that they are "unnessasary" / "pointless", showing that they have no understanding of page moving policy: ...
 * Closing someone's perfectly reasonable request for feedback on a template idea they had with a ridiculous "this is premature" rationale.
 * Answering requests for help at the teahouse with stupid and unhelpful comments
 * Nominating articles on things that are obviously notable for deletion at AFD
 * Edits to Wikipedia space quoting policies that do not apply to Wikipedia space content, along with generally unhelpful edits.
 * An attempt to get involved at TFD, which resulted in several pointless/disruptive comments
 * Shooting down someone's suggestion at the idea lab with a "we would have to move pages" rationale - something what would take a few minutes with AWB

etc. etc. etc. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "Closing someone's perfectly reasonable request for feedback on a template idea"
 * That was posted on the wrong forum.
 * "Nominating articles on notable subjects"
 * Happened over 2 months ago.
 * "Opposing requested moves on the basis that they are pointless"
 * Because they are? Don't change something if it's not broke.
 * "Stupid"
 * Really? Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 18:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not. The village pump idea lab is a completely valid forum to discuss ideas about new template proposals.
 * yes, but that you've just moved on to disrupting other areas showing that you didn't learn from it.
 * That has no basis at all in article title policy WP:AT or page moving guidance WP:MV. You should not be opposing requested moves on the basis of "I don't like moving pages" but on the merits or lack thereof of the proposed title.
 * How else would you describe your comments there? If someone is asking about the difference between two magic words then how else would you describe "K" as a response If someone who has just come off an indef block leaves an innapropriate comment how is "Oh no" going to help?  192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that some of these were my problem, but the response above shoud give an explanation for some of this. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 18:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , you really need to get the message here. You are being disruptive and unhelpful and displaying a lack of understanding of policies and guidelines, and an inappropriately flippant attitude. You need to course correct, or it will be necessary to block you. Cullen328 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , you really need to get the message here. You are being disruptive and unhelpful and displaying a lack of understanding of policies and guidelines, and an inappropriately flippant attitude. You need to course correct, or it will be necessary to block you. Cullen328 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 *  晚安 (トークページ) 04:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cranloa12n: Do not answer any questions regarding personal information. Do not ask personal questions. We understand the point you are making but physical age is not important at Wikipedia and there must be no attempt to have people reveal personal details. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry 晚安 (トークページ) 07:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

