Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075

Bad behavior by Aoi and Dirkbb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aoi has sent me a warning for no reason falsely accusing me of unconstructive edits and my edits were constructive Gun Control suppresses gun rights which is a human right in the US Constitution

Aoi has also been edit warring and reverting me for no reason leaving no reason Or edit summary at all I need a moderator to help me Dirkbb also edit warred and also neither of them sought consensus to remove my edits so thats also illegal a mod should warn or block them for edit warring, editing without consensus, and Aoi for giving me fake warn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E81:5D00:48BC:AD35:20BA:46E3 (talk • contribs)

Do you also have pronounced feelings on boomerang rights? Dumuzid (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What does that mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E81:5D00:48BC:AD35:20BA:46E3 (talk • contribs)

It means that you should perhaps peruse WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you made edits, but have been reverted. You should now make a proposal at the article talk page. If you convince editors that your wording is an improvement, the article will be changed. If you don't, it won't. There is nothing here requiring administrative attention yet. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Aight bet but why did they revert me without consensus I demand to know because my edit was correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E81:5D00:48BC:AD35:20BA:46E3 (talk • contribs)

They apparently thought it was not correct; that's how consensus works. Now it's on you to persuade them or enough other people to make your changes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you IP editor, I've always wondered what it felt like to be dragged to ANI. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what you are being passive aggressive and no defense you don't even deny edit warring or reverting my edits for no reason or giving me a fake warning I started a discussion on the talk page

IP person, learning to indent would be a big help to all of us here, and you have sort of started at 90% aggression. You might want to scale that back a bit. Talk things through. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry we started on the wrong foot here I will calm down I just get angry when people don't care

I strongly suggest that any further discussion take place at the article talk page, and that it be focused on the content in question and not the contributors. There is no administrative action required at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, please read about the neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not take a stance on political controversies. We are neutral and that is not going to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's not that people don't care--it's how we do things around here. There's even a name for it: WP:BRD. No one is trying to make you angry or deny what you have to say. But you do need to realize that when you want to change an article, it's on you to convince people that your change makes things better. I'll warn you right now that it's not always an easy task. Don't take it personally if you get reverted--just start putting together your argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what I am sorry and will discuss before asking a mod for help

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam links by Xtinageorge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Xtinageorge has approximately 140 edits, almost all of which consist of adding books by John Maxwell Hamilton to BLPs (apparently to any name ever mentioned in one of Hamilton's books), and almost all of which have been reverted, plus a handful of edits to Hamilton's article which have been revdel'd.

Xtinageorge was warned about spam links twice by me in January 2021 (User talk: Xtinageorge#"Further reading") and about COI by DuncanHill in January 2021 (User talk: Xtinageorge#Managing a conflict of interest). Xtinageorge stopped editing for several months, then started up again today spamming the same books, and was warned by Doctormatt.

Xtinageorge has never posted on a user or article talk page. There is no indication whether this editor even knows about their talk page or seen the warnings. Could an admin block them long enough to make them engage with other editors so they can learn why their edits are inappropriate? Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They are doing it logged out as well. See edits of 2600:8807:305:CC00:B0F0:D5A9:4493:DF2E and 73.184.68.142. There may be more. I am still looking. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undisclosed paid editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stevenmevans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I suspect the user named above is involved in paid editing without valid disclosure under the WMF Terms of Use (WP:PAID). The user was already informed/warned a few times about the necessity of making such a disclosure. The user edits articles related only to the specific author's agent (Eve White) and their behaviour looks like it is being done for promotional purposes (e.g. adding external links to articles' bodies). The person with a similar name to the user's username has recently started working for the Eve White agency - according to the news: [1]. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The singular focus on this obscure literary agent is certainly suspicious, as is the link provided and the user sandbox stating "Intern at Eve White Literary Agency".--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

For info: Discovered this after I put a speedy delete on the draft and a paid editing notice on the draft's talk page. 86.162.136.151 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• The user has attempted to declare their COI.[2] Bishonen | tålk 13:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
  • Clearly one of many young people who are given a job to do in the belief that it's menial and requires no skill or previous knowledge of Wikipedia. No action necessary at present. Deb (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

    Deb, have I ever told you that you're awesome? You just cut straight through all our acronym mumbo-jumbo to the heart of the matter. Kudos. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ymblanter's blocks of Volunteer Marek and GCB

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see here and here. Ymblanter has blocked Marek and GCB for edit warring, despite the editor in question not being eligible to edit on the topic in question as they are way below the 500/30 threshold. Which is *specifically* exempt from edit warring. If they arnt unblocked with either an apology (I dont care who apologises, I doubt Ymblanter will proffer one themself) the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got enough baid faith towards myself today, and, in addition, OID was very clear for many years that they want my tools removed does not matter what, but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I want your tools removed. You lack sufficient knowledge to use them properly and it results in abuse. The restrictions (and where edit warring doesnt apply) around 500/30 editing requirements are very very clear and an admin should be well aware of when they do and do not apply. You clearly do not. I am willing to let it go once again if you apologise to both Marek and GCB and lift the blocks. Or another admin does, but this blatant incompetence when it comes to basic knowledge of how a topic restriction works should not continue. 'Bad faith' in this context by the way would be assuming that you made a bad block, realised it when someone pointed out the 500/30 requirement, and decided to cover it up by blocking the editor who complained. That would be assuming bad faith. I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I support an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock sooner than later please. but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. Any admin who can't be bothered to read WP:3RRNO has got problems. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The 500/30 requirement is not listed at WP:3RRNO. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: True, although BANEX is which would seem to cover this as well - but you're right the part should be copied over from WP:GS [3]. As I stated on my talk page, I intend to file a request for clarification with ArbCom on the wording of the restriction. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah looks like it could use an update. I would probably support that! PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This should go straight to ARBCOM for a de-sysop, period.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. The arbcom was very clear by writing "articles" rather than "pages", and had a good reason for this, since otherwise revert of discussions from talk pages, for example, would be exempt from 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am too old for this. I completely disagree with the unblock, but I do not want to get to a hospital again. I will unblock. Next time, anybody starts talking about lack of admin, lack of gut, inability to look into difficult cases, remember this case, please. If I am still alive, I will be around to remind you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end, Did you discuss extensively with Ymblanter before bringing this here? ANI's are literally the last option if the plethora of trying to use other venues to settle differences and queries amicably are exhausted. Furthermore I see the mention of ARBCOM?? Come on! Now that’s rather uncalled for and don’t you think that’s rather harsh and comes off as “threatening” ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as Ymblanter is never open to reasoned discussion when they make an obviously wrong action, and their histrionics directly above should give you a decent idea of what their concept of appropriate behaviour is. They already had sufficient discussion on the talkpages of both Marek and GCD and had declined to unblock on the request of another admin. So yes, the appropriate place is ANI for an ongoing incident that needs a quick resolution. And yes, the consequences of their actions being unresolved would be Arbcom, because said earlier discussion had already failed to get them to see reason. There are almost zero actions an ordinary editor can take. Laying out the consequences of your actions may come across as threatening, but then when you treat people like shit, do not expect to get the kid gloves in return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end, so in summary do you believe you both can’t resolve this amicably? I’m pained when genuine and hardworking very productive editors like yourself and Ymblanter have disputes, honestly it is very much saddening. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 Just a note that while it is usually best practice to discuss things before taking them here, whatever - if any - issues OID and YMB have, an unjust block should be dealt with ASAP since the real victims here is an editor (editors) who got unjustly blocked. It would be totally unfair for them to wait days for action (if any) while this was limited to a talk page discussion which could be simply ignored for days or stalled or whatever (no bad faith assumed, simply noting admins can block someone and then be afk for some time, for example). As a review of an admin's action that requires possibly urgent action (unblock) it was totally right for OID to bring this here, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, Yes, I understand that part, the part that has me worried is Only in death does duty end saying he wants Ymblanter to lose their admin bits (note that this are both very productive editors) and the mention of ARBCOM also is upsetting (to me) It’s saddening when productive editors are at loggerheads. Furthermore I don’t think the mention of ARBCOM was necessary, more often than not I think we both can predict accurately what the verdict would be if a case was to be accepted. @Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties and to OID especially. We regular editors all make mistakes, and sysops do too as we are all human in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I think that (referring to "Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties") would be the best solution. There is no need for any community actions or sanctions if one acknowledges their mistake and apologizes, to be human is to err. What does worries me, however, is that the comments I've seen from Ymblanter suggests that they don't view their actions as wrong. Not being able to admit one has made a mistake and apologize for it is worrisome in any editor, and doubly so in admin, who has the power to block and delete. With power comes responsibility and the need to be responsible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that Only in death's behavior has been nothing short of appalling itself. They have taken every opportunity to insult Ymblanter and be as uncivil as humanly possible, with their kindest contribution to this report being, "I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness". Ymblanter's blocks were poorly conducted, yet that is no excuse for an editor to be personally vindictive. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Botto, I haven't had time to review OID's behavior, although there is undeniably a tension between those editors, to say the least. Nonetheless, "two wrongs don't make a right"; if you feel OID's behavior merits review, I'd suggest a new section or thread; here we are talking about Ymblanter's blocking of two editors and aftermath. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to get to a hospital again and If I am still alive are extremely alarming. I encourage a break - participating in Wikipedia should never provoke such fearful comments. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, we got most of the way there, but the unblock rationale was really unacceptable ("I want to stay alive"). Does anyone mind if I block each of them for 1 second, making clear they were unblocked because the block was against policy, not because Ymblanter wanted to "stay alive"? Especially, @Volunteer Marek: and @GizzyCatBella:, would you prefer such a notice in your block log? It's trading off clarifying you shouldn't have been blocked for an incrementally longer block log. I won't put such a note in your block logs if you don't want it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I'm fine with it. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - I’m also fine with it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Since you're unblocked, there's no need to immediately provide this note, so I'll wait until tomorrow if that's OK. That will give Ymblanter a chance to do it themselves, or if not, will provide a more complete ANI discussion for me to link to, or will provide a chance for someone to point out I've completely misunderstood the situation and it wouldn't be appropriate. And it gives me time to grill some steaks (and then eat them), which I've been looking forward to all day. Not trying to weasel out of anything; I'm just postponing until tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's fine too. Bon apetit. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam I concur that the unblock rationale is unacceptable; in fact I suggest it should be WP:OVERSIGHTed since it can even create a mistaken impression death threats were involved or such. While I honestly haven't interacted with or reviewed other actions by the blocking admin, anyone who makes a bad block and then an unblock with such an edit summary is certainly ripe for having their admin status scrutinized (with a nod to the de-sysop comments above). Anyway, I also support your idea of a re-un-block which a good rationale (ideally a link to this discussion when it is archived, but that may require waiting for this to be closed and archived? It probably would be most informative). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked and unblocked VM and GCB adding a proper rationale.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, can we have a diff for the edit(s) that resulted in the block(s) please? GiantSnowman 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it is here. CGB was blocked after their only revert, VM was blocked after 4 reverts of a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. No warnings to either party at all before 3RR was breached? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the account been blocked as a sock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I cant see the point tbh. Its clearly either one of the banned users in relation to Poland/WW2/Jews (which isnt a long list), or a clueless IP who just doesnt know they cant edit on the topic. Marek made it clear in the edit summaries that the editor was prohibited, and given the content, its almost certainly one of the Jewish anti-Polish editors. They will be back somewhere else soon enough. Regardless, the editor fails 500/30 for editing in a restricted area and so can be reverted on sight exempt from edit-warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so warnings are not even appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think a warning was required to at least signal that an administrator felt that the 500/30 exemption didn't apply because it is Wikipedia-space rather than article-space in which the reverts were being made. That would provide an opportunity for one of the editors to cease reverting, seek clarification if required and/or justify the basis of the block. The clear absence of that was what made this review open and shut. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant language from Wikipedia:General sanctions that Volunteer Marek was relying on Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. If this information page is accurate, then Ymblanter is incorrect when they wrote The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. As I read the language, the only place where an editor who does not meet the 30/500 threshold can edit about topics such as this is on article talk pages, and nowhere else on the project. Accordingly, Volunteer Marek was correct to revert these edits which were adding Warsaw concentration camp to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia since that editor is not permitted to do so according to the information page about General sanctions. If the information page is in error, it should be corrected promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A summary of this language should probably be added to WP:3RRNO, which currently makes no mention of an exception for the 30/500 rule. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The 500/30 restriction stems from an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#500/30_restriction, added as a result of this motion. The context behind the ARCA was sockpuppetry, and the reverted account is said to be a sock (above), apparently. The commenting arbs also said "articles" specifically. I think this should be kicked to the Committee at WP:ARCA, to ask whether the remedy only apply to articles or if it applies to all namespaces. ArbCom rulings are one place where language and precision matters, and this one genuinely seems unclear. (Of course, this point is separate from whether the editors should've been blocked for it, and due to the very small distinction, and given that the editors gave their rationale in the edit summary, I think the admin should've realised there was an ambiguity here and ideally decided to get it cleared up, or at worst went the warning route rather than the block route.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • More: I took a peek to check what the precedent from other arb cases is. The only other arbitration case to authorise 500/30 is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, which used an entirely different structure to its general sanctions remedies than the usual case. That one indeed applies in all namespaces, but it explicitly says so (edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think a clarification from ArbCom would be useful here. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I have asked for clarification at ARCA. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some may be wondering what Ymblanter was talking about when he mentioned tag-teaming by GCB and VM. Running Editor Interaction Analyser (Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella) lists the following pages that both VM and GCB edited on the same day (collapsed due to length):

I make no comment about whether or not 30/500 applies to that page/that content, but I will say generally that while I think Ymblanter's concerns are well-founded (per the above), a warning first would have been better than straight to a block. (And I hope he feels better soon.) Levivich 02:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Dude. As you very very very well know, both GCB and myself have been targeted with some very odious harassment (including violent threats against my family etc) by THE VERY SAME EDITOR. And then by his socks. Since you defended that editor over the course of the ArbCom case which led to his topic ban, and then participated extensively in the aftermath of that ArbCom case which led to his global ban, you are FULLY AWARE of the background here and cannot plead ignorance. Which means that YOU KNOW there's a very good reason why I would look at GCB's edits and talk page and why she would most likely do the same. It's the SAME SOCKS showing up on articles we both edits. Yet here you are pretending as if there's something nefarious going on BY THE EDITORS WHO HAVE BEEN TARGETS OF ABUSE. Way to enable abusers and blame the victims Levivich. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And if you're gonna try to play that game, then here you go [4]. Wanna explain that one? Volunteer Marek 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So GCB was blocked over one revert, but Kowkaw, the editor who made three reverts while edit-warring with VM, wasn't even warned? One side of this edit war was punished harshly while the side that arguably wasn't supposed to touch the page in the first place was completely ignored. And are we supposed to believe that someone who made a dozen edits almost a year ago just randomly reappeared, happened to notice this behind-the-scenes dispute, and jumped in with nothing but the purest of intentions? Why on earth was Ymblanter apparently fine with all of that? This situation was handled poorly, and the blocking admin's responses here do little to bolster confidence in their decision-making. I'm particularly annoyed with this remark: I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. The OP was not suggesting that some users should be generally exempt from blocks; he was arguing that any user who did what VM did in this particular situation should have been exempt from a block. Ymblanter's reply there is a strawman at best and gaslighting at worst. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lepricavark Good point. I would very much like to hear Ymblanter's explanation on why they have taken no action whatsoever towards Kowkaw? That new account is obviously very suspicious (per WP:DUCK given the extensive socking in this TA that led to 30/500 and like). Blocking established editors while ignoring a likely sock raises further question's about once competency as an admin, to say it bluntly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to make this call. I am not a CU, and I will now stay clear from any DUCK blocks probably for years ahead.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I am not saying you should have blocked Kowkaw; it's perfectly excusable not to be knowledgeable about the socks and likely masters in this TA. What I don't understand is, however, why you felt that VM and GCB deserve blocks and Kowkaw does not? Weren't they "edit waring" equally? Why block just the established editors and let the newbie scoff-free, without even a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole story started with VM and GCB reverting users in good standing, not Kowkaw. I actually warned VM to stop edit-warring before Kowkaw even showed up, but they went on to four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your timeline doesn't work. VM was not edit-warring (if that's even an applicable term here) before Kowkaw showed up. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked the timeline, you are right, I warned them after their second revert (the first their revert of Kowkaw). Actually, even after the second revert by Kowkaw, but I probably have not seen that one yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Can you provide the diffs for that edit warring? And I also can't seem to find the warning? Maybe I am looking at the wrong page(s), but I can only see a single revert by GCB at that hoax list, and I can't see any warnings you issued to them before the block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am lost now. Are we discussing VM or GCB? These are two different stories as far as I am concerned. All edit warring I know of is on one page, and you have by now also participated there.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so difficult in answering my question. Please tell me - and the community - on which page or pages each of the two editors you blocked violated 3RR (or 1RR if applicable), and please link diffs to the warnings you claimed above to have given them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Let us to postpone this until after the Arbcom at least has decided whether they are going to have the full case or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would a simple clarification require a full case? Volunteer Marek 17:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not know, but you are on that page as well, and there are people if not arguing for then at least seriously discussing the full case.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Arbs aren’t - they seem to be sticking to the issue at hand. All you got there is one or two editors (one of them posting in violation of their IBAN) who are trying to hijack a simple clarification request to agitate for a new case because they think a new case will “rehabilitate” Icewhiz (there is no world in which that would happen. It’s not like the ArbCom will be all like “oh you made death threats against multiple editors and threatened to hurt their families but you still have a couple friends on Wikipedia so we’ll forgive you and let you back”) Volunteer Marek 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We will see. This is not my call anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, why does this need to be postponed? Just answer the question. And while you're at it, please come up with a better explanation for why you never said anything to the other half of the edit-war. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It has to be postponed because if the full case is open (which indeed looks unlikely at the moment) it will be part of my defense, and I have to be very careful about what I am saying. Especially since I still have serious convcentration problems. ANI is not a good place to deal with these issues, but if the ARCA does not result in a full case I will provide the timeline here with the diffs. Concerning your second question - VM made four reverts, their opponent made three at the time of the block, and we have WP:3RR. Note that the two users reverting VM and GCB are not blocked (to be exact, were not blocked last time I checked), though we have a bunch of admins in this very thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You blocked GCB after 1 revert, but you didn't even give Kowkaw a warning after 3. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's my reading of this case as well. An established editor is blocked for edit warring after a single revert, a suspicious new account is not blocked for reverting three times. No apology or admission of any mistake from the blocking admin after 2-3 days of asking for clarification. What gives? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter I see no reason why such a simple yet crucial question cannot be answered NOW. You blocked them for REASONS which should have been grounded in POLICY, in this case, 3RR. Please tell us those REASONS, explicitly, while referencing the policies mentioned. It is hardly rocket science. Please list the 3RR violating diffs and the warnings you said you given them. We don't need to wait for any ArbCom clarification for such a simple list of diffs to be given. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Thank you for taking the time to provide the detailed analysis of the events from your side below. I'll leave it to more experienced and neutral parties to comment first; through per my comments above I think the best solution to end this dramu quickly would be for you to apologize for being too hasty in your blocks (particularly of GCB who did only a single revert). In general, warnings and page protections are better than quick blocks, also there is the 3RR procedure with reports and which gives people at least some window to reply/explain or self-revert. Blocks should be the last resort, not first. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed the point I wanted to address but forgot. I assume that [5] this diff] together with [6] settle the situation. If I were GCB, I would not want anybody to show up on my page to continue discussing this. (As myself, I do not expect anybody who was active in this ANI thread, to show up on my talk page to apologize, and I absolutely do not want user A repeatedly asking user B to apologize to me). If GCB wants apologies, I think they want to make it in some way clear to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I don't demand any apologies. You take care of yourself, okay? I really hope this episode ends soon, folks. (please!) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Hopefully some of us have learned somethink from the episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of blocks

• Ok, fine. I will do it now. The timeline was:
• approximately 2013 I add the page on my watchlist;
• 4 October 2019 Levivich adds the camp piece
• 2 August 2021 20:29 VM removes the text. Their first edit at this page since at least 2012, possibly ever
• 3 august 09:21 Revert by Gildir
• 09:35 Revert by GCB. Their first edit at this page since at least 2012, possibly ever
• I block GCB. The revert is a clear edit-warring. WP:Edit warring allows for blocks for less than three reverts. Reverts are clearly correlated - not necessarily in the sense they have discussed them off-wiki )probably not) but that situatively, they in any case have chosen to collectively revert established users. No socks are in the picture. Now, I know that GCB is just coming from the topic ban on this topic (which I have some recollection I was the administrator who rescinded it, but I did not check, and this is immaterial, this dees not make me involved anyway). They are an experienced user and must know that this revert is unacceptable. Their talk page is full of warnings. I choose the block for disruptive editing (not for 3RR, as claimed above, should have chosen edit-warring) and the duration of 72h, equal to the duration of the previous block.
• On a second thought, this was a poor decision. I mean, it was according to the policies, and if the thing goes to the full ArbCom case, I will be able to defend it, but I should solved the situation in a better way. If I had to do it again I would have left a strongly worder talk page message (similar to what I left as the block notice) but would not block. If it would not helped I would probably have blocked then.
• 10:07 GCB reacts in an appropriate way which I appreciate.
• 13:44 Kowkaw'd forst revert
• 15:10 VM's second revert
• 15:20 VM starts the talk page discussion (which I believe I have not seen before the block).
• VM shows up at the GCB's talk page, They are at this point mostly interested in who ordered me to block GCB and do not seem to believe that it was my own decision.
• 15:23 VM's third revert
• 15:24 At some point in the middle of the discussion, I warn them.
• 15:25 Kowkaw's second revert
• 15:28 VM's fouth revert
• 15:38 I block VM; the time is chosen again 72 h which is the same as GCB but also the same as the VM's last block.

We have a heated discussion again, starting again from BF assumptions (I blocked them because they contested the GCB block), which after some time converges into discussion of whether reverting a banned user is an exemption of 3RR, and I provide the argument that this page is not an article, and the argument is called wikilawyering, at which point I advise them to file an unblock request to have an opinion of an uninvolved administrator. The discussion is still there, this is the diff of my last edit on VM's page which also shows the previous discussion.

• The rest is here. My interpretation of the policy is currently on its way to be validated by ArbCom. There are no relevant diffs outside of the hoax page and the two talk pages, GCB and VM, I know of.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, concerning the VM block, I believe it was a valid block. There were four reverts (one of them of an established user); I gave a warning, though WP:3RR does not even say a warning is required; the edit-warring was collectively performed by two users (ald later other users, including Piotrus, joined - I am amazed that the page has not been protected, though the edit-warring was seen by dozens of admins. Probably everybody understands that none of the sides would let it go, and it will be a lot of shit anyway, whether the admin actions are correct or not). The question whether reverting a sock on a page which is not an article has been brought before ArbCom which seems to be fully supporting my interpretation. Getting a edit-warring warning and continuing to revert, seeing as another edit-warrior has been blocked, is rarely a good idea. Well, I could have just walked away after my warning and pretend I have not seen anything - is this actually what admins are here for? Having said this, the situation would probably not develop if I have not blocked GCB - which, as I said above, was a poor block. May be instead of trying to reply to all BF accusations I should have ignored them and say clearly that the reverts are blockable. I do not know. The whole situation is the topic area seems to unhealthy, and Icewhiz is not the only reason for this, as evidenced by multiple users at ARCA. I have no involvement in the area and this is not something that interests me, but I am not looking forward to the topic area becoming healthy.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the two new accounts taking part in the edit-warring, Kowkaw and אברהסה בו , indeed I checked they have low edit-count (I have a gadget installed showing edit-count) but I was not immediately convinced they are socks (may be they are, may be they are not, again, none of them is currently blocked). However, I had a strong suspicion they were NOTTHERE accounts. None of them made more than three reverts (otherwise I would have blocked), and I did not see any urgency in dealing with them. Ususlly we do not warn socks for edit-warring, we block them. When I had more time (probably evening of the same day, I would have looked at them, and likely block per NOTHERE. However, after the ANI thread started, there was no way for me to do it, and I am not going to look at these accounts. Again, there are plenty of other administrators around. If they want to deal with the situation - may be there is a goodr reason for this?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, I have by now given a full account of my motivation and actions in this episode, providing all the diffs, citing the policies, and explaining why my actions were compatible with the policies. This is what I am expected to do according to WP:ADMINACCT. I have done more than that, I have made the introspection of my actions and made conclusions that in some aspects I have acted poorly. Now, WP:ADMINACCT requires that I give a full account of my actions, but it does not require that I answer every single question of any user who want to ask anything. As I already mentioned several times, for me this ANI thread resulted in a medical emergency on Tuesday night, and even today I am not fully recovered, I am not feeling well and have difficulties to concentrate - you may notice that in almost all of my replies an any noticeboards I have to come back and make corrections, and that they have a horrible amount of typos I am unable to catch. This also has impact on my job. Whatever happens, I am not sure I am going to physically survive another thread like this. Since I have to prioritize my health and my job over my hobby, I will absolutely stop taking any decisions which can be even remottely interpreted as controversial. My congratulations, you have lost an active admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Therefore I will restrict my further participation here to an absolute necessary minimum, ideally I will not reply anymore. I apologize for this, but, again, I have provided sufficient information. The case is already before ArcCom, whoever thinks that my actions in this episode were not compatible with me being an administrator should just go there and argue the case. This of course absolutely should not stop the community from discussing the situation, but I would appreciate of this discussion occurs without continuously questioning me. May I please also remind everybody that we have the Terms of Use, which say something (I am not going to look for the actual text now) the discussions in the project must occur in the athmosphere of mutual respect and assuming good faith. This is not exactly what is happening in this thread. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you said you wanted to drop this because you were worried about your health and high blood pressure. You even put something like "I want to live" in the unblock - which itself is highly problematic! Yet here you insist on pursuing the matter.

So:

• You skip the very first step. Which is that this was first added by User:Icewhiz on Sept 4. This was literally DAYS before Icewhiz was topic banned from this area. Subsequently, Icewhiz was banned from En-wiki altogether for harassing and doxing multiple users off-wiki. Soon after that he was globally-banned by the WMF because some of the harassment was so fucking vile. I don't know, this seems like quite pertinent info ... so why are you skipping like the most important part?
• Then this was removed by User:Piotrus on Sept 10 (Icewhiz still NOT topic banned by this point) but then *reinstated*, NOT added, by User:Levivich on October 4th as you note (by this point Icewhiz topic banned so he couldn't do it himself). There WAS discussion about it at the time [7]. Levivich DID NOT participate in it (although a couple Icewhiz socks did).
• Let's skip ahead to the part where GCB removed it again and you blocked them. You claim above: "I block GCB. The revert is a clear edit-warring.". THIS. WAS. ONE. REVERT. You blocked someone for 78 hours for one revert. You didn't block the other person who reverted before GCB either. You blocked GCB. For one revert. You claim above: "They are an experienced user and must know that this revert is unacceptable.". NO. There is nothing "unacceptable" about a single revert. You claim above: "Their talk page is full of warnings." NO. This is a falsehood. I don't see A SINGLE warning on GCB's talk page. More importantly YOU in particular DID NOT issue any warnings. Just blocked someone out of the blue for three whole days for making a single revert (you did not block the person who reverted before them).
• You skip another part. Which is that I complained about the egreious block of GCB on their talk page. When I challanged your block you claimed, again, completely falsely, that this was because "it is part of edit-warring after multiple warnings in a contentious area". NO. There were no "multiple warnings". There was not even a single warnings. It is also utterly false that there was any OTHER edit warring by GCB. I looked through their last 1000+ edits going back to May. GCB has NOT made any other reverts (except for reverting some IPs and users with less than 500edits/30days, per the 500/30 restriction, who, btw, are pretty obvious or even confirmed sock puppets.). It's just not true, this is just your post-hoc spurious and false rationalization of a bad block.

When I pointed this out you accused me of "playing games" and "pretending that (I) don't know what you're talking about". This was, again, a deflaction. Someone points out that you're wrong and instead of either a) admitting your error or b) showing that person is wrong, you restor to this rhetorical device of "you're playing games"

• You then claim, quote: "VM shows up at the GCB's talk page, They are at this point mostly interested in who ordered me to block GCB and do not seem to believe that it was my own decision." This is also completely false [8]. NOWHERE in the discussion on GCB's talk page did I ask you or was "interested in" "who ordered you to block GCB". It's simply not there! You are completely misportraying the nature of that conversation! I, as pointed out above, criticized you for blocking someone for a single revert (and only one party) and for falsely claiming that there was some "other", unspecificed, edit warring GCB was guilty of. That's it. There's nothing there about me "not believing it was your decision". Why are you even saying this? Anyone can read that discussion and see it's just not true.
• You blocked me soon after I pointed out that your claims regarding GCB were simply false. I'm sorry to say, and I didn't want to bring this up before, but that looks straight up like a revenge "respect mah authoritah" block. As in - you dare complain about my admin actions? IBLOCKYOUTOO! It very much looks like you got annoyed that your actions were questioned and reacted emotionally by pressing that block button. Your subsequent statements, and the strange unblock-summary, suggest the same thing.
• You claim you "warned me". You said, on GCB's talk page, not mine, at 15:24 "That you continued reverting is not good either". I didn't see it. At 15:28 I reverted the likely sock puppet/account with very few edits again. At 15:29 I saw your comment and explained to you that "I reverted an editor who is an obvious sock per 500/30 restriction as above." You blocked me at 15:38, AFTER you read my response so YOU KNEW that there was a good reason for my revert. You also skip mentioning the part where I repeatedly, in my edit summaries and on the talk page also mentioned the 500/30 restriction. You didn't address that AT ALL. You did not claim that the restriction didn't apply to the page at the time - you only came up with that later.

Likewise, in your above statement you claim that "ArbCom (...) seems to be fully supporting my interpretation". I have no idea where you're getting that. None of the Arbs comments actually address the nature of your block - probably because that's NOT what the request for clarification is about. You reluctantly - after consensus here at ANI - unblocked and that was that. ArbCom is deciding whether the scope of the restriction is limited to articles or is broader. NONE of the Arb comments actually address your particular actions.

I'm sorry Ymblanter. As I said, I was content to let this go after you unblocked me (and GCB) and fixed your unblock-summary (since the initial one - "I want to live" - was so strange, and seemed to have implied that you had been threatened or something). I have no idea why you wish to keep pursuing this matter. But since you did see it fit to provide your "version" of events, I have to reply simply because it is so extremely misleading.

Still happy to drop it if you stop trying to restart it though. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to restart anything, but Piotrus above demanded that I provide the diffs and give my motivation. I had to do it according to WP:ADMINACCT. You may be sure that was no fun for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

His question (and other editors too) was why you didn't block the other editor, Kowkaw, the one with 12 edits who reverted three times (vs. GCB's one revert). Or why you didn't even warn them. None of what you posted above answers that question. Volunteer Marek 07:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What Piotrus said, was, literally, You blocked them for REASONS which should have been grounded in POLICY, in this case, 3RR. Please tell us those REASONS, explicitly, while referencing the policies mentioned. It is hardly rocket science. Please list the 3RR violating diffs and the warnings you said you given them. This is what I have done. Concerning Kowkaw, I specifically addressed them in my response. I understand that many people would disagree, but this was my motivation when I took the decision. Without this disaster, I would have looked at them more carefully.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Admins usually do the absolute minimum when asked for WP:ADMINACCT. Kudos for going to this level of detail. François Robere (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere Err, Francois, considering you are topic banned from interacting with GCB are you sure it is a good idea for you to comment in a discussion about a block that involves him (and not you)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm not opining about Ymblanter's actions, I'm just saying him taking the time to compile a thorough answer to your WP:ADMINACCT request is commendable (gosh knows I asked for ADMINACCT more than once and I never got anything even remotely close). If you suspect that's a violation then I'll strike it. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar: APL missing from DS/Alert documentation?

I was going to help clean up the mess left behind by this dispute, reverting a further 500/30 violation ( although per ProcrastinatingReader's response which I only just saw, perhaps it shouldn't be considered 500/30 resricted?) and leaving DS notices when I noticed that there is no mention of the Antisemitism in Poland case in the list of codes authorized for use. I'm guessing this is just oversight and should be corrected, but given how complicated the template code relating to it is I figured this was better raised for discussion before I go about adding the code. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As a further sidebar to the sidebar, I'm impressed that we resisted the temptation of naming the case ARBAIP, to finish the trifecta of ARBIPA and ARBPIA _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

APL does not authorise a separate DS. Since I believe APL falls entirely within the WP:ARBEE topic area, so I think the DS for that is used. The only special GS (that's still active) authorised by WP:APL is the 500/30. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you. I guess since it's a GS we don't need to notify people (although it seems like a surefire recipe for flummoxing any new editors that want to edit the topic). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's primarily an issue when only part of an article falls under the scope of extended-confirmed restrictions. You can always write a personal note if you come across an editor for whom such an alert seems useful. (The limitation doesn't authorize blocking without warning, so the note would serve to save the editor's time.) isaacl (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Levivich

I really thought we were done here, with the situation more or less resolved. Ymblanter unblocked, then changed the block rationale, then the clarification request was filed. All good. But then for some reason User:Levivich decided to show up and in a space of less than an hour managed to:

• Restart the edit war by reverting two editors on that page: [9] [10] with the second revert including false WP:ASPERSIONS of tag-teaming based on an arbcom case from... 12 years ago.
• Falsely accused me of "perpetuating a hoax" here and here (his rationale being that I made ONE (as in "1", uno, single", ein) minor edit something like ... 12 years ago to that article (it was a minor copy edit of a badly written sentence). This is one edit in space of 12 years. It is one edit out of thousand+ edits to the article. It is one edit out of tens of thousands of edits I made. I didn't perpetuate any freakin' hoax and this is a very serious accusation. Levivich has refused to strike it (he did strike a part of it) [11] (here is the edit in question. it's 100% obvious that it's just a basic copy edit of a bad sentence [12])
• Accused me and another editor of tag teaming because we edit the same topic area and because ... we have been both been harassed by the same user. That user's edits, btw, correlate with Levivich himself just as much if not more than mine and GCB's [13]
• Accused another editor of tag teaming and refused to apologize when asked [14]
• Started ANOTHER edit war on a related article [15] [16]

It's like he came here, saw the drama, and thought "oh this fire is going on, what it needs is a couple gallons of gasoline!". Can someone please tell him to step back (an apology for the false insinuations and attacks would also be appreciated) and leave this topic alone? I think it's pretty clear that his past support for User:Icewhiz is getting in the way of neutral and level headed editing. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am the one who asked Levivich to apologize for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: User_talk:Levivich#Apology_requested_for_your_unfounded_accusation_of_tag_teaming. I honestly thought this was a one-off mistake, and that Levivich will quickly apologize and this will be closed. I am disappointed by him not having done so in his initial reply, but I am holding hope this will be resolved quickly and amiccaby. As for his other edits diffed above, I concur he should now better, they don't appear to be very constructive (since they are de facto restoring edits by indef-banned Icewhiz, and at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw VM makes a compelling argument that Icewhiz edits were not just wrong (that was my reason for removing them) but were related to his campaign of harassment which led to his indef block. WP:BRV is a cherry on top; really, Levivich, edit warring restoring arguably very problematic edits by indef banned editors and "casting aspersions"; not your best wikiday. I suggest dropping that particular stick quickly before things escalate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing Levivich's reverts as "edit warring restoring arguably very problematic edits by indef banned editors" is misleading. As the page history shows, Levivich was reverting to restore the long-standing status quo text, which had been uncontested since Levivich took ownership of the banned user's addition by restoring it in October 2019 with an extra source; the recent edit war started with Marek's removal of that text. Yes, a likely sock got involved in the edit war to restore it, but the removal was clearly contested (just as it was back in late '19 when Levivich objected to its original removal) and the first restoration in the recent revival was, as far as I can tell, by an uninvolved, regular editor of that page. The text is sourced, has been in the long-standing version, and recent attempts to remove it have been contested. If editors want to remove it, they should work to build a talk page consensus. Jr8825 • Talk 17:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it was "very problematic", why did the editors who objected to it back in 2019 not continue to pursue the issue in the talk page thread where it was raised at the time, or bring it up at any point between then and now? Returning to the issue several years later and going straight to content removal and not re-opening the discussion that editors were aware of (because they'd previously participated in it) until the sock turned up to fight them ain't cool. Jr8825 • Talk 17:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not and the information isn't sourced. The "source" is a globally banned user's interview given to Hareetz and then reprinted by a few newspapers. The above-mentioned banned user is also the author of that listing that editors are trying to correct. Please fully familiarize yourself with the issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825 What GCB said, but I suggest this discussion is best to be held at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw - it is not an ANI's issue, IMHO. Well, aside from restoring edits by indef banned editor, which edits were part of his harassment campaign which led to his indef and global ban. This is of some relevance, I guess. But my main concern with with Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (the unfounded accusations of tag teaming), for which no apology has been forthcoming. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As I told VM shortly before he filed this, I won't be around much today (UTC), but I also don't have much to add beyond what I've already said about this on my talk page, the hoax list talk page, and in my edit summaries. I think everything relevant is in my recent contribs but let me know if there's anything else anyone wants me to address. Levivich 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• One thing I'll add is the way to resolve the content dispute about whether a particular entry should be listed is to come to consensus about an inclusion criteria for the list (with an RfC if necessary) and then see if the entries meet the criteria. The criteria I'm operating under is "described by RS as a hoax," which this entry meets (links and quotes on the talk page), but of course consensus might be for a different criteria. Levivich 19:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn’t that we disagree on the merits here. The issue is that you 1) restarted an edit war right as the drama was winding down and more importantly 2) you made an egregious and false accusation that I “perpetuated a hoax” based on… nothing. The latter is a very serious accusation and a personal attack which you refused to apologize for or strike. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I said one of your edits in a small way helped to perpetuate the hoax, and I did strike it, which you know, because we discussed that on my talk page. I didn't strike the "minimize the controversy" part but I struck the "perpetuated a hoax" part (diffs and discussion on my talk). Levivich 21:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Um, ok, I guess that’s a slight … improvement. And sure, I’ll drop it, I just don’t ever want to see you accuse other editors of “casting aspersions” or such. Falsely accusing someone of “perpetuating a hoax” is a serious and blockable offense. Volunteer Marek 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think we might want to consider sending Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia to MFD. Its negatives to the project plainly outweigh its extremely limited positives; regardless of warnings, memorializing hoaxes risks encouraging people to create more of them, and by necessity listing anything there requires ascribing intent to editors, which leads to bad blood and WP:ASPERSIONS. And, of course, it has now created massive edit-wars that have spilled out into ANI, which is not worth it for an internal page of such dubious value (and which doesn't clearly fall into any of the acceptable categories in WP:PAGES, for that matter - some leeway is fine if a page has theoretical value and isn't a net negative to the project, but it feels like this page tipped into net negative long ago.) If such a list has actual encyclopedic value, and if appropriate sources exist, we could perhaps have such a list in article-space rather than Wikipedia space, but as far as Wikipedia space goes I'm skeptical that the page's stated purpose of helping us research hoaxes is actually useful today given Wikipedia's scale. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is the editors not the page. Levivich 14:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the problem editors who wish to preserve that joke of an entry at the hoax page as some kind of “shrine to Icewhiz” and who appear to think that a new ArbCom case can “rehabilitate” him. It won’t. The guy was banned globally for EXTREMELY good reasons, and there’s no way WMF is ever unbanning him. At some point it’s time to accept reality. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WP is, at least in theory, all about openness and critical thinking. Exposing, recording and learning from our mistakes is part of it. How some community members handle such record is secondary to its immense value to the reader. François Robere (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who notices that while VM takes me to ANI for essentially ABFing, he is ABFing much worse about me? I struck the hoax comments, but he won't strike anything. Is it just me? Levivich 18:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Most of this thread is a BF exercise.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    Worse than falsely accusing someone of “perpetuating” or “minimizing” a hoax? Volunteer Marek 18:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    For example, the way you keep misquoting me, half a dozen times now. Levivich 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    You're being "hysterical" and "divisive", it was six strikes, tops. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Abdullah saeed al as-sheikh

Repeated vandalism in Bangladesh MHM School & College

Issues

1. WP:UNSOURCED, but also per 2. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

I don't have roll-back option. Please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talk • contribs)

Reverted and watchlisted for a bit. Let me know if the article needs to be pushed back a bit further. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

All good mate, that will do, thanks. Slake000 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RogueShanghai

Hello,

This editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits pertaining to the Nicki Minaj article, available for all to see from the user's talk page. This editor somehow is convinced that copying an article word for word from a different online encyclopedia (Britannica) is a reliable source. Persistently disputing and edit warring with several users on various subjects of the article, and refusing to accept the fact (in this instance) that actress is not notable to the career fame of the article subject enough to lead.

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]

ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

How did I copy the article word for word? I said that the Britannica encyclopedia stated that she was an actress, and we as another online encyclopedia should do the same. You seem to make no coherent sense of anything whatsoever. Blessings and peace. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 11:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Also at AN3, I guess: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:RogueShanghai_reported_by_User:ChicagoWikiEditor_(Result:_). ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: If what I wrote does not make coherent sense to you, then there is clearly a problem with your reading comprehension because it is there in plain grammatically correct English to be understood. You are proposing a 1:1 of another encyclopedias lead and called that a "source", even attempting to include "television personality" (before you were shut down) because "thats what it says on Britannica". This is all clearly viewable in the edit summaries above. Maybe you should get some sleep? It appears you've been up several hours, maybe even a full day edit warring this page. Quite a way to spend your Saturday. If Nicki Minaj the rapper is an actor then so is Shaquille o'neal, Eminem, and Dr Dre, right? They've had far more significant careers in film yet there is a consensus among editors that these are not article leading titles. Same applies for Nicki Minaj ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPA. And actually, also, yes. If they've had careers in film I see no issue with Eminem and Shaq being labeled with careers in acting. Minaj went to a straight up acting high school and said that she originally intended to be an actress instead of a rapper, so for you to completely discredit that on the basis of what you think, that is not encyclopedic. Your edit summaries prove this:

> "Not an actress" [20]

> "There isn’t a source in the world that will justify labeling Nicky Minaj the rapper as an actress" [21]

> "She is not notable for being an actress" [22]

And also, the way I spend my damn weekends is none of your business. I don't see why you needed to bring that up. Minaj is notable for acting, she was straight up in a supporting role in The Other Woman, she went to acting school in high school, etc. You're completely misrepresenting her on the basis of YOUR opinion. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: You ought to take the time to learn how and use the reply feature. And I didn't ask you about your weekends, I just noticed they sucked, and that's related to your activity on here, not a genuine concern for your weekend. Moreover the question about Shaq, Em, and Dr Dre was rhetorical. Did you read the whole thing? Her acting in high school and prior ambitions are irrelevant to her career fame, so that is pointless to mention. If I opened an Rfc on talk page it would likely be almost unanimous. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note for any reviewing admins: I don't know anything about this particular case. However, very recently, ChicagoWikiEditor told FMSky in this talk page section that "Clearly being a child is your problem" and "Relax, little boy... Gold star for trying though. Now run along unless you're going to be constructive." He went to tell me in this edit summary: "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about" directed at me. In this talk page section, he said "For benefit of simpletons like yourself", also directed at me, and then threatened with this: "If you or anyone else feels like you can continue to revert the article then that's on you. I'll see you at the admins board afterwards." I was the one trying to discuss, and being civil, but in the face of those attacks I simply started an RfC because I didn't feel like trying to talk to him anymore would be productive. I think all of that is relevant when reading this current issue. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I would've been fine discussing this on the talk page if it weren't for his openly hostile and rude nature, and continuing to assert that Minaj is not an actress seemingly only because he thinks so despite two linked sources saying she is an actress. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 03:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment the user RogueShanghai has a clear problem of ownership with the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment RogueShanghai is clearly a big fan of Minaj and is very clearly trying to peacock the article whilst displaying severe WP:OWN issues; especially given the response above I would suggest a partial block from the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment RogueShanghai seems to enjoy calling out personal attacks as much as they do making them. Examples include:
  • What does my personal life and the fanbases that I am in have to do with any of my editing work? WP:NPA.[23]
  • He's also seemed to personally attack me [...] when there's no place for personal attacks here, going as far as to misgender me, whether intentionally or unintentionally.[24]
  • Hopefully you'll stop [...] acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s.[25]
  • I don't think someone who is a fan of someone who seems to use multiple cowriters for her bars can speak on Doja Cat.[26]
  • You're being so weird, there is literally no reason to [...] keep reverting the image. Maybe a spambot?[27] KyleJoan^talk 09:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Both ChicagoWikiEditor and RogueShanghai are clearly way over the line in their day-to-day communication styles. Sanctions or restrictions are needed because it seems both of them are well aware of NPA/ANI/3RR but see behavioural policies and guidelines only as a way to threaten others rather than as a series of steps we all need to take to make sure that everybody who volunteers their time and effort here feels comfortable. Unless our behavioural PAGs are actually enforced, then these editors are correct that they exist only as weapons to be rude to others with. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • After this past discussion, will this finally have a solution? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: sorry to bother, is there any way an admin can follow-up on this? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Cornerstonepicker: I'm not an admin and it doesn't appear to me that this discussion gathered consensus to impose restrictions, so I don't think there's anything that will come of this. ANI is a very toxic place and outcomes of discussions are often useless, with admins uninterested in enforcing our civility policies and guidelines. I understand that this answer will be frustrating. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruption at Rachel Brookes

• Rachel Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• IPv4-DoB-21August1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• George Parr 21Aug1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IPv4-21August1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plus a boatload of IPs

• Owen Parr 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The history of both these articles dating back to August 2020 is an edit war between the two groups above. The three accounts with the date in the name are obviously the same person, and presumably they are also the IPs as well. When not making useless edits they are attempting to add a poorly referenced date of birth. On the flip side, there's Owen Parr 77 who is a SPA who seems to revert every change made to the article, even reverting edits which appeared to improve the article as well as the many bad ones. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this would appear to be a BLP with long-term problems in need of a solution. FDW777 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is weird. I'm investigating further back, I see George Parr (Cricketer) which matches one of the other obvious usernames, and there's a creepy Twitter account being linked to from edit summaries. I expect I'm going to be blocking quite a few accounts in the next few minutes, give me a moment. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  OK, so from what I've seen, I believe this is an intentional campaign of harassment to get private information about the subject of the article published on the article. It has been going on for about a year, involving multiple IPs and SPAs. Owen Parr 77 is also an SPA, but they appear to have been working to counter the attempts of the person who has been doing the harassing. I note that an account was created in the name of the subject, which tried to get the article deleted - I have no way of knowing whether that aws really her, or someone acting on her behalf, but if someone was harassing her on Wikipedia (and, apparently, on Twitter), then seeking deletion would not be surprising.

  I have blocked all of the accounts that have been trying to publish the private information, and have performed a whole bunch of revisions deletions. I have also semi protected the article for a year. I would be interested in learning what Owen Parr 77's connection with the subject of the article is - it seems clear that there must be one - but since they have been doing nothing but removing obvious BLP violations (and perhaps occasionally been a little trigger happy with the reverts, which is understandable), I don't intend to apply any sanctions to them.

  As an afterthought, it is very possible that the article ought to be deleted. There are three sources in the article at present - one is a Wordpress blog, and the other two are articles by her, not about her. As a journalist on a national broadcaster, there is a clear WP:SIGNIF claim, but the current sourcing does not demonstrate a WP:BASIC pass, I'll leave that for someone else to evaluate though. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Add - also tidied up the disambiguation page, and put pending changes on that for a year - there hasn't been quite as much disruption there, but pretty much every edit over the last year has been related to this. If it persists through IPs, it should be semi-ed as well. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  One last comment - I've had some discussion with Owen Parr 77 on their talk. Based on their editing (i.e. they have made no edits at all aside from removing private information from those articles), I see no reason not to believe they are being earnest about who they are. I've notified Trust and Safety about what does indeed seem to be a harassment campaign across multiple platforms, of which we are just one. I've seen some of the creepy stuff on Twitter, apparently there is more of it elsewhere but I haven't gone looking for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Orchomen socking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

THE LTA sockmaster Orchomen is at it again. Here is another Orchomen sock:

176.204.120.115 155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

all our IPs are blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All our IPs are blocked from editing, the IPs we use to maintain wiki for clients! How can we unblock IPs so we can edit pages? Is important as we have many page to edit and cannot complete work. Help pls. Emptynice (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You could start by saying who "we" are and identifying which IP addresses are blocked. We would probably then need to go on to things like paid editing declarations. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

and SPAs. And also sock puppet accounts, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b10a:bf57:e4a7:59d8:47c9:7faf (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Billy Ego wishes to return - third-party source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to a now-removed thread on moneysavingexpert, Billy Ego (talk · contribs) wishes to return, apologized for his sockpuppetry, and wants to be a contributor to Wikipedia again.

Yes, what he did was in 2007-2008, a while ago now, but what's your view on things?

The thread was removed from public view at moneysavingexpert forums; also posted to redflagdeals as well.

What should we do about this? --Kathanis92595 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If they want to appeal their block they need to post the request on their talkpage or via WP:UTRS. Refer them to the guide to appealing blocks. It's a checkuser block so will need CU input as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Given this other thread I am somewhat dubious. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah me too. Two decade-old blocked users both logging on to "moneyexperts" or wherever, both opining that they'd like an unblock? A surprising coincidence. But assuming good faith the above advice is what I guess we'd say to anyone: unblocks can be appealed at your talkpage, or UTRS, or Arbcom for those few who are banned even from these locations. Your chances will depend on your history and the content of the appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Of passing interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robeca5020 -- Euryalus (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ahmad Hangtuah

Ahmad Hangtuah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added false infos, both on ENWIKI and IDWIKI. Flix11 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahmad Hangtuah has only edited twice this month, which tells me that this is not an urgent incident and should not be here. And, of course, what they do on id.wiki is not our concern. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Kuatrero's renewed attempt to move Prisioners of the Revolt

I would like to ask administrators here to move back Prisoners of the 2019–21 Chilean protests to its original title Prisoners of the Revolt. Kuatrero has, again, been moving it without a discussion or consensus. This is the second time I report Kuatero's unilateral attempts on the article. See previous incident archive here. The discussion that emerged back then did not end in consensus (details here). I further propose to give the page some protection against Kuatrero's unilateral moves as he, despite being an experienced user, appears to insist on giving the article a name of his choise wihtout doing a move proposal. It's quiite a waste of time to deal with this behaviour. Dentren | ^Talk 12:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dentren: With all due respect, this can be solved just by discussing on the article talk page. There is no 'incident' here. I suggest you stop bringing any matter up to the ANI just because you disagree with someone else. Additionally, your previous report was not even taken up by an admin. I reiterate that, if you disagree with the page move, go and discuss it in the talk page and/or bring it up to WP:RM. Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

On the day this WP:SPINOFF was created (July 5) by Dentren, Kuatrero boldly redirected it [28], which was reverted by Dentren [29]. Then, Kuatrero nominated it for deletion [30]. While the AFD was running, Kuatrero boldly moved the page [31], which Dentren reverted [32]. Kuatrero moved it a second time [33]. Dentren raised the issue at ANI [34] and Jerm moved it back to the original title [35] (this is all within four days of creation). The AFD closed on July 29 as no consensus, and today Kuatrero again moved the page [36]. I have moved it back to the original title. Meanwhile, today is the first time anyone has posted anything to the talk page. Kuatrero, I am not an admin and have no authority to sanction anyone, but if you do this again, I think you are likely to be sanctioned. Follow WP:BRD: if a bold edit, including a bold move, gets reverted, don't re-instate it; instead, discuss on the talk page. Specifically, follow the procedure spelled out at WP:RM if you still think the page should be moved. Levivich 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Sure. I have no problem with that. However, I don't think it should have been brought up here (which I find it harsh) without Dentren discussing it with me. At least, I've had the intention to do so. Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Kuatrero, you knew there was no consensus, and you are not new to Wikipedia. Anyhow, the article needed to be reverted to its original name before a propper discussion on move could begin. Please restrain yourself from unilateral non-consensus moves in the future, it will make both of us waste less time. Dentren | ^Talk 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I see there was a clear opinion against its current name in the deletion request, although it was not the point of discussion (it was the article's deletion or merging). There was no consensus to delete or merge the article. Do not misrepresent facts. Kind regards. Kuatrero (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User: Jixby Phillips

User:Jixby Phillips has demonstrated intense WP:SPA attitudes in regards to episode order of South Park (season 1). He has posted long rants with unreliable sources to prove that his view of episode order is correct and everyone else is wrong. When warned on his talk page of his SPA behavior he responded with a threat. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The attack at User talk:Jixby Phillips against you is definitely grounds for a block, but next time please provide the diffs showing disruption. I found Talk:South_Park_(season_1)#Current_source_contradicts_airdates and Talk:South_Park_(season_1)#Volcano/Weight_Gain_4000_mix-up, but this user is difficult to track by any means except diffs since they do not sign their comments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Jixby Phillips for 31 hours for that unacceptable personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Chitoro

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

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

User is hellbent on using obscure websites as sources to alter the ethnic demography in Takestan County. Out of his 10 edits, he has reverted the article 7 times. Not to mention he accuses others of racism [37] [38] and threatened to sue another user [39].

Seems like WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef as DEOA. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Long term disruption from a couple IP ranges

Resolved

 – Both ranges blocked for a month

• 174.250.144.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 174.253.0.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Last week I stumbled across these IP ranges causing disruption going back months. Almost all their edits are reverted. Per my request on his talk page, Daniel Case blocked the ranges for a week. I just checked the ranges again today and they are back at it. I know we generally do not do long term blocks on IPs but I think these may warrant perhaps a 6 month block (or something). S0091 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them again for a month this time. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It was not my intent for you handle this. Quite the opposite but I appreciate the response. S0091 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: You mentioned my name and no one else had, so I figured why not? Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:VNHRISHIKESH

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[40] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[41].

Today, an IP appears[42], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[43][44]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[45] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[46] with some clarification afterwards[47]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[48] and again after being reverted[49], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[50]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[51].

And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[52] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Once more, I agree that VNHRISHIKESH has a serious competence issue (they're already extended confirmed and I'm not sure if they even made one edit that is genuinely helpful), but from all that I can see it is in extremely good faith, and it should be dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure if mentorship really is a thing here (I know that I don't have the time for that), but if no mentor is willing to step up we may indeed need an indefinite block. I just wish we had some kind of procedure to kindly tell off young users who if they would come back in five or ten years time would very likely make great editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone Here is VNHRISHIKESH. I understood that you're going to block me from editing. I think you did't notice my whole edits in this encyclopaedia. I think that my edits were perfect and I can say that I have a competitive mind and maturity. So please don't block me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indef. The combination of "I think that my edits were perfect" with a clear state of imperfection does not show any possible scope for improvement.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Indefinitely - Whilst it appears highly likely that this user is fairly young, and we have all suffered from the foolishness of youth at some point in our lives, that does not alter the fact that an increasing amount of time and effort has been spent in tidying up after them; especially so when they are (almost certainly) deliberately wasting people's time by vandalising their own talkpage in order to get it protected for some reason. To be frank, competence is required; block until they can return and contribute positively (which is likely to be in several years time...). --Jack Frost (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This user created a stub called "Pigments in Leaves", which was quickly draftified. They expanded it (with homework-assignment-like prose), and it was declined, twice. They then unilaterally moved it into mainspace without modifications. Oh, and Factors affecting Temperature distribution is somehow live in mainspace again. I lack the inclination to sort out the edit history there. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• And then today, they created this, which was soon after draftified of course. It now looks like this. Fram (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case it wasn't clear from my comments above, we need an indefinite block for this editor (though not a community ban!); we just need someone or somehow to do it gently. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Block, regretfully. This seems like a textbook case of Competence is required. They're obviously trying to edit in good faith, but the complete lack of understanding of core policies like notability and verifiability, combined with issues relating to content forking, unencyclopaedic writing and being unwilling to listen to advice from much more experienced editors means that their contributions are simply becoming a massive time sink. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR; too much ongoing work in cleaning up their messes and handling frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block Obviously lacks the competence and maturity to constructively contribute long-term. I mean look at Draft:Famous scientists, just created today.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Their article creations are poorly sourced and often have spelling, grammar, or tone issues. For example, their latest creation Draft:Encounter Marine Park has lots of puffery and mis-conjugated verbs, and no secondary sources. Not to mention that their very first talk page message concerned Atom:some basic facts, a duplicate of the super-basic Atom article. It is apparent from their article creations and lack of response that they have poor command of English. It reminds me of Risean 12345 (talk · contribs), another user I encountered recently who was indeffed for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have filed a WP:CR request for this thread. They are now editing rapid-fire at Draft:List of famous scientists, a draft they created that is redundant to the various Lists of scientists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't block It appears from [latest reply at the talk page] that they are actually learning. They appear to have taken up advice against their Draft:List of famous scientists, owing to its subjective and redundant scope. Thus, I retrach my previous !vote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think that what you seem to be referring to, i.e., this (I realised it. I found your notification. Then I wasted my time......) and this (Thanks for your valuable advice.....), shows once again that they are here in incredibly good faith, but not necessarily that they are competent enough to do more work than they create. If there is no one willing to mentor them (David notMD, Haploidavey?), it may take a long time before they become a net positive. Clearly, it's a difficult call though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban a textbook case of WP:CIR.Ratnahastin ^tålk 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment; he's undoubtedly well-intentioned but seems completely in a world of his own, and when it comes down to it, way too pleased with himself to receive advice or criticism and learn from both (QED time and again). Like others here, I think that's at least partly to do with age, and therefore he might grow out of it but I'm not at all sure this is the place to do it. I'm not sure that his litany of apologies means anything much, or that the User has determination to overcome (or even recognise) basic competence issues, or that I've the patience to help someone who's so determined to go their own way. I mean, you've seen the sheer length of his talk-page? And barely an acceptable edit elsewhere. A net negative. That said, if he was open to mentoring, I might be up for it. But it needs to be at his initiative, and I'd be pretty merciless. Haploidavey (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support block If errors were in one area, mentoring might be plausible, but it is creating and abandoning drafts, reverting draftifications, inadequate referencing, grammar problems, and no evidence of being on the steep part of any learning curve. At > 100 edits a week, a massive time sink. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban Per WP:CIR. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef, unfortunately. WP:CIR. DoubleCross (‡) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Can whoever delivers the bad news PLEASE draft it while keeping in mind that this editor appears to be a young person? EEng 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outlander07 Nair vandal + ip gaming at 2409:4073:188:816:BC56:BC50:3785:213B series

Outlander07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Outlander07 has been blocked in Wikimedia commons for ip vandalism and harassment[53].

Every sock reported here is closed without investigation (and even alleged the reporters as vandals !) as he is able to misunderstand admins and check users as he is a neutral editor. if you check his edits he behaves to be neutral but is a Nair vandal who attacks thiyya,ezhava and Christians, maybe at sometimes he do a Nair vandal revert to maintain as a neutral in front of admins. He is vandalizing many articles, from these ip series, from maybe from another device.[54][55]

see his loggedout vandalisms : [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

See also his initial all edits, all on Nair caste [[61]]

clearly Shows here he is a Nair ethnic vandal who is here to promote and protect Nair pages [62]. He said there : Who the hell are you?You are trying to defame the same Nair community by providing false statements even though you are from some other community than kshatriya,Nair,Ambalavasi.I know this is your cheap ajenda.Keep it in mind that the history cannot be disrupted by some idiot like you.

I request a thorough investigation on this without any prejudice or privilege given to the user Outlander07, and block this Nair caste vandal who is disrupting Wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.194.252 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This IP has been making repeated and unsupported claims that Outlander07 is a sockpuppet for days, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 for reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked. I probably could make this an ARBIPA block if I felt like it, but the message here alone is blockworthy on its own. The lack of self-awareness in the rant above is depressingly typical for India POV warriors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Passerby note as the clerk who processed these cases: This is an exact copy-paste of the edit request the IP made at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 (not sure why they made it an edit request since the page isn't even semi'd yet, though it probably should be). The IPs comments are also near-identical to those made by a registered user on commons. Not sure where this vendetta is coming from, but it's one that has been ongoing for a while, and the recent reports are all unconvincing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've left a notice on Outlander07's Commons talkpage, as is predictable the admins over there are completely missing the forest for the trees. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Transphobic/homophobic_personal_attacks. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ranting fundamentalist

User:83Gulf has been edit-warring at Book of Ruth, repeatedly violating WP:CENSOR, and spewing rants which are fundamentalist attacks against mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Also acting of their behalf: Special:Contributions/155.246.151.38. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a diff:

And their edit summary: "Such arrogance to think that one published piece of garbage should outweigh centuries of carefully considered thought. What would you say if I'd said this thing about your holy venerated mother? Apparently nothing because you have no values and all thoughts are equally relevant in your weak mind. Wiki is quickly becoming a vast garbage dump of ramblings and murmurings. Weak utterances of thought don't deserve the time of day to reconsider." Carlstak (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing dispute. Per WP:redflag extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which is what 83Gulf claimed in different words. If you believe I am sockpuppet, please file at SPI. It will be futile.155.246.151.38 (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is good enough, it does not have to be WP:SOCK.

It's not WP:REDFLAG: Michael Coogan stated the same in God and Sex. Seems to be a pretty vanilla claim among modern Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The ES [Many modern commentators see sexual allusions in this part of the story, with 'feet' as a euphemism for genitals.] - deleted. Intellectual graffiti from a perverted mind steeped in the weak morality of our current society. An attempt to undo thousands of years of established religion by an atheist. makes me wonder about their ability to adhere to NPOV; especially as one of the atheists in question is Gerald West, Professor of Religion and Theology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and another is Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.

Conservapedia is thataway → Narky Blert (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please argue that point at talk. A claim of WP:redflag was made. Address it at talk.155.246.151.38 (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Negative, IP. No change in venue is warranted. This is the place for conduct matters. I don't even know what this is about (Narky Blert: Cow Man says, diffs = friend), but I do know that telling someone that they are of a perverted mind and are of a weak morality is a personal attack if directed at an editor, and a WP:BLP violation if directed at an otherwise living person. Neither is acceptable. Either is a cause for sanctions. El_C 06:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Diff. Narky Blert (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See Narky Blert, this is why I'm so good at what I do. I start reading a report from the middle! Blocked indefinitely for egregious misconduct. El_C 06:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the 155 IP editor is the same as 83Gulf, and I'm not convinced of anything that should happen regarding the editing dispute at Book of Ruth (please use the talk page). However 83Gulf is very close to being sanctioned for inappropriate comments, and the 155 IP editor has had quite a lot of their edits reverted for NPOV issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Continious homophobic and person attacks from user whos following my edits

I'd hate for it to come to admin intervention, but I continuously get attacked by someone using an IP from what I think is the California region. They continuously respond on my talk page to even unrelated comments to just bring on name-calling, examples can be found on several pages:

• here July 21
• here (note the backwards spelling) August 7
• all edits from this banned account
• here
• here

The user seems to be hopping around 63.194.188.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 186.139.255.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 47.147.70.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) among others. Is there anything we can do to figure this out? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm noting for the record, since I think several of the diffs presented here will need to get revdel'd, that the edit summaries and talk page comments include a number of brightline violations of our WP:harassment policy, including outright slurs directed at sexuality which I think can be fairly described as hate speech, though it is unclear if it is also an effort at trolling. This issue is probably going to need to be handled by admins with a fair degree of technical facility regardless, so they will be able to see the full context in any event, but just in case this ends up having some broader community relevance, it's worth recording here that the tone of several of the edits is pretty ugly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• None of this is acceptable, but unless it gets to the point where real-life legal action is feasible, I'm not sure much can be done. Asking admins to watch the relevant pages and quickly revert-block-ignore the content may be all that is possible. And, fortunately, this is the place to ask admins to do so. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, blocks may very well be an option if this user is using the same handful of IPs consistently, though of course we may be looking at just a part of the disruption. Of course it's increasingly difficult these days for LTAs to abuse an infinite series of IPs via proxies (and the IPs need to be reported as potential proxy service IPs if nothing), though not impossible. Regardless, some combination of blocks or range blocks may be technically feasible and advisable here: there's a number of reasons that might not work out, but without some technical investigation here, it feels a little premature to say nothing can be done. I don't want to get too in the weeds here, given WP:BEANS, but there are potential options. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As they're jumping /8s and using different providers (and one of them geo-locates to Argentina) I'm not optimistic. If there is a way to block them, I agree that per BEANS we shouldn't spell it out here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked a couple of IPs, and done some revdel. More can probably be removed by anyone from Talk:Eazy-Duz-It and maybe some other pages. 186.139.255.129 and 47.147.70.139 seem to be long term static IPs. Any IPs from Argentina, etc, should be handled by one of the proxy bots if their type thinks of returning. If it kicks off again then page protection is probably an option - just give an admin a shout. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Rdp060707

User:Rdp060707 is a useless editor. He is reverting perfectly valid edits. 122.56.208.45 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Both of you made several dozens reverts today, with you, 122*, overstepping four reverts in a few articles. The communication between you has been so far substandard. May be you could stop and figure out whether these two categories are really needed in the articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And please notify Rdp060707 as required.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like User:Rdp060707 is on autopilot with semiautomated editing app. And both you and User:Rdp060707 are not actually looking at the quality of the edits. I may be an anon editor but I know my way around WP! 122.56.208.45 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@122.56.208.45: I did not make Wikipedia more useless.----Rdp060707|talk 06:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

122.56.208.45, if your last sentence is true then you doubtless know that the thing to do if you disagree with a revert at The e!DAL Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository is to start a discussion at Talk:The e!DAL Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository, which I note is a red link, rather than edit-war and then come to WP:ANI, which does not deal with such content issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This issue is about the poor quality of their edits. An experienced edit will so that I am right and they are wrong. So there! 122.56.208.45 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by people discussing disagreements like mature adults. If you want to edit then please join in with this, rather than simply indulging in playground name-calling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

An experienced editor would not take kindly to an immature statement like "I am right and they are wrong. So there!" - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The 122 editor has a serious attitude problem. That said, their edits here and here to remove an unnecessary category were correct, reverting a category change 2 or 3 times with no comment other than "unexplained content removal" is not good communication. Rdp060707 has tens of thousands of edits and should know better. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I know better. The two diffs (that mentioned by User:力) are said to be correct, but it doesn't appear to be explained. Before I reverted them, I noticed on the summary that it appears to be nothing, so it is unexplained content removal. The IP address supposed to explain, on its removal of anything that the one disagree on it, like this: Remove unneccessary category; rm-unneccessary, etc.----Rdp060707|talk 10:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Highly disruptive editor is WP:NOTHERE

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

Roje Vala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has had 10! final warnings, was previously reported here (though was obviously not blocked) and continues to make highly disruptive edits to BLP articles as can be seen here. It's clearly a case of NOTHERE so can an admin just please put a stop to this once and for all. Thank you. Robvanvee 14:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours, since no one has blocked them yet. Let's see what effect this has. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel! Robvanvee 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Korean dinosaur IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Since December 2019, a dynamic korean based IP on the 2001:2D8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range has been making persistent unexplained edits to dinosaur articles. They never leave edit summaries or respond in any way, only edit warring to revert to their preferred version. They have been previously blocked for six months on the 25th of November 2020 by Drmies, which worked while the block lasted, but they've since returned. For past discussions, see User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_18#Dinosaurs. What's the long-term solution here, another six month block? I should note that the range isn't very active aside from the vandal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

notified. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the block log, I've reblocked for a year. Any admin who feels strongly that this is excessive can modify this without consulting me. Otherwise, see you in August 2022 for a recap? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Courtesy update

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note: I'm only posting this because this event is easily missed by anyone who isn't online 24/7, & will lead to bafflement & misunderstandings for many. I'll leave the work of providing further details to others.

It has come to my attention that Chris Sherlock, who most lately has been contributing under the username Aussie Article Writer, has been indefinitely banned. The immediate cause was that he violated an WP:IBAN. The more general cause of his ban is that, simply put, Wikipedia is not a healthy environment for him & he needs to stay away from here. (It is possible: I've taken several Wikibreaks in the past, & am about to take another.) I sincerely wish him all the best, & hope for his sake he doesn't come back. -- llywrch (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It would also be great if people could avoid the temptation to post on AAW's talk about this, which somehow three users, two of them quite experienced, have thought it was a good idea to do. There's a very real risk of directly harming AAW's mental health by doing so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A brief essay expounding upon the above: Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know, shortcuts WP:OPAQUE and WP:NEEDTOKNOW. Hopefully people can keep this essay in mind for future cases along these lines. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Llywrch, I believe he has been indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action, not banned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I indefinitely blocked AAR for their multiple egregious violations of their community-imposed interaction ban with BHG (note for those following along that the ban was imposed on their previous account Chris.sherlock). I do, however, deeply regret any emotional turmoil this has caused him. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the gist is: we don't reject people, we reject pieces of abstract knowledge. If my piece of abstract knowledge gets rejected by the community, it is not me who got rejected, it is not my person who has been censored. Some people take it too personally, but in fact we do not judge real persons, we judge knowledge. And this should be extra clear from the requirement that we never render people's personal opinions, but only the opinions of WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. We judge edits not editors, and we judge edits against RS. Levivich 15:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass vandalism by range 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 (talk · contribs)

The current partial block is not sufficient, based on hundreds of recent edits. Probably a mass reversion and a deeper block are in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Admins have been piling up a series of six partial blocks of this range. Time to consider a sitewide block instead. A /34 looks like a big range but most of these edits are bad. In fact, the recent ones have nearly all been reverted. I suggest a three month sitewide block of the /34. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: (Non-administrator comment) You're an admin; why not do it yourself? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Kind of hoping someone--any admin--will review this further. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 for three months sitewide as proposed above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:VNC200 and their contributions

@VNC200:. Repeatedly violating MoS guidelines even after warnings (like addition of Indicscripts in articles against MOS:IS, here [63], [64] etc), creating alternative files of existing logos of different articles and reverting other users (and even datbot) revisions (here, [65]). Adding incorrect or poor quality logos, even when better ones exist (like [66], [67]. Behaving like a WP:OWNER.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I only see a generic warning on their talk page. Have they been told specifically not to use Indic scripts? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer. Yes, I gave a final warning here User talk:VNC200#July 2021  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  04:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding the [68], I think the user believes what their uploads are correct (or valid) in some sense. The corresponding Commons upload was nominated for deletion. The user has added a link to the source and removed the {{delete}} tag [69], which should not be done. I've posted on their Commons talk page, but the user seems determined to fix the issue by tagging a Non-free template (which of course is a wrong template and reverted.) -- DaxServer (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yup. here also [70]  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jgwikid: personal attacks, disruptive reverts

Hi, could an admin take a look at this user's personal attacks, and bad faith, disruptive reverts? User:Jgwikid left a bizarre personal attack on my talk page User talk:Atiru after instantaneously reverting edits I was trying to make to the Letesenbet Gidey page.