TomStefano


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

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

Here are some snippets from the user's comments, including the suspect IP editors; one quote per paragraph: That last comment has a legitimate concern about the section being focused on the wrong aspect of the topic, but that is the final straw. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 13:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC) As I have commented on above, several of the examples given of what I have said are not me. So it is then lies about what I said. This is actually quite serious when someone claim one said something that another person said. For example it is claimed I said "Moron". I never ever said so. It was another user. Other examples to. Is this really how wikipedia a small circle of established wikipedia editors go ahead to block someone, to pick even saying from other users I do not know who are, have no affiliation with etc. And then in addition cherry picking saying I have and take them out of contest, and in addition deleting some of my sayings so they not are easy to find. Okay so I understand I soon will be blocked, and the methods are documented. It will all be filed. TomStefano (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * statement is too exact, and hence wrong:
 * Quality down:
 * On the Planck length:
 * Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
 * Smaller than a Planck Length?:
 * Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * On the Planck length:
 * Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
 * Smaller than a Planck Length?:
 * Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
 * Smaller than a Planck Length?:
 * Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
 * Smaller than a Planck Length?:
 * Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * Talk:Planck_units (after final warning by at Talk:Planck units and the user talk):
 * , I have reverted your comments: there is no way we can pull out your comments to put them in their proper place--separately. Do NOT put your comments inside others' comments please. User:JayBeeEll, I'm sorry I had to revert you too. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved this to the correct section seeing as TS was unable to do so. CUPIDICAE💕 14:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Tom: Where and with who will it be filed? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:LaundryPizza03, there is no technical evidence to connect TS to the 178 IP. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I have struck out the quotes from the IP user. However, their conduct is equally unacceptable for the same reason, and under the assumption that they are actually a different user, I will post another ANI notice. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * From their writing styles, I presumed they were different people. There was an oddity where the IP user removed some comments and TomStefano restored them, but that might just be due to editing an old page version, and I didn't make much of it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * TS's first edit to Planck length was to restore content that I had removed, invoking the same rationale as the since-blocked SPA who inserted it before. The rationale is odd: journal quality is usually judged journal-by-journal, not publisher-by-publisher, except in the case of known predatory publishers. That SPA, blocked by, was restoring a blurb that had been removed before (not by me), after it had been added with a misleading edit summary by another SPA. As noted by , the citations to it have come from the author himself, and no substantial commentary or signs of wider influence exist. The author, incidentally, is Espen Gaarder Haug, who had an article here until it was deleted in 2018, and whose work has been promoted by sockpuppets here before, including the same claim. I have no idea if any of the more recently active accounts are related to the earlier sock farm. Some of the accusations sound similar: People spending lots of time editing on wiki have likely high status among other active wiki editors, backing each other, so yes I think we know how this ends (blocked sock on Talk:Squaring the circle). Is this how wikipedia work these days? Has it become corrupted with circles of people spending much time here, becoming buddies defending each others editing, rather than trying to get the best out of wikipedia? Just asking, please explain to us non frequent visitors how this now will work? (likewise). And this was not a new page, this was a page that had been on wikipedia for 10 years (likewise). Maybe that's just illustrative of having the same mindset, though. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh this definitely is the same person as User:EntropyFormula who was all up in that AfD. --JBL (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But clearly it is a few wikipedia editors that think they have monopoly on editing and deleting other editors posting, possibly because they have been here for some years (from User talk:EntropyFormula) does sound familiar. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * XOR&#39;easter, I hear you--this should probably simply be entered in a new SPI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now at Sockpuppet investigations/QuantitativeGeometry for anyone who cares to take a look. --JBL (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The person that claimed I said this and this, many false claims had several days to edit and remove things I not have said. But this is not done. For example I also never said this "I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem.", That I agree on that this page not should be removed is totally different thing that I must be allowed to hold. It could backfire at some point to lie about what someone have said (with references to exactly what they supposedly have said). Please remove what I not said. Please show decency. Block me if you want, but for what? Have I not been accused for being personal and not on the page task. And what are some editors here doing, coming with many many citations of things they claimed I wrote that I never wrote. It is something in that one not should treat other people worse than one expect other to treat one back? And please stop mistake decent probability of something seems very similar to mean it is the SAME. People from same country are not the same person, that is racism! What have I done? being critical to how some editors are operating. Such as evidently also here, where one accuse someone for having written this and that without even bother to check if it is the same wikipedia user. Other things have been cherry picked out of contest. All is filed !!    TomStefano (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Assume now for a moment I had come with accusations that for example XOR&#39;easter had said this and that and given quotes of what he wrote and put it for example here. But that he never had written many sentences I claimed he had written. How would that be looked upon? And even after making you all aware that there where multitudes of false claims about what I had written, even then no one bothered investigating those few claims and really correct them. But if one quickly want to block some then naturally one will even Lie to get through with that. Look at yourself in the mirror before judging others to hard. If some editors are so eager to judge others that they come with lies and not even remove those lies even after I have pointed out incorrect putting others words in my mouth, then perhaps one should take some self criticism before judging others. Think now carefully what you do and how you judge others before you do so! TomStefano (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thirdly please check carefully the editing of some of the users you accuse for this or that. See if you see a very serious error, a very unethical "error" done by a senior editor on one of the many pages that have been edited. Look carefully! It has all been filed by the way!! TomStefano (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this has "been filed," but it's very unclear what you're trying to say. I'm assuming English is not your first language, it would help if you could clarify what you're trying to say. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"You [an IP editor from Lanark Highlands, Ontario] are perfectly right [about the mathematical error]. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic." And this was correct, there was a mathematical error that XOR&#39;easter removed, or at least improved, considerably. TomStefano (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I repeat I have never said for example this "I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem." as it is claimed on this page I have said so. The responsible please remove such false claims! TomStefano (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * TomStefano has been blocked by as a sockpuppet of Cosmology2 and a suspected sock of QuantitativeGeometry. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wilkja19
This is a long-term disruptive editor: in four years of editing, they have made continual factual alterations to articles without ever once providing a source, never left an edit summary, never responded to any messages, and they mark every single edit as minor. I don't know if they make factually correct changes but the total refusal to communicate makes it hard to believe they are editing in good faith. Please take whatever action is appropriate to get them to comply with community norms. 82.132.212.130 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at their contributions, it seems that they are using the iOS app to edit, therefore they would not be able to see the messages sent to them(per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and it is also noted at the top of their talk page). Jolly1253 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI- this isn't the first time the user/issue has been brought up here, as I've done so previously. Also FYI, this range IP previously brought this up this past February (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090 for that specific instance). Magitroopa (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

181.115.64.81 on flag articles
(see also the wider range which would be the preferable target of any further blocks) is permnently disruptive on flag articles. See for example Flags of country subdivisions, which is about flags used by states, counties and other subdvisions of countries, like the name would suggest. Their version of the article is here, which is a duplicate of the wholly different article Gallery of sovereign state flags. Their disruption of this article has resulted in them being partially blocked from that article, however it's just moved their disruption to other flag articles. Lists of city flags includes a section for the "largest cities". Now I'm aware that's quite a vague name for a section and will probably result in many disagreements about which cities should be included, however see this edit adding Jocoro which is a municipality with a population of 6,764. Nobody could possibly consider that to be firstly a city, and secondly large by any reasonable definiton of the term. They never use talk pages or acknowledge objections to their edits, they just reinstate them and carry on with more of the same. FDW777 (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * (request) Range re-blocked for 1 month (rangeblock: Edit warring / disruptively ignoring community concerns voiced at User talk:181.115.64.81 and Special:Permalink/1084250524). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive content removals?