The user wrote:

"Clean up after yourself, like you do in toilet - this is of course under a serious question mark. As I have written at my talk page:

"You left many formatting errors with your extremely low quality edits, and you made it on purpose. If there is a grammatical error, that can always happen, you can correct - if you want to contribute, not spoil things. Let's make it very clear: you are simply cheaply rude, cheeky and mischievous. Do we understand or you need some better written "rules", which, what is obvious, you need to become familiar with?"

There is no one to do it for you.

Also, add her WR's and WChamps results to the lede"

The user made (an attempt at) a personal attack in the edit summaries in their reverts. Jgwikikid seems to have a history of similar behaviour with similar messages from other users on their talk page User talk:Jgwikid. User:Journalist seems to have had similar experiences in regard to the Elaine Thompson-Herah page. Jgwikikid has made personal attacks against other users here: Talk:Beatrice Masilingi and here: Talk:Christine Mboma. The user appears to take personal offence when parts of articles in which they have an interest are edited to improve the English. Atiru (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just to provide some thoughts (and unfortunately not the administrative action you may need) here, there are definitely elements of WP:TE and issues with WP:AGF apparent, but looking at those various pages, the real concern for me is one of WP:CIR, by way of English facility. Capability with a particular language is always one of my least favourite criteria for calling another contributor out, for a number of reasons: the Wikimedia movement relies upon editors being able to make that transition and share efforts and perspective; in some contexts, small difficulties and idiosyncrasies in language often get exaggerated as a proxy for bigotry to keep able and valuable individuals out of certain spaces for trivial cause; editors vary considerably with regard to whether (and in what contexts) their incomplete capacity with a language prevents (or does not really prevent them) from contributing in a meaningful way to mainspace; and lastly, I just know from my own experience what it means to make such efforts, both on WM projects and in general: it's no easy thing to leave your language comfort zone to try to collaborate.

All of that said, it looks very much to me like this might be a situation where CIR can be legitimately invoked, because its really not just the uneven English (which it must be said, really is pretty bad in places): there's also the sense of touchiness and WP:OWN that is coming through in their comments, and a generally hostile disposition towards criticism, down to borderline WP:PAs, a pretty noticeable refusal to AGF, and just a generally WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented mentality when it comes to discussion. Not to mention the edit warring. Those behavioural traits are exacerbating a language competence issue that is not, if I must be honest, exactly a small one here. Jgwikikid would be well-advised to slow their roll a little and not take every edit which changes the wording of their prose so personally, because if they are going to be contributing to mainspace with that level of English facility, it's simply going to happen a lot. Whether we can successfully communicate that need to them may just end up being the litmus test for whether or not their efforts can be retained on this particular project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Atiru (talk · contribs), when creating an ANI report please do not forget to notify the user in question. I have notified Jgwikid (talk · contribs) on their talk page. From me, telling another user that they are cheaply rude, cheeky and mischievous shows an issue in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. Saying that the other contributions are just "spoiling things" is also a problem in WP:AGF. Statements such as You left many formatting errors with your extremely low quality edits, and you made it on purpose. also have issues, as it is casting aspersions that the edits are made in bad faith, while it may not be. On the other hand, previous contributions and interactions made by Jgwikid is pretty good and have no problems. SunDawntalk 00:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise (talk · contribs) and SunDawn (talk · contribs). I notified the user about the ANI report underneath their response to my comment on their talk page. I didn't create a new subsection, however, so it may not've been clearly visible; apologies. Snow Rise (talk · contribs), I think your points are spot on. The user's language competency is clearly a cause of both poor-quality edits and a personal sensitivity to improvements of their edits. After this episode, I'm obviously not the best person to try to effect a positive change in attitude with this particular user, but hopefully they'll respond better to someone else who has the time and energy to engage with them. Atiru (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear ones. Please ban me, I really have no time to contribute for free. But do not forget to check 'Made On Purpose, Disruptive Edits' by Atiru (talk · contribs). And do it carefully and wisely to know who should be banned with his poor language and bad-faith edits .
I work for free, adding competition tables, PBests tables, charts, sources, some info. All in good faith - I have never changed anything with bad intention, (just simply never changed at all) in articles written by the other. Sometimes I can make grammatical error (neurological problems) - small one in this case because just 2/3 short words needed to be added for really proper English. But he left nice tables (which say do not touch me - I am perfect) broken for a few hours and removed important info frome the lede. The woman in question is not only Olympic medallist as he changed the lead to, but also WChamps silver medallist - what he removed. He also removed from the lede top her two records - these are important Olympic distances' WR records - a WR double. Info is notabale for the lede top without any question. What is more - he also removed her junior medals info from the second intro's paragraph . As you see we have 'made on purpose, disruptive edits by Atiru'.
Anyway yes. I really have no time to contribute. Thanks. Jgwikid (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

...does this user think the rest of us are getting paid? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if I had even just one dollar per hour... -stares off into space- SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I anonymously volunteer my time for the status and glory, but that's just me. Thanks everyone for taking care of this situation. I do feel sorry for the user that it ended this way. Atiru (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

...Aruba... Huh? Oh yeah, you're quite welcome Atiru. I agree it's a suboptimal outcome in the respect you note, but better than ongoing disruption. The user can always make an unblock request if they feel they are prepared to work within community expectations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE

I am asking for some kind of resolution here. What that resolution is, will have to be decided here at WP:ANI.

Kevin McE's approach to errors has been years in the making, the "my way, or the highway" approach. My first experience with this person was December 2018 Talk:Kalākaua coinage, section Chief Engraver of the United States Mint. What had preceded this, is that Kevin McE had decided to uncap job titles, which were official US Treasury titles. He was reverted by Wehwalt, and the scenario was repeated. After this, I forgot all about this editor.

Since 2018, I have not crossed paths with Kevin McE, and his latest behavior has nothing to do with any of my editing. I feel like DYK, its admins and other editors, are currently under attack by Kevin McE. There is now a spat initiated by this user over multiple pages, because of a main page DYK hook. Please see:

• Talk:Alica Schmidt

• 90 minutes after I notified Kevin McE about this discussion, he has inferred an editor on this Alica Schmidt talk page shows "the height of irresponsibility, inconsistency and cowardice" Diff 1 This is not right to malign the character of other editors. It is evident from that latest addition to that thread, that he was already aware he had been reported here. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• User talk:Schwede66#Alica Schmidt at DYK
• User talk:Kevin McE#August 2021
• Wikipedia talk:DYK#Alica Schmidt appearance at DYK

If I understand everything that is contained therein, the main page error occurred because of a change made by the Olympics, and no one at DYK was aware of it. Nevertheless, DYK takes responsibility for its errors. We do our best to correct errors as soon as we can confirm an error has indeed been made. But the attitude by Kevin McE is not tolerable. This seems to be his pattern of editing. It is abusive, and Wikipedia editors as a whole should not be subjected to this. — Maile (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to the items on my talk page, I did not engage with Kevin McE on the issue that he raised; I never do as a matter of principle when I'm at the receiving end of an attack. Over the course of three replies, I have tried to communicate to the user that their way of communication is unacceptable and that we will only have a discussion on the subject matter once their problematic communication style has been acknowledged. In the third post I stated that without an apology, there won't be further communication from me. Despite that, Kevin McE keeps posting on my talk page. What I learn from that is that Kevin McE lacks an insight into the abusive tone of their communication. That is indeed a problem. I'm not aware that I've come across this user before and I haven't had a look at their history, so cannot say whether there's a pattern. If this isn't a one off but happens with some regularity, a block would be in order. Running around and abusing fellow editors is not on. Schwede66 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• There is a similar attitude on display at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Misattribution_of_Altblurbs, where Kevin McE is insisting that no-one except the nominator should be allowed to edit the ITN nomination template, despite multiple editors telling him it is common practice for others to propose alternative blurbs there, on the grounds that it is akin to altering someone's talk page comment and linking to Wikipedia:Vandalism[71]. His attitude is that, even in an area of Wikipedia with which he is unfamiliar, he is right and everyone else is wrong. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think that Kevin McE's conduct in the threads presented has been very poor. Yes, a mistake was made that allowed incorrect information to be presented on the main page. Yes, that's a bad thing. However, when presented with a situation where an colleague has made an honest, you have lots of options. You can ignore it, and hope it won't happen again. You can point it out to them in a friendly way, and hint that a wee check next time might be a good thing. You can point it out to them in a very formal way, and ask them not to repeat the mistake. Or, you can go to their talk page, openly chastise them, and tell them that their mistake implies that they have very little understanding of what happens in sports, and an indifference to the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia. I would suggest that the latter is very much the nuclear option, which would be entirely inappropriate unless the person you were speaking to had shown a repeated disregard for factual accuracy in DYK hooks. To address an experienced and respected editor in that manner over a single mistake is unacceptable. I'm not sure whether sanctions are required, but I would support an admonishment for a rude and uncollegiate attitude, and a reminder that we're all human. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would support a strong warning, because the amount of places they've posted, and the content is harassment of other users. They're pinging me demanding an apology for who knows what, as well as changing the article whilst wrongly claiming what sources say. I would also like a one way topic ban against this user towards me, as they have done nothing but harass me for 2 days over edits it's unreasonable to expect me to make when I'm away. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Let's start with a weird topic ban: Kevin McE, you are not to comment on anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors whom you have chastised pertaining to that matter. That includes User:Schwede66, User:Maile66, and User:Joseph2302, and any other involved user, with or without numbers. In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the editor chose fit to launch another personal attack, edit-conflicting with my post on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for applying the 60-hour block. As that is only 2.5 days, is it possible to leave this thread open for a few days? It's good to have the above comments here in case this flares up after the block expires. And it's possible other editors might want to air their past experiences on the matter.— Maile (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Maile66, you have put your finger on the sore spot: a tiny topic ban and a short block for harassment, that's the easy way out. The bigger problem is behavioral and possibly persistent. I didn't close the thread, and that was on purpose--I'm hoping someone will have a better idea, possibly with the input of other editors/administrators. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Drmies, you and I share a similar experience over a disruptive editor on the Audie Murphy article. Eight blocks over a 5-year period, and they just kept doing what they were doing, until that final Indef. They were convinced they were the only one editing that article correctly, and the rest of Wikipedia was in the wrong. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• I found Kevin McE's behavior to be rather galling. I admit that I might have taken a semi-confrontational attitude towards him, namely in suggesting that equating editing the ITN template to vandalism was inappropriate. But he took it as a personal attack, which was not my intention. He was similarly rude and crass to other editors in that ITN discussion. I support a warning as well.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• It's unacceptable for Kevin McE to treat other editors that way. I endorse Drmies' block and support the proposed topic ban. Going forward, if this kind of behavior continues in other areas I think additional topic bans and escalating blocks would be appropriate. I hope they aren't necessary. Kevin McE has been here for a long time and should know better. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Having become aware of Kevin in 2019/2020 over an issue where another user was making inappropriate edits, it was Kevin that caught my eye: his response to that user was to HOUND them, stalking their contributions to reply to any and every comment in the condescending fashion noted above. This is a pattern first attested in 2006, as was throwing around "vandalism". It is possible to have disputes without being simply mean, we all do, but Kevin doesn't. I would even characterize his behavior as similar to that of a troll. For clarity, I do not think he is a troll. That would probably be better. No, he truly believes he is in the right to behave this way, and that other users showing even a shred of authority in their tone are disrespecting him. All the while he is condescending to them as a greeting, but with long tenure feels that is his earned right. This is purely an assessment, I know the type, call it baseless etc. if you want. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) He will pick petty fights and, once he has your well-meaning attention, will proceed to throw mindless insults out instead of even pretend to stick to a point. It's frankly distressing to see it escalate to not-really-veiled verbal (textual) abuse of unsuspecting users, not counting the obvious matter that it leaves a toxic trail of pointless personal discussions across a variety of both appropriate and inappropriate talkpages. (Because with Kevin, everything is personal: he takes everything personally, and you can tell that what he writes is supposed to be felt as a personal attack.) I'm happy to see a warning and temp ban, but without sounding pessimistic, am doubtful of what its efficacy will be after expiration: He writes to other users as if they are naughty children and he the grumpy grandfather... in 1980. Language to uphold a power imbalance that is inappropriate in a collaborative environment, and that is no longer tolerated even in unequal situations, still being used suggests innateness and a need to actively try to unlearn that tendency. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for enacting a block and one-way ban- this seems like an acceptable outcome to me. I have removed their user talkpage from my watchlist, so I don't foresee any further issues from my side. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Timely block as it was too drawn out to be considered letting off steam. In hindsight, their WP:FORUMSHOPPING in starting all those threads appears to have been driven by a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to assign blame rather than collaborating to assess what can be learned and improved.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RogueShanghai, for the third time

A self-described member of the "Barbz" on Stan Twitter, RogueShanghai has a clear agenda on Wikipedia: to use it as a weapon to edit with puffery the article of their favorite artist, with heavy ownership issues, removing anything bad written in the article by any means, while throwing everything inflamatory and pushing narratives on the articles of the artists they dislike: the user's contributions speak on this. Citing random guidelines to undo edits. Writing stuff like:

• • Hopefully you'll stop [...] acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s.[72]
  • I don't think someone who is a fan of someone who seems to use multiple cowriters for her bars can speak on Doja Cat.[73]

Even though the user has been warned multiple times about their biased, disruptive behavior on Wikipedia on their talk page, it continues. I'm the third editor to report this user since July 2021 in ANI:

• Ignoring WP:ONUS and potential COI by KyleJoan.
• This editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits... by ChicagoWikiEditor.

I'm asking, please, to have a response on this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've read through both the previous threads and looked at some the edit summaries and page revision histories. I do think there are some reasonable concerns with regard to bias in the reported editor. However, I'm also concerned that Cornerstonepicker did not make clear that one of the two "previous discussions" is in fact live on this page right now, covering substantially the same issues. Cornerstone, I note that the last editor you queried about the matter wanting urgent action informed you that there seemed to be no consensus in that discussion for sanctions. So creating this additional thread, running in parallel to the previous one, does not strike me as the most appropriate and constructive response to that situation. You are already engaged in this matter above, along similar arguments. Opening a new thread at ANI under those circumstances might be taken as WP:Disruptive. Like the advice Bilorv gave you above, this should not be taken for me saying that action against RogueShanghai isn't needed: for my part, I would need to look into the matter further as it's clearly a nuanced case of fan zealousy and I'm not sure how far over the line they are at this point. But you just don't seem to have made your case (or been lucky enough to get it noticed, perhaps), so trying another bite at the apple with the other discussion not even closed isn't really likely to get you the result you want, put candidly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. I was sure the previous one was on its way to getting archived. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at this juncture I think you have only two possible courses of action here, neither of which I think is going to leave you overjoyed:

• 1) just accept that there is no community consensus to take action against RogueShanghai at this time, and return to make your best efforts at discussing issues with them (assuming that avoiding them entirely is not an option because of shared namespace interests). If the problems persist, you can file another ANI at a latter date, or seek administrative aid through another venue. However, I would recommend only doing this if some time has passed and it is absolutely necessary. Needless to say, there are some types of behaviour that are brightline violations of policy that you shouldn't be discourage from reporting under any circumstances, but short of those (and you'll just have to use your best judgement on whether a particular action qualifies), I would advise that discretion is the better part of valour here.
• 2) you can always continue to pursue this in the still on-going thread above, but I think Bilorv has the right end of the stick on that situation: it doesn't look like there is community will for action just at the moment, and so I can't say as I recommend this option. Regardless, if you do decide to keep the discussion going there initially, but other uninvolved community members start to suggest to you that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK (or make comments even remotely in that vein) I would let the matter go immediately for the immediate future.

I'm sorry I can't give you better options than that. I will continue to look into the matter and perhaps provide some input one way or another, but it may not come immediately and even if I do comment, it will not amount to much more by way of community consensus, so my first recommendation of letting the matter drop remains my best advice. But in any event, another thread running in parallel to this one and on substantially the same topic isn't going to help make the situation less messy, but rather quite the contrary. However, if there is another down the line, please feel free to ping me at that time and I will use whatever information I have gathered at that time to provide some feedback. I can't absolutely guarantee it will be to endorse your view of things, but it will at least be one more response keeping the next thread (if there absolutely must be one) from getting lost in the mix. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm perfectly satisfied to work with Cornerstonepicker on improving the Minaj article. The issue is, there seems to be a cycle. In April 2021, I opened a section on the talk page that discusses if Minaj should be said as the "Queen of Rap." I wanted to get other editor's opinions and reach a consensus if she should be called the Queen of Rap. [74] The consensus was decided upon that Minaj should be called the Queen of Rap, decided upon by the talk page.[75] Cornerstonepicker completely ignores this and enforces what THEY should think the article should say.[76] This seems to be a recurring issue when it comes to cornerstone's edits on the Minaj article. A consensus is usually decided, then Cornerstone completely disregards said consensus when it comes to the Minaj article and enforces what they think should be in the article. I elaborate on this problematic cycle of cornerstone more here.[77] "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 04:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify that the ongoing consensus (between many editors) was proprosed by me, for a cleaner lead section. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that was months after the original consensus had been decided. You knowingly disregarded the CURRENT consensus that was in place, and edited it as you see fit, and then you opened another RFC to support your own view. The order is important context in this scenario. I've explained your problematic history against Nicki Minaj before in detail, here. [78] "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 04:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This is another reason why editors don't follow up with RogueShanghai; the user uses misleading wording to accomodate an accussation. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Whilst the peacockery is one thing, I'm slightly more concerrned about RogueShanghai's insistence on inserting negative information about Minaj's "rivals" [79]. A few more eyes here might be useful. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Negative information is still information. I believe that if Complex Magazine, a popular hip hop magazine, states that a campaign about Cardi's accusations of drugging and robbing has spread online, then it is worth including in the article. The entire section about her allegations seem to have huge WP:TONE issues, seemingly written in a "justified" point of view. What Cardi did to those men in my opinion is wrong, but the tone and wording of the entire paragraph is written like it's supposed to normalize drugging and robbing men if you are desperate.

This is nothing more than a blatant personal attack coming from someone who I recently called out for endless bias, disregarding of talk page consensus decided by multiple editors, and constantly getting called out for unconstructive edits to female rappers he seems to not like. This person who accused me has been accused of unconstructive biased edits by multiple experienced editors to multiple female musician articles, such as Normani Kordei,[80] Megan Thee Stallion,[81] and Nicki Minaj [82]. I've been openly transparent about being a fan of Minaj, yet User:Cornerstonepicker seems to have no problem consistently attacking me for my open transparency [83] as well as going so far as to misgender me.[84] I reported more of his blatantly problematic editing against Minaj in AN3 here, [85], yet nothing was done about it. Cornerstonepicker seems to have a very problematic editing history CONSISTENTLY against Minaj and hides under the veil of "holding up policy" to consistently enforce an agenda against Nicki Minaj. Other editors [86] have corrobated me on this, that cornerstonepicker is consistently a difficult editor to work with. They seem to not like that I am just trying to add well sourced information about women in hip hop in general. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 03:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

• User:RogueShanghai is topic-banned from editing BLPs in the area of music. There are too many issues here. See also the sections above this. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  How is no one calling into attention that Cornerstonepicker has been called out before for unconstructive and biased edits by multiple editors before and this seems to be just a pure attempt at enforcing their agenda? Detailed here. [87] "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 03:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not yet. There are issues, but they're not egregious. Let's give them a bit more WP:ROPE and see what happens. Mlb96 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Fodbold-fan

Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [88] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [89] and [90] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward Verifiability and BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft and Cullen328: given my comment below, and the way in which the rest of the discussion has gone (which you might not have noticed since originally commenting), I don't think we can say this editor has no desire for accuracy or that edits are unverifiable as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Switching to oppose for now. Although I haven't waited for Fodbold-fan to respond to Valereee's direct question, I will go out on a limb here. Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) There are a number of reasons (which have been brought to my attention since my original comment) as to why I think we can provide Fodbold-fan with another chance. Firstly, Fodbold-fan has promised below on 29 and 30 July 2021 to include a citation for every edit and I think we should offer that user a chance to fulfil that promise. Secondly, I think we should formally review each of the blocks shown in the block log, as a matter of fairness. Thirdly, the edit which led to this proposal was correct, even though it was unsourced, as Fram has outlined below on 30 July 2021. Lastly, Fodbold-fan seems to be make valuable contributions and has in my view demonstrated he is capable of improving his style of editing. Although we know that that not all edits need to be sourced per se, and reversion is a great remedy, I think it is fair to expect Fodbold-fan to fulfil the promise made in any case. Since 2015, multiple users provided Fodbold-fan with feedback on their content not being reliably sourced, content being incorrect, content being improperly sourced, (lack of) use of edit summaries and use of the preview functions. I anticipate concerns will persist unless Fodbold-fan makes more of a consistent effort (which I believe the user is capable of, but as a result of habit, chooses not to). Rather than evaluating every single previous concern, it would be more productive if he proactively takes more care with his edits. This will resolve the risk of contentions arising. I would also reinforce Otr500's comment below dated 30 July 2021, as well as Robby.is.on's comment of the same date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay please last chance, from now on I will add source to every little edit I do. I promise. You will see. Please Fodbold-fan (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits. Fram (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly. Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edits are unacceptable. We tolerate vandalism, but it is easily corrected. Unsourced edits often require expert attention. Usually, unless we can identify the original source, they have to be removed, because without the source we cannot verify that they are not a copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Support per "Comments on change of !vote below": Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject SPA (certainly not a bad thing), with what seems to be 255 articles created (only a few deleted) and also what seems to be working on 64,000 edits. While I am 100% for sourcing BLP content, if the content was in fact (not seemingly argued against) sourced, then this should count as a warning that getting too close to the last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding change of !vote made by Otr500 (talk · contribs)) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich and Fram: WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked". Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• • • Our rule is that all material is likely to be challenged. Sports web sites have short half lives. After a short time material becomes unverifiable. Adding a reference may help preserve it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      • "Rules" made up by a local project (or by one member of the project?) are not a reason to sanction or block editors, and the above "infractions" to that ignorable rule are not from such typical sports websites but can be found in news sites as well. Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're forgetting copyvio. Without the source, we can't verify that it was not copied. I've had to remove or rewrite whole articles because they were unsourced. And I'm not forgetting how Fram challenged material that was both properly sourced and that they knew to be true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Copyvio is a complete red herring here. And if you for some reason would like to use this discussion to attack me, then at least have the decency to include some diffs of what you mean. Otherwise please remove the statement per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Fram: @Levivich: Rather than just focusing on whether policy permits unsourced edits per se, we probably should also consider the background of issues raised with this editor in particular. My understanding of the history here is that part of the reason this editor was blocked was due to the content being inaccurate and/or (as Jayron32 puts it) unsourceable. While it is clear to me that Fram is saying the diff example at the top of the thread is not one of those occasions (that the content was merely unsourced), and therefore all of you are saying it was permitted under policy, it is unclear to me whether you are all saying this of the previous edits and blocks which you are calling heavy-handed. I mean, there is little point in us saying we shouldn't have sanctioned an editor like this for unsourced content unless we have examined the background of those previous sanctions and the extent of the feedback that the user was provided, as we are not ones for discouraging best practice either. If it turns out that the block log is prejudicial, we can then at least reach a consensus on that and why. If it isn't, then perhaps something else needs to be said for completeness, along the lines of what Otr500 has said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ncmvocalist GS's blocks of Fodbold-fan were among the blocks discussed at GS's arbcom case, in which both Fram and I participated. Levivich 19:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Fodbold-fan, can you explain why after nearly 64K edits, you're still adding unsourced info to Wikipedia? I find that a bit astonishing. Why in the world don't you just source your edits? You clearly must know how. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close of some kind See comments on on change of !vote. I do not see a blockable offense here. I did not look into the past block record just that it exists. An arbcom case was mentioned but no links were provided. I do not know if any blocks were appealed which is an editor's right. I opposed this because sources were found which means in this case there was NOT "unsourcable" content involved. What I do know is there were three blocks for adding "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (by the same Admin) and now this one. I hope this does not evolve into the questioning of these blocks. If ONE was because of adding content that could not be sourced this is potential harm. Future edits can be considered "contentious or challenged" as they have been. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. Part of that policy is WP:CHALLENGE: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

In this case, with this editor, it does not seem to be a stretch for any to acknowledge that any unsourced contributions are "likely to be challenged" and need to be sourced especially on a BLP. I believe the editor is aware of this. This means that failure to do so could be inching towards possible claims of tendentious editing. This is evidenced by the This page in a nutshell and the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

Considering these things it is not unreasonable to require that sources be provided by this editor without trying to knit-pick if this may be applicable to all editors. This editor has agreed to this. If this editor", Fodbold-fan (pinging for notification), wishes to contest any of this (is there any undue duress?) I will support such contesting. However, none of us are "court-appointed" so I would like to suggest this be closed as resolved with the editor agreeing to provide sourcing for material, specifically in this topic area. I would like to add a note of caution moving forward with regards to concerns of "heavy-handed" (editor versus editor/Admin involvement) in this area. If "anyone" has deeper concerns that can be addressed separately -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500: Just on your comment about the block log, the relevant arbcom case finding is here, where the administrator was found to have wrongly blocked other editors for "persistent addition of unsourced content" (in the same period as his last couple of blocks of Fodbod-fan). The evidence in the case included reference to the blocks of Fodbod-fan but the finding did not explicitly name this editor, instead naming two other editors.

To the extent that I have referred to reviewing blocks, they wouldn't be about administrator, as the case already finalised remedies which were relevant to incorrectly blocking editors; rather, the block review would be for the limited purpose of deciding how it would affect our views on editing restrictions for Fodbod-fan specifically (because unlike other discussions, I think it would be wrong for us to take the block log at face value in light of that case).

In the meantime, I agree that this thread can be closed on the basis of the agreement provided by Fodbod-fan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unsure why editors are justifying the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs and the (and being generous here) frankly blasé attitude to sourcing requirements, just because I am involved and have blocked the editor in the past (the last time being 3 years ago), despite other editors also raising concerns about edits and other editors having blocked the editor as well over a period of the last 6 years (although admittedly clean for 2). Do you really think so little of me? Cool. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• GiantSnowman, I certainly do not "think so little of you". In fact, I think it commendable that you "aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Two years is a long time. The benefit of the doubt suggests that a warning should be sufficient and this was acknowledged. I believe there is a long-standing consensus that BLP content needs to be sourced. Some may choose to argue, but unless since somehow nullified, a 2010 Arbitration Committee motion passed that included: That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources. WP:BLPREMOVE (#1) includes "unsourced or poorly sourced" and gives latitude for an involved Admin to block: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. This is for "clear cases" and includes provisions for "less clear cases". I think the evidence suggests that if the subject does violate the BLP content sourcing policy requirement again that more than a topic ban be considered. What can be considered tendentious editing? "Expecting others to find sources for your own statements" and "This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals". -- Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would add that it appears that Fodbod-fan is complying with the promise made in this thread, but if issues persist, any proposal for editing restrictions can promptly be revisited at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500 and Ncmvocalist: except of course edits like this yesterday - no source provided for the changes, no edit summary to explain the changes, no indication as to why the changes are correct etc. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments on change of !vote: I reverted the content as unsupported and left talk page comments. I am flabbergasted, to say the least. Part of my defense of this editor, as well as some others commenting above, is the two-year lapse and the promises. That was rendered null and void with the addition of unsupported content while this ANI was ongoing. My assumption of good faith has been tainted. The editor in question may have set fire to the "rope" offered. This seems to cross flagrant disregard in leaps and bounds. The editor has commented "Dude, please stop your harassment. I don't have time to put sources in every single article, but if you look it up, you see that my edits is legit. You know me by now too. Otherwise, I will quit editing." This is clearly a stance of "I will not add sources" (even though I promised) because it is other people's job to verify my added content.

There may be two camps on a necessity to add sources because some feel it is alright if the source is out there somewhere. I do believe there is evidence that expecting sourcing, backed by policy, can be required. The above assumption of good faith would be that the content was verifiable. This goes deeper towards tendentious editing by disruption: "Examples of disruptive editing" #1, #2 (fails to cite sources), #4, and #5, along with "Point-illustrating" and Failure or refusal to "get the point".

I now Support (rationale per above !vote) a "topic ban" but also suggest this be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If the editor does not quit as indicated that editor can simply bring these editing habits elsewhere. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your revert. I don't know why you (and GS) think this edit was unsourced. It's sourced to Soccerway, which is already cited in the article. Levivich 13:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did FF not simply add an edit summary saying 'as per Soccerway' in that case? wP:CIR. GiantSnowman 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Or look at this edit, which uses this website as a source (in the edit summary only, not the article, but whatever). The changes to the article are to update the Waitakere United stats, add playing for Forrest Hill Milford United (no stats), and add playing for Northern Rovers (with stats added). The only thing the 'reference' supports is this player playing one game in May 2021 for Northern Rovers, and that's it - nothing about Waitakere United stats, nothing about Forrest Hill Milford United, and nothing about Northern Rovers stats. Is that acceptable? GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As to your first question, I could have sworn we had this conversation two years ago and it went like this: yes, edit summaries are useful; no, we don't revert or sanction editors for lack of edit summaries; plus it's bloody obvious that the edit was updating stats that were already referenced to Soccerway, plus plus you in particular of all people know this. Your view that lack of edit summaries = CIR does not have consensus. Or to put it another way, while ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries, if I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have an editor update articles (accurately, per sources already cited) without an edit summary than not have the editor update the article at all. You really have to accept that this is the consensus, even if you disagree with it. I would support a rule requiring edit summaries, but first we get consensus for that requirement, before we sanction anyone for violating it.

As to your second question/edit, everything in this edit was sourced to a source already cited in the article, National Football Teams. The only thing that wasn't sourced by NFT (Northern Rovers) is sourced to the Northern Rovers website source. So it's all sourced as far as I can tell (and accurate). Levivich 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, this is indeed the root cause of the Arbcom case of two years ago revisited: you (and a few others) owning football articles way too aggressively, and imposing your rules on other editors (but, apparently, both then and now, a lot less strictly on yourself). Would it have been better if Fotbold-fan had used the edit summary "quick clean" to make their edits? Or is this fundamentally the same as what you are trying to get then topic banned for, now that you are no longer allowed to block them over it (but still use those bad blocks as justification of the topic ban now)? Or this? Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Again - a huge difference between content sourced to an in-line reference and an editor using one of many external links and asking us to try and work out which one. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Firstly, you might want to consider how the use of the word "us" in your sentence sounds in the context of Wikipedia's policy on ownership of content, which Fram referenced immediately before your comment. Secondly, higher doses of assuming good faith can be helpful in understanding that the content change is more constructive than not. If the content was actually inaccurate or actually unverifiable, then that is when you have something to be concerned about. Just my 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Man, GS, Fram's comment prompted me to take a look at your recent contribs. Look at these reverts, each of which you wrote in the edit summary "no source," but each of which was sourced by a source already in the article, Soccerway: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] (all of these have since been reinstated). The worst part is, these are all the winners of major championships. You know this is sourced to Soccerway! You're just being WP:POINTy by reverting this as "unsourced" when you damn well know that they are in fact sourced. You know because this is one of the things that was brought up at the arbcom case. You've got to stop doing this.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "stats per Soccerway": [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]. These are exactly the same as the edit you complain about, except that you use an edit summary "stats per Soccerway." Well, the omission of that edit summary doesn't make it "unsourced" and isn't grounds for reverting an edit. That why I say you know that these stats-updates are sourced by Soccerway and that Soccerway is already in these articles, because you do the same type of work, updating statistics.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "clean up": [105] [106] [107]. These, again, are the same types of edits as what you're complaining about: they are sourced to a source already in the article, but you don't say that in your edit summary. There is no functional difference between an edit summary "clean up" and a blank edit summary. You have zero grounds for complaint here.

  What really drives me nuts about this, from one content editor to another, is that you're totally losing sight of the point of what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. I mean I'm a bit besides myself that you took out correct, relevant, up-to-date, sourced information (that an athlete won a championship) because you've had this years-long fued with some editors over edit summaries. Talk about putting your own needs above the needs of our readers! Come on, man. See the light here. Don't corrupt our articles because you're mad an editor for not using edit summaries. Levivich 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you use one Jonathan Lewis diff, but not the one where I managed to find a source for the content. Funny that you say "these edits have been reinstated", but not "they have been reinstated after sources were found and added".

For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from. Contrary to what you say there is a huge difference between that and not using any edit summary and it's a pity you can't see that.

You clearly haven't been reviewing my contribs properly, because in this one I clearlyy add a reference, and in the other clean up ones I am merely updating/cleaning the article that has already been sourced in-line - not using an EL and making other editors guess where the info is from.

Oh there's no feud or anything like this, please don't ABF. Just a desire from me to improve Wikipedia - including sourcing content about BLPs!!! It's s shame that yours and Fram's hatred views towards me colour your vision. Would you be as defensive if any other editor had raised concerns about unsourced content being added to to BLPs? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It was never unsourced. It was always sourced to Soccerway or National Football Teams, two of the standard sourced used in footy articles for stats. You keep saying "unsourced" but that's just not true. You say "I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from," but above I linked to several diffs where you, yourself, updated stats with the edit summary "clean up," which does not indicate exactly where the information was coming from. I don't hate you but I am concerned about how you've been treating some editors, like Fobold Fan, for years. I'm also concerned that you refuse to grapple with certain truths, like: the sources for the edits were in the article when the edits were made; you were previously sanctioned by arbcom in part for this; you made articles worse (removing that an athlete won a championship) over this. To me, these are serious issues and I'd like you to pay attention to them. Like, agree to WP:Drop the stick. Levivich 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Last thing on this because I have better things to do with my time (like, I don't know, improve and add references to BLPs!!!) than argue with Fram and Levivich. But - it is possible, and it wouldn't kill you - to say both "hey, GS, why not AGF a bit more" and "hey, FF, why not use edit summaries or try to make it clearer why you are making changes and where your information has come from". The two are not mutually exclusive. See ya. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I said edit summaries are useful and ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries and I would support a rule requiring edit summaries. Of course I think FF and everyone else should use edit summaries. But that wasn't what this thread was about when you opened it: you only mentioned unsourced info in BLPs. Would it kill you to admit the info was in fact sourced? Would it kill you to admit you do the same thing (update stats without saying what the source is in an edit summary)? It doesn't matter to me if you admit it or not, but it does matter to me that you stop reverting people for adding information without a source when the source is already in the article. Levivich 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it, where is the evidence that the transfer was present in the external link (Soccerway etc.) at the time FF's edit was made? i.e. where is the evidence that the external link had already updated to reflect the transfer and that therefore is the source used? Sometimes they take a day or two. Interesting. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with GiantSnowman. It's clear there's no consensus here, and there's reason not to enact a topic ban. But, neither should we simply declare there is no problem and move on. A clear message needs to be given to FF that their behavior is not what we expect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• @GiantSnowman: Ok, let's put your differences aside and consider this in a different light. We now know this is an instance of content arising from an existing source; the bizarre fact that it was cited under "external links" prior to Fodbold-fan editing the article doesn't mean the article was better prior to Fodbold-fan's edit. Sometimes articles will have a handful (or more) of sources cited in the entire article - with all of those sources seemingly attributed to one particular line in an article, when in fact they form the basis of other information in an article. That doesn't mean an update should be reverted automatically or is somehow less beneficial.
• From experience, we all know for a fact that many unregistered accounts (fans of football or otherwise) will take the liberty of updating information without providing an in-line citation, whether within the text or in an edit summary. However, if the information is accurate, verifiable, compliant with NPOV etc, it is implicitly accepted that update is undoubtedly an improvement to the project even if policy might allow a revert. While we might like the content to be further updated so that external links are specifically listed under references, or for each update to be attributed to a separate in-line text citation, that is not always necessary at that point by the editor who made an update (noting the article was originally sitting like that for who knows how long). Given that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standard you are expecting seems to be higher than what the project requires sometimes. That higher standard you would like in articles can be a good thing if it is used constructively, but forcing it on others can be offensive, disruptive or harmful.
• Another way to think about it is that not all editors are good at (or enjoy) copyediting, referencing and so forth. Fodbold-fan is an editor who clearly enjoys updating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles on football(ers) based on verifiable information; that is the earlier step of improvement specifically. The next level of improvement might be increasing in-line citations to the source or moving the sources to a references section or copyediting or building more content just as Fodbold-fan did. That next level of improvement can be boldly completed by you or any other editor too.
• If you are saying Fodbold-fan is not abiding by an agreement and the content is inaccurate and/or unverifiable (or something along those lines), restrictions might need to be considered. But the idea of sanctioning an editor for not completing the next level of improvement doesn't sit right with me; does it really sit right with you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many other situations where an unsourced addition is a plus for Wikipedia. Quite often I see where a topic-expert who doesn't often edit Wikipedia put something really good and key in. I see it on my watch list, check it out and then source it. So with their unsourced addition they did an important service to Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Coming back just because I have been pinged - FF has admitted they messed up, asked for a final chance, and made a concerted effort to improve (even if it is still, in my eyes, not good enough). However, based on everything, a topic ban is probably not suitable at this time. But, as Hammersoft says, other editors pretending there is nothing at all amiss with FF's edits is extremely damaging. GiantSnowman 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Or alternatively, a good editor (who could improve some of their editing habits) was threatened with a topic ban by the admin who already blocked them incorrectly three times, panicked (understandably) and promised whatever was wanted to avoid the fate that surely seemed to await them. They perhaps have since learned that the demands made by that admin were unreasonable and not supported by everyone, and that said admin already got into trouble for similar actions in the past (including with this very editor), and finally that said admin shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in this regard. And no, this is not "hatred" for Giantsnowman, but serious disappointment that an otherwise good admin and editor has such a large blind spot when it comes to this, and that the Arbcom case, while being followed to the letter, has not changed anything in their view on the underlying issues, which are not seen as sanctionable by many editors (nor by policy). They believe that the football project has some (presumably unwritten) rules beyond policy ("everything is likely to be challenged", "young players are kept even when they have no GNG notability, just in case they later become notable") which overrule general Wikipedia-wide consensus, and that mistaken belief needs to be discarded. Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no policy against adding unsourced material, and rightly so. If challenged it must be sourced or removed. If the particulars of this are making the situation unusually problematic, then some action may be warranted. IMO if not, not. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman prefering style over content?

Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. How this improves the article or enwiki is not clear. Similarly and also today, at a soccer article, they reverted[108] correct, more recent information because the older version had their preferred style. And when they are not reverting to impose style over content, they are reverting because their searching skills fail: this from today ("nothing listed at https://www.ascolicalcio1898.it/index.php/news or on Google?") is baffling, the news is all over GNews[109] and was posted at the club website a few days ago: [110] (search for Botteghin, or directly at [111]). I don't know what the reason is for all these errors, but as all these are from today only, it is becoming a real problem. Protecting the integrity and correctness of enwiki is one thing, actively making it worse again and again is quite another. Fram (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. right, here we go.
• This was using MOS - in cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove.
• this I acknowledge that the stats update was valid (I have now restored) and I did intend to correct that, but simply forgot, and hold my hands up; the rest is all stylistic.
• Regarding Bottenghin - as per my edit summary, I searched the club's official news page (no entry listed) and on Google (no entry listed), and so reverted the information about a BLP on the basis that I could not verify the information. In situations where I can verify the unsourced information added by other users, I do - see this also from today, which Fram conveniently overlooks.
• Overall, I am unsure what sanction Fram wants or what they hope to achieve by posting this/following me around? If an editor I respect thinks I've done anything wrong, or could do anything better, I am all ears, otherwise I'm going away again. GiantSnowman 11:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"In cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove." No, you don't. There was a reference directly after the birth-date brackets (not even at the end of the sentence), to an RS[112], which clearly states "Born Tilburg 1755-05-19" and "Deceased Amsterdam 1820-11-30". I have no idea what more you could possibly want. So you somehow "missed" that reference, even though it was clearly there? Just like you "forgot" in the second case, and found "no entry" in the third case, even though they are trivially easy to find? As for "following you around", I noticed this because you out of the blue edited Adriaan de Lelie, an article I created and where the latest edit before yours was also by me. I don't really care that you don't respect me, though it is hardly civil to state so (if we all would start posting our opinions of others, things would deteriorate quite rapidly): but what I hope to achieve is that you rethink your approach to editing and to reverting, and that you get your priorities right and realise that MOS and style are less important than content, and the your own rules or the football project rules are a far second to general policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the info in the ref on Adriaan de Lelie, but I see it's there so re-added. Perhaps if the article was properly written and referenced in the first place it wouldn't be an issue? I fully accept I'm not perfect (I'm probably one of the few editors who is well aware of that) and I'm always looking to improve my editing, so thank you for raising it. It's a shame you could not do so on my talk page and instead came straight to ANI. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, the problem is the article, that's why you couldn't find the info when it was raised here, and that's probably why you claim that the Botteghin info was not available on the club website and on Google even when I gave the direct link to it here. I brought it here instead of on your talk page because it is a continuation of what started this very thread, your insistence on imposing some rules without caring for the more important issue of whether the facts were actually right and up-to-date. Heck, one of the three articles I gave above was one where you previously "improved" the article by reverting Fotbold-fan[113], thereby removing the country of birth from the infobox, and changing the correct "2019" for the U-19 team to the incorrect "2019-", even though as a 21-year old he obviously no longer qualifies for the U19 team. The more I look at your edits, the more cases I see where you make the article worse. You probably have excuses for all of them, but we already had an ArbCom case for your heavy-handed and incorrect "rule" over football articles (and others), and the same issues were raised in this discussion already, so the "you should have first come to my talk page" rings hollow. Fram (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, 21 year olds are eligible for the under-19 team. I am not sure of the exact regulations, but I know for under-21 level players born after 1 January 1998 are eligible for the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (so players up to age 23). See all the 21+ at 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads. GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

PS either take me back to ArbCom or leave me alone, thanks. GiantSnowman 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

So, you are trying to prove that 21 year olds can play for the U19 teamby pointing at the U23 rules? Perhaps you could just have checked the 2021 UEFA European Under-19 Championship instead? "players born on or after 1 January 2002 eligible to participate." For the new competitions, see [114], where the year has been changed to 2003. So no, he wasn't eligible recently, and won't be eligible in the future. As for your PS: ArbCom is started when the community can't resolve an issue, and isn't intended as some "I don't respond to anything beneath that level" get-out-of-jail card. You know full well that an Arb case would be speedy declined as other attempts at dispute resolution haven't been exhausted. Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the excuse for [115]? The club website[116] just happened to change between your edit and my revert[117] 32 minutes later? Do we really need to check every edit you make now? Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my God, the website was updated in between me checking it and you then stalking my edits (which you claim you are not doing, though you clearly are). The last Wayback entry from February 2021 confirms #13. Do you want me to email the club to ask them to confirm?! Can somebody please tell Fram to leave me alone and start AGF? GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This from '1 hour ago' confirms the new squad numbers. It is therefore clear that somebody at the club has been updating the web profiles this afternoon, and Benda's happened to be updated in between my review of his profile and yours. Or are you going to still claim that I, for some unknown reason, am lying? GiantSnowman 13:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What Fram is proving is that you make just as many mistakes as anyone else, yet you hold others to a different standard. Levivich 13:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't stalking your edits, you made an article I created worse. I am now, during an ANI discussion about your edits, actually checking your edits. It is the onl way to find patterns of problematic aditing and to see whether things improve or not (hint: they don't). Your latest defense seems to be "the website was changed when the IP edited, was changed back when I reverted, and was changed again when Fram reverted". Which looks comparable to your defenses for the other three problems from today I listed, i.e. "not clearly sourced" (er, it was), "I forgot", and "not on Google or the team website" (again, er, it was, very clearly). Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No, my explanation is that the IP has read (somewhere) the squad number had changed (likely on Twitter); I checked the profile and it had not been updated; you then checked the profile slightly later and it had. No more or no less than that. AGF

And no, there is no problematic editing. The issue at the heart of the matter here is, actually, "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content added by other editors, and not always getting it quite right". Fine. Like I've said, I'm always looking to improve editing, and tbh would have received concerns much better if they had been raised at my talk page rather than you running straight to ANI. You saying "oh well this was at ArbCom a few years ago so that's why I didn't bother talking to you directly" is pathetic; the real reason you are posting at ANI is in the hope that I get in bother again.

PS I'm not going to reply here again, if anybody else has concerns then feel free to raise them with me on my talk page. Funny that (to date at least) nobody else has. GiantSnowman 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

None of the 5 issues mentioned in this section was about "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content": apart from perhaps the last case, the other four were perfectly sourced bits of content that you removed (directly or as a revert) because you fucked up. Trying to still frame this as "trying to reference" stuff and at the same time asking that people AGF with you doesn't work. That you would have reacted better when contacted at your talk page seems dubious as well, as you made these poor edits after the problems with your editing were again highlighted in the above discussion, and you have declared that you don't respect me anyway. Neither the location nor the identity of who reports issues should make any difference in how truthful you respond (it may change how patiently and civil you reply, but those are wholly separate from the facts). Again and again here, you have tried and failed to put the responsability for your errors elsewhere ("not on Google", "not sourced", "but the U23 regulations say"...). I hope that, when you can sleep and reflect on this, you will actually change your approach (both towards editing/reverting, and towards replying to concerns). Fram (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

On the lines of civility and errors, I raised these polite concerns with this user only a few days ago, to be met with these terse replies. Basically creating a biography of recently deceased people, and citing their year of birth directly from another language WP. Probably been going on for quite some time before I raised it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh hello Lugnuts, I wondered when you would pop by. To clarify - I didn't say they were referenced to other Wikipedias, I said they were referenced at other WPs - big difference. Sources present (usually, but not always - some was my own Google searches) on the other WPs that I simply forgot to include on the one-line stubs here. Was the information correct? Absolutely - the only issue was that there was no source present to verify the correct information, which according to Fram et al is actually acceptable anyway??? (I disagree, and now make sure that all relevant sources are present in the stubs). Regarding civility, you're the one who used edit summaries like this, entirely inappropriate. Regarding errors, here you say that the issue has "probably been going on for quite some time" (my emphasis); but here you say it is a certainty? Which is it? Either way has the issue arisen again since you raised it with me nearly 2 weeks ago? Anyway, kudos, you dangled and I bit and responded, so I'm going away again. PS still waiting for editors I haven't had run-ins with to raise valid concerns... GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a valid concern. "I simply forgot to include" the sources? Really? I guess it's all OK, if you know the info to be correct, without anything to WP:V it. Very poor all round from you with sourcing and civility. And by "run-ins" you mean someone raising a valid concern on your talkpage which you took offense too? Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, when I (IIRC) supported sanctions against you when you were recently at ANI? Remember, when you were creating hundreds/thousands of poorly sourced, non-notable stubs? Therefore brave of you to have a pop at me in relation to sourcing... GiantSnowman 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, rather than bickering - you raised an issue, I reflected and changed my editing. Any such issues since you raised it? No. Grand. Move on. GiantSnowman 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Off the back of one conversation into another about some disagreement. Really, this is a storm in a tiny little tea-cup. Seems pointless to say anything else. Feels like a complete over-reaction to me. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I share Fram's concerns about GS favoring the MOS over content. With this edit he used the summary "birth/death place not in opening brackets - MOS:BIRTHPLACE" but instead of moving the information to the correct place he deleted it altogether. Presumably he would say it was unsourced, but the birthplace of Veliko Tărnovo Province, Bulgaria was sourced in the article [118]. The village of Dzhulyunitsa wasn't, but that specific detail could have been removed instead of throwing it all out. I only noticed this because it was on my watchlist; given GS's edit count I'm sure there will be more examples. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the direct reference saying he was born in Dzhulyunitsa/Veliko Tarnovo? The source you have provided is not cited next to (or even near) the birth place, it's cited only to the 'career record'. Are you saying that I, or any other editor, needs to check every single source on an article before challenging/removing any otherwise seemingly unsourced content about a BLP? And if you had concerns about that edit 2 weeks ago, why not raise it with me at the time? GiantSnowman 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If by direct reference you mean inline citation, there was not one, but I feel to see how this material was contentious. If you feel it necessary to completely remove the fact that a Bulgarian sumo wrestler was born in Bulgaria, then cite BLP, not MOS:BIRTHPLACE - that was a misleading edit summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thank you - and I will make more of an effort to re-locate the content (if sourced) rather than just removing. GiantSnowman 09:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to own up here - I did not check the 35 references or 2 external links before making this edit, I trust I will be informed why I have done wrong. GiantSnowman 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

GS, can I make a frank suggestion? Why not just stop patrolling for a while? Let's face facts: you don't enjoy it and you're not good at it. You're not good at interacting with a bunch of different users you don't know, especially new users. You get frustrated, everyone else gets frustrated, and it's been like this for years. You're not suddenly going to become this super patient and diplomatic person who is great at teaching new users how to edit better. You've repeatedly gotten into trouble for how you patrol, even since the arbcom case. And how many times have you taken a user to ANI and hit a brick wall? Your judgments in this area just don't match up with the community's judgments. You think things are disruptive that others don't think are disruptive. Why not just do something else in the topic area besides patrolling other people's edits? There's a lot of other things to do. There's no need to watchlist and monitor ten thousand pages and deal with that much frustration. Let others with more patience do the patrolling. It'll be better for everyone that way. Levivich 13:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Next time don't pull any punches, Levivich. EEng 04:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't patrol per se; the majority of the articles in question are either on the front page (which I do review on a daily basis) or on my watchlist. I'm not going to change that, thanks. I will, as I have already said, make a more concerted effort to take on board many of the concerns raised. Perhaps (and I genuinely mean this in the nicest possible way) if you/Fram/Lugnuts stopped trying to give me "advice" I wouldn't get so frustrated here? It's not coming across as helpful in the slightest, it's feeling like harassment, a pile-on, etc. GiantSnowman 13:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you followed some of the advice, you probably wouldn't end up here to be frustrated so much? At some point, you have to realize if everyone is telling you the problem is you, the problem JUST MIGHT BE YOU. Get with the flow man.50.201.228.202 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, IP making their first edit in 3 days! GiantSnowman 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The sub heading caught my attention here and I wanted to say a few things. Firstly, there's no denying that Mr Snowman is a workhorse and his relentless editing on a daily basis (and on volume alone) should be acknowledged. I have no "history" with Mr Snowman, nor have I had any big "run-ins" with him, although I feel like that is largely down to how I have conducted myself as opposed to him. And by this, I mean having to ignore quite disparaging comments on countless occasions in recent years. Recently, I've seen a few things that I don't like at all about his behaviour towards other editors and this has prompted me to get involved on this noticeboard for the first time. Some of these behaviours should absolutely not be displayed by anyone on Wikpedia, let alone an administrator. Whether this be from an attitude standpoint, an interaction standpoint or from an ownership standpoint (such as editing an MOS without consensus and then forcing editors to consult said MOS to back up his point).

My interactions with Mr Snowman have been few and far between over the years and I have no bad feeling towards him, but I have had to ignore being called a "WP:Dick" (twice), have been told to "stay away" from pages and have been told that my edits are "generally poor". The only negative messages I've received from anyone in 12 years of editing have come from him. Does it sit well with me that editors are being discouraged to edit certain pages, being told to "go away", to "get over it", being called a dick, being forced to apologise to him or face sanctions, having their edits constantly reverted using a blanket approach? This is all coming from an administrator on Wikipedia. His behaviour is actively contradicting certain core values of Wikipedia. An administrator should not be unfriendly towards editors, they should not expect editors to know everything, they should not be impatient towards editors, they should not call editors names, they should not have a "them vs. us" mentality (I really don't like the "please, just listen to us" messages he sends new editors), they should not show endless frustration towards new editors. Looking at Wikipedia's expectations of adminship I would say it is quite conclusive that Mr Snowman breaches basic policies on a regular basis. Not through his application in his editing, but through his conduct towards other editors.

A lot of the concerns raised in this thread by others absolutely ring true in terms of what I've seen and experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia (the lack of edit summaries = CIR is my favourite one as it simply does not compute to him that the two do not correlate). The reason I have chosen to say something now is that Mr Snowman's responses in this thread do not suggest he has taken anything on board regarding his conduct towards others or how he is coming across to editors. To clarify, I am not calling for any sort of de-adminship here — Mr Snowman knows Wikipedia like the back of his hand, performs a lot of unnoticed work and is full of very good suggestions, some are absolutely spot on. It's how he delivers them that needs working on. He told me I included way too much information in my edits. I did not interact with the message as he delivered it in an aggressive manner, but he was absolutely correct and have spent the last few months thinning down articles off the back of this. I have no doubt that he's a good egg in real life and will eventually realise that how he interacts with editors is an area of improvement for him, just as he likes to point out areas of improvement for others. SBFCEdit (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That MOS discussion is painful (telling someone to follow the MOS, and then changing the MOS because, well, your point wasn't included there). And the other problems continue as well. "Vandalism" shouldn't be used for an edit where an editor combines two consecutive loan spells into one entry[119]: it may not follow the MOS, or it may not follow your preferred way of presenting stuff, but it isn't vandalism by a long stretch. And isn't some misclick either, as another edit combining two consecutive loan spells into one infobox line was reverted as vandalism as well[120]. Still reverting improvements as well, e.g. here an IP changed the player number from 10 to 16 (easily confirmed) and added the fact that he played 2 matches and scored one goal with the German U18 team (again easily confirmed). A previous editor also tried to correct these things, but to no avail; all sources may say one thing[121], but GiantSnowman has a source which says another thing so their version rules. Again, actively making an article worse. It just continues, no matter how many people here mention these issues, or how many times GiantSnowman says they'll improve. Fram (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the MOS - yes, in hindsight I should not have changed the MOS to reflect actual usage whilst in the midst of a minor dispute, but I did not edit war etc. and nobody has challenged or changed the MOS since, so I guess my edit had some merit eh?

Regarding everything else - sigh, I am sick of having to justify every single edit I make and you only presenting half the picture.

The Glatzel page is a great example so thanks for bringing that up. If you had looked into it properly. You will note here I actually originally added the squad number 16, based on a BBC match report. Here an IP changed the squad number to 10. I went on the Tranmere website, it showed Glatzel with squad number 10, so I left the change, presuming BBC had made a typo in their match report (as they sometimes do). Tranmere now says 16. They must have been a typo on their the website when I checked, hence the confusion (for me and the IP and others no doubt). When will you AGF??? Fram I note here you have added that "Glatzel played for England at under-15 and under-16 youth levels, but switched to Germany at the U18 level" - that is in direct contradiction to the Liverpool F.C. official profile which says "He has represented Germany as an U15 and U16 player and also represented England at youth level". If an editor is editing against what a RS says, without providing an alternative source, that is disruptive. I will not be criticised for restoring a version supported by the RS!

out of interest, where is your source for the England youth stats? They are notoriously hard to adequately source since the FA stopped their player profiles, and stats sites like Soccerway often incomplete (they don't mention any for Glatzel).

Regarding the 'two loans' - noted, I will use a more informative edit summary when dealing with edits like that.

However, I, again, note that no neutral editor has yet to weigh in to say I am making articles "worse", that is just your opinion. I am being held to a standard by you that no other editor on Wikipedia has to abide by. WP:BLP is clear - '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. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". You can think I'm a dick (well, I know you do), but why is me challenging and removing unsourced content about BLPs so offensive to you?

So - either propose formal sanctions, or get off my back and leave me alone. You are obsessed. GiantSnowman 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why should I AGF when you always claim to be right, even when you are demonstrably wrong (like with the Botteghin issue above, where you insisted that it wasn't on the club site or on Google when it was in numerous reports for some days already). Perhaps some of your excuses are correct and you were unlucky, but assome of yourexcuses were simply false, I see little reason to believe you (see also the many promises to change your behaviour, but the need of actual sanctions before you truly changed).

For Paul Glatzel, as the other editors were clearly better informed, I believed their info. It is verifiable that he played for England U16[122]. As to "why is me challenging and removing unsourced content about BLPs so offensive to you", well, a number of reasons: you pretend this is mandatory and blockworthy, which isn't true; you treat editors like vandals, which is wrong; and you do the same stuff you accuse others off. Simply take the above example: you claim that you kept "10" instead of "16" because you saw it on the Tranmere Rovers website; but the number is unsourced. Here, today, you revert another editor who changed the nationality from "Spanish" to "Moroccan, born in Spain" because the "wording was fine". Well, no, the wording wasn't fine, as the player is Moroccan, not Spanish, as indicated by the very first source in the article at the time of your revert (actually, not just in the source, but even in the title of the source in the article itself!). And there are penty of sources calling him either Moroccan or Spanish-born Moroccan, but not Spanish. So, once again, you reverted a correct edit (sourced and everything) to an incorrect one, with a wrong edit summary. Or was he listed as Moroccan this night, as Spanish this morning, and again as Moroccan now?

As for sanctions, well, you are one of these editors for whom sanctions are difficult. You make too many errors every day, and WP:BITE too many editors, to let you edit unchanged; but you make too many good edits every day to just block you or topic ban you (from football or from BLP). But the longer it takes for you to change, the closer you do get towards such blocks or topic bans, as many good edits aren't an excuse for everything else. I hope some other editors chime in and suggest some ways this can be resolved. (Oh,a good start would also be to stop attacking everyone who sees problems with your edits. WP:NPA applies to you just as much as to others). Fram (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Anshsaini0304 and caste-related editing

• Anshsaini0304 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anshsaini0304's editing on caste-related articles worries me somewhat. Most recently they began a spree of small edits to a list removing descriptions next to the names of people included in the list. Their justification is that another editor removed content they added to the Sinai article.[123][124] I can't tell if this is WP:POINT, WP:CIR, or gaming to get to extended-confirmed (a lot of the WP:GS/CASTE topic area is EC-protected, including List of Saini people). Other issues include using self-published sources for contentious biographical information,[125] using sources that don't contain the information at all,[126], similar for non-biographical information,[127] removing information that seems to be sourced,[128][129] and probably a bit of a POV issue.[130] Their original contributions to List of Saini people all had to be reverted, and the page had EC protection applied.[131] I think the editor probably needs a stronger grasp of how Wikipedia works if editing in a contentious topic.[132][133] Seemingly, warnings and advice has already been dispensed.[134][135] I don't really know what can/should be done here. They have plenty of good edits in the mix, but also plenty of disruptive ones. I do honestly think many of the dubious cases in their editing history others have concern with[136][137] stem from a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, rather than being WP:NOTHERE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Out of 473 total, I counted 157 at Yadav (surname) and 57 at List of Gurjars (xtools). I restored the descriptions and then removed all the unsourced entries (including ones not added by Anshsaini0304), many of which were probably BLPs. The remaining entries still need to be checked that they are reliably sourced and verify the people's self-identification. I'm leaning toward WP:GAME as an explanation — List of Saini people was protected on June 13, after a series of mass removals by NitinMlk (talk · contribs) and later Sitush (talk · contribs) of unsourced or poorly sourced entries, including content added by Anshsaini0304 a week prior. Consult that page's history for more information — I see an unsourced addition on February 10 and lots of additions of refs and images between June 4–6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Anshsaini0304 is an WP:SPA focused on Saini-related articles. Earlier they created many WP:BLP violations by connecting people with Saini caste on the basis of WP:UGC. Note that the mention of caste requires self-identification in the case of BLPs – see here for details. In fact, after multiple explanations at my and their talk pages, they returned more than one month later to create the same BLP violation: [138].

At Talk:Saini#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_19_July_2021, when things didn't go their way yesterday, they made a lot of unhelpful edits at Yadav (surname) to get the extended confirmed status. And from this comment, it seems they wanted to get that status for directly editing Saini article. They are also making unhelpful comments at Talk:Saini, e.g. calling a source unreliable because it was published in 1998. In short, they are here to promote Saini caste rather than to build an encyclopedia. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that, two months earlier, they were also asking another Saini editor regarding extended confirmed status: [139]. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to be a bad-faith SPA. The Saini articles attract them quite a lot (and socks, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

One option is a topic ban of User:Anshsaini0304 under WP:GS/CASTE. But it appears that this editor is not just misguided but actively unhelpful. An indefinite block seems logical. The apparent gaming of EC, via the 175 edits at Yadav (surname) is especially bad. Regular editors have a lot of work trying to keep these caste-related lists up to Wikipedia standards. Based on the above evidence it seems that Anshaini0304 is going to keep on undoing their work. As recently as August 2 Anshsaini0304 was continuing to make caste assignments with bad sources, even after reminders. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please wait and have a time to read and understand me.

The user : NitinMlk is trying to depict that I want to disrupt the caste related articles, specially those belonging to Saini caste but that's not true. He is not telling anyone what I am suffering from, Please check out the last thread of Talk:Saini, As I am new here I am having some problem to show everyone what I want. I have no intentions to promote any caste, let alone Saini caste but what is incorrect will be said incorrect everytime, although it's a different thing when a few specific editors don't want to accept that. anshsaini (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with EdJohnston on this. It's one thing to be misguided and make errors but this is clear disruption here and is resulting in a waste of time and effort on the part of other editors. A block would be better than a topic ban in this case. —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @SpacemanSpiff Okay block me or ban, whatever Wikipedia community finds suitable but please allow me to have a talk on the Page Talk:List of Saini People, also read last thread of the same talk page to understanad what I am saying. anshsaini (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – They are continuing their same disruption for Saini POV push, e.g. see Talk:List_of_Saini_people#Moving_of_protection_settings_from_List_of_Saini_People_to_Saini(surname) and Talk:Saini#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_19_July_2021. I agree completely with EdJohnston and SpacemanSpiff. And they are clearly WP:NOT HERE. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Reply - Oh my god this user : NitinMlk is manipulating everyone in various ways. I just asked this to know why I am observing biasness towards some articles, as I am only willing to know the reason and nothing else. anshsaini (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• After all this disruption, they provided an irrelevant source (see these edits and my responses here). And now I have been waiting for their response for the last two hours. So I will be now logging out. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have responded and now definitely you will find a new excuse. anshsaini (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anshsaini, you are not going to get your way. When multiple reliable sources say something & you cannot offer a reliable source which contests them, we show what they say without qualification. That some of those sources are over 20 years old & still seem not to be contested by other sources rather supports their validity on the point. Please see WP:VNT. I am sorry that Paine Ellsworth got your hopes up by initially doing as you and other apparent Saini editors requested ... but they were wrong then on policy grounds & remain so now. You are editing disruptively and tendentiously, & seemingly trying to game the system. Such editing consumes a vast amount of the time available to other volunteers. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Sitush, Paine Ellsworth has nothing to do with my hopes, even It's not a hope. What's correct is correct no such thing of hopes are involved in this! And for those discussions on sources and all, you are also welcome to Talk:List of Saini People. I am already dealing with editor like you there, who genuinely don't want to understand the point of view of others.

  Just one request to all of you, always remember editing an article if something is correct then it will not lesser down your reputation on Wikipedia. I am observing that you and NitinMlk have some personal problems with these castes, anyways I don't care why you don't want to digest the truth I will not agree with you until you will come to a genuine solution. anshsaini (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect by "genuine solution" you may mean "until I get my way". It won't happen, for the reasons I have just given here and at the article talk page. But the discussion here is more about your behaviour, not the content dispute itself. You are doing yourself no favours. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sitush To make you more informative let me clear that by "genuine solution", I mean correct content of the article. To the reasons you gave on talk page of article, I replied although there were no reason just another attempt to manipulate me as you did to other editors who are unable to put what they wanted to show everytime. anshsaini (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I do understand your point of view. I have been editing caste articles here for over a decade & likely there aren't many opinions I haven't seen. But Wikipedia isn't based on the opinions of editors, which is why I pointed you to VNT. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You "think" that you are editing caste articles but you are only making them in your way and that too some specific caste related articles. Moreover I am not saying anywhere to modify the page in accordance to my views, everytime I have to provide sources check on the talk page. anshsaini (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem not to have provided a single valid source, as others have explained. Please read WP:RS and, in particular, WP:OR because you are asking us to draw conclusions which are not in the sources you raise. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not asking you or anyone else to draw conclusions but yeah I am asking to use some common sense in understanding the difference between some words i.e. Farmers and Gardeners. I don't know why you are not able to see this that they both are different completely. Now I think indirectly you are trying to ask me to provide "scholarly sources" to differentiate these words too.

Also I think it's better to discuss these on the Talk page of the article. anshsaini (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note Anshsaini0304 is now EC. Regardless of whatever else happens here, I think at minimum EC should be pulled for the gaming, until the editor can make 500 legit edits and request at PERM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader Sure, whatever access you want to take over from me you must go for it because I never intended to vandalise any article or to modify it in my way nor I am willing to use the EC access to that article by my own, I will always prefer a discussion at Talk page of any article because I don't want that anyone after some days just revert it as it takes lots of efforts. It's just that NitinMlk is trying again and again to prove that I want to vandalise any article. anshsaini (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors pushing caste issues? Must be a day that ends in y. Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Turns out, the user also has a puppet. Seems like I need to recalibrate my AGF meter... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

For caste stuff involving new-ish accounts, ABF will usually work better as a default mindset. I remain convinced, regardless of our general ethos, that all caste-related articles should be protected in some way by default. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: I did not understand your remark about day ending in y :( Could you elaborate please?

• User:Anshsaini0304 was indef blocked by User:GeneralNotability for disruptive caste-related editing. An unblock request has since been denied due to sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Jewish royalty

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:HerbiePocket is randomly adding Category:Jewish royalty to many articles, e.g. [140]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with them at their talk page first? Daniel (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. I have started some discussion at Talk:Jesus, otherwise I don't know how to handle it. Seems they use a definition of Jewish royalty I have never heard of before. E.g. any Jew who calls himself the Messiah is automatically royalty. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That discussion has been open for a matter of hours, and already the editor has responded. The way to handle it is to have a discussion between yourselves there, hopefully others will come along to form a consensus, and if not, you can use one of the dispute resolution options here. My point is, this issue (in my opinion) did not need to be brought here at this very early stage. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newimpartial claming BLP protection for edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Newimpartial (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Utada Hikaru

Newimpartial has been warring over women and female categories at the Utada Hikaru biography, claiming protection from 3RR because of BLP violations.

The external situation is this: Japanese pop singer Utada Hikaru stated on Instagram that they preferred they/them pronouns.

"I'm sick of being asked if I'm 'Miss or Missus' or choosing between 'Miss/Mrs/Ms' for everyday things. It makes me uncomfortable to be identified so markedly by my marital status or sex, and I don't relate to any of those prefixes... Every time, I feel like I'm forced to misrepresent myself. I long for an alternative option, one that anybody of any gender or social standing could use."

Utada Hikaru has not denied being female or a woman. Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual. The only thing going on here is that Utada Hikaru does not like, and is actively protesting, the social norms of gender roles.

Newimpartial is jumping to conclusions by extending the non-binary pronoun preference to also deny being a woman and a female. The edit warring has been going on for two days. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They have also been edit warring at articles like Disorders of sex development.

[1]

[2]

They claimed that certain things I removed there was unexplained even tho I briefly explained myself. I also said that the overview section was repetitive and the information in that section was already mentioned in a later section and they reverted that.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Quinn (soccer) Sai ¿?✍ 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial - in the article Utada Hikaru, we have an independent, reliable source reporting not just they/them pronouns, but nonbinary gender identity. Per MOS:GENDERID, WP articles must defer to the most recent, reliably sourced gender self-identification of a biographical subject for all those whose gender may be in question. In this case the subject is nonbinary. That this person identifies as nonbinary and female at the same time is an EXTRAORDINARY claim for which extraordinary evidence would be required, and Binkstirnet has offered none; the claim that Utada is only protesting, the social norms of gender roles is contradicted by the available sources. Furthermore, Binkstirnet's argument that Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual as if that had anything to do with their gender identity or the application of MOS:GENDERID is purest ignorance, to A the most possible GF.

As far as the pile-on editors are concerned, I know how ANI works, but these are both IDONTLIKEIT complaints about pages where WP:3RR was never at issue. I have also provided complete and cogent Talk page explanations as well as edit summaries, in each case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual." Gender identity and sexual orientation are two different things. I think this is they key problem here, not understanding the basic concepts of both. If Udata explicitly says they don't want to be referred to as "Ms." but as "Mx.", then Udata is expressing their gender identity and MOS:NB applies. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Our guideline WP:GENDERID does not cover this unique situation, because the sex of Utada Hikaru is not in question. WP:GENDERID covers gender identity, not sex. Utada Hikaru is a woman who has thrown her social leverage into the ring of gender identity, to protest against social norms and to support non-binary people. This is not a situation where a vulnerable person needs protection. Rather, it's a case where a powerful person is making a socio-political statement.