Earlier today, I had reverted a bunch of edits from Philliptruong92 that- without any reasoning given whatsoever- removed any third place mentioning on The Masked Singer articles entirely. I gave them a warning, to which I got a simple, "Okay".

There seems to be a whole bunch more similar unexplained edit removals the past few days, that likely need reverting as well. However, I'm confused, as there seems to be another account of theirs, 'Philliptruong1990s'. No idea if these are both sockpuppets or the user is just simultaneously using two accounts for whatever reason, but something seems odd about this. It doesn't seem to be any sort of 'forgot password' issue (or any issue at all) given that one account was created in February 2021 and the other was created in June 2021- both being used simultaneously to the current moment.

Additionally, through some of the articles' history, I've also come upon the user 'Sabrina.carbone1970s' which may be related due to the similar username titling. Also of note, User talk:Sabrina.carbone1970s, with multiple warnings as well as responses with simple "okay"s (as I'm typing this- realized a warning received from myself in April 2020 as well!)

Honestly not sure what to make of this, any help would be appreciated, especially considering all the recent disruptive edits on one of the accounts. (FYI- as they are very clearly the same person, I've only notified one of the user talk pages- User talk:Philliptruong92.) Magitroopa (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * they normally have winner and runner-up as they are the final two. and the other accounts are not the same. Philliptruong92 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that those other accounts aren't yours? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * wrote 3 accounts that are seemingly connected to you, but seriously? What about User:Philliptruong1990s? Does that have the same username as yours? Severe  storm  28  01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I found that both accounts were stating, as Magitroopa states, "okay" and "Okay". Severe  storm  28  01:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Between 2022-03-16 and 2022-04-22 on en.wikipedia.org User:Philliptruong1990s (talk | contribs) and User:Philliptruong92 (talk | contribs) both made edits to some pages in common. You can see a chronological list of all their edits on the Interaction Timeline or a table view on the Interaction Analyser.
 * Additionally, the behavior is similar to the blocked account . — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 02:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Probable block evasion or sock. Severe  storm  28  02:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't just leap to conclusions like that. It was blocked for being a "compromised account", but I cannot see any on-wiki evidence for that.  The last edit, in 2013, was a request to delete the account because it wasn't wanted any more, oversighted to remove what I am guessing was a na&iuml;ve inclusion of personal information in that request, as people are wont to do.  An 8 year gap before coming back and creating a fresh account is hardly creditable as any sort of evasion. And no-one appears to have spotted that of the two accounts at the top of this section, one always edits from a mobile 'phone and one never does.  So my guess would be a person who just didn't think of using the same single account on 2 devices. Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already saw. Severe  storm  28  11:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Philliptruong1990s is now removing references to the 2nd runner up on Big Brother (Australian season 8) and Big Brother (Australian season 10). I will revert these edits, because at least in season 8 the second runner up was announced. --Reader781 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I followed those hyperlinks expecting to see references being removed. But no references are removed in those edits.  There are no references in those parts of those articles to be removed.  Indeed, there are no references elsewhere in the article that give any indication of covering this content.  I had to start from first principles to find a source.  Contrary to the section heading here, no content is being removed, either.  Instead, at Special:Diff/1084036245 we see a wording change from "Tahan, the second runner-up," to "Tahan, was the last housemate evicted".  And, indeed,, describing that when that person "is evicted, a ripple of shock travels through the crew behind the scenes.".  So it's not as if the wording change being complained of is even unverifiable.  And this after leaping to the ludicrous conclusion that an 8 year gap is block evasion.  I think that you lot need to get a grip.  And start citing sources, too.  Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI- I don't think I can comment much on the other articles the user has changed such as Britain's Got Talent articles or Big Brother Australia articles, but my main issue was the removal of any sort of third place mentioning on The Masked Singer articles (for example). I've watched every episode of the US The Masked Singer (yes, including the controversial most recent episode), and I can say as a fact that every season (apart from season six) has been a top three, so them just going around to every article and removing any sort of mentioning of a third placer makes no sense there. Maybe there are similar issues to that throughout their edits, maybe not- I haven't personally looked through/checked all their edits (and I certainly don't plan to either).
 * However, I am still very confused on the whole Philliptruong92/Philliptruong1990s/Philliptruong1992 thing, especially given that Philliptruong1992 was blocked as a compromised account and the user stated in this thread earlier, "the other accounts are not the same". Maybe it is what you suggested about, "didn't think of using the same single account on 2 devices.", maybe it's something else, I have no idea. If both accounts being used simultaneously (for whatever reason) like this is fine, but I'm still a tad bit concerned about any similar/future content removal (regarding TMS issue I explained). Magitroopa (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The 1990 user has recently engaged in extensive unexplained genre changes, removing long established context, and simultaneously incorporating subtle clear factual errors, in the Big Brother UK reality TV series of articles (and possibly the Australian). Leaky caldron (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Uggdf