Newimpartial claims that gender identity automatically extends to sex classification. Certainly it is helpful for that extension to occur automatically when we are protecting the vulnerable, but in this novel case there is nothing in the media about Utada Hikaru changing lifestyle, or denying womanhood, or denying the basic female sex. Our guideline does not offer the automatic mechanism that Newimpartial is relying on for protection from 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a new or unique situation, we have plenty of articles on Wikipedia about subjects who identity as non-binary. There doesn't appear to me to be any discussion of 'sex classification' on that article or in Newimpartial's edits, only you in your comments here. If you don't think calling a nonbinary person a "woman" rubs up against MOS:GENDERID, I would advise you to read WP:GENDERID, specifically the section titled "Really a man" which addresses your POV. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: to be clear MOS:GENDERID says (emphasis mine)

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources

and has since the re-write at the end of March this year [141]. It doesn't explicitly mention categories, but as WP:BLPCAT says, categories are if anything more sensitive since they have no disclaimer or modifier (or further explanation). If you still think that this doesn't apply to male/female you can ask on the talk page whether we need to clarify it, but as multiple people have told you, it does. Likewise if you think that non-binary means we should chose a gendered word even in cases like categories where we don't have to you can ask whether we need to clarify the wording but as others have said, we don't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Utada Hikaru (just added by Newimpartial) Sai ¿?✍

• Comment: With regards to Utada Hikaru, it might be wise to lock the article on a stable version (either no pronouns or using gender neutral pronouns they/them) until the discussion achieves a consensus or an RFC is done and reaches a conclusion to how the subject should be addressed. Aside from that, I'd like to echo Newimpartial and Tbhotch that "marrying a man" or "having children" does not infer anything about the person's gender identity. Isabelle ^🔔 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  You are right, it's not about gender. The edit warring is about sex: woman and female categories removed. There is no edit warring over gender identity. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  From looking at the discussion and the page history, it appears that there are two things being discussed: what it means for someone to deny female pronouns, and if that means they should be addressed with the singular they or no pronouns at all, and whether Hikaru is non-binary or not, since there appear to only be a single source for that. You are correct, though, that this specific discussion on ANI seems to be about the removal of those categories you mention. My opinion on this issue is similar, in that we should wait for the current discussion in the talk page to achieve consensus on whether Hikaru is non-binary or not. I can understand why Newimpartial removed the categories while the issue is not resolved. Isabelle ^🔔 19:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Binksternet, MOS:GENDERID does not recognize sex categories. The categories using woman and female for BLPs are all subject to MOS:GENDERID and are all gender categories. If you think we have sex-based categories for living people that are exempt from MOS:GENDERID, we have much more serious issues to discuss at this ANI than the scope of WP:3RRNO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  You have put your finger on the basic problem: that you are reading more into MOS:GENDERID than can be found there. The majority of the guideline tells us that transsexual person's birth names should not be used (deadnaming) unless the person was famous under the birth name. That part doesn't apply to Utada Hikaru. The rest of the guideline is about pronouns he/she/they etc. That's the only part applicable to Utada Hikaru, and I was not questioning their preference for they/them. Nowhere in the guideline does it say anything about categories. Nowhere in the guideline does it describe how we must automatically extend the pronoun and deadname protection to cover the classification of people based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs. You are stretching the guideline out of shape to advance your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Where on WP do you believe you see any classification of people based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs, at all? This is starting to look to me like a WP:CIR issue. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm also a bit confused here. Generally I'd expect a category to define terms the same way that the relevant articles do. Woman does not define the term as meaning "person with XX chromosomes", "person with a uterus", etc.; in fact its second and fourth paragraphs both reject those criteria as necessary or sufficient. If Binksternet disagrees with that, it seems that Talk:Woman would be the right venue to propose a change, rather than fighting over categories. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• To me, trying to use that quote to justify anything else beyond the use of the preference "they/them" as pronouns is original research (particularly since the quote refers to both gender and society issues and doesn't directly speak to gender identity, and thus the edits to remove the categories is not covered by the BLP exemption of 3RRNO. --Masem (t) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But I wasn't using that quote to justify anything. The article sites an independent, reliable source which declares, Singer Hikaru Utada announced on Instagram on Friday that they are nonbinary. Having no reliable sources to the contrary, we do have a RS declaration of gender identity, and therefore the categories represent misgendering and a BLP vio. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That's pointing to the same instagram post, and in terms of BLP, I would not consider Anime News Network the type of high quality source for a BLP to make that a conclusion in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 19:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Though I see the "I'm non-binary. Happy pride month!" quote mentiond in that article, and for that purpose, ANN would be sufficiently reliable for repeating that quote, but that probably can be easily verified from repeat viewings of the event. --Masem (t) 19:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Regardless of any nitpicking, it is reliably sourced and therefore WP:BLP provisions apply. And there is no risk of misgendering by removing "female" categories now; if Utada announces something different tomorrow, and RS report it, we just put the categories back. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
        • As a BLPN regular, I'm with Newimpartial on the last point. I haven't looked into Anime News Network, but if someone was using it to add a statement to the article I would be fairly concerned and ask if they have a better source. If it's simply relaying information from a primary source or someone's statement somewhere, that would be better but I'd still have concerns. But the absence of female categories doesn't mean the subject isn't female. Therefore despite my concerns over ANN, I would fully support removing the categories if it raises sufficient doubt particularly with a direct quote. And I share Newimpartial's concerns that Binksternet's comments above suggest that they do not understand MOSGENDERID. Given this, I'd say they probably shouldn't touch anything related to gender or sex until they do. (I'm including sex because part of the problem seems to be that Binksternet doesn't understand when each applies on Wikipedia.) If they are unwilling, we can discuss a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • There are, btw, plenty of other sources reporting on Hikaru's statements:[142][143][144][145] I'm really having a lot trouble seeing why removing categories calling a nonbinary person a "woman" constitutes original research, and that it's appropriate to instead leave them up even in light of MOS:GENDERID. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
        • For all purposes, as they are quoting the Instagram post and live feed, they are all effectively based on the same piece of evidence. But, I will stress as I did below: the direct quote that says "I'm non-bianry" should be sufficient from any of these sources to take the approach. I think the problem was that the longer quote is absent the specific statement of being non-binary or not specifically identifying with any gender, and if the sources were going off that quote, that seems very iffy (particularly with the sourcing quality here), but given there's a different quote that say it directly, then yes, we should be treating their page as a non-binary person. I'm still a bit iffy if this rises to the level of "clear cut BLP violations" of 3RRNO where leaving the woman categories in place is an issue - this is definitely a content issue that should be confirmed via consensus to make sure everyone agrees that the sourcing is good to use that quote to assert the non-binary factor. --Masem (t) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

          • @Masem: As I understand it, the comment was made in a live stream. For that reason, relying on BLPSELFPUB is difficult, so ensuring a reliable source which we can trust to accurately report on the statement was important.

            But putting the sourcing issue aside, maybe you replied before reading my comment but the problem as I see it is you are still missing that there is a big different between asserting in the article someone is non-binary, and removing an assertion they are female or a woman. While for good reason we don't require explicit self identification for gender categories like we do with some other categories, per MOS:GENDERID and the basic idea of BLP, we still need to take sufficient care with categories.

            The basic tenets of WP:BLPCAT still apply i.e. that categories have no disclaimers or modifiers, and support for any categories needs to be well established in the article. As BLP says

            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. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]

            The information i.e. the assertion that she identified as female or a woman clearly became contentious once the sourcing emerged suggestion she identified as non-binary. Once it was contentious removing it was the right thing to do, and fully supported by BLP and the 3RR exemption. In case it's still unclear, this is related to but separate from saying that the subject identifies as non-binary in the article (in categories or in text). As previously mentioned, I'd be skeptical about adding it if the only source was ANN. I.E. I'm not saying that the sources were sufficient to add that or edit warring to add that under BLP was justified.

            I'm also not commenting on the pronoun issue here. While I share Newimpartial's view that using they/them is less likely to cause harm if all the information available was that the subject identified as non-binary, I'm not sure if MOS:GENDERID definitely requires that and either way a choice will likely have to be made of the two options. I mean there is the intermediate option of trying to removing all pronouns as I believed someone did but that is also complicated and can be seen as offensive. So for the pronoun issue, yeah sure it's complicated. (I think not so much anymore with recent sourcing.)

            But for the category issue? That's different. Temporarily removing the categories for a few days while discussion is ongoing is clearly the option which risks the least harm and fully supported by policy. Nothing I've seen has come close to explaining otherwise, especially since we never guarantee categories are completely and no reader should infer the absence of women or female categories is evidence the subject does not identify as female or a woman. And if they are we have major problems that go well beyond this one article. So the only real effect is that people trying to find them via the categories wouldn't be able to for a few days.

            Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

            • I don't disagree with what you're saying but gets to my point: the assertion that the 3RRNO BLP exemption applies here is very very weak; there's a lot of subtlities for how this information should be included, but none of it is for exactly what you say, the immediate removal of those categories. The "they/them" pronouns in prose, absolutely, but that's it. --Masem (t) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

              • @Masem: I disagree. There is no subtleties about removing information that we have sufficient reason to think is incorrect the moment we become aware of it and relying on 3RRBLP to do so. If information is potentially false, it stays out of the article. That's a basic tenet of BLP. You're a regular at BLPN, some I'm very surprised to see you arguing it's okay to keep potentially false information in a BLP just because you're not certain, in a case where removing that false information does not in itself potentially introduce greater inaccuracies.

                Let's put this case aside. If our article says someone is Catholic or their birthdate is X-Y and a verified Twitter account tweets they are not Catholic or that their birthdate is not X-Y, and in the case of the birthdate the sourcing is either non existent or not sufficient; would you keep the information in which discussion is ongoing? Or would you remove it straight away and fight to keep it removed until we can be sure we aren't reporting something false? I'm fairly sure the latter, so again I don't understand why you think it's okay to potentially falsely report someone's gender while discussion is ongoing.

                And yes, if someone appears to have said they are "non-binary" then us saying they identify as female or a woman means we are potentially falsely reporting their gender. And yes us putting them in a gender category means that's what we are doing. There is no but or subtlety there.

                To be clear, there may be sourcing issues or maybe they identify both as "non-binary" and as "female" or maybe there's some other context we've missed. That's why it's fine for us to discuss it after removing the information. Just like we would for the Catholic one. Or uniquely for the birthdate one, we might even decide "well they said that, but we have great sources which disagree".

                So maybe later when we've dealt with these issues, we'll re-introduce the information now confident it's not false. That's fine, that's how BLP is supposed to work. It's not supposed to work by keeping information in articles when we can't be confident it isn't false.

                Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

                • Given the nature of the sourcing (not the greatest when it comes to BLP aspects) and that there are definitely some contextual aspects to be considered: it was 100% appropriate to remove the categories related to being female as a first BOLD action, but given that the talk page was raising issues about the quality of the sources which relayed information as well as the context they were made, it is also completely fair to hold off on this exclusion until consensus was met. The 3RRNO BLP exemption is for clearly for "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced", which is not the same as removing categories which may no longer apply that only had just been reported and that were the subject of discussion (of which Newimpartial was participating before they began the revisions to remove). Yes, we want that consensus discussion to be resolved quickly to try to get all updates appropriately, but this not the same type of information that the 3RRNO covers. Now, assuming the consensus discussion does agree on those category removals, then if some editor came along to readd the cats, 3RRNO would absolutely apply to restoring them per that discussion. --Masem (t) 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Is this the correct venue? It seems like a valid content dispute that could probably be resolved elsewhere, maybe WP:DRN. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that this is just a content dispute. Binksternet's above comments speculating as to Hikaru's motives for identifying as nonbinary seem like a pretty clear-cut BLP violation, more than can be excused as just "not understanding the difference between sex and gender" (which if anything I think is a bit patronizing to an editor I've always known to be intelligent). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's kind of my point. I feel Binksternet is trying to make this into something it is not. I don't think they should have brought this to AN/i. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Right but I'm saying this should be kept open for discussion of Binksternet's BLP violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Disagree; I have explained below the need to AGF and mitigating factors. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - And he continues to edit war with the same claims in other areas. See 1976 Olympics where someone was very notable beforehand and would be difficult to source any other way. I have asked for an rfc on the talk page but he continues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Have you read WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL and the discussion on Talk:Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics? The policy situation is quite clear, and you are the one edit warring against MOS:DEADNAME and WP:3RRBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing against site-wide consensus

In addition to Binksternet (talk · contribs), TJRC (talk · contribs) and GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) have been reverting against BLP policy and MOS:GENDERID on Utada Hikaru. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Editors on this page have repeatedly asked Newimpartial to take a pause on these edits until the actual quote can be verified. The multiple citations (including ANN) are all repeated copies of subjective recollection of a livestream. If a verifiable and viewable source for the quote can be located, the correct choice for the article will be clear. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In addition, Newimpartial has been requested to refrain from aggressive and harassing language directed at other editors regarding this issue. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • By what policy-relevant criterion would ANN not be a reliable source to document a gender-identity declaration (that can also be verified using the primary source)? And why would it be appropriate to reinsert gendered pronouns to a BLP against policy, based on an appeal to local consensus? That goes directly against MOS:GENDERID and WP:CONLEVEL.
    • Also, I don't see how any of my Talk comments or edit summaries could be construed as "Harassment", unlike the actions of certain other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • When contesting past edits, you have asserted that such edits were thumbing their nose at a community, or attempting to distend non-binary people. In each case, logical and procedural points were being made. Assigning personal bias to an editor's arguments is inappropriate. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • ANN's article quotes a Japanese article as its source. It's not an original article. However -- when investigating the sourced article (in Japanese), there is a fan upload of Utada's video stream which verifies her non-binary statement. I'll report this direct source to the editors of the page (I don't think this source was cited directly previously). This direct source is the only thing we've been asking for to comply with the edits you've suggested.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
        • You might want to look at Wikipedia's sourcing policy before telling me that I needed to produce Utada's video stream as a source. That isn't the way anything works. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of the policy, and also aware that freelance fan site posts that are based on secondary information often need to be examined closely. We're all aiming for the same thing: to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia page we're editing. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC

• The title of this subsection is erroneous and should be removed. Newimpartial is clearly following consensus regards MOS:GENDERID. Editors Binksternet (talk · contribs), and GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) opposing Newimpartial do not seem to understand (or refuse to follow) MOS:GENDERID or Consensus. I do not think it was helpful to starting a new subsection to continue these attacks. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bodney, I'm afraid you might have misinterpreted some of the context here (and I have probably been a bit less than clear). I added the section, to try to create space to discuss the actions of these other users (namely, "editing against site-wide consensus). Does that help at all? Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • ooops i did not see your signature at the start, and thought GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) had begun this subsection. Apologies to you both. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't start this section. That said, I've brought the discussion back to the Hikaru Utada Talk page, where I believe the matter can be put to rest both quickly and cordially.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Close thread. The opening post seems to have been under the impression that Utada had only made statements of preference regarding certain terminology, but not of gender identity per se. By point of comparison, the article Farhad Manjoo uses "they" pronouns but also describes the subject as a cisgender man; Manjoo's article cited there explains their language-reform views, though there has also been apparently been debate on the talk page over what pronouns to use. Anyway, since then this thread has well clarified the rules of GENDERID and that Utada does identify as non-binary gender as well. There needs to be WP:AGF given to Binksternet. The discourse on gender identity is fast-evolving. It wasn't long ago that almost everyone conceptualized being transgender as meaning only to make major changes in appearance with medical treatment so as to match the opposite gender, and this is still how many think of it, if they aren't heavily involved in the topic. Cases like this are quite different from that long-time conceptualization and we need to assume good faith. I will say that I think the edit warring that occurred should not have been done; if Utada cared that much which pronouns were used for them, then surely they would have specified their pronouns by now. In any case, currently the article is full-protected without personal pronouns, which seems fine. There is nothing left to do here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's true that some people have outdated understanding of things: You and I recently participated in an RfC where several other users (in good faith) argued that potentially having slept with men meant that someone was a woman. It's an absurd argument, but I agree that some people make it out of ignorance rather than malice, and can include Binksternet under that umbrella of AGF. But you don't need a complex understanding of queer theory to know that it's a BLP violation to assert that a living person's professed gender identity is in fact a "socio-political statement" without citing any evidence for that. "You're just doing it for attention" is a classic anti-LGBTQ insult, and is not something someone should say or imply on Wikipedia about a living person. It would not be AGFing to assume that Binksternet, an editor of 14 years' tenure, doesn't understand that this kind of speech violates BLP; rather, that would be insulting his intelligence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • IMO at a minimum Binksternet needs to understand how our gender categories interact with MOSGENDERID. Note that while malice would suggest an immediate topic ban, the issue here and the reason I suggested it could be necessary is because even without malice an editor can cause harm which we're supposed to be avoiding when dealing with BLPs. Noting that after getting into an edit war, not only was Binksternet the one who started this complaint they continued to make problematic statements here even after been linked to the various policies etc. That's the reason why I said I really think Binksternet should commit to either improving their understanding or staying well away from the area. However I've changed my mind since at the time I forgot this is an AE area. Since it is, I'm fine just leaving things be letting AE deal with it if need be. As I said above, I'm particularly focused on the category issue since that's one where I cannot see any justification for the edits since even if someone is concerned about the sourcing or not sure it's sufficient to establish the person identified as non-binary, the right action would have been to leave the categories out while discussion was ongoing whereas it was more complicated to deal with the pronouns. It would also be nice if Binksternet would take a step back and try to understand why their other statements e.g. she married men twice etc are offensive (and also irrelevant per WP:OR). If it helps, maybe they can consider other similar scenarios like saying someone who has recently identified as gay cannot be gay because of how many people of the opposite gender they married or was known for dating etc. Still we can't require that. And Binksternet is free (within the normal bounds) to advocate for a change to MOS:GENDERID or to advocate for the introduction of sex based categories if they really want, it's just that until they have a new consensus they need to abide by the current one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I am saying to extend AGF to all that as well. The "socio-political statement" remark was in response to Tbhotch arguing that "If Udata explicitly says they don't want to be referred to as "Ms." but as "Mx.", then Udata is expressing their gender identity", but that is incorrect; such a statement alone would not necessarily be an expression of gender identity, and that's why I gave the example of Farhad Manjoo and their genderless pronouns. Utada's article currently is written in a confusing manner in this regard, making it seem (unless you look closely) they are being called non-binary because of liking the Mx. abbreviation, even though the actual reason we treat them as non-binary is because they said they are, full stop. As for the marriage comments, part of the now-outdated but decades-long conceptualization of transgender people (also given away by use of "transsexual" above) which even now has yet to be dropped by many people is that they necessarily have the sexual orientation that is most common for their gender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • (ec) I don't know, it's a tough call. On the one hand, I agree with virtually everything you say above. But I have a concern: our editors have to feel free in a BLP context to make the best call they can on what they think serves the important issues that are raised in BLP policy. You know, I sometimes have concerns that BLP is treated in an almost talismanic fashion, but I tell you, this is one area where I am really grateful for it. I think GENDERID is going to need to take on some nuance under consultation with a broad swath of the community eventually, and the fact that this has not been done yet is a part of why this problem arises. But at the end of the day, I thinker Binksternet was just doing what they thought was the most respectful thing for the subject. And yes to many of your caveats about his kind of telling lack of understanding of some of the issues here. But at the same time, let's be honest, the sourcing is kinda-sorta only just now getting to the place it needed to be? It's a kind franken-pastiche collection of sources, and I agree it works in the circumstances, but Binksternet's concerns weren't exactly absurd in that respect.

Anyway, I just can't see any sanction resulting here stronger than a warning. I mean it's already kind of embarrassing just to open an ANI and be completely refuted on the underlying issues and have action seriously considered against you. And if that's not strong enough, I'll add my own opinion that Bink probably wants to study up in this area--like more than a little. But I'm not sure what more can be said here but that. If this becomes a pattern, we can consider if this is a real problem next time. But right now I think we are looking at some overzealousness and a little lack of sophistication in understanding of the topic. Intent isn't the only factor, nor even the most important one, when it comes to this kind of situation, but it should count for a bit, unless there is strong evidence of a persistent problem. TLDR: WP:ROPE, with the understanding that this isn't the type thing that you want a reputation for making a bad call on. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As above, I agree with these points. Also, there is a history of extreme and inappropriate eagerness for sanctions on this topic at ANI. For example, not long ago, an experienced user was blocked (and later unblocked) because he was arguing against some IPs that it's ridiculous to consider "tree" as someone's pronoun. The inconsistency of that whole situation is that some people who by all evidence are cisgender have said their pronouns are something like beep/bop/boop, and they draw outrage for mocking transgender people and their pronouns - that reaction makes sense - but then someone else who is just as evidently cisgender says his ("his" per this discussion) pronouns are "tree", and he gets people on Twitter, a bunch of IPs, and even an experienced admin taking that literally and seriously, and that same admin hauling that user to ANI and another admin delivering a block over it. Why is it not only okay but "valid as f[***]" according to Twitter this time, per the tweets linked there? Why was the user not instead commended for doing the right thing by preventing what is indistinguishable from trivialization or mockery of gender transition from being treated seriously? We see this latter perspective echoed by a trans man in this New York Times article about nouns-as-neopronouns. My point is that, outside of the sort of obvious hateful trolling we get from vandal accounts, editors need to get way less trigger-happy around this topic. Those of us who have been keeping up with LGBT or left-progressive discourse need to step back a bit and think about how different things are from just a few years ago. Not being super-careful around gender was the norm until recently, as was gender pretty much always being the same as the sex they appeared to be. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't intend to derail this thread with an extended rehashing of something that is done and dusted, but I have just stumbled across that I am being spoken about negatively here, and feel it is worth pointing out that your description of what happened with the Lonsdale article is not at all accurate. That incident had nothing to do with which pronouns we ought to use for the subject (as I stated in bold text in my opening statement), and entirely to do with an experienced editor (who apparently ought to be "commended"?) denigrating a BLP subject as well as fellow editors. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, as to your curse of knowledge argument, your point is well taken. As to that final point: I suppose that depends on who you are and what you consider 'recent'. You may be correct that this is just a consequence of my formal background, but I struggle to remember a time in my adult life where I didn't understand that 'sex' and 'gender' were qualitatively different terms: and that's enough years back that we're not going to talk about the exact figures. :) And that gender and sexual preferences are on two independent continuums is also preeeeeetty basic stuff, as both an empirical knowledge and social fluency matter. That said, I will repeat this point: GENDERID is not an ideal policy in its current form. One thing that we need to acknowledge more expressly is that while we can (and barring a good reason, should) discuss a trans BLP subject's preferred pronouns, it is functionally impossible to accommodate an open class of idiosyncratic pronouns outside of he/she/they and possibly a discrete class of pronouns which may or may not get substantial currency through substantially common usage: there's just no way to create a stable policy around an unbounded number of pronouns in a way that doesn't cause extreme difficulties for our editors and our readers. Respect for self-identity is vitally important consideration, but the need to produce clear content for our readers is paramount. But thankfully there are additional options. One is just to omit pronouns altogether, utilizing only proper nouns in the noun phrase context. I was initially opposed to that notion: I was convinced it would create tortured prose. But after being RfC'd to a few discussions over the last five years or so where editors had to cobble together some neutral approach because of the complexities of the situation, it's actually turned out that it is one of the better options in some cases.

Also of immense use is the fact that resistance to singular they is finally falling away with all but the most ardent language mavens: opposition to it was always more a question of prescriptive grammar, rather than descriptive, but it's utility is so welcome right now, and the old trite historical arguments now so thoroughly debunked that most people can't help but embrace it as now one of the least divisive options--it doesn't hurt for our purposes here that a large majority of style guides and probably an even more significant number of style sheets for major publications turned over on this issue a while back. Anyway, I agree with you that this is the type of stuff that our editors need the freedom to be able to discuss without fear of sanction (I'm a little concerned about some of what you just told me about, if it's an accurate representation). But I'm not sure I can be quite as neutral on the question of whether Binksternet should be embarassed by some of the gaps in their knowledge: they should be. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A propos of GENDERID, I personally would be fine with style guidance that reserved gendered pronouns to cases that are uncontested, or where a pronoun choice has been clearly declared, and to use "they/them" in all other instances (with perhaps a possible recommendation to do without pronouns in cases where the person in question has clearly disavowed they/them, and maybe other edge cases I cannot currently imagine).

A default to "they/them" where gender is in question and pronoun choice is unknown is the way contemporary English actually works, and I look forward to a day when WP might catch up on this and stop being vulnerable to POINTey neopronoun interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've been mostly offline for a couple days, and I can't wade through all of the above, but here's my take.

I have no reason to doubt Utada's declaration of non-binariness, and it should be respected; for example, categories indicating gender should not be used.

But the real question is much simpler: Should a BLP article be edited to ascribe to the subject a preference for being identified as they/them, in the absence of any reliable source that indicates that the subject has actually expressed that preference?

And the answer to that is easy: No, it should not.

My sole objection to using they/them in this article is that Utada has not expressed any desire to be referred to that way. That's it. Newimpartial has no special knowledge of Utada's preference, and points to no reliable source indicating that preference. Until a week ago, they had never edited the article at all, apparently having no particular interest in the musical article Utada Hikaru. In the last week they have edited the article 20-some times, solely to impose their view on it; it is a classic case of Righting great wrongs.

Utada Hikaru speaks fluent English, for those not familiar with her. She makes her living by communicating, writing songs in both English and Japanese. There is no reason to patronizingly assume that she is unable to adequately express her preference, if she has one. It is Utada's preference that matters here, not the preference of Newimpartial or any other editor. The she/her pronouns have been present in this article for almost two decades. They should be retained unless and until there is a reliable source that indicates Utada's preference to be identified by they/them. The second a reliable source published a statement that Utada is on record as preferring they/them, I will wholeheartedly support that change; but not until then.

With respect to the citation of the MOS to bolster the claim that the pronouns should be changed despite no indication that Utada uses them: that's nonsense. This is not a matter of style. We're not talking about date formats here. We're talking about the identity of a living person expressing in a BLP article. That's a matter of policy, not one of style, and WP:BLP militates against making such changes absent a reliable source that supports them.

It's that simple. TJRC (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"... Utada, who now uses the pronouns they/them ..." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which I earlier noted, suggesting at that time that it would in fact justify using those pronouns. Subsequent discussion, though, indicated that todayonline.com is not a WP:RS.

I'm not proposing we dispense with the "reliable" part of "reliable source". TJRC (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-binary recategorization if current gender categories are improper

I am not expressing any view on the arguments above. In particular, I express no opinion on what the subject's gender is or the like.

However, I suggest that if it is decided that the subject should be identified as non-binary rather than female, then rather than only removing these categories (taken from edit history):

• Category:20th-century Japanese women singers
• Category:21st-century Japanese women
• Category:Japanese female pop singers
• Category:Japanese female singer-songwriters

… the page should also be added to a non-binary equivalent, e.g.:

• Category:20th-century Japanese non-binary singers
• Category:21st-century Japanese non-binary people
• Category:Japanese non-binary pop singers
• Category:Japanese non-binary singer-songwriters

Note, I'm not asserting anything about appropriate wording of the replacement categories. I've not attempted to look at what may or may not already exist, MOS for category names, or the like.

I am' saying that

• non-binary versions of those categories should exist if they're non-empty (and be created if they don't already);
• they should be otherwise equivalent to the female/male versions (e.g. same parent category or the like);
• I don't see any reason not to categorize the subject as e.g. a Japanese pop singer because one disputes which gender sub-category ought to apply; and
• I don't see any reason to erase non-binary people from gender-based subcategories — if there are female/male ones, there should be non-binary equivalents.

Don't just delete useful info as collateral damage; fix it. Same as you'd change it to Category:Japanese male pop singers or Category:21st-century Japanese men if the subject were male. Sai ¿?✍ 23:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ETA: … and if it's determined that the subject's gender is indeterminable at this point, then the neutral (non-gendered) parent categories should be the replacement, e.g. Category:Japanese pop singers & Category:21st-century Japanese people, with gender-neutral pronouns, but without an actual claim that the subject is non-binary, female, or otherwise.

I will note here that I agree with User:Newimpartial on their specific point above about default-they. To me at least, "they" is underspecified, but not wrong, if applied to someone who is female or male — and it's correct if applied to someone who's non-binary. I would interpret a neopronoun like "zir" to be explicitly asserting non-binary status, but "they" asserts nothing in my dialect; IMO no gender claim at all is made by saying that the notably-male "Robert Bly is best known for their book Iron John: A Book About Men". Doing so is inapt and imprecise (vs "his") — but neither wrong nor misgendering. By contrast, using gendered terms for a non-binary person is both.

"They", therefore, is at least a safe choice to use in nearly all situations. More specific (gendered) terms should of course be used for clarity and politeness if there's clear indication of gender identity, as with Bly, but if it's unknown, why not just use the neutral option?

(Note: I use "non-binary" to cover anything other than the basic female or male — including agender, genderfluid (with higher frequency than one can otherwise update, e.g. changing from day to day), multiple, etc. I use "indeterminable" to cover any situation where WP editors cannot arrive at a clear consensus of the subject's gender.) Sai ¿?✍ 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) (who is non-binary, FYI)

Thank you, Saizai, for suggesting this. Perhaps it needs to be a Village Pump topic. But this is the kernel of my frustration, that a person can suddenly disappear entirely from critically relevant categories after declaring themselves non-binary. It's like they disappear. The other way to fix the problem is to eliminate all gender categories, so there are no male high jumpers, no female high jumpers, only high jumpers. I prefer your suggestion of adding non-binary. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Personally I don't especially care whether there are gendered subcategories or not; I only said that if there are subcategories for female and male, then non-binary should be included too. I expect that such subcategories will be kept, though; gender based categorization is rather a salient thing for most people, and e.g. baked into things like Olympic teams, "first female/non-binary _", etc. Maybe that too will change in another few decades (e.g. due to people like Quinn), but right now, that's how it is.

As for Village Pump, I frankly am not particularly familiar with WP meta stuff like that. Please copy the proposal to wherever is an appropriate forum. I intended this to be a principled tertium quid that did not seem to have been considered in the above "delete female categories vs keep female categories" framing — not tied to any decision on this particular subject, let alone edit war issues. Sai ¿?✍ 01:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment - without offering an opinion on this proposal one way or another, I would point out that the bio in question (Utada Hikaru) is currently categorized to the non-diffusing cats 20th-century Japanese singers and 21st-century Japanese singers, and I would add Japanese pop singers and Japanese singer-songwriters right now, if they are non-diffusing cats, except that the article is currently locked.

That said, I don't think anything in Saizai's latest post is of interest to ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Just use (for example) categories called 21st-century Japanese singers. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That is indeed what I suggested in the case of indeterminacy. And I have no opposition to deleting the female and male subcategories altogether and merging their members up to the neutral category; that would also be equal treatment.

But if it is known that the subject is non-binary, and there are binary-gender-based subcategories for others, then it seems wrong to me to not have and apply a non-binary subcategory. I feel that erasure by unequal treatment is morally wrong. Sai ¿?✍ 01:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are concerned about erasure by unequal treatment, you may also be displeased to find that there are often not categories like Category:20th-century Japanese male singers and that it is only the women who are subdivided further. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete the sub-categories-in-question. That our readers know the people-in-question are Japanese, singers, from 20th or 21st century, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is a good question, though maybe not for ANI. In the easiest case, if the subject has said they use they/them pronouns and that they are non-binary, I move any "21st-century Japanese women singers" (or similar) categories to "21st-century Japanese non-binary singers" if the category exists, or else "21st-century Japanese singers". If the subject has said they use they/them pronouns but has not made any statements about their gender, I'm of two minds on what to do. We can't assume that everyone who we previously included in women-specific categories who changes to they/them pronouns no longer identifies as a woman, as plenty of women use they/them pronouns. However we can't necessarily assume that they do identify as a woman, and often we don't even know if they ever have—a lot of people in the women-specific categories haven't done a whole lot of discussion of their gender (as cisgender people often don't) and so it's an assumption that has been made based on pronouns, how they present, etc.
  It brings to the forefront a bit for me whether we ought to be more careful in how we place people into these gendered categories, and why there are often only subcategories for one gender, though that's perhaps a can of worms to reopen some other time in some other place. In my ideal world, we would have much more accessible tooling to allow editors and readers alike to find people who are in the intersection of n categories, and then people could slice and dice to find people in Category:21st century people Category:Non-binary people, and Category:Japanese people, and Category:Pop singers... but again, I'll drag that soapbox somewhere else when the time comes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

My position is indeed the same regardless. If there's a female subcategory, and the male subcategory would be non-empty, there should be a male subcategory too. Same for cis vs trans or any other status for which a subcategory is made. (I feel that this is rather less likely to be erasure when it doesn't involve a minority, but it would still be unjustified unequal treatment, which I do oppose in all cases.)

I also believe that there should be a good justification for such a subcategorization existing at all. I don't particularly want to get into what would or wouldn't be justified, though, which is why I'm stuck to just the "if".