Have a look at this: 1 and 2. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked. Now what?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Starting an AfD, !voting 3 times, and then closing it yourself isn't generally considered good practice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, the user opens a deletion discussion, votes by his own multiple times, and then closes it by himself in less than 12 hours. At the discussion, the user says that they redirected this article to List of heads of state of Pakistan, but the edit history tells us that the article has never been redirected. Similar drama is going on here, where they say they redirected it, but the user has never edited either article. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They also seem to have copied their !votes in the first AfD from somewhere else? A user named Nipson is incorrectly mentioned as the nominator in the merge !vote. Very strange. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, they somewhat copy their deletion reason from this discussion which I started back in August 2021. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  14:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Any possibility that we have multiple people using the same account and they are warring against one another? This is really bizarre. I can't find an active user that goes by the name Nipson or contains the name Nipson that has edited these articles. -- A Rose Wolf  15:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a search - this is where they copied the !votes from. Curiouser and curiouser. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw that user but dismissed as they hadn't edited since 2011. It is very strange, beyond the obvious unacceptable multiple !votes and self-closing of the AfD. -- A Rose Wolf  15:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment this is totally unacceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is very problematic. They have never been warned before for any problems, however.  This DOES need to stop immediately, but I'm also willing to hear an explanation.  I see they have been notified of this discussion.  I await their response before making any assessments further.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm considering deleting the fake AFDs in question under WP:CSD G2 or G3, but I'm going to leave them up long enough so that they are visible to others until we reach a resolution of this discussion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of presidents of Sri Lanka seems useful. But the other one is just a nonsense at this point.  The only other human participant is me, pointing out errors in the nomination.  Uncle G (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by Peter Ormond above, part of the deletion rationale ("acting presidents unsourced") seems to be taken from this AFD. "Really doesn't merit a stand-alone article, where majority of them have a tenure of one or two days" also doesn't apply for the content of the article. I'm mostly just confused at this point. Lkb335 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this almost looks like the output of a broken AI. It has that feel where the individual parts of the nomination and the comments are syntactically valid but which don't make sense if you look at the context. I wonder if it's just some sort of weird joke? Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like it might be worth digging into this for a possible WP:SPI, since at a glance this looks like an attempt to use sockpuppets that went awry. Notice that here they say troutslap the nominator for a clearly frivolous nomination ... Nipson has simply been on a POV rampage to eradicate as much of our coverage of the political institutions of the Pakistan as he can, for transparently tendentious reasons. They are the nominator. Who is Nipson? This feels to me like they were trying to do some sort of sockpuppetry to give the appearance of a dispute that is then resolved with their preferred outcome. Though even that is baffling, since I don't see how someone could intentionally !vote three times in a single edit on an RFC, close it themselves in the same edit, and expect it to accomplish anything. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nipson (full user name: Nipsonanomhmata) was the nominator of the 2011 AfD those comments were copied from (see my post above). I like the rogue AI explanation. I'll be keeping an eye on my toaster and microwave tonight, in case this is actually the start of the machine revolution. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that they began this nonsense imediatly after geting autoconfirmed. I would block for that. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 02:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey folks, did nobody notice the contents of User:Uggdf and wonder what it might be? Yes, it was the account password. And it's been there in plain sight since June 2020, so anyone could be responsible for this current nonsense. I've taken the liberty of scrambling it before anyone uses it to do damage. Someone might wish to block as a compromised account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done so. I was close to a DE for the AfDs anyway. This user has some explaining to do before they return, if they do. Star   Mississippi  12:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * yogalumpy was the password? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * [Trying not to laugh] Boing! can't tell you, - he's been caught by Uggdf's autoblock, presumably because of the liberty he took, per above. I've lifted the autoblock, I hope. They're mysterious things. Are you there, Boing!? Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC).
 * lol. Thats why I keep visiting ANI, botreq, UAA, and some other pages. Once in a while, you get some funny stuff here. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm back - thanks Bish! And yep, the password was indeed "yogalumpy". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption on Kurdish biographies
is NOTHERE. Rafiq Hilmi was a Kurdish nationalist from Iraq but the user adds the label "Turkish" in the lead. Other articles where it is relevant to have Kurdish (ethnicity) (per MOSETHNICITY) in the lead has also been disrupted by moving info about ethnicity from lead. I have warned the editor twice and I know that talkpage "discussions" will lead to nowhere here. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Need a BLP violation removed, and possibly REVDELed
Can someone please deal with This BLP-violating edit. They did so with a strike-thru, but it's still there and visible. Regardless of one's politics, that sort of thing is beyond the pale. I would have dealt with it myself, but consider myself WP:INVOLVED given my contributions to that thread. Can someone else take any appropriate actions. Thanks. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Red Phoenix  <sup style="color: #FFA500">talk  18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * beat me to it. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , only one edit was revdel'd, I added the redacted template and revdel'd the others. Bad, bad form, . – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I only just now noticed this revision, made one edit prior. This is not a BLP violation only because the subject has died. It is also a highly inappropriate statement nonetheless. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Although that's not a BLP violation, if someone wanted to revdel it too, wouldn't it fall under AMPOL2 discretionary sanctions? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll redact it under WP:CRD #3, purely disruptive material. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the quick work done by the admins here to remove the offensive material.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hcoder3104 also made this edit recently. Is this user of any hope at all? --StellarNerd (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Substitute Special:Diff/1081494062 or Special:Diff/1079210819 or any one of numerous other edits, and ask yourself that question again. Then read Special:Diff/1084140541.  Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