And yes, a real set-intersection structure would be a much better solution if MediaWiki supported it. And yes, deliberately using gender neutral pronouns does not necessarily imply that someone is non-binary (they could simply be opposed to gender being so salient, and I know several cis binary people who have that exact position) — but it is at least the most common reason people do so. I think that switching to 'they' would likely be considered a signal of non-binary assertion in a relevantly high context culture. (I'm at the opposite end of that — in my personal experience, non-binary people tend to say that they're non-binary, not just that they want gender-neutral pronouns — but it's hard to deny that the other communication style exists too.) Sai ¿?✍ 01:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone begins using they/them pronouns but makes no statements as to whether they are non-binary, I would be in support of convention being to remove any categories like "21st-century Japanese women singers" and replace them with "21st-century Japanese singers" as there is at least doubt as to whether the gendered category is accurate (and replacing it with the other category is not inaccurate if they still identify as a woman, just possibly less precise). But unless the subject explicitly states they are non-binary, the category shouldn't be replaced with "21st-century Japanese non-binary singers". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that in the situation you describe (which I am not claiming is or isn't true of this particular person), a move to either the neutral or non-binary category would be justified. It would require more context, including knowledge of the person's communication style, to interpret whether their intent is to decline to state, avoid gender designation, or assert gender-rejecting identity (and thus they should be neutrally categorized), as opposed to asserting a non-binary identity (and thus they should be categorized as non-binary). The neutral category would at least be not wrong, however, and should therefore be the default in case of any uncertainty (as I said above). By contrast, someone who is unambiguously male, like Bly, should not be in the neutral category if there are any gendered subcategories; male is no more neutral than female or (affirmative subtypes of) non-binary. I believe that the article you linked makes a very good point on this. Sai ¿?✍ 02:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

More heat than light

This ANI thread is already well into the "unreadable wall of text" zone. I'll note that I don't think the MOS is a valid reason to edit-war (it's in fact a particularly lame one), but obviously, if people are going to keep throwing WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL at anybody the objects, as though they were somehow unaware of WP:5P5, then this is just all needless drama and everybody deserves a big (luckily, fish are gender-neutral) trout. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You are aware, are you, that one of the main reasons editors (and administrators) have supported MOS:DEADNAME is out of BLP concerns? This isn't some bloodless matter of capitalization. :p Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the merits of that guideline (which is not set in stone). WP:BLP concerns are, as always, alleviated when there are independent reliable sources to support the matter, as you are also well aware. I don't see why this somehow doesn't apply here, or why this excuses what would under any other pretext be criticised as revisionism (fitting past events to modern norms and conceptions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has reached CONSENSUS that MOS:DEADNAME, in its current form, does not represent revisionism. You don't have to agree with that, but like all editors, you are expected to respect site-wide consensus when it is pointed out to you. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The above seems unwarranted, especially when you're using that to silence honest disagreement, even more so when it's in apparent blindness to WP:5P5. Nothing (except actual legal stuff such as copyright violations or libel or defamation, which this is not) is so much set in stone that it does not allow reasonable exceptions. That you disagree with the reasonability of my arguments is not a good reason to act in a condescending manner (telling me I'm "expected" to "respect" "site-wide consensus") about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

But you are taking an absolutely typical case of what the community decided in DEADNAME and saying "but it's exceptional, and the 5PS apply instead". As if the people participating in, closing, and implementing the many RfCs were somehow less committed to the 5PS than thou. Nonsense. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Emphatically, I disagree. Now, move on, go find some actual issue to fix, such as the self-promotional mess that half of the WP:Requested articles pages are, instead of edit-warring over stuff that's overqualified to be listed at the lameness page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You know that this is ANI, right? No actual issues get fixed here. Newimpartial (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 212.85.174.201

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

Hi. Please can someone assist with this IP's edits? They keep removing sourced content regarding dates of death across three articles relating to Yugoslav sportspeople (one, two, three). Per their talkpage, they state they are correct and are using the Slovenian versions of the pages as a source. Although, checking those pages, only one of them has a date of death, which is also unsourced. Now they are stating that if they are blocked, that "I will demand Arbcom". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It is great that the issue has been brough up here. I deal with yugoslav sports history in my professional life and I was surprised too see that the three local well known pre-war cyclists had wrong basic information about them in the English Wikipedia. I tried to correct it but then this user came with his uncooperative and rude remarks and removed all the correct content and added back the wrong info from some unexisting "sports reference" webpage. I would like to have a normal peacful discussion to correct the information as I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that Wikiepdia has the correct information available to the public. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor: you do appear to be edit warring to force unsourced information onto the page. Where are you getting your information from? Slovenian Wikipedia is not a reliable source (neither is English Wikipedia - they're both user-generated, and I'm afraid that your personal knowledge and expertise is also not sufficient - we need a reliable, published source. It's OK for it to be in Slovenian (English-language sources are preferred, but not mandatory). Please provide sources for the information, or remove it until you can do so. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked 212.85.174.201 from article space until they provide some sources and not another Wiki. If they come up with some please unblock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. I don't speak Slovenian, but I'm happy to help incorporate any WP:RS to any of these articles, if they surface. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have no sources in English, but there are sources in Slovenian. I am putting them here because I was blocked and cannot edit the articles. Please put them into the articles:

• Josip Šolar:

Obituary and an article: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ANI7Q5EW/ Tombstone: https://grobovi.zale.si/sl/Home/GetGravePicture?uId=8cff2826-c246-4b31-ae1a-88f8d5b43efd

• Franc Gartner:

article: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-G7D8KRG4 more articles when he died: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-L9QWYMRK/ dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HSPTRI7L/

• Ivan Valant:

article and picture in Jesenice museum: http://www.gmj.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kviz-2019-iii-srednja-ola-konna-verzija.pdf obituary: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AW59IIJ3/ also mentioned: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-6QJ7I2OW/ (his bike company still exists, now run by his grandson, you can contact him if you do not believe me info@valy-ing.si) All information is 100% correct. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - just making sure you've seen the links from the IP editor above. I had a look at the first one, it's a newspaper dated 1957, which does indeed carry an obituary for Josip Solar on page 8. I ran the first sentence, which read "Se v zreli dobi je po hudi bolezni umri eden najboljsin slovenskih kolesarjev – Joca Solar" through Google translate, which gave me "One of the best Slovenian cyclists, Joca Solar, dies in adulthood after a serious illness." Seems legit, the database website might have this wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The pages have still not changed. Less than two minutes were needed to revert my changes and then to block me, but now when I again presented proofs nothing happens. It makes me sad as I get the feeling that there is no genuine will to partiticipate and provide proper encyclopedic information about this topic. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked from editing those pages because you were edit warring, and because you were repeatedly making changes without providing sources. You are not blocked from editing the articles' talk pages: you could go there now, and make an edit request, citing these sources and indicating what changes should be made based on them. (It would help the other editors if you were able to provide a bit of detail on where to find the information in those sources - the first link above is 8 pages long, and I couldn't find a way to search the text: it took me quite a while to find Solar's obituary, and to put the first sentence through Google translate.) Girth Summit _(blether) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Noone excpet the other user in question watches those pages anyway and he already saw the sources heere. So just correct the information, this the oly thing that I am interested in. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Girthy. I'll work with the IP on their talkpage to find the exact page in each newspaper source they've provided, and update all three pages during the day. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

They provided sources so I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Weren't you a little quick to block them? They had the sources, just they were not particularly experienced. Did anyone discuss this issue? I wonder if it could have been resolved more amicably. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no basis for that block. What ever happened to the need for consensus? I've seen things like this before on AN/I ... someone unilaterally swoops in with a block on a new editor, who probably goes away confused and hating Wikipedia. Meanwhile, there are other incidents on this same page of very bad behavior being called out but no action. -- Jibal (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Immed block on 190.122.185.170 please

Can we get an immediate block on 190.122.185.170 (talk · contribs) based on this transphobic edit summary, not to mention their two other edits. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Already revdel'd; good; they should probably be blocked as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tried to block, says already blocked. Don't see a block. I think this happens when there is a global block> HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If there was a global lock, or range lock, it should show up in a little red bar on the top of contribs, it does not.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, it's an auto-block. Ran into a similar case recently, where I was able to unblock and the re-block the IP. Not being able to explicitly block an auto-blocked IP may be a recently introduced "feature". Favonian (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was indeed able to unblock and subsequently to reblock for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Please look at their contribs again ... that revdel is incomplete. -- Jibal (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• That requires an e-mail to WP:EMERGENCY by my reading - I'll do so now. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The same person has been running around doing the same thing on Favonian's and Bonadea's talkpages. They apparently think we all sit in one place and conspire. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • ... and here we are. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Favonian, Acroterion, it's probably that Indian editor who's been harassing Bonadea for years. Keep forgetting their name. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

        @Drmies:, Prob.ly Rajeshbm (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Oh, I see; and a whole sock army... Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

        @Drmies: you are thinking of Nsmutte (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – no, I'm sure it isn't him. He has made some rather vile attacks over the years, but his writing style is... unique, shall we say? Idiosyncratic, anyway, and this one doesn't write like Nsmutte at all. Rajeshbm is another user from India, but the issue with that sockmaster was more to do with UPE and promotion of various celebrities, if I remember correctly. --bonadea contributions talk 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just fyi and for the archival record, this is almost certainly the same user as Correct grammar is important (talk · contribs · logs · block log), responsible for this transphobic attack with violent threats; already indef'ed by Drmies. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding these aliases for the record:

• Trapkemp (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Bedsidle (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Dozesorval (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is 103.94.121.206 the same person? Range blocked as an open proxy, but still able to use their user talk page – could their edit there be revdeled? --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Grawp, btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

God, they're still around? Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and honestly it's hilarious to see that even after a decade and a few topic-area hops his MO has evolved less than a Torkoal holding an Everstone. This is just sad that he's utterly incapable of learning anything meaningful. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jgwilliams873 template usage and NOTLISTENING behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jgwilliams873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As previously discussed last month, Jgwilliams873 was warned to start working collaboratively and to refrain from only tagging articles at random. After a month away, they have returned tag-only editing (such as here and and here) despite other users requests, such as Sam Sailor. They are clearly WP:NOTLISTENING and not working here to collaborate. As I stated in the previous ANI: I would like to see JG start to communicate in order to understand why the tags are inappropriate and refrain or be T-Banned from adding tags to any article until they can demonstrate the competence of their usage. They have clearly not done either and they have not appeared to have even attempted to make any actual update edits themselves. Instead, they clutter perfectly reasonable articles forcing others to do the work for them or clean up after them. Yosemiter (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Also courtesy ping to Johnuniq per their previous warning to the user. Yosemiter (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Jgwilliams873 as it is clear the problems would otherwise escalate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horse eye's back

Horse eye's back has decided to begin haranguing me at WP:RSN with the apparent goal of trying to provoke a response, and I'd like an admin to warn them to stop it. See [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not haranguing you... Still very confused about why you're flying off the handle at me when I simply and in an non-argumentative manner pointed out that you appeared to have mischaracterized another editor’s argument[151]. How you handled this is just not ok and you should probably expect a boomerang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note that this is what Horse has claimed is me "flying off the handle". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It is among what I consider to be you flying off the handle but that is not what I was claiming. Note the present tense of my statement, you’re still flying off the handle. You just made an ANI case out of a molehill. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Having read through the RSN, it does appear Horse Eye was provocative by levying accusations of misconduct without evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I don’t think I did besides for an accusation of incivility which I would be more than happy to provide evidence ("Oh, get over yourself.” etc) for if thats what you’re talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I'm mainly referring to your accusations that MPants did not WP:AGF and that they were exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I don't see evidence of either. In my opinion it's not worst thing you could've done, but nonetheless I understand MPants's concern with false accusations. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 18:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"you’re backing yourself into wp:battleground territory which I assure you is not called for” is not an accusation, its letting them know that they’re getting *close* to exhibiting battleground behavior. The failure to AGF is not taking the contention that they appeared to be mischaracterizing another editor’s statement at face value (an appearance which turned out to be accurate, although that is immaterial). I thought "at the very least you need to WP:AGF and realize that to another reasonable editor it looks like you mischaracterized an argument.” would have made that clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw around wp:battleground unless someone is exhibiting that behavior, as what you said can be seen as accusatory. I also don't think mischaracterizing another editor’s statement qualifies as not assuming good faith. It seems at the most they just misunderstood the other editor's statement; there was certainly not any maleficence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thats not what I’m saying the failure to assume good faith is... The failure to assume good faith is dismissing the accuracy of the claim that they *appear* to have mischaracterized another editor. You can’t just dismiss the fact than another editor perceives something like that, you have to take it as face value and go from there even if you disagree. Note that if they had they would have realized that they were wrong and we would have immediately moved on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I categorically didn't dismiss it and I highly doubt you legitimately believed I did.

I asked you aquestion and added an explanation as to why any valid answer would reinforce my point. You explicitly refused to answer the question, stooping to making unfounded accusations, instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If you would like a more current example of failure to assume good faith can I point you to a mention of myself in the wall of text they just posted on their talk page? "I mean, as we speak, there's an editor blatantly trying to provoke me at RSN.”[152] is certainly the least charitable take on the situation possible, especially after I’ve made it clear that my purpose was never to provoke them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. In my humble opinion this was just a pissing contest and we'd do well to close this AN/i with no action required. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see anything overly wrong with HEB's comments. The battleground comment isn't helpful but that was only after a series of back and forth comments that seemed to be escalating. I have disagreed with HEB on a number of occasions. I've found they are willing to take a side bar and discuss things. Not only has this been helpful in terms of fostering understanding, it also has lowered the temperature when it was starting to rise. In this particular case I think MPant's view is the obvious one and only after thinking about the other side did I see it's validity as well. I can see how HEB would take some of MPant's comments as terse/biting but I can see how MPants might have viewed the reverse as well. I can't imagine that a sidebar on HEB's talk page couldn't have sorted this all out and perhaps it still could. Springee (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• The linked discussion is hatted as a "pissing contest", which seems apt here. Especially given that MjolnirPants was in the same discussion saying stuff like "Oh, get over yourself", and describing HEB's comments as "incredible contortion of logic" and "unnecessarily personalized bs that doesn't merit any response" (while continuing to respond to it). I hardly think it's unfair to describe those comments as confrontational, and I hardly think it's unwarranted to say that you don't want to be talked to in such a way. Sure, HEB was in the pissing contest as well, but at the end of the day it was a two-person pissing contest; one participant creating an AN/I thread to punish the other afterwards seems unnecessary and vexatious. jp×g 22:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'd note that you haven't bothered to give even a single hint as to what any of those quotes were in response to. A fact which says more about your purpose here than it does about my behavior, there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I opened the comment by saying it seemed like a pissing contest, later said that HEB was in the pissing contest as well, and added that it was a two-person pissing contest, videre licet: a "slang idiomatic phrase describing contests that are "futile or purposeless", especially if waged in a "conspicuously aggressive manner" [...] used figuratively to characterise futile ego-driven battling". If you would like me to reiterate that I think it was a pointless argument in which two otherwise intelligent and capable editors were being silly, I'd be glad to. jp×g 00:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here (as yet). I don't see anything that constitutes a brightline violation of WP:CIVILITY, WP:PA, WP:HARASS, or WP:TE from either editor. I note that this exchange consists of 17 rapid-fire, roughly sequential back-and-forth rhetorical counter-punches from the two editors: it was very early into this sequence that the points became so abstracted that they were providing no useful insight on the subject of the the thread and either contributor could have walked away much sooner if both weren't apparently fairly determined to have the last word (though, notably, Mjolnir was the first to eventually disengage). But other than some pretty clear issues with AGF (from both sides, really), I can't actually identify any behavioural policy violations worth anything more than the warning that things were headed towards disruption by the end of this little personal dispute.

HEB, one exception: when you say "consider yourself warned, if I see this sort of thing again I won’t be able to ignore it so easily.", that is starting to get towards pointlessly inflammatory territory: it's suggestive of the idea that you see yourself in the role of someone who is exercising authority--or in any event is preparing to police someone else's conduct, and is entitled to that oversight. Outside the narrow context of an admin giving a head's up that an editor is pushing a line where said admin would have to act, I just can't imagine there's one in a thousand cases where that particular comment could actually improve a dispute or lead to a productive outcome. If someone violates a community standard in a way that you feel Wiki-ethically bound to respond to, then do so, at that point. But this putting someone on notice silliness won't accomplish anything, especially as you phrased it there. Beyond that, I don't know what more is to be done here except to suggest you both disengage: you've both had your say and then some on what was, to begin with, a pretty pedantic disagreement. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, MjolnirPants started this thread by requesting that an admin warn you to stop haranguing him. I skimmed through the thread in question, and what I saw was an increasingly hostile discussion between two editors, both of them using rhetorical devices that aren't ideal in a collegiate environment, fault on both sides, yadayada. I decided to read it more deeply to get a feel for the flow of the discussion, and I've changed my impression slightly. Please forgive the length of this, I've hatted it to save on screen space.

Blow by blow

Here, a user makes a contribution to the discussion. It's quite neutrally phrased, it's not insulting anyone; people might disagree with it, it's fine. Here, MP replies. I think the comment is generally fine, although the 'belies your claim...' phrasing is the first small step towards confrontational rhetoric. MP could just as easily have phrased that as 'Yeah, but the original post also said 'blah', which means that there clearly is editorial oversight' - gets the same point across and is more collegiate. Anyway, no big deal. Here, HEB takes another small step towards confrontational rhetoric. In and of itself it's a neutral observation, sure, but by failing to explain why they're making that observation and what we're supposed to draw from it, it's inviting MP to ask what the point they're making is. They could have just explained their point in that edit. Anyway, again, no big deal. Here, MP is asking what that point is. 'What, exactly, would you describe...' - that's a very particular way of asking a question, and it's not a friendly one. It's the way I talk to children in my class when they have done something wrong. 'What, exactly, did you hope to accomplish by pushing an entire roll of loo roll down the toilet? Mmm?' It's condescending. So yeah, that could have been done better - but while it's confrontational, it's not uncivil, we're not in problematic territory yet. Here, HEB ups the ante. I never like 'you are either saying this, or you're saying that' framings, and I particularly don't like them when one of the two options presented is 'being disingenuous'. Much better for them to have said 'Look, what I'm getting at is...'. There's also the comments on MP's alleged passion for the source and the suggestion that he's not being logical, which don't help. This also personalises the discussion - HEB is talking about MP as a contributor. I think that's the first time that happens in the discussion. HEB follows that thought up with this, in which they're telling MP to back off, that his hackles are up, and that HEB is all too willing to be calm and rationale. While MP has been confrontational, so too has HEB, and HEB is so far the only one to have personalised it. These comments therefore strike me as unfair, and I can see why MP would object to them. This is MP's response, which is mostly fairly measured (although, there is that 'One wonders why...', which is intended to imply something without saying it outright - I always think it better either to say it, or not to say it). It looks like he's trying to remain measured though. Then MP has this afterthought, which is hostility in response to what MP perceives as baiting. This is HEB saying that they're not going to answer MP's earlier question, which is fine. There's also some pointless snark about 'telling you about yourself' thrown in for good measure, which is further personalising the discussion. Here MP says that the answer is important, and calls out the unnecessary personal comments for what they were (without making any of his own). He then points to aspersions, and asks HEB to moderate their behaviour. The first sentence of this is reasonable; the rest of it is HEB is accusing MP of 'going on the attack', and of failing to assume good faith. I'm not certain exactly what MP is getting at here, but I think they're responding to the earlier 'either X or you're being disingenuous' comment, and saying that they think HEB is just there to cast aspersions and he doesn't want to engage with them any further. Here HEB is a bit condescending, and sees fit to warn MP. MP reiterates that he doesn't want to continue the discussion, and tells HEB not to ping him again.

So, my take on it is this: confrontational rhetoric in discussions is often unhelpful. It can lead people down the path to hostility unnecessarily. There was a point there that could have been discussed in a collegiate manner, but the way in which people were framing their arguments made that not happen, and both participants could have handled the discussion better. However, by my reading, HEB was the first one to personalise it, and continued making it more personal a number of times afterwards, whereas I see MPants making an effort not to personalise it, and to disengage rather than pursue it. I can't say that HEB is intentionally trying to provoke a response from MP, maybe that's how they usually engage in discussions, I don't know. However, here we are with the warning: HEB, stop haranguing MP. I'm not proposing an IBan or anything, but if you find yourself in conversation with him, don't personalise it, don't accuse him of 'attacking' people when he's not doing that, or tell him that he needs to back off from a discussion. Please both try to approach discussions in as friendly and open a way as possible, and try to avoid framing questions or statements in such a way as to appear confrontational. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I didn’t tell him he needed to back off from the discussion, I told him he needed to take a step back rhetorically, in hindsight I should have also taken the medicine I was prescribing. I would also note that I did disengage, Pants was the one who insisted on having the last word and they got it in both subcoversations.... Then they got the final last word by opening an ANI and posting on my talk page (note that the “don’t ping me” post is in between opening the ANI and posting the ANI notification on my talk page, its three posts in two minutes), thats not disengaging. Then they repeatedly dragged me through the mud on their talk page[153][154], what part of that is disengaging? Personally I find the comment "If people weren't riding my dick, I wouldn't be telling them to get off it.” which was directed at myself to be highly offensive, I would never touch his dick let alone ride it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, can you confirm whether you were telling HEB they should or they shouldn't be telling MPants to back off from the discussion? I interpreted your statement to mean "if you find yourself in conversation with him, don't personalise it, don't accuse him of 'attacking' people when he's not doing that, or and don't tell him that he needs to back off from a discussion". —valereee (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, ha - words are funny things, are they not? I was indeed saying that he should not tell him that he needs to back away from a discussion, your corrected version is a better way of putting it. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

From my review of what happened, I think that Girth Summit's "blow by blow" description gets it right, and his analysis of it also matches my own. I see this as something that doesn't really rise to the level of needing admin action, and I also have to observe that MPants has been on the receiving end of an awful lot of grief lately, and that I wish it would just stop. I would hope that someone will close this thread soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is touching, I hope that one day I have a wikipedia friend who is as good and kind to me as you are to MjolnirPants. You’ve inspired me to read the earlier messages on their talk page and explore the threads they are in regards to and they do seem to have been having a really really shitty time recently. I wish I had known that before engaging with them here, I definitely would have been more patient. This is my first negative interaction with them (maybe second, we have interacted rather extensively), basically everywhere else I’ve encountered them they’ve been a fantastic editor and I would hate to see them leave either of their own volition or forced out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that! All the more, I think that seals the deal for me, that this thread is ready to be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

HEB, maybe just treat everyone as if they may be having some major stress in their lives. Pretty much all of us have for the last year and a half, and for many, many editors, there's no end in sight. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The wikipedia stress that MjolnirPants has been under recently appears to be extraordinary, I don’t want to trivialize that by suggesting thats its ordinary given the times... It isn’t, I probably would have thrown in the towel by now or serving a long blocked if I was in their shoes (they almost certainly would be blocked right now if they weren’t an OG). If nothing else they have true grit, I admire that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, thanks for saying what you have above, I hope that the two of you will be able to make amends. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, thank you for being understanding. It's more rare than it should be. I too hope you both can make amends and move forward. I appreciate you acknowledging the stress he's been under and I also appreciate Valereee pointng out that many of us are under unbelievable stress both on and off Wiki. Mr. Pants is really a caring person, don't let him fool you, but he is very passionate. He is kind and understanding when given the chance to be. In regards to Tryp, we all need a friendly fish in the bowl to save us from the antics of the cat sometimes. Such wonderful people we meet here. It's not worth all of this. It's not beneficial to us to be angry and upset forever towards each other all the time. Enjoy editing! --ARoseWolf 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As long as it's not a bowl of chowder. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Awww, but I'll throw in some of those soup and oyster crackers for ya! --ARoseWolf 19:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Transphobic/homophobic personal attacks

Can somone help with Special:Contributions/202.146.244.238. A quick block and some revdel would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are some people so full of hate? I just don't get the mindset. And I would remind this editor that in English the singular "they" is even older than the singular "you". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, thou hast offended me with thine new-fangled grammar. Get thee hence! Girth Summit _(blether) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've RevDel'ed the edits and edit summaries from the history. GiantSnowman 16:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaaand, this is what I appreciate about the administrative culture here. I have spent a goodly chunk of time today and yesterday trying to get anyone over at commons to respond to blatant homophobia and doxxing on a public noticeboard, but it took 48 hours and conversations with 4 admins to get someone to do a revdel, and the account that did the doxxing still isn't blocked. I'm feeling quite depressed about the whole experience. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

For Commons, @Girth Summit:, next time ping me directly. If I am around (which is seen from my contribution log here) I should be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I must admit though that this case is way much simpler than the one on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks for that offer. I know what you mean about it being a bit more complex, but for me it's pretty straightforward : if you put another user's real life name, their sexuality, and where they live and work on a noticeboard, you get blocked and the revisions get deleted and oversighted. Apparently not, on commons. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, on Commons you can block a checkuser because you are unhappy with the CU results and then insist that whoever unblocks the checkuser should be desysopped. So block is indeed slightly difficult to institute sometimes, but revdel should have been done quickly. Anyway, now I have given them the last warning and was very specific what they are not supposed to do ever again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thank you. It sounds like the wild west over there. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons is a project which really suffers from an extremely high ratio between the amount of work needed to be done and the number of people capable of and willing to do the job. Therefore even reasonable users have tendency to get overworked and become unreasonable, or to walk away, and bad-faith and agenda users stay for years under the radar, and sometimes there are coalitions of agenda users with whom nobody can do anything. I am personally doing the necessary maintenance minimum but otherwise just upload my photographs which I seem to shoot much faster than I am able to upload. Probably at some point it will be declared failed and taken under direct governance of the WMF, but I doubt they can make it better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

[reindent] That Commons thread is so incredibly dysfunctional on many, many levels. I thought 'do I just whinge here about it, or do I try and do something about it', and decided on the latter, so I brought it to the attention of the head of T&S: m:User_talk:JEissfeldt_(WMF)#Wikimedia_Commons_thread_of_interest. I just cannot get over how absurdly handled that was, from an anti-harassment, anti-doxxing perspective. Daniel (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, I'm glad others feel the way I do. I'm still really troubled by that encounter. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not the only one who knows what a fucking horror show Commons is. As I said elsewhere, they not only refuse to get their shit together but actively smear it around and blame us for it because... well, they never really get around to explaining why, but apparently something. It's a shame, because they do serve a quite useful purpose, but in real life I've handled colostomy bags that weren't as full of shit as the admins I've generally encountered there; why they have a raging hate-on for this project escapes me, since we pay their bills much more so than the other way around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the account we were discussing in relation to Commons is now globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Fenerium1923

Fenerium1923 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account just created, removing/altering sourced information with has to do with anything Iranian and replaces it with 'Turkish' [155] [156] [157], as is typical of the disruption in Safavid related articles. This IP which did the same earlier seems to be his [158] --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Obviously, the June 22 to July 22 semi did not produce the desired effect. Giving this one a more serious breather. El_C 21:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Shoot for the Stars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs)

I don't want to get this editor in trouble or anything but they are making some questionable editing choices in articles. The editor is adding low quality images such as these [159] [160] [161] [162] in articles without explaining why. I have made a comment at their talk page about this issue nearly a month ago but didn't get a response. This editor also adding mugshots as well [163] [164] [165] [166], which is against the guidelines (WP:MUG).

Don't get me wrong, this editor has get several articles to GA status. However, the image issue that I can't ignore. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I see a two-way discussion between the two of you on their talk page, which is partly about images, from July. They don't appear to be uncommunicative - why not try talking to them a bit more? I'm not saying you're wrong about the images, but ANI seems premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Girth Summit: Another editor Deepfriedokra have pointed out the image issue while the editor was still blocked at the time. I have made a second comment regarding the low quality images at that time as well but my comment was ignored. I doubt they will respond at their talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

    That puts a rather different complexion on things. With a bit more digging (which I should have done before my last comment), I see that this user has twice been CU blocked for abusive sockpuppetry, and that last time they were using their sock to upload mugshots after they ones they uploaded under their main account all got deleted. (archived SPI for reference). That's far too much disruption around images in a very short space of time for a single user - I'd be interested to hear whether they have anything to say in their defense, but it looks like some sort of editing restriction (or just an indef block) might be in order. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think an indef block to this account would be the best. I’m sick and tired of getting in trouble. It’s high time that I move on with my life and start focusing on my career. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry it ended like this, but I've blocked Shoot for the Stars indefinitely. Should they have a change of heart and request unblock, I'd suggest a TBan from images on BLPs as a minimum unblock condition; I wish them all the best with their career and moving on from this. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Girth Summit: Well that's disappointing. I like the editor but ignoring the issues that I pointed out earlier is not the way of handling things. Hope the editor will change their mind on this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Are you kidding me. WTF. This is the user who was pleading to be unblocked early at UTRS 'cause school was about to start soon and oh my God, I just cannot wait. The user I told one month is a boon and they agreed to a TBAN on images and HighinBC declined to unblock on the 30th and the block expired on the 4th!? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. This was strike three. And it looks, based on two earlier self-requested blocks, like retirement by admin action. This is, indeed, disappointing. May they find joy and happiness in their off-wiki endeavors. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

'Endorse site ban per below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block: This user is a compulsive liar and has been lying for months on end now, whether it's lying to someone to get them to review their featured article candidates, lying to administrators about when school is starting to get unblocked early, or something else. At this point enough WP:ROPE has been extended to them and I can no longer take them at their word. They have gotten away with lenient sanctions for sockpuppetry twice and continue to cause trouble. This discussion gives a good picture of the disruption they have caused in FAC space, including incivility and personal attacks. I suggest formalizing this sanction more so that they cannot get out of it in the future without a community discussion.--NØ 09:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, they told an FAC coordinator on June 2, that they will be starting a full time job and will have to leave Wikipedia in July, to get them to waive off the two-week waiting period between nominations. This changed, however, when on July 30th they were pleading to be unblocked, according to Deepfriedokra. On August 6, they were "back and ready to edit again." This user has also weaponized Pop Smoke's murder to further their interests on Wikipedia (Special:Diff/1037392582) which is just unfortunate.--NØ 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• endorse siteban per all above.Ratnahastin ^tålk 10:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• User said that they were leaving for school and needed early unblock at UTRS appeal #4602810:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry to say, but I add my voice to those supporting Shoot for the Stars' ban. Stars previously edited here as Beatleswillneverdie and, from memory, pretty much all their contributions were contentious – uploading bogus cover art, replacing images with unnecessary and inferior alternatives, adding other non-free cover art with little or no regard for fair-use criteria, repeatedly making these changes while apparently unable to respond to other editors' warnings/concerns or to use a talk page. If that sort of behaviour has continued under the user's new name, then it's no great loss to see them go, at this stage at least. I considered them intentionally disruptive at the time (2019-ish), but perhaps it's more about competence, given they appear to have been school-age (which I didn't realise back then). I hope things are different in years to come; I'm sure they will be. JG66 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• I endorse this ban as well. Like JG66 said, I remember when they were under the name Beatleswillneverdie and they consistently added images both JG & I ended up reverting numerous times (most notably this one). As others here have said, they have displayed quite a few instances of being unstable and consistently changed their mind on things (i.e. FAC disruptions). On top of the fact that they have changed their username four times (which seems overly excessive, like they change it based on their current mindset) and has caused numerous issues with quite a few editors, including myself, I think it's best they stay banned. – zmbro _(talk) 19:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite block and site ban the user has caused enough disruption already (which includes multiple rage quits prior to returning), and the sockpuppetry only made things worse. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional editing and other disruption by a single-purpose account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• WalterWhite72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WalterWhite72 was created on May 23, and the entirety of their contributions are to the article about Kevin Paffrath (a candidate in the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election) and closely related pages. They have been engaging in promotional editing, edit warring, casting aspersions against other editors, and refusing to work towards consensus on the talk page or accept past consensus. They were briefly partially blocked for edit warring three weeks ago, and apparently evaded the block. I think they need an indefinite p-block from the page, at minimum. Some history:

• COI warning #1, 24 May by Drmies; COI warning #2, 24 July by MrsSnoozyTurtle
• Edit warring noticeboard discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive437#User:WalterWhite72 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Partially Blocked)
• Block evasion warning: [167]

Some diffs of the issues:

• Adding "social media star" to the lead: [168]
• Introduction of a glowing but irrelevant quote about Paffrath: [169]
• Attempt to portray a judge's decision not to allow Paffrath to be listed as "Meet Kevin" on the ballot as a "denial of his right": [170]
• Selective inclusion of polling information, and wording in a way that is likely to be misunderstood: [171]
• Addition of "Paffrath is the leading contender against existing Governor Newsom" to the lead based on selective sourcing: [172] (this is a poll that has been described as a "shock poll" etc. as being way out of line with other polls such as this one, which puts Paffrath at 1% in "Which candidate would you vote for to replace Gov. Newsom if he is recalled?")
• Aspersions: "Do you work for Newsom?": [173] (I have already clarified my lack of connection to anyone involved in the CA gubernatorial race to a different editor who was casting aspersions and later blocked: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags, and I make no secret of what I do for work and for whom)

As a note, there is some indication that there may be multiple individuals involved here ("all we did"), and Paffrath's team has been involved in trying to edit the page ([174]). I looked on their talk page to see if they've responded to any of the COI notices to explain their relationship to Paffrath but didn't see anything; it's possible they've done it somewhere else and I missed it, but I don't think they have. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from the page. If someone else would like to do more with that block, be my guest. Izno (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

While I was typing a comment, Izno took decisive action. What I was going to say: Support page block. WalterWhite72's edits are clearly intended to slant the article in favor of the subject, presumably to boost Paffrath's candidacy. His version was a glorified campaign site before GorillaWarfare undertook to clean it up per WP:NPOV. Schazjmd (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ndrw010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ndrw010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could we have a block of this account please? They seem to be a trolling only account and are disrupting the teahouse and the article IBM POWER microprocessors with claims that they own IBM, Rolls-royce, are the "emperor of earth" and will have all Wikipedia editors executed by the military for being involved in organised crime. [175]. Thanks, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, the statement in diff (last para, very end) is a direct physical threat against Wikipedia editors which merits a block. NOTHERE regardless.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Girth Summit, so this can be closed.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was... strange. Blocked, and I removed that ridiculous screed (and revdeleted it, since it contained the names of some presumably real people) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Well that was certainly more entertaining than usual, I’ll give them that. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abhishek.5678

This user User:Abhishek.5678 has created three pages on cyclones in November and December of 2021. Two are prod, one is up for CSD.

I suspect this user is both a creator of hoax pages, and a sock. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The other two are now up for CSD. They created another hoax article Deep Depresssion BOB 03 about a similar topic — this did not get CSD'd because it has already been redirected to the 2003 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. I will warn them for creating hoaxes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I just realized that the aforementioned redirect met R3 as well (Depresssion is an implausible typo), so I co-tagged it with both G3 and R3. Their user page is now up for G3 as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The account has made a total of 41 edits, 34 of which have now been deleted as hoaxes. The remaining 7 edits are about cricketers, and as far as I can see are OK, but someone knowing more about cricket than me may like to check them. The editor has apolgised for the hoaxes in edit summaries, and promised not to do the same again. JBW (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

So long as the hoax creation doesn't continue any longer, I'll consider the apology to be sufficient and the incident closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Without digging, the cricketing edits (only one of them this year) look OK to me - plausible routine updates and fixing a typo (the recent one). Narky Blert (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by Informed analysis using Ontario IPs

• Informed analysis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 205.189.94.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

A handful of Toronto IPs have recently begun restoring old edits by Informed analysis, who was already known to be violating WP:MULTIPLE with Ontario IPs. The recent IPs are Special:Contributions/205.189.94.2, Special:Contributions/205.189.94.9 and Special:Contributions/205.189.94.8. Older IPs include Special:Contributions/207.107.126.137 and Special:Contributions/99.231.158.242.

The unique editing style of this person includes changing the lead section of major rock bands to have a lot more detail about songs and albums—a lot more detail about chart rankings and sales. They were reverted many times because the reading flow suffered from the excessive detail.

This editing pattern or fingerprint appears in these sequences:

• Heart (band): December 2020 edits, March 2021 edits, August 2021 edits
• Genesis (band): February 2021 edit, later that month, August 2021 edits

Can we get a rangeblock on the involved IPs? Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked IP range 205.189.94.0/28 from editing Genesis (band), Heart (band), Eagles (band), and Rush (band) for two weeks. This should put a stop to the disruption. If any IP addresses slip through the range, or if I need to add any additional articles to the partial block, please let me know and I'll be happy to fix it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that won't be the end of it. Looking at the contributions, I would say there has been a considerable amount of socking over the past few months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

IP's concerns about Warshy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this diff[176], Warshy clearly issued a personal attack of "Religious fundamentalist sockpuppet". After given a warning[177], he remained adamant.[178]155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Warshy continues his NPA streak a few minutes later[179]155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• I urge Admins to look very carefully at the complete edit history of this IP. This has to stop! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Take a look at that edit summary[180] I have been saying this guy is a sock-puppet for some time now. This is a string of Personal attacks. If he wants to file an spi, go ahead, it will be futile. However, civility is not optional. Can an admin give him some temp cooling off block before Warshy indeffs himself?155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Please see WP:COOLDOWN. We don't issue "cool down blocks", as they usually tend to result in the opposite effect. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  What should be done about a Violation of NPA?155.246.151.38 (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Usually, the best way to handle personal attacks is to politely ask them to stop, and if this doesn't work, and if the personal attacks are repeated and egregious, I'd consider stepping in depending on the situation. It all just depends on context and what's being said exactly... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Twice for emphasis. IP, what are you doing? El_C 22:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  El_C. Have you reviewed the Personal attacks above and taken action?155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, I have not reviewed them, so obviously have taken no action. El_C 22:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The IP is either a radical fundamentalist POV-pusher or a Sock puppet account#Strawman sockpuppet. WP:BOOMERANG. Basically, they filled Wikipedia with accusations that established users are antisemitic because they dared to WP:CITE something published in Haaretz. The IP can't stand that secular Jews criticize fundamentalist Jews. They suggested that I violate WP:NONAZIS because I call a fundamentalist a fundamentalist (as Britannica does call the Haredim fundamentalists), see [181]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

First Law of Holes155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Basically, you filled Wikipedia with accusations that Haaretz publishes antisemitic propaganda. That is so preposterous!

https://umaine.edu/anthropology/faculty-staff/dr-henry-l-munson-jr/ , who is an expert in fundamentalism, wrote https://www.britannica.com/topic/fundamentalism/The-Haredim , wherein Britannica clearly states the Haredim are fundamentalists.

So your accusation boils down to: I'm antisemitic because I call a fundamentalist a fundamentalist. I call a spade a spade, which is not appropriate according to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is a significant issue regarding article content, would all participants please focus on that. Clearly the IP is on a roll and arguing with them only provides encouragement. The claim against Warshy is baseless. When I have an opportunity later I might block the IP for wasting everyone's time. My purpose in posting is to urge people to not waste more time arguing with someone on a mission. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

They claimed (without evidence mind you) that this user is a sockpuppet. How is this not a personal attack?155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the accusation can be considered uncivil if no evidence is provided to support such a claim. However, the solution here is to politely ask them not to make accusations like that. Blocks are not to be used as a punishment, and applying a block isn't going to resolve anything. Users in general should never be accusing other users of being a sock puppet on Wikipedia. If they have evidence supporting such a claim, they should file a report at SPI with that evidence. Accusations like this serve absolutely no good or helpful purpose in any context. Let's say that the accuser is correct and the user being accused is a sock puppet... Why would you let that user know that you're onto them and that their "cover" is blown? Now they have an opportunity to make another account or switch IPs and make enforcing the matter much more difficult. Now, let's say that the accuser is not correct and that the user being accused is not a sock puppet. Well, now you just look like an ass. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The filer has been canvassing over an RSN case over issues of religion (they may still be at it, despite warnings [[182]]), including calls to take us to the media. It is clear to me 155.246.151.38 is here to right great wrongs and to fight the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:112.198.163.225

112.198.163.225-addition of unsourced content after 4th warning.----Rdp060707|talk 10:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like straight vandalism. IP has never edited a talk page, including their own. P-blocked one month from article space to see if we can get this IP to a talk page. —valereee (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

All edits by this IP have been from the Android app. It may be futile to expect them to use a talk page WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've seen that incredibly depressing table. It's such a problem, and it's only getting worse. I don't know why WMF aren't throwing money at this. Maybe what they really want is for us to require registration and login. Which I'd support, but if that's their agenda for refusing to deal with this, it's pissing me off lol —valereee (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DaniJestin: disruptive edits and partisanship

DaniJestin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously engaging in disruptive edits at various articles related to Indian Christianity and specifically the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

• Special:Diff/1038039256 - the user is continuously manipulating the content which is reliably sourced. The user is persistently vandalising the article, whenever it was reverted back
  • Special:Diff/1037218298
  • Special:Diff/1037034853
  • Special:Diff/1036765238
  • Special:Diff/1036282255 etc.
• the user removes content in a partisan pattern.
  • Special:Diff/1037877874 at List of Malankara Metropolitans
  • Special:Diff/1037877477
  • Special:Diff/1037877373
  • Special:Diff/1037877229 at Thrikkunnathu Seminary
  • Special:Diff/1037572543 at Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
  • Special:Diff/1037518206
  • Special:Diff/1037366089 etc.
• Removed a particular community's name from various articles
  • Special:Diff/1037038943
  • Special:Diff/1037035267
  • Special:Diff/1033978894
  • Special:Diff/1013397619 etc.
• Vandalising various other articles
  • Special:Diff/981313386
  • Special:Diff/981313083
  • Special:Diff/980908530
• Adding unsourced content, often copyright violations.[183]
  • Special:Diff/980795375 and much more. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of these diffs are from edits that happened recently (August 2021), while many others date back to 2020. Looking at the user's talk page, I don't see any warnings for their recent behavior. I think that the best course of action moving forward with this user is to warn them when they add unferenced content or make changes without referencing a source, as well as warn them for unexplained removal of content. This will give the user a chance to improve their edits and correct their behavior. If the user doesn't do so after enough warnings have been left, I would justify blocking the user as the appropriate and logical next step (starting with a small duration, and then for longer durations if the disruption continues after the block expires). This is what I believe is the fair thing to do regarding this user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet another mobile editor who has discovered neither talk pages nor their own user talk. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The user is responding in none of the pages. Whenever the correct content is restored, they just revert it back. For an example, look at their recent edits at Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The reliable source provided clearly states 1 million. But they keep on adding 2.5 mn persistently. I have tried adding the quote itself, but now even it is made 2.5 mn.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User Amishai GG

Amishai GG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been making a huge number of edits, probably in good faith, but frequently bungling them. They have received no less than 13 complaints from other editors in the past two weeks, starting here. They haven't responded to talk page comments, and looking at their edit history, total edits to their own talk page consist of five edits in 2019 where they deleted warnings. Further warnings on their talk page seem superfluous until we can get their attention. May I suggest it is time for someone to block them until they do respond to the complaints they are accumulating on their talk page? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for 36 hours for adding unreferenced content. Looking at many of their edits made today, many of them have been reverted and none of the changes include any kind of reference or citation. I'm hoping that this will get the user's attention and nudge them to communicate and respond to feedback. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the person seems to have last edited their own talk page in October of 2019 (not via mobile) and those are the only edits they ever made to their talk. Since then they're editing only via mobile, and have never edited a talk page. I'm wondering if they're even seeing any of these warnings. @Tarl N., if the problem continues after the block ends, come back and we'll try a p-block from article space. Maybe that'll get them to log in on a desktop to see why they can't edit. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This person does have email enabled, so I emailed them a link to their talk and to this page. Hope I don't live to regret that lol —valereee (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Valereee - Great observation, and thank you for reaching out to the user. Let me know how it goes. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them. Valereee's reference to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU astounds me; When the mobile interface arrived, I found it so obnoxious I disabled it within days, so was unaware of the hidden problems. Frankly, if I had world-dictator powers, I'd disable the mobile editing interface entirely given the problems it evidently creates. Glyph of shaking head. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, requiring mobile editors to log in is something seriously on the table if the discussion on the issue doesn't find resolution. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

136.185.156.124

136.185.156.124-addition of content without reliable source(s) nor explaination (after 4th warning).----Rdp060707|talk 06:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. 1 week --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible advertising?

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

This user has recently been adding some websites as sources, but the websites don't seem to have any indication on who is running it (I highly doubt any of them are WP:RS...), and most of the times are randomly placed in the middle of sentences, barely, if at all, supporting the information in the sentence (such as here, here, and here). I am unable to confirm if the websites being used belong to the editor or not (since they lack any sort of 'About us' links), and the 'Fest Today' website mostly being used says it is powered by WordPress, so I'm think most (if not, all) of them may need to be reverted. Magitroopa (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all of their edits add a reference pointing to the same website. That's a big red flag for me... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also this edit on Halloween (2007 film) is a bit weird- despite dead links having archived links, they've gone ahead and changed the main links to some Google Sites website, with the exact same content as the archived websites. See this and this for comparison from that edit.

Some of the websites they're linking also includes links to some website called 'ThePsp', which actually does have an About us page- however, no clue if it's related at all to the creator of the websites or they just found/stuck a random link in there. Magitroopa (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a spammer with a note saying they can get unblocked if they read WP:RS and explain what they will do in the future. It all needs reverting (although some of the sources probably fail rs anyway!). Doug Weller talk 10:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be related to Deepanshunegi1998. I requested a COIBot report update, if it's spammed by multiple accounts it'll likely eventually be blacklisted. Thanks for spotting, —PaleoNeonate – 11:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Debresser

I changed the short description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that it does not repeat the title of the article. User Debresser (talk · contribs · block user) started reverting me over and over again, demanding that I first establish a consensus, which is ridiculous because the change I made is minor and non-controversial. Also, with his latest edits there, he reverted not only me but another editor as well, without explanation: link. I asked for help at WT:SHORTDESC and the feedback there basically confirmed my point. It is unacceptable to allow this user to waste so much of other peoples' time and effort to make edits as obvious as mine was. He is banned in the Palestine–Israel topic-area, and is constantly being blocked for his edit-warring. Debresser is polluting other users' editing with his lack of judgement and WP:OWN, and should be blocked for good. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If your edit is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Did you start a talk page discussion?I don’t see any relevance in this complaint to the IP topic. You’ve reverted it at least 4 times now. You should start a discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an abuse of guidelines to require discussion before every edit. There were no good reason to revert it or demand consensus, and that's why his history of sanctions is relevant – he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason to revert it, it would seem to me, was that the version was stable before you arrived. If your edit is so obviously superior, then gaining consensus should be a breeze. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not If only two editors have weighed in, and they disagree...then there is no consensus for the change, and the existing text is understood to represent consensus. Why haven't you followed WP:ONUS and WP:BRD by initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus for your disputed edit? It is not an abuse of guidelines to follow guidelines. Bringing this to ANI when you are the one edit warring in your preferred change, primarily complaining about unrelated events in the other editor's past, is a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Triggerhippie4, this page falls under WP:COVIDDS. Please exercise greater caution and do not edit war. Further, I take a dim view of you trying to browbeat Debresser with their sanctions history to win over a content dispute — and, as it happens, I'm actually the admin who sanctioned Debresser, for whatever that's worth (something, I'd reckon). El_C 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  And he even blocked me once, for whatever that's worth. :P EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, blocking EEng is a right of passage for admins... El_C 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gah, Right of passage →Rite of passage, I can't spell. Though EEng probably self-identifies as a ship now (no Poop deck jokes, please!). El_C 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I gotta say something else. Triggerhippie4, I'm a bit shocked that an editor of your experience would revert a contending version over a longstanding one with an edit summary that reads: There is no consensus for your revision. It's your version that's new, Debresser's version already enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely, via WP:SILENCE. You can't tell him that his version has no consensus when yours has even less! El_C 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And I gotta say something else too. This is an ANI thread over a short desc? REALY??? EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While it would've been better for Triggerhippie4 to open a talk discussion, I agree that such minor non controversial changes don't always require for editors to talk. Moreover, they already asked about the change in the shortdesc, and the responders pretty much agreed with them. With that being said Triggerhippie4, if you get reverted multiple times, at that point it's probably better to open a discussion as clearly the user disagrees with you and they'll be right to point out WP:ONUS (even if you think it wastes everyones time and the change is minor). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Triggerhippie4, browbeating Debresser over their sanctions history to win a content dispute is WP:BLACKSHEEP. We have seen this kind of thing before. Please don’t. Tinybubi (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, not interesting. El_C 11:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is my reply at all necessary here? I agree with everything that has been said, but will happily repeat those points, and would like to add a few things:

1. Triggerhippie4 does not understand or refuses to accept that he is the one who has to gain consensus for his edits (as I pointed out to him multiple times), and this has been so for as long as I have known him here;
2. it takes two to edit war, and since Triggerhippie4's first reaction to a revert is, and has always been, to simply repeat his edit, he will regularly be in conflict with other editors;
3. trying to make another editor look bad is not nice (but please rest assured that I hold a very dim view of Triggerhippie4 as well, based on precisely the things that are being held against him here);
4. this is not really the kind of subject to take to WP:ANI;
5. there is a discussion on the talkpage, which seems to be going his way, and I have not reverted since, so opening this thread at that stage was being vindictive and I do not appreciate it at all;

Debresser (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, that is not an ideal reply – it seems to focus entirely on the actions of another editor without any recognition of your own distinctly sub-optimal behaviour. What exactly do we have to do at this point to stop you edit-warring, once and for all? You've been warned, you've been blocked, but you just . won't . stop. Do you not understand that edit-warring is a waste of everybody's time, and actively harms the encyclopaedia by eroding editor goodwill? Edit-warring over such trivial detail as this is particularly pointless and toxic.

Here's a proposal: you agree to a one-revert-per-month restriction on any page anywhere in the project (with the usual exceptions for pure vandalism, serious WP:BLP violations, blatant copyright violation etc); if after – say – a year you have not broken that restriction it can be lightened to, say, one revert per week. Could you do that, do you think? The only alternative I can think of is to seek consensus here for a community-imposed 0RR restriction. El_C, other editors: could this work, if Debresser agrees?

Triggerhippie4, you've taken a good deal of flak above, and I'm not going to add to that. But please read my comments about edit-warring, they apply to you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Not going to happen. I am allowed to revert to a consensus version. I am allowed to behave sub-optimal. I broke no rules. I hold the higher moral ground here, as the one protecting the page from aggressive non-consensus edits, and I don't believe you are seriously proposing to punish me for that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser: First rationale you reverted me with was "Why would we do this?", despite that I explained why in my initial edit. Then, you reverted saying your version is "Not redundant" (just false) and "Keep in line with other country articles" although your version is not the rule (see COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom). It's not "higher moral ground", but disruptive editing. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you truying to keep this discussion from being automatically deleted by replying after almost precisely a week of no comments?

Your first edit summary was "changed description to be different from the title", and that is really a non-explanation. Which is precisely why I asked "Why would we do this?", meaning: why would we want the short description to be different from the title if the title is descriptive in precisely the right measure?

Also, in view of your claim of "disruptive editing" and the underlying bad faith assumption and obvious misjudgment of my motives, I will now change my opinion below that you indeed should be blocked, as an editor who has demonstrated not to be able to positively participate in community editing. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser: When facing an edit you don't understand, the proper way is to get yourself familiar with the rules on the subject, or to ask about it on the talk page, not to revert. Even after I provided you with the link to the policies (WP:SDNOTDEF, which answered your question), you continued reverting me. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You confuse "not understand" with "disagree". A usual problem of tendentious editors. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Debresser take it from someone who has acted sub-optimally in the past, I strongly advise not acting sub-optimally. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying it is good. Or that I do so every time. But punishing an editor for it is wrong. There is always the question, who was the most wrong here. And IMHO it is very clear that the editor making a change is the one who must show consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang indeff Triggerhippie4

Since Triggerhippie4 suggested a permanent block for Debresser for purposes of browbeating, he should face his own proposed sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.151.38 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that he needs a stern warning that automatically undoing reverts of his edits is not going to be tolerated any longer. This was by far not the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be compared to calling the police with a fraudulent report. There are serious consequences for trying to falsely accuse someone of a crime, besides for wasting the police's time. I believe this is a similar situation in which Triggerhippie4 fraudulently reported Debresser on ANI, as noted by many users above, therefore this should have serious consequences besides letting him go with just a warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist.155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that today Triggerhippie4, even after all that has been said above about the inappropriateness of this post, still continues calling my reverts "disruptive", thereby proving an underlying bad faith assumption and, worse, an incapability to understand his fellow editors. Since this is not the first case where Triggerhippie4 has entered a bitter edit war, which he simply doesn't know how to stop (short of breaking 3RR), I think it is time we cut our losses, and indef block this editor. I am referring to Template:Jews and Judaism, where the same thing happened in November 2020, that after edit warring about his changes, he took me to WP:ANI over what after all is really a content issue (because of his inferior and unexplained edits). This editor does not seem to understand that things need no necessarily go his way, and that the community (as in WP:ANI) is not here to help him get his way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser: How can you hold a dispute from the last year against me (which ended with no sanctions), when you were blocked three times this year? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The above behavior is just more evidence of the behavioral issues that Triggerhippie4 is displaying. Triggerhippie has not displayed any remorse or reflection over his behavior which numerous Wikipedians have explained is problematic. Remember Law of holes. It may do some good.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#User:Triggerhippie4,_user:Gidonb,_user:SoaringLL. This is not a one time issue for Triggerhippie4. This user seems to have a history of trying to browbeat others in an attempt to win editing disputes.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at Triggerhippie4 past ANI encounters and found another incident where he made spurious accusations against Debresser and was rebuked by the community:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Debresser. This is a chronic behavioral problem stretching over a year.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, IP editor, for doing what I should have done, weren't I so disappointed with Wikipedia "justice" (read sarcasm and dripping blood). Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• endorse per all the evidence above, edit warring, poisoning the well ,false accusations and frivolous reports against Debresser appears to a chronic problem.Ratnahastin ^tålk 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• an indef for this seems absurdly excessive? I suggest 1-way IBAN for 1 month as a more reasonable outcomes-focused alternative.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable outcome of this thread, and will hopefully get the point across. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

47.132.230.71

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

47.132.230.71-addition of unsourced content after 4th warning.----Rdp060707|talk 09:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Vandalism reports go to WP:AIV, not to this noticeboard. The IP appears to have stopped editing. If they resume the behavior, please put a notice at WP:AIV. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Likely COI + repeated removal of templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Turtlelover0001 has created a number of articles (listed below) which when taken one-by-one aren't overtly problematic, but they all relate to members of the same family, and my hunch is the creator has a COI with regards to them. This (the potential COI) has been flagged up on their talk page, but there has been no response.

Articles in question:

• Antonio Dominguez Richa
• Jose Antonio Dominguez
• Antonio Domínguez Álvarez
• Draft:Olga De Obaldia (related to the others, per one of the articles)
• De Obaldia Family

They also keep removing maintenance and AfC templates, despite requests not to do that, and there's evidence of edit warring.

So why am I here belly-aching about it? Because no amount of talk page messaging seems to get us anywhere, so I'm at loss as to what to do next. Suggestions welcome. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

User has never edited a talk page, including their own user talk. P-blocked from article and draft space to get their attention. No objection to any other admin lifting this block as soon as the user shows up at some talk page. —valereee (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban violation by user:Cengizsogutlu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cengizsogutlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been banned from editing Turkey-related articles and blocked once for violating the same ban. User has returned to edit on the same articles that caused his ban the first time. He has also been blocked twice besides that for edit-warring and disruptive editing. Rollback and administrative actions needed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fabricating sources to inflate Box office

Hai, please you have to look into this. Some guy is trying to fool everyone by inflating the box office figures of Vijay movies using edited screenshots as sources. The pictures have been edited in order to make it appear as if they are from reliable sources such as Deccan Herald, The Hindu, Hindustan Times etc.

Take for instance this source given for box office of Kuruvi and Azhagiya Tamil Magan:

https://archive.ph/qopJd

The words are clearly edited in order to suit their agenda. No reputed magazine or newspaper publishes news like that. Just check the link once and you will know for yourself. When I undo the edits, this guy reverts the edits right back. You cannot let him get away with this. He edits from different IPs but his username is Leopardsrun.

You can search for the actual web pages anywhere. But you won't find it. Not only that, he has done the same for many other films of Vijay such as Velayudham, Vettaikaaran, Villu etc. Please revert his fake sources. Don't let him fool everyone. Please look into it Girth Summit.

(103.165.167.150 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC))

I'm just going to comment here briefly that I did some reverting and rev deleting at Velayudham, where a massive edit war was taking place between various IPs, involving some edit summaries which, according to Google Translate, were disgusting sexualised threats and insults. There is statement on its talk page, about one of these sources which I have questioned because it does indeed look dodgy. Deepfriedokra and Arjayay have also looked at this. I don't have time right now to look into it right now, but I'd welcome someone else taking a look. I should note that the IP reporting here may be the same person who was edit warring and leaving those now-rev-deleted edit summaries. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that Cyphoidbomb hasn't logged in for months, and he's usually the one who keeps the peace in this topic. I CU-blocked the above /23, though, because that's a sock. From what Cyphoidbomb told me, there's a lot of disruption related to box office gross in Indian films, and it's best to stick to rock solid sources to avoid hoaxes and POV-pushing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Deepfriedokra and NinjaRobotPirate please take a decision. Revert those edits. (106.76.2.70 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC))

• Note I have reverted Kuruvi and Azhagiya Tamil Magan to the last good versions (before the additions of fabricated sources) and semi-protected them. I have blocked the 157 IP and User:Leopardsrun for a month for fabricating sources to insert unverified information into articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Note2 Girth Summit NinjaRobotPirate I have also protected Vettaikaaran, Sura and Vijay and have blocked the editors who were using fake screenshots as sources for fake box office figures. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I request you to remove these fabricated sources and claims at Vettaikaaran and Sura as well. In addition, many of these sources are used in Vijay's page as well. There are a range of IPs starting with 185 that are all also used by Leopardsrun.

https://archive.ph/foLkr

@Black Kite @Girth Summit @NinjaRobotPirate

(2402:8100:282D:5800:E148:56ED:1894:5EA3 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC))

Sorry to bother you again Black Kite. There are a couple more of those sources in the 2003–2011 career section of Vijay used to manipulate figures of Kuruvi, Azhagiya Tamil Magan and Villu. Please remove those too. Thanks for your help.

(103.160.233.136 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC))

Thanks @Black Kite:. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible compromised account?

Notivago (talk · contribs) has been on WP since 2008 and has very few edits, most from that year with a small handful from 2009-2014. Suddenly today, they reappeared and created a nonsense article and made other related nonsense edits. Very strange behavior. ♟♙ (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If they haven't edited since 2014, it'll be hard for me to determine if the account is compromised - there won't be any checkuser data for me to compare. That aside, the behavior is strange. I'd say keep an eye on the user, and if things get blatant or bad, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the account is compromised or not. What counts is the current behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's more about identifying the standard to be imposed in the event of a block appeal coming to be. In this case it might be impossible to work out if an account has been reclaimed, however Nosebagbear (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If a block is necessary, and the account was compromised, the appeal is likely to include a "my cousin did it" or something similar. It doesn't matter. Current behavior matters. And if the account is actually compromised, it cannot be unblocked anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Having had a look, I would say the following is the most logical explanation : The user had their WP user page up in a tab, wanted to edit something on another site somewhere else, did the edit, realise they put it in the wrong place, and reverted. No admin action necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing the nonsense article they created which was speedily deleted [184]. ♟♙ (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal for Aussie Article Writer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After looking at the history of Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs), including the various alternate accounts he's had over the years (and the related fallout at this AN/I thread [185]), and seeing how he's repeatedly been allowed to "retire" and then come back and edit with new accounts (despite blocks for BLP violations [186], votestacking [187], edit warring and violating interaction bans [188], I propose a community ban for Aussie Article Writer. ♟♙ (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support as Proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, despite the ArbCom ban, it should be clear that the community should not just be "consulted" but should be allowed to approve or reject any potential unblock or new account. ST47 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm, but have we ever had a situation like that before, where arbitration and community full bans are applied simultaneously, and with regard to roughly the same conduct? I'm stretching to recall, but I think I can say at the least, arbcom seems to stretch itself to avoid this outcome and that's probably worth remembering. This could create some non-trivial issues if there is a disagreement between the determinations regarding Chris/AAW's return at a later date. Not that I think that's likely, but it's a possibility we must account for. I get the intuitive assumption that is implicit here: that each body would maintain it's separate ban and AAW would need to successfully appeal both to regain privileges. But again, I'm pretty sure that would be a novel way of doing things and it could be trickier than it seems at first blush. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Snow Rise, I'm clearly behind the times here; where was AAW given an ARBCOM site-ban? Or am I misunderstanding you utterly? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: Their block log was updated today. However, I don't see any other announcement of what exactly the motion was, which normally might be found at WP:ACN. ST47 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Eek just posted to AAW's talk page noting that ArbCom has taken over the block, but will consult community before accepting an unblock request. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool, ST47, thank you, I had not seen that. I generally trust ARBCOM not to unblock if it's inappropriate, but this falls short of requiring community consensus. I'm going to have to think further about this.... Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was just taking that from ST47's commentary, to be honest. GeneralNotability is the blocking admin, I believe, and can probably provide clarity. I assumed that ST47 was saying that the block occurred as an AE matter, and therefore it qualified as an ArbCom ban of a sort, but perhaps I misread the context. I do know there was an existing IBAN that was the nexus of the behaviour that got AAW banned a couple of days ago, but I don't know in which venue the original IBAN arose or whether GN banned as a clerk at ArbCom or independently in their capacity as an admin here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Snow Rise, the interaction ban was from a community discussion [189] (incidentally, I was the closing admin). Hence my confusion; I hadn't yet seen that ARBCOM had decided to take it over. Having reviewed the suppressed content AAW posted, I am unsurprised at the decision. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• This was an independent admin action - no AE was involved here, and my understanding is that the previous IBAN was community-imposed. We're also in kind of confusing territory wrt block vs ban here - my block was to enforce an existing ban, and as far as I can tell the ArbCom block is also a block, not a ban, for whatever difference that makes. But ArbCom won't unblock without community consensus, which makes it...kind of a ban? scratches head GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• -mock frustration- You call that "providing clarity"? :) But all joking aside, thanks for the additional context and breakdown of the situation, GN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Tepid support. Please note my response to ST47 above for some of my concerns. I'm also not super excited about the idea of implementing a redundant ban under the circumstances of not letting the party speak up for themselves here, when it is not strictly necessary to forestall disruption. Lastly, much of the information that is pertinent to making a determination here has been revdelled now, making the ban-worthy conduct difficult to explore in complete detail for those who didn't catch it while it was happening, making this very much more the arena of ArbCom. All of that said, the conduct here is from all observation and accounts pretty exceptionally alarming. And at the end of the day: AAW can always use their talk page or UTRS to request to be given limited editing privileges to make their case if that day were to arrive; ArbCom can probably just overrule us if necessary; and there is still plenty of disruptive content that is non-oversited to judge by, so...qualified support. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - as the individual seems more bother then he's worth. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Chris, I've known you for a lot of years, during which I don't believe we've ever had an unpleasant interaction. But I think it's abundantly clear that contributing here isn't good for your health, or to that of others in your vicinity. El_C 18:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I was unaware of the ArbCom block earlier today when I wrote that. It makes this request redundant. El_C 18:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It's really not redundant. I don't know how much I trust "the system", and this codifies the requirement the community be consulted before he's allowed back (which is noted in his block log). ♟♙ (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think it is. Double redundancy seems excessive, but whatever. Anyway, the most important thing is that "the system" loves you. El_C 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Now a little redundant to ARBCOM's subsequent block takeover, and given the circumstances I'd rather this was handled privately by ARBCOM anyway; so put me down as a weak oppose, I suppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: I can appreciate a block being imposed privately, but an unblock should be public, no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

    Bison X, sorry I've just seen this. In general, you are correct; but where a block involved private information, the unblock will, also. I don't actually know why ARBCOM took over this block, but based on some suppressed revisions it does not surprise me, and that's about all I want to say about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support at a community level (for the avoidance of doubt) in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is unfortunate but as I have stated on BHG's talk page there's a violence in the nature of the personal attack by Aussie Article Writer. I believe this attack (deliberately violating an interaction ban in so doing) demands some sort of community ban proposal; whether the community bites down is another matter. I feel a terrible wrong has been done here which the community, not just ARBCOM, should invalidate. BHG's behavior is a separate matter which also wants resolution. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Since ARBCOM likes to unban problem people who pay minimum lip service who go on to create havoc, I think the community should step in to also make it so this person needs to covince us as well. They weren't banned for material that we can't see so there shouldn't be a problem doing this. Valeince (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, they were, somewhat. The IBAN violations took place substantially in BHG's draft RfA, which has now been revdelled, along with other relevant edits, if I recall correctly from following matters a couple of days back. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, ARBCOM block is sufficient, and the block log notes the community will be consulted before an unblock. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support It was ludicrous that they were ever allowed back in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, I had only one, recent encounter with this user, in which they seemed not to know about WP:NOTFORUM and not to understand how reverting works, getting angry for not being warned they were being reverted beforehand, which I'd never even heard of before. They immediately assumed bad faith and were mildly uncivil. I assumed they were a new editor based on this behavior, but with all this info, multiple accounts and multiple offenses since 2005, it seems it was more trolling from an LTA than anything else. —El Millo (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Chris has goaded BrownHairedGirl time after time and largely is (directly/indirectly) responsible for the horrible distraction we are currently confronted with. It is surreal they have been left “to roam free” thus far. Celestina007 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, just to make the community's position on this crystal clear. — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Chris's prominent constructive role in the early days of Wikipedia has long been replaced by a series of prolonged bouts of massive disruption. There has been so much of it for so long that the whole history is beyond the knowledge of any one editor, a problem exacerbated by the fact that many of those good faith, constructive Wikipedians who got embroiled in Chris's dramas have themselves thrown in the towel.
  I am unconcerned by any overlap with ArbCom. Like Valeince, I think that a double lock would be helpful. Triple lock would be even better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Vote Present the ARBCOM ban should be sufficient. If it were not in place, I would support this action. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Switching to pure Support after clarification that the ARBCOM ban is (mostly) an Oversight block and not one based on the full pattern of behavior. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Please let's just get this over with as soon as possible, whichever way the discussion goes. Some things are more important than editing an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• You're not wrong, User:Phil Bridger. A safe and civil workplace is required for successful encyclopedic editing. BusterD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sometimes belt + suspenders are necessary. ("Redundant systems, affording mutual backup in the event of one failing") Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, Schazjmd, where's my Thorium Molten Salt Reactor? El_C 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Never mind, found it — it's always in the last place you look... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 21:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Ahem. The UK has braces. "Belt + suspenders" conjures up quite something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The continued participation of the editor concerned clearly is not in the encyclopedia's best interests, nor in his own. The Land (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. However, I do want to note for the future that I don't think Arbcom should unblock without consulting the community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support to safeguard against a future ArbCom taking a collective leave of its senses. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  We have precedent for a very bad decision to unban Chris in ~2019. So this is a safeguard against a repeat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  But the precedent was for the community to unban AAW not arbcom. I.E. the evidence suggests maybe what we need is arbcom since the community is the one who cannot be trusted to deal with AAW properly. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Irrespective of whatever Arbcom does, it would be madness for the community to sanction BHG and not AAW. After everything we've said above, how can we not do this? For the purpose of clarity I think that what we're saying is not just that the community endorses Arbcom's ban, but also that the community adds its own ban to theirs.—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall, I was literally going to say this as an addendum to my support when I observed that this pertinent point had already been raised by you. Celestina007 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support I don't see how anything other than a CBan is logical after the recent stunt on that RFA. An Arbcom block is NOT sufficient because of the sockpuppetry and long term disruption. I think bans are handed out too easily, but this is an exception. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support appears that Arbcom aren't doing the job here, and having some insight lately into BHG's experiences, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be enacted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sup. Absolutely. Never mind what ArbCom claims: a formal community ban is needed to ensure ANI is not skipped for an unban. Nothing personal, but it has gotten to the point where a separation of powers has become a necessity on this site. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose if this was simply an indef block for violation an iban then sure. But I think imposing a community ban when there is already an arbcom one should only happen in exceptional circumstances. Does this rise to that level? Maybe. Unfortunately I'm not convinced it does from the available evidence. There is a bunch of stuff I can't see, but that just supports the idea it should be handled by those that can see it. I mean it's not like arbcom is responsible for the current situation. As noted above, the interaction ban was a community one. The unblock in 2019 was a community decision Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313#Chris.Sherlock/Letsbefiends unblock request . BTW, that decision was one I opposed and from the little I saw of AAW after, not one I regretted i.e. this isn't because I have any personal favouritism towards AAW. And I should also make clear that despite my strong criticism of BHG above and previously, it's clear from what I can see and comments of editors I trust, that AAW has been far worse. Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Changed to support, see below. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary. What actual harm is being done? Very few people come out of this looking remotely good - from the outside, it appears to me the key advocates for this would be well advised to look at the planks in their own eyes before interrogating the specks in others. On the contrary the editor in question appears to have been doing excellent content work in an underserved area. Orderinchaos 00:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support this baiting and this taunting alone was very problematic and shows contempt for the community-imposed sanction. The editor should be prepared to explain these infractions of a community remedy directly to the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support Absolutely necessary. As S Marshall has said above. Allowing AAS back was a mistake. I would appreciate it very much if ArbCom does not unilaterally repeat that mistake. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Belt and braces. There’s no way he should be allowed back (I note it was the community who unblocked him not Arbcom). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. What Bilorv said. Narky Blert (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Ched (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support irrespective of the Arb block. Arb had a chance to handle this a few weeks ago when AAW first broke the IBAN. For some reason I can't understand no action was taken, therefore it is up to the community. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support while noting that the previous unblock was a community action, not an Arbcom action; however, 21 support votes and 15 opposes probably should not have led to a closing statement that there was consensus to unblock. Grandpallama (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support For someone who has on at least three occasions (that I am aware of) played the "anxiety disorder" card to get out of trouble while landing others in it, AAW/CS has shown a remarkable appetite for generating drama and friction. The recurring rodeo of retiring and popping up under a new name until waters got too hot again should not have been tolerated for as long as it has been. An added layer of protection on reversal of the current block seems welcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, although I suspect it won't make the slightest difference since the cycle of his friends running interference each time the latest sock is discovered will likely continue. It's been two years since I said "this editor rightfully earned a well-deserved reputation as a vicious and aggressive bully [and] it's not reasonable to expect anyone who had dealings with his previous incarnations to be forced to interact with him against their will", and there's been nothing since to make me think I was wrong. ‑ Iridescent 15:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. 20:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• Support a Community Site Ban - I was about to say that I hadn't seen the evidence, and so would regretfully be neutral, but the tally of blocked accounts for multiple reasons is more than enough. I would propose the use of science-fiction weapons, but humor might be misconstrued. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously they've since been Arb-blocked but still enough's enough. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support and I hope any conflict with an Arb ban can be sorted out should he ever wish to return (which I doubt). This Support pains me as with one of his older accounts, Chris & I were friends and I counseled him on some questions he had when he was in a conflict years ago. He was once an admin and when he told me that he created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I was skeptical until I checked the page history and found he had. But he seems not to be able to help himself when he has interpersonal disputes with other users. I can't see the suppressed final edits of his on his talk page but if that's not a way to burn bridges, I don't know what is. Sorry, Chris, but this place is not a good fit for you any more. This is not Wikipedia of 2004 and you can't stir up trouble and not expect to face consequences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Should have been done for good years ago; it's absurd that he was allowed back at all. Gets away with far more negative behavior than would be tolerated from practically anyone. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support I changed my mind after reviewing the evidence further. I was under the impression the AAW account was simply the account they'd been allowed to use when unblocked, or at least that they properly declared the connection when creating the account. Noticing some comments at the arbcom requests page, I see now that it seems like it wasn't to July this year that they did so [190] [191]. Possibly one of the reasons I was mistaken is because I don't think they were particularly trying to hide the connection, other than a brief editing spree in October last year, it seems most of their editing started in late May this year and they were quickly editing CS's user sub pages. However this doesn't make it acceptable, if anything it makes it worse, since if for weird reason AAW thought they were entitled to a clean start they clearly quickly abandoned that. If you're going to connect the accounts just do it properly! Of course thinking they were entitled to a clean start is not acceptable for an editor with the history and experience of AAW. Further while the editing in October 2020 was brief enough that I'd normally ignore it, in this case I'm not so willing to considering it came so soon after the iban leading to them scrambling their password and it's seems to me that if you knew AAW's history well enough you might have major suspicions when that account was created but otherwise you'd have no idea of the connection. While I don't think there was any connection to BHG in any of those edits, it's clearly evading scrutiny which is bad enough in the general case but terrible for an editor with the history of AAW who has been told in no uncertain terms they need to cut that crap out. When combined with the history, this is enough for me to consider this "exceptional circumstances" where I'll support a cban despite an existing arbcom one. Especially since maybe this will provide some small added clue to AAW that no they cannot simply come back with another account whatever their esoteric understanding of our sockpuppetry and blocking and banning policies. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• There seems to be some confusion on the sequence of events here.