RD1 revdel request
Hi! I recently encountered the now-blocked user Crimes87. This user was vandalising by replacing article contents with song lyrics. Unfortunately, those lyrics are copyrighted, so I'd like to request a set of revision deletions under criterion RD1. (Usually, I'd use Template:Copyvio-revdel, but because there are so many, I'm just making a request here.) Revisions:. The last one also has the copyvio in the edit summary. Thanks! Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 19:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I tagged one with the revdel template with a link here in case an admin clearing that queue comes across this first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 19:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You forgot the edit summary in the last revision: Special:Diff/1082039292, which also seems to be song lyrics. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tnx, done this as well Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Roanby is NOTHERE (persistent hoaxing)


User:Roanby has been persistently hoaxing in userspace and draftspace since 2016, as seen by the notices on their talk page. They have about 3000 edits, but nearly all (95%) were to their sandbox that was recently deleted by as G3 and U5. They have not edited significantly to mainspace in years and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and they have just recreated their sandbox with another hoax, even submitting it to AfC and declined by twice. I CSD'd it again with the same rationale, but they removed the tag themselves. Clearly needs a block as NOTHERE and to avoid further disruption of CSD/AFC. ev iolite  (talk)  21:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur just disruptive and clearly WP:NOTHERE KylieTastic (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked Roanby as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

TPA of DA AWESOME BOI
blocked for using wikipedia as a webhost, after being blocked, misused talkpage for test and webhost, TPA revoke seemed needed.PAVLOV (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree I just fixed a block request declination that he had vandalized. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 17:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * there are some comments by others that have been altered by DA AWESOME BOI. They need to be restored to their original form. For example, first unblock decline by 331dot. I'm on mobile, or I would have restored the original comments. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed the altered comments. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 21:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring in sandbox
This IP and one other have been WP:NOTHERE edit warring in the Sandbox, reverting any user who clears it and adding a no bots template to prevent bots from clearing it and removing the header if reinserted. May be more IPs in range doing that but I don't know how to get the range. Has even reverted admins clearing the Sandbox. 184.170.97.79 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just cleared it. I'm tempted to semi-protect it for a short period, like an hour or so, but I don't want to take it away from IPs and new users who may legitimately want to test editing functions. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving
 * I could be wrong, but it seems like we have an increasing problem with disruptive editing of the community sandbox. Some people repeatedly post massively large blocks of text that causes other editor's devices to choke and freeze. Others repeatedly post fake articles, especially of the alternate history variety. Others post BLP violations, copyvios like song lyrics, profanity and hoaxes. There seems to be a lot of obsessive compulsive behavior that may be disconcerting or offensive to other readers who take a look at the sandbox. Edits that are actual legitimate tests seem to be rare these days. Is this a problem, or should I just ignore the sandbox? Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it perhaps help to somehow limit the maximum size of the sandbox, if that was feasible? It won't solve all the problems, but it would at least deter the cut-and-pasters. I can't think of any legitimate use of the sandbox that requires it to allow 10,000-byte edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To test whether a very large edit breaks the interface?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That could have both white- and black-hat applications.  signed, Willondon (talk)  17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP violations are a problem wherever they're published though - we can't afford to just ignore it. Not sure what the solution is, but we can't turn a blind eye to people posting potentially libellous stuff on a community page. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  09:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of a community sandbox at this point? If it's being abused by IP users and it needs to be semi-protected, there isn't much point to having it. The community is too large for a single public userbox to be useful, particularly if it lends itself to WP:BLP-violating edits. Users can set up sandboxes on their own userpage, and they don't need this. Theoretically, IP users can probably do the same thing, although I'm not certain what the community's stance on that is.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very good question. Maybe it should be raised at the Village Pump? I guess the argument is IP editors may find it useful, though registered editors get their own sandboxes. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So instead of libel being blanked within minutes and disappearing into the page history, it persists forever on an unwatched page? That's a cure worse than the disease. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, very good point. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has mentioned this yet but the IP range has been blocked from the Sandbox for 3 months. 184.170.97.79 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've requested some level of protection. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not have an adminbot delete and recreate the page on a daily/weekly basis? There's no real archival value in the sandbox page history and this would remove the page history from public view entirely. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On one occasion old sandbox edits have been useful to me, tracking down a sockpuppet who'd made a bunch of racist edits to the sandbox. What would be better than automatically deleting and recreating is automatically revdelling. That way at least someone looking for an edit to the sandbox (for reasons like mine, or because they wrote a draft there and lost track of time) would be able to know which edit to request a copy of. (Incidentally, if we do go down the road of periodically deleting it, then the first deletion would require a steward... Might even have to be done in pieces to avoid causing database issues.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 11:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hippo43
In short, Hippo43 is baselessly accusing me of dishonesty and is refusing to stop. I thus request that he be told to stop.

In more detail, Hippo43 and I strongly disagree on whether certain content should be added to the 'College of Policing' page. The dispute itself probably isn't relevant. The point is that I believe certain material should be added to the page, whereas he does not. I feel he has not been dicussing the matter properly and not listening to me. He maybe feels the same about me (although I would consider him wrong about that).

The point is that I am trying to listen to him and have a reasoned discussion. Hippo43, by contrast, is derailing the discussion by persistently (and baselessly) accusing me of dishonesty. Attempts to get him to stop have failed. Thus, I now request that someone tell him to stop.

This is the relevant exchange:


 * - I summarise what I consider the general view of the RFC to be thus far
 * - Hippo43 accuses me of 'ignoring objections already made'. I do not consider this comment inappropriate per se - merely factually inaccurate
 * - I explain why I think Hippo43's accusation factually inaccurate
 * - Hippo43 repeats his factually inaccurate accusation (again, I do not consider this comment crosses the line in principle)
 * - I again rebut that accusation
 * - Hippo43 now accuses me of dishonesty. Furthermore, he does this as a bare assertion without justification or reasoning.  I say this is where he first crosses the line
 * - I refute this and try to move the discussion on
 * - Hippo43 again makes a second bare assertion of dishonesty

Now, you will see that, in that discussion, I make reference to 'substantive' comment made by Hippo43. By this I mean that, after Hippo43 accuses me of 'ignoring objections already made' he then posts the following substantive criticism of the content under discussion:. I respond to that criticism here:. Please note that my response is made at 18:58, and that Hippo43 makes his second bare assertion of dishonesty at 21:03, after that response. Thus, Hippo43 has returned to the page, ignored the substantive debate on the actual issues, accused me of dishonesty, and gone away again.

I therefore request that Hippo43 is told such conduct - namely baselessly accusing others of dishonesty (especially while ignoring the real debate) - is not helpful or constructive, and that he should cease this behaviour. Telanian7790 (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Telanian7790 has been dishonest in both his editing and talk page contributions. I don't have the time or patience to walk anyone through all the long-winded guff he has written, but it is very clear if anyone wants to read it all. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a saying in England "The pot is calling the kettle black". If you look at the recent history of College of Policing you'll see that it was fully protected a week ago because of Telanian7790's edit-warring behaviour. Look also at the talk page history, even before the block and you'll see that his/her behaviour included personal attacks and clear assertions of lack of good faith on the part of other editors. Telanian7790 was told by the protecting admin to create an RFC, which was produced. However, the RFC was not just about the content that Telanian7790 wanted to add, it was also about Telanian7790's dislike of Hippo43's involvement in the article and to a certain extent my own. I repeatedly requested that Telanian7790 rewrite the RFC to be just about the proposed content and not about the history of how that point in history was reached, but he/she refused. I then went back to the original protecting admin (@El C), who closed the RFC and then re-wrote it. Fast forward a few days and all is reasonably quiet until Hippo43 responds to the RFC. At that point "all hell breaks" loose and Telanian7790 is back to the same personal attacks an accusations of lack of good faith. Telanian7790 is not an editor that likes to be disagreed with and the huge amount of fuss created in this one article seems disproportionate to me to the importance/relevance of small bit of content in question. I don't think it's about content any more. Telanian7790 is simply spoiling for a fight. I assert that it is Telanian7790 who is the tendentious and disruptive editor and at the very least a simple topic ban on this article would stop that behaviour in this instance. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hippo43 and 10mmsocket accuse me of a lot of things: dishonesty (again), personal attacks, clear assertions of lack of good faith and edit-warring. But they provide no evidence to support these accusations.  If I have behaved as alleged, why do they not provide links (as I have done) showing me acting as alleged.  I say the answer is that they can't.  Because I have not.  Furthermore, since I am specifically accused of edit-warring, I say that it is actually Hippo43 who has been edit-warring.  Not me.  But I don't simply assert that - I can show you that.  As follows:


 * * - This is the start of the current issue.  Hippo43 removes from the page the material that is now under debate (after the page had been stable for about a month).
 * * - a third party editor reverses the removal per the previous talk page discussion and invites Hippo43 to start a RFC
 * * - Hippo43 re-removes the material.  Note that at this point, he is now violating BRD.
 * * - I restore the material, noting the BRD violation, and I invite Hippo43 to discuss on the talk page
 * * - I post on the talk page, noting that I have restored the material per PRD and invite Hippo43 again to discuss there
 * * - Hippo43 re-re-removes the material
 * * - I restore one final time, pointing out the BRD violation and the lack of discussion - and I again invite people to discuss
 * * - On the talk page, I again complain about the removal of the material in violation of BRD and the fact that Hippo (and 10mmsocket) do not appear to be coming to the talk page and actually discussing it
 * * - 10mmsocket now removes the material from the page
 * * - I post on the talk page, giving up trying to restore the material (as I consider it clear that Hippo and 10mmsocket will not respect BRD) and I invite those editors to discuss what it is that they dislike about the material itself


 * I say that simple exchange shows you exactly what is going on. I am the one who has actually been trying to engage in discussion and ensure that the rules are followed.  It is the other side that has been very reluctant to discuss and follow the rules.  I say again, if I am the one who has been dishonest/edit-warring etc, it should be easy to provide links proving it.  The fact that none have so far been provided says everything.

Telanian7790 (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Briefly, one further point. 10mmsocket specifically says he following: "Look also at the talk page history, even before the block and you'll see that his/her behaviour included personal attacks and clear assertions of lack of good faith on the part of other editors."  Here, he is trying to re-open an issue that has already been decided.  10mmsocket made a previous complaint on this page on those grounds.  However, that complaint was (correctly) rejected by administrator El_C as follows: .Telanian7790 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The talkpage of that article is an unreadable disaster, largely (as far as I can tell) because of your bludgeoning the discussions taking place there. I'd suggest both of you just step back and let other people have a say there. An outside editor has started an RfC, give it some space. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you TBNL. On reflection, I see what you mean about the talk page being an 'unreadable disaster'.  And I have read the bludgeoning page that you linked to.  I take on board the lessons I could learn, most particularly about not responding so frequently, and thus giving others more of a breathing space to come in.


 * However, could I please respectfully push back on one thing. I see the good sense (in any dispute) of going away and cooling off, which is effectively what you're suggesting.  However, my concern is that this, by itself, does not fully solve the problem here.  The problem is that two editors are accusing me of dishonesty.  That accusation is baseless and wrong.  They had an opportunity to justify it above - they have not even tried to.  Incidentally, I do not think they themselves are being dishonest in making it.  Rather, I think they've got themselves so irrationally worked up that they're seeing dishonesty which does not exist.  Now my concern is: however long I leave things, per your advice, I am just going to be shouted down as 'dishonest' by those editors whenever I try to contribute again, no matter how long that gap is, and no matter how objectively constructive my comments are.  Which is precisely what happened in the comments I linked above.  Now, that surely cannot be right.Telanian7790 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Karapapakhs: a violation of simple logic


User LouisAragon and HistoryofIran are aware that two sources are mixed together as if both sources would say the same thing (which is not the case). This is a mistreatment of sources. User HistoryofIran admitted, the user understood my concerns (see revision history, ), but did not participated on my started talkpage request. Then LouisAragon came over to threaten me with a ANI (see revision history, ) by acting in a even more rude manner, reverting my improvement by giving a POV-reason: So, according to LouisAragon, preventing a source mistreatment (by splitting both sources) is POV. I can not handle this logic anymore and therefore ask for administrative help to split these two sources into two different sentences. User Beshogur proved me right (see ) at least in my second concern that Turkic peoples (like the Kazakhs cannot be turkicized), it's ok when the source says so, but this gives nobody the right to heavily mistreat sources by mixing them. This is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Well the sentence is indeed vague. But you don't have to edit war. Beshogur (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems they tricked me. Never intended to edit war.12:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk • contribs)

Sorry, my fault, I didn’t see that the sources were already separated from each other. So take this my point as obsolete.16:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serkan,Kutluoglu (talk • contribs)
 * This seems like a garden variety content dispute. There's nothing for admins to do here... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See also a discussion at Talk:Karapapakhs. Based on what User:Serkan,Kutluoglu says above, I think this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible spam but also IDHT
This editor repeatedly adds links to FantasticFiction.com (a commercial website) to articles about books. Often, for example here the link 1) goes into the lead and 2) does not support specific info in the article about the book.

I tried to resolve the potential spam problem on the user's talk page but got the response no one has complained to me about that before until now.

Further up the talk page, I see that admin  previously tried to counsel this editor about a different policy issue but got the same answer No one has complained to me about that before so please do not complain to me about it now. Can this editor please now hear from a few more editors about his editing? Sorry to bring a small matter here, I have COVID which makes me too tired to figure out better plans. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the external website. It looks to me it does not sell books directly, but receives revenue from the Amazon affiliate program whenever somebody buys a book through FF on Amazon, which makes it a commercial website by proxy. This smells a little of subtle spam. I think it would be appropriate to ask whether this editor is part of the team managing the external website or not. Also, "no one has complained to me about that before until now" is a weak argument at best, as pointed out on the editors talk page. Oz\InterAct 14:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did ask, he says he isn't. I believe him; I think intentional spamming would look different from what he does. What I think is that he found a website with a lot of links to pages he cares about, and proceeded to add those links to articles, intending to improve said articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what happened. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused with me adding links to FantasticFiction.com. I'm not a vandal and I'm not a spammer. If you guys want, I can start removing those links as soon as I get the chance, assuming they haven't been removed already. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 11:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to close this discussion, my concerns have been met, with the help of others and the willingness of. Thanks, everyone. Oh, and I'm mending fast, so that's also good. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Haleth
The user Haleth has recently made major changes on Kopi (drink), with major inaccuracies. As I've pointed out on the edit summary, he is confusing the culinary and political history of the two. The drinks and their colonial history were not remotely the same (British Malaya v. North Borneo). The sources that they added were also copied from Tenom, notice the identical citations and only one or two words being replaced. You can tell by the citations being "retrieved in 2016", etc even though Haleth had added it today. Isn't copying within Wikipedia a policy violation? It's similar to copyright. After I had explained my reasons on my edit summary, I was accused of "disruptive editing" and to "not remove provided citations" without "providing evidence" to "support my claims". It seems kinda ironic to say the least. One of their reverts was also done with no apparent reason. 118.33.35.16 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Chipmunkdavis constantly trying to remove this very report for some reason, they were also present on that article, which leads me to think there's some sort of a collusion going on so that Haleth isn't accused for edit warring. 118.33.35.16 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The content issue should be discussed in a civil manner at Talk:Kopi (drink), where nothing has yet been posted about this. On the behavioural side I would note that both editors have been edit-warring and are on the brink of violating WP:3RR. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the whole thing was relatively civil, and I had tried to be explanatory and understanding as possible on the edit summary, but I was responded with constant hostility with accusations being thrown around. 118.33.35.16 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hate talk at Shia Islam in the Americas
Requesting a block of the IP involved, as well as rev/deletion of vandalism from April 20. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Bob - haven't seen you around for a while, glad to see your IP hasn't changed. :) Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Best wishes, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi hi from me too, Bob! El_C 13:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This made me smile. Thank you for your service my fellow IP.82.45.77.215 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

39.40.37.143
IP keeps altering sourced statistics, increasing the percentage of Pashtuns whilst decreasing the percentage of other ethnicities. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours, please let us know if this continues after that. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Anon user persistently adding WP:OR to pages
has been persistently adding WP:OR content to various Vietnam-related articles. The OR content that the user is adding is related to a former writing system that is no longer in use for almost a hundred years. They are adding characters to mostly concepts, with no references to show that they were ever written that way (which they're most likely not). Attempts to warn the user had gone nowhere. Some other users have been using socks to attempt this and were blocked. This could be yet another attempt. DHN (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This person might change their IP address to try again so these pages could use semi-protection if they attempt to change again under a different IP. DHN (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * seems to be one of their logged-in accounts. DHN (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BKFIP back?
A new user just repeated a WP:BKFIP edit at Milky Way and started a repeat revert war with similar edit summaries. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These are some amazing lengths you are going to to try to force a fringe viewpoint into the first sentence of an important article. 22funny (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,]. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, see also two threads above this one. This is maybe the third or fourth time they've dragged Wikja19 to AN/I. If a user is harassed in a forest, but they aren't around to hear it, is it still harassment? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)