• The initial block was an admin action. At that time, all of AAW's edits were still visible to one and all.
• While appealing and discussing the block, AAW made some edits that merited suppression. What they were is obviously not something we should be discussing here, but at that point I also revoked talk page access, and updated the committee on the situation.
• The suppressed material that came after the initial block is what prompted us to take over the block.

So, there's the "arbcom eyes only" re-block, but also the incredible self-own over-the-top iban violations that led to the initial block. Now, the page where most of that happened is now deleted as well, but not for privacy reasons, just because it was an unused project space page that was no longer relevant. If there ever were serious consideration of an appeal I don't think it would cross any lines to post the content of those edits as evidence in support of the original block and/or a subsequent community ban. This is highly unusual, but I think Nil Einne's comment above makes an excellent case that this is an exceptional circumstance and a community ban is appropriate despite the arbcom block. This person has an extreme case of WP:IDHT, so the message needs to be sent loud and clear that the best thing, for them and for Wikipedia, is that they leave. I also think that, despite all that, this outcome of this discussion is clear and sufficient time has elapsed that it can be closed at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, he will or already has created another account. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Can an administrator who knows the circumstances please ban him now and close this? No purpose is achieved by prolonging this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not think my closure is in any way controversial, but I am going to bed now and will not be available in the next 8 or so hours. If there is any discussion any user in good standing may undo my closure or even make (insignificant) corrections to the closing statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

82.33.72.42

82.33.72.42 (talk · contribs) is becoming tendentious with their attacks on "Western academics" over at RSN and attacks on "capitalist controlled sources" [[192]] over at Elections in Cuba‎. It's clear they are POV pushing (and edit warred over trying to exclude question the use of said sources).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please point to a single edit I made where I removed sources? You have repeatedly accused me of removing content yet when I have asked for evidence you haven't provided. On my talk page there is a clear example of an accusation you made that I proved wrong, I asked you to apologise and you have not. My issue is that those sources are not neutral, and while they should be included they must be given proper context and sources that disagree also deserve to be included. The article lead does not reflect the content of the article, which includes sources arguing both that Cuba is and isn't a democracy, this should be reflected in the article lead but it keeps being reverted to a version containing the objective phrase "elections in Cuba are not democratic", cited only to Western sources. I am merely trying to restore balance, if you want to accuse me of removing sources you must show evidence. Any time I have noticed that I accidentally removed a source in my editing, I have always restored it (see for example [[193]]) 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You have rejected to their use using that phraseology [[194]]. You want false parity between academic and Cuban government sources (and have drawn false parallels between western media and Cuban government sources). When told this can't be you have resorted to going on about US state terrorism and capitalist propaganda. When told you are wrong you have resorted to wp:battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That edit shows that while I reverted parts of the article to restore my own sources, I did not remove any of the new sources or statements introduced by Snoogans. I have always been careful to incorporate them into my own edits, Snoogans et al are the ones who indiscriminately remove sources they disagree with. Try again. Show a source or statement that I actually removed outside of "elections in Cuba are not democratic", which as I explained is not reflective of the article as a whole. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have raised this to let others decide if you are wp:nothere or are here to wp:rightgreatwrongs. I am not alone in telling you you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just want it on record that you have repeatedly lied about my behaviour and when challenged have refused to back down. It is telling you cannot show any examples of what you accuse me of. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't see where he has lied about your behaviour. You aren't helping your case in saying so. Calm down and if there is a content issue, then discuss it. But you are becoming disruptive. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And Cuba is a western nation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Not taking sides (i have little knowledge of the electoral system of Cuba, or which sources that inform us about them are neutral or reliable), but when people talk about whether Cuba is or is not a Western nation in what context do they mean? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what they mean, one of their edit summaries was "the characterisation of this content as being by "western academics" is substantiated by checking the author affiliations, this isn't difficult. as explained, western journals are hardly neutral on this issue. the cuba solidarity campaign is likewise biased, but a biased source is not inherently non-reliable. Again, the lead must reflect the whole content of the article" As if the fact they are "western" makes a difference. That is kind of my point, as Cuba is a western nation its hard to see what this objection refers to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They also seem to have an issue on other pages and have just had another edit war waring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• IP, the reality is that most of the pertinent 3rd party sources are published in countries that are liberal democracies, and since the general consensus there is that a one party system isn't genuinely democratic, it is what it is. Now, proponents in Cuba might advance the political-philosophical position that their electoral system mobilizes a class-for-itself, thereby making it more democratic than liberal democracies. But, again, obviously this is a minority view in the world at present. Somewhat surprisingly (to me, also), I'm not really that familiar with the Elections in country x series of articles to tell if the blunt declaration in wiki-voice that "Elections in Cuba are not democratic" is par for the course. But it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

Quick note (perhaps a bit OT) about overlapping terminology of "Western," culturally and economically. Western World versus Eastern Bloc? Was communist Czechoslovakia more "western" than communist Mongolia? Well, at the very least it was to the west of it! Arguably, both were more western still than, say, Saudi Arabia. Or, culturally, are western values more prominent in socialist Cuba than in capitalist China? So precision in terminology is key. And for that, Rockwell Automation has got us covered P.S. Slatersteven, can you better differentiate what is or isn't a quote in your message? Maybe use {{tq|text}}...? You have quotes inside quotes inside quotes, it's confusingses. El_C 18:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Slatersteven pretty much sums it up. The IP holds a False equivalence between One-party totalitarians states like North Korea and Cuba and liberal democracy. Their issue with American academics is even more bizarre given the numerous Castro/Cuba sympathetic academics in US universities, that have been around pretty much since the start of the Revolution. This is not even getting into the fact that most academics if not sympathetic to Cuba at the very least oppose the embargo by the United States. As mentioned above the Ip has done this with North Korea and human trafficking, claiming that the US state department is not reliable for information. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, at most. -- Jibal (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of former Prime Ministers, Governors etc.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § Mass removal of Prime Ministers, Governors etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many articles about nation or state leadership positions have sections listing former occupants of that role who are still living. For example this brief listing of US presidents.

As of 2021, there were five living former U.S. presidents. The most recent death of a former president was that of George H. W. Bush (1989–1993), on November 30, 2018. The living former presidents, in order of service, are:

Photo gallery
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981) Age 100 Bill Clinton (1993–2001) Age 78 George W. Bush (2001–2009) Age 78 Barack Obama (2009–2017) Age 63 Donald Trump (2017–2021) Age 78

An editor - Surtsicna - has been deleting these sections as "trivia" and there seems to have been little discussion at a Wikipedia-wide level.

• First Minister of Scotland
• UK Prime Minister
• Governor of Tasmania]
• Australian Prime Minister
• and a great many more, see here.

There seems to be little discussion about removal of these sections. My own feeling is that providing a short gallery of living previous presidents, prime ministers etc. in an article devoted to that position is an appropriate encyclopaedic function, so commonplace as to hardly warrant discussion. But here is a crusader consigning these past glories to the rubbish bin of history. --Pete (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, this isn't the correct location for this discussion. This is a content dispute, not a review of an editor's behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The pattern of behaviour is something that needs to be discussed. I don't particularly care about superannuated lietenant governors and such but I feel that this is something that needs to be discussed in an arena where action might be taken. --Pete (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Reporting editors to the incidents board for boldly editing articles is sad, and made even sadder by the fact that there had been no attempts to discuss this with me. Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a topic of discussion on the Australian PM talk page where I am a participant and which is where I was made aware of your mass removals elsewhere. Piecemeal discussion of Wiki-wide behaviour is rarely effective. --Pete (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

194.75.10.14 at Jack Woolley

User:194.75.10.14 keeps removing the statement that Jack Woolley (taekwondo) is gay. Personal attacks apart,[195][196] 194 has no legitimate reason, policy or guideline to remove something related to Wooley's personal life that he shared without cohersion. Calling it "prurient" and claiming straights' sexualities are never included (despite they always are) is merely an opinion. In fact, the user asks "Why do you need this label?", indicating that they don't know how Wikipedia's categorization works. I would give a last warn, but that last comment shows this user's attitude that wants to win a dispute and has no intention to discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes protect it. You prurient Wikipedians. You needs to tell the world who the homosexuals are!? I mean being gay is so important to being a martial artist isn't it? It's why every every single article about everyone mentions their sexuality? Oh wait? What's that they don't? What only gays are listed as gay not who is a hetero. Shock and there's me thinking that society has moved on from giving a crap about labels? Oh well Tbhotch does come from a country that is obsessed about which bathroom you can use, so I'm not surprised. LOL. 194.75.10.14 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what? Wikipedians are prurient? That upsets me so much. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It excites me. EEng 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I live in the Arctic. It's too cold to do anything and that's why we think of it all the time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. This user's response here, along with this, this, and this, is a clear engagement in harassment, and I won't stand for that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not so much harassment as exasperation at the lack of engagement from people reverting the IP. The issue concerns Jack Woolley (taekwondo) where 5% of the text is "He is openly gay." with this source which says "Jack doesn’t deny he is gay. On being gay he says wearily, it is time to move the conversation on." Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Violation of policy on courtesy vanishing

By user Lorry Gundersen. This account belongs to user "Nialarfatem" who became user Vanished user 2831328 on August 7th, but next day the account "Lorry Gundersen" was created. The WP policy on Courtesy vanishing has been violated, because vanishing: "It is not intended to be temporary. […] It is not a fresh start […]. If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked", and "Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning". See also the Checkuser on Lorry Gundersen at META. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Chalk19, per the big notice that comes up when you start a thread here, you are required to notify editors when you start a thread about them. I have done so for you. With that said, Lorry Gunderson, any comment on this accusation? GeneralNotability (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Chalk19 and GeneralNotability! Yes, it's me. First, I must say I didn't know this courtesy vanishing and I generally don't usually read all the rules, regulations and unwritten trends WP has, I had found an article in Google about how to get to the closest of deleting one's account (this one). Secondly, I didn't intend to temporarily vanish or start over with a fresh account (I had no reason to start over), I just had decided to close the account as I was getting inactive, but then I changed my mind (mainly because there was a work that probably would get abandoned - the list of footballers with the most official appearances, in which seems I am the only editor left since long), but then there was no other way to retrieve the old account since I had removed the email address (or at least I didn't find one after "googling"), so I created another one. Bottom line, as I previously said, I don't read all the rules, et c., WP has, so I have no idea of the sanction(s) about this "offense", but, whatever it is, I must point out it would only be at WP's loss-cost, since my contributions have always been useful. You can ban me forever if that's the penalty, I am not the one who loses something. Cheers! Lorry Gundersen (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lorry Gundersen: Although it's not up to me to decide, according to the policy "If the user returns, the “vanishing” will likely be fully reversed, [and] the old and new accounts will be linked". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Easy peasy solution - Said vanishing is undone, Lorry makes up their mind which account they want to use (ie abandons one and keeps the other), makes a note on their userpage they were whatever account they abandoned, sticks to said account for all eternity. problem solved. –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Works for me. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but vanishing hasn't been undone as far as I can tell. Need a bureaucrat to look into it? Picking a couple at random: @Xaosflux: @Bibliomaniac15: - see discussion above. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Anachronist: Crats haven't been able to handle renames like this for years; this would be a job for the global renamers (which thankfully Xaosflux is). But Davey's solution is correct. I'm far more concerned about that Wikihow article that Lorry mentioned! bibliomaniac15 03:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

DanyloPushkar on a reverting spree

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

DanyloPushkar, whom I warned earlier this year for nationalistic disruptive editing, reappeared and apparently decided to revert all edits they do not like. They have got five warnings from three different users (and this does not include me) in the last 10 minutes. My favorite edit is this. (Well, my English is indeed not ideal but I hope not to the point as suggested by the edit). Could we have them blocked please? Ideally indef, as they have zero useful contribution, just nationalistic bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I can give more diffs, but their last 30 edits all are reverts, some with inappropriate edit summaries. Choose anything you want from their contribution list.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I second that. A while ago Signpost informed us that Ukrainian government called for editing Wikipedia to defend true information about Ukraine. I commented that we will have trouble, judging from the state of uk-wiki, which is approaching to that of the notorious Kroatian wikipedia. And I was right: in my watchlist started cropping up nationalist Ukrainian editors who are WP:NOTHERE but to spill the Russian-Ukrainian war into Wikipedia. (Of course, there were occasional hiccups in the past, such as Kiev/Kyiv name war or removal Polish and Russian placenames from articles about Ukrainian populated places. I only hope that the Ukrainian govt is inept enough to launch a coordinated effort as it was with Israel...) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef'd ​ for disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm assuming this [197] is because there's a dedicated Block EEng button on the Administrator's Dashboard, which valereee accidentally pushed with one of her pudgy, clumsy fingers. The sad part is that when I saw the diff I my pulse rate didn't even jump [198]. EEng 20:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The first rule of adminship is you do not talk about the "block EEng" button. The second rule of adminship is you DO NOT talk about the "block EEng" button. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1036445150 Pudgy, clumsy valereee (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Only your fingers. EEng 22:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

At this stage pretty much everything is pudgy and clumsy. I'm embracing it. —valereee (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert-sock

13:00, 12 August 2021 Valereee talk contribs blocked DanyloPushkar talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked)

Same shit in the same place:

TomkoChornenko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rollback: 1 edit [welcome] (Undid revision 1038474203 by Lembit Staan (talk)) Tags: Undo Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits

A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Please intervene ASAP. We dont want to waste time to play games of warnings and 3RR and stuff. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Everythingmatters

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

This editor has a clear POV around Bill Clinton and related topics (Sydney Blumenthal, Clinton Foundation, Al Gore, etc). This user never communicates on talk pages and likely needs at least a partial block or topic ban from Clinton-related topics. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Those are a lot of controversial BLP edits with no discussion anywhere. Should definitely be blocked to force communication. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. To be clear: not a single talk page or user talk page edit, despite pings, warnings, and comments at their user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Waffling here. I see they're not discussing and that there are POV edits. Is there anything egregious enough w/re BLP POV to p-block for to force discussion? —valereee (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. Edits on 31 July adding contentious material about Bill Clinton with some parts sourced to National Enquirer (deprecated). Reverted with an edit summary mentioning that source's unreliability.
  2. Edit on 5 August: a subset of the previous edit, the same article, again citing contentious material to Enquirer. Reverted, again with an edit summary noting the poor source.
  3. Edit on 6 August: same content, same article, same source.

  Between #1 and #2, on 1 August, I alerted them to BLP discretionary sanctions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am about to indefinitely block the user per WP:NOTHERE because they have 47 edits all of which appear to add muck to proponents of one political party. There is no talk-page participation but there is good familiarity with adding referenced text. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Racist edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please refer to this. Seloloving (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision-deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns by Marmandie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I point out to you a personal attack that I suffered from User:M.Bitton on the discussion page relating to the Al Mahbes page, on my supposed origin and being called nationalism, I find this personal attack very serious and contrary to the peaceful functioning of Wikipedia. --Marmandie (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Can you be more specific? Thanks.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be this comment: Stop your nationalist POV pushing. Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Al_Mahbes § Stop your vandalism––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I try to participate peacefully in the improvement of the content of this wikipedia page, with sources and references but that does not please my interlocutor who constantly suppresses my work without bringing contrary arguments and attacks me " nationalist "which is inappropriate. I thank you for your intervention and am ready to cooperate with everyone --Marmandie (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• They are pushing a POV by turning an article about a region[199][200] (which has been stable for years and is used to refer to battles that took place there) into one about a village in the Moroccan occupied area. I explained this to them, mentioning the eastern and western parts of the Berm, but in vain as they are clearly here on a mission that I cannot ignore, especially given the fact that I dealt with them in the past and that they left a comment on my talk page before this accusing me of vandalism, calling me an ideologue and asking why You remove with impunity our contributions.. Strangely, the IP that turned up in time to revert my edit said the same thing (hence the SPI). They also kept plastering my talk page with warnings. M.Bitton (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Hello @Marmandie, if the Stop your nationalist POV pushing comment made by M.Bitton was indeed what you are referring to, then I fail to see the personal attack. At least nothing so egregious warranting an ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• The comments in question do not attack you as a "nationalist". They only accuse use of nationalist POV pushing, and that appears to be accurate. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The modifications and contributions on the wikipedia page are always accompanied by references to justify these modifications. The suppression without motives and without arguments of my contributions akin to ideology is why I used this term. The personal attack on the term "nationalist" aims to discredit my serious and sourced work. And Al Mahbas is a village which has an elected president of the commune, in the person of Mr. Mahmoud Abidar Hope this case stopped here thank you. Marmandie (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The BS source about a village (which isn't notable) that you added cannot be compared to the serious ones that I added above (about the region where battles took place), nor can it excuse you accusing me of vandalism or calling me an ideologue. It certainly doesn't explain what you and the IP mean by our contributions. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Accusing me of a nationalist because I bring information that you do not like is excessive language, repeatedly suppressing my contributions without justification or opposit sources amounting to vandalism. The journalistic source which affirms that Mr. Mahmoud Abidar is the elected president of the commune of Al Mahbes is serious enough. And other sources claim that Al Mahbas is an inhabited place. I hope to stop there with you for the sake of the wikipedia community thank you Marmandie (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You're pushing a POV and contrary to what you're saying, I explained everything to you, but I cannot make you read what you don't want to read. How many times do I have to repeat that the commune is not notable and all the articles that link to that one are about the area where the battles took place (which is cut by the Berm)? If you felt so strongly about it, why didn't just add that there is a village in the Moroccan occupied side? What's with that propaganda nonsense about the planes flying over the sky of so-called "village"?

 Question: What did you mean by our contributions? How many of you are there? M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see. In the meantime bring reliable sources and references as I do, otherwise stop suppressing the serious work of others, it amounts to vandalism. Al Mahbes is a village located in the northeastern part of Western Sahara. It falls under the Morocco’s control as a part of the Morocco controlled Western Sahara. Al Mahbes is situated near the Algerian border. Al Mahbes has some basic facilities like shops, restaurants and is connected to southern Moroccan cities, including Guelmin by direct road link. Stop trying to distract attention with off-topic questions. For my part, I stop here but I remain vigilant. Thanks to the moderators for their professionalism and contributionMarmandie (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see You said it and the reliable sources that I mentioned above are there to prove it.[201][202]

Stop trying to distract attention with off-topic questions The questions are very much on topic. Now that you brought this here, you need to answer them: What did you mean by our contributions? How many of you are there? M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• OP indeffed (by way of RfPP). El_C 04:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nothing901

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Nothing901-Addition of unsourced content after 4th warning.----Rdp060707|talk 07:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SinglePorpoiseAccount

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• "I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"

No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"

This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

• "This is not how you're supposed to handle feedback you asked for."

My using of evidence to make a point is in fact a good way to handle feedback, and there's nothing wrong with calling out perceived WP:DNTL.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"

I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.
• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.
• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.
• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"

This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results".

Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (SinglePorpoiseAccount)

IMHO, you're dealing with an SPA and a Sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, SinglePorpoiseAccount is probably one of the IPs who was labeled with the SPA template on the talk page, as he created the account in the middle of that conversation and seems to have picked up the conversation where the IPs left off. If I'm correct, this wouldn't qualify as socking. As for the "accusations of misconduct" and the other problematic behavior, I don't see anything actionable there, at least not yet. The "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source" statement sounds a lot like stonewalling, but I wouldn't say sanctions are justified quite yet. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right that does not qualify as socking, but this user seems far too experienced to have just been an IP editor, and I still suspect they are a sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I gather this concerns 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit and its talk. I'll watch that for a short period. Let me know if I miss any ongoing problems such as undue commentary as that can be resolved with a topic ban as they have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. You would need to spell out what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It appears likely that things on this page are going to get worse before they get better. BD2412 T 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• On the Maricopa County presidential ballot audit talk page - editors at the beginning of this thread noted how Wikipedia does not engage with hot news items per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and Wikipedia has no DEADLINE. [203]

Then this wall of text, consisting of Hot news items was posted at 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by SinglePorpoiseAccount [204].

At 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC), I commented about this wall of text [205].

Essentially this is disruptive behavior after other editors in good standing pointed out what Wikipedia covers. Also, it could be an end around to post this information somewhere on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I want User:SinglePorpoiseAccount to retract their new defamatory statements here about my honesty, experience, and general effectiveness as an editor. I see this as an egregiously unevidenced personal attack.

They are implying that am I the one who sets their reputation on Wikipedia, saying that I lied by calling out their disruptive behavior and that I am now to blame for other editors noticing their disruptive behavior. It's completely backwards thinking, no logic, no responsibility for their own actions.

• Your lies have had a very real effect on my reputation, nobody is taking my edits seriously anymore and I'm getting attacked with references back to this RS/N.
• "You clearly had no intention of representing the actual issue at hand in an honest way. You've deceived all these Wikipedians with your framing and wasted everyones time. This is not how an experienced Wikipedian should handle source selection"
• don't you dare pretend this settles the dispute we had in the thread.

I never said or even implied that the dispute was settled. More WP:BATTLE behavior.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Apologies in advance for the formatting, I couldn't get it to cooperate tonight.) So apparently I've missed a whole discussion here, and some nice little defamatory statements right in the beginning of this. Lets take it from the top:

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"
  

  No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

This was my response to have been repeatedly called a liar, in an attempt to make me drop the matter in favor of FormalDude. This was before I knew Wikipedia has its own definition of bullying with an associated page, which I understand to be this one [[206]].

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"
  

  This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

This was my response to receiving a 3-part list of supposed "lies", but FormalDude did not actually prove they were lies in his response. In fact he did the opposite and proved himself wrong by quoting the statements he said didn't exist. Also note that the RS/N was created by FormalDude. More on this later.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"
  

  I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

This is a laughable mischaracterization of both our behavior. I'll admit things got a little heated, but FormalDude was not being civil. Let me give you an example from the edit before that one:

And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of lying when they are being deceitful.

Doesn't seem that civil to me, wouldn't you agree? My comment about being civil was there in an attempt to deescalate, which is obvious when you look at how the debate progressed.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.

Wow, who would've thought a new serious account wouldn't immediately go looking to edit lots of pages. The accusation about my name is blatantly meant as a degrading ad hominem.

• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.

Well I guess I should take "like a pro" as a compliment, but I really have been just an IPA for about one and a half decade now. Back in the day IPAs were just as good as regular accounts as long as you were just editing technical articles and fixing broken links, so I never bothered. But when it got to the Maricopa audit article I found it was annoying to have a changing IP among others who had a single IP, it wasn't immediately obvious who was me and who was someone else. In one instance there was actually someone who got the same IP as me, obviously connected to the same VPN network and behind their NAT. That was the final drop since if things got heated that would be a dangerous situation.

• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.

Again I think I should take that as a compliment, but my previous statement about being an IPA still applies here.

• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

I don't remember mentioning "WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS", but I might have just forgotten about it. It's been a busy couple of weeks.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"
  

  This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

That's odd, someone who hasn't been in a consensus situation on Wikipedia for years, if ever, misunderstanding formal consensus? Well, I'd never...

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"
  

  Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

This is not what I said. What I said what this:

AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified.

See how the context matters? Note the qualifier at the end; "after they have previously stated the results are verified". Reporting errors in your own reporting, when you have a reputation for getting your reporting right because of your stringent pre-publishing quality control, is obviously a conflict of interest. Now, if that's enough to actually stop them from reporting those errors is a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence.

I'm actually a little confused by this one, FormalDude linked to their own edit. I can only assume it refers to a statement I quoted from the AZ Central FormalDude linked, to disprove FormalDude's hypothesis that [AZ Central] reported how professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria." is an unchallenged statement. Fairly swiftly disproven, if I do say so myself.

Clearly FormalDude is out to get me for not getting is way in a dispute where he wanted to replace the link to Phoenix New Times about the banning of 9 Twitter accounts, initially offered by an IPA, with a link he had offered from BuzzFeed News. In his request to replace it he asked for comments, and I provided mine outlining I thought it had several grave quality issues making it unsuitable for the Wikipedia article in question. As one might imagine, FormalDude was not happy with that. The key bit of context here is that the Maricopa audit page is often questioned in bias byt IPAs, and with me being a recent former IPA I'm inclined to listen to such feedback. Now, BFN has a bit of a history on run-ins with Republicans, so using a BFN article as what would appear to he the dominant source to a claim on that page, wouldn't look too good on Wikipedia's part. Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly abuse our use of BFN to feed into their conspiracy theories, so it would be harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia. Therefore I would rather we use the more neutrally worded article from PNT as a source. FormalDude then took the issue to the RS/N, where he triumphantly tried to make me look like I was trying to discredit BFN as a whole.[207] It took me until today to figure out that was what he had done, while I was under the impression that it was a formal process to resolve the source selection dispute. In effect, I was framed due to my unfamiliarity with formal processes (IPAs tend to see very few of them and experience none). That incident has already caused real damage to my reputation.[208]

Anyway, this isn't the proper forum to discuss that, I just provided this as context as to why the dispute began in the first place.

FormalDude can choose to delete his statements if he wants, I don't care. I'd rather have a permanent notice about the incident on his talk page, so that I can point to it when Wikipedians try to use this incident against me. Speaking of which I also note FormalDude has a very relevant previous comment on his talk page about lying.[209] I'd also take this opportunity to remind FormalDude about WP:BITE. If this is the sort of response we are to expect from FormalDude when he suspects (wrongly I might add) a newly registered account is a sockpuppet, he is bound to scare off actual new Wikipedians rather quickly and permanently. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I want to point out that SinglePorpoiseAccount had no trouble formatting this edit among many others.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• We all know that SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk · contribs) is a returned user and their amusing user name is a promise that they will continue pushing their barrow. However, apart from long-and-windy commentary, I don't see any wikicrimes that would justify sanctioning SPA at this stage. I will say that an indefinite WP:ARBAP2 topic ban does not require a high standard of proof of malfeasance—bombarding discussions might be sufficient. Some suggestions for all participants: (1) You don't need to have the last word. A good way to bring a discussion to a close is to stop commenting. (2) A clear consensus overrules a clear minority so if there is such a consensus, just revert conflicting edits with a polite pointer to the discussion showing the lack of consensus. (3) If the consensus is not crystal clear, an RfC should be held to settle the issue. If invited, I would help guide the drafting and running of such an RfC. (4) There is no deadline and don't fret about replying to every edit or comment right now. (5) I will sanction SinglePorpoiseAccount if anything like this edit is repeated (that is the addition of the 8,614-byte comment above). Such walls-of-text are not helpful and will not be tolerated in an area under discretionary sanctions. If you can't make your point succinctly, don't try to make it at all. That advice applies to all participants. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice and thank you for finding the account name amusing. I considered some other pun based names but this is the one that stuck, probably because I was being called a SPA as an IPA which I found a bit amusing in itself.[210] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for the advice, Johnuniq, it was well put. I just want to make sure I understand correctly: you are saying that SPA's statements here are not personal attacks, right?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Of course it's bad but I'm not very useful for CIVIL enforcement (I would quickly indef someone who really breached CIVIL but a bit of venting is to be expected). I would ignore it but keep the diff for use if needed later. Focusing on article content is always best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• After observing SPA's editing behavior during the short time they have had their account, it seems to me they are not here. This includes the longest running incident of IDHT I have seen, occurring at the RSN [211], [212]. I'll try and post more diffs that are more to the point about that later. I any case, I am guessing they will be NOTHERE going forward. Happy days if they prove me wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I can assure you one of my core intentions with this account is to maintain the reputation of neutrality on Wikipedia. Had I not cared about it then I wouldn't even have brought up the PNT vs BFN issue. The incident over at RS/N was most unfortunate but I genuinely believed FormalDude had opened a question about our sourcing issue and sort of lost it a little when I realized that wasn't what he had done. Regardless I felt it necessary to apologize for the noise on RS/N after requesting it to be closed.[213] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• with this account Please list your previous accounts - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well it's only been IP accounts, so I have no idea what most of the would be. I'm fairly sure I've had 85.24.253.53, 155.4.14.25 and 85.24.253.29, the first two sometime in 2018 and the latter in January of 2019. Looking at the history of the IPAs I can tell I'm sharing the IPs with other Wikipedians. My edits from those IPs are regarding the Contributor Covenant, more specifically discussing the adoption in the Linux kernel with GorillaWarfare. There was also a small run-in with Jorm, but I eventually decided it wasn't worth my time to convince them and left, which is why I still remember those edits. My other edits were too small for me to remember where they were and I have barely participated on talk pages. I'll post here again if I can think of anything else I can use to identify my old IPs. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I did of course forget to mention 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6, which are the IPs I had just before I registered. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard, User:Ryk72 has been the only one defending them at WP:RS/N. see interactions Ryk72 was also indef blocked a while back for being WP:NOTHERE and a sock.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  That account isn't me, you're embarking on a witch hunt. Which I also just learned there's actually a dedicated article about WP:WITCHHUNT. You've been at it for days trying to attack me over a petty sourcing issue, stop it already. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Ryk72: Just thought I'd let you know you're now involved in this suckpuppet witchhunt. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, this[214] seems remarkably churlish. It's more than a little misrepresentative, and casts doubt on the other statements made here. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Having doubts is well justified ... FD has repeatedly called people liars and then hides behind WP:DNTL as if that essay were in any way a defense of violations of WP:NPA -- Jibal (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

They may be "just observations"[215], but observations made with no or flimsy evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. None of the comments I have made at RSN are defending any editor. None of the comments so much as discuss any editor. And either diffs should be provided or that observation struck. My comments at RSN align with the community consensus on the general reliability of the discussed source publication. They are, however, among the few comments in that section to discuss the reliability of the specific source article in the context of proposed WP content - which is the ostensible purpose of RSN. It is my standard practice, when posting a new section at a community noticeboard (as I had done in the days immediately preceding), to then make comment in one or two other sections - to "pay it forward". I have no particular interest in the topic discussed, and no history of editing the discussed article. The "editor interaction" evidences nothing other than that two people happened to comment at a community noticeboard. Raising a block from 2013, which was overturned by a then (and current) Arb as an out of process arb enforcement block, blocking admin has since resigned, and which was a significant factor in that admin not being resysopped, is poor - and, in the context of an ANI discussion of another editor, is a clear association fallacy. As an observation, while facilely true, it lacks any relevance. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Their stupendous and querulous timewasting and conspiracy-theorising at WP:RSN strongly suggests that not only are they NOTHERE, they're not competent - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree you your characterization with the exception of competence. My competence is with smaller edits, like adding previously missing explanations or reading the Wikipedia documentation to fix formatting, not with participating in formal conflict resolution on Wikipedia and certainly not consensus discussions. I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking RS/N was the correct place to resolve the source selection dispute we were having, and if you read the key points I posted over there it should be obvious that it was indeed what I thought was happening.. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:FormalDude is now falsely accusing me of using IPAs after I registered my account.[216] This WP:WITCHHUNT needs to stop, or I'll be leaving Wikipedia by my own volition. I don't know how their behavior can possibly be considered acceptable for an experienced Wikipedian. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Denying it isn't going to help. There's enough evidence to open a WP:Sockpuppet investigation.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  How do you even arrive at that conclusion in the first place? Does everyone who doesn't agree with you have to be a sockpuppet account? If so I have genuine concern for any previous accounts you have gotten banned for sockpuppetry. This is ridiculous, stop wasting the time of admins and let them make up their own mind instead of doubling down every time you don't get your way. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of name change: My rename request went through and I (formerly known as SinglePorpoiseAccount) am now known as MrPorpoise. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to ban SinglePorpoiseAccount

For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Well I don't know what to say other than you're being duped by FormalDude. I don't think my inexperience with the formal processes of Wikipedia should be a cause for a ban, but if you're comfortable with having that decision on your conscience then there probably isn't anything I can do besides accept that after about 15 years I'm no longer welcome at Wikipedia. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Due to SPA doubling down on their disruptive edits and attempts at manipulating the narrative of the dispute (both here and at WP:RS/N), I unfortunately do not see any acceptable outcome that is not a ban for SPA.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH. This user has spent walls of text trying to convince us that the AP is not a reliable source, citing their own amateur analysis of an article which they claim evinces bias. This continued after having the facts that this is not how we do things here explained to them multiple times, in detail.

I can understand if a user doesn't grasp how we identify RSes, but a user to whom that process has been explained multiple times, who insists on pursuing their own inept methods, and who does so to support a WP:FRINGE view at such a controversial topic as this doesn't strike me as capable of contributing meaningfully to this project.

Furthermore, while I agree with several others that none of the examples of incivility are actionable on their own or even taken as a whole, they do go a long way towards evincing a WP:BATTLEground mentality.

And that's ignoring the obvious quacking going on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment our SPA friend is clearly wrong at the WP:RSN thread (and consensus there is clearly against their view), but that isn't cause for a block. I don't see any other cause for a block presented, the diffs at the start of this thread are just needless dramatics over a disagreement. If there aren't better diffs (and Mr. Porpoise doesn't talk themselves into a block) I will be voting in opposition to this proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  They are persistent on spreading falsehoods and purposefully misinterpreting clear Wikipedia policies, as well evidenced by how many editors have had to make repeated explanations about basic guidelines to this user. And there are very valid reasons to suspect sockpuppetry. See:

  1. Their WP:FALSECON attempt here and my response here.
  2. Examples of them doubling down after being polity informed about policy here and here
  3. SPA not disclosing IPs that they used to support their argument (see above). In fact, they actually implied they were not the owner of those IPs to another user (BD2412), saying here that Wikipedia was "ignoring random IP accounts".

  Really I recommend you just look at SPA's authorship of WP:RS/N and Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, and you should see why a block is necessary. I would not have come to this conclusion if SPA had once admitted or taken responsibility for any of their serious actions, but they haven't–and that indicates to me that they will resume their disruptive behavior as soon as this AN/i is closed.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Is this really the place to double down? I thought the bullet points under this heading were purely for leaving final votes, not discussion? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion that leads to a vote is permitted. Also, procedural arguments are not going to get you anywhere. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Alright, sorry about that then. I just didn't see any discussion under any other vote bullet points, even in other cases, so I didn't want to unintentionally break any more rules. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  How is "I have no issue accepting most Wikipedians think so" possibly problematic? If SinglePorpoiseAccount continues to argue the same points in direct opposition to site policy and their previous statements, they will surely be blocked. If they say they will not do that, that is good. Regarding "IP socking", I really could not care less. If it is necessary the talk pages can be semi-protected. Otherwise, I don't care even if the editor is using multiple IPs (though I assume not). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can assure you I never had any intention to break any rules, and I am very sorry for any I may have broken. Even though I have experience with common templates and some Wikipedia policy, I am still inexperienced with the formal processes of Wikipedia. If there are any rules in particular you think I should read up on then I welcome any pointers. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @力: I think you should care that a user was purposefully deceitful about using IP accounts in order to make it seem like more people supported their point of view.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody has proved the user was "deceitful" or using IP accounts in violation of policy. And as I said previously, I don't care even if you could prove it; most everybody discounts the opinions of IP editors already, and as noted there is a clear consensus against them at RSN. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  FD throws that charge around freely and then absurdly uses WP:DNTL to justify it. Jibal (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Jibal: Nothing absurd about it, I guess you probably just didn't look into this in the slightest.

  • On Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit they use IP's 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6 to continue their argument.
  • On WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Discussion they pretend those IPs are not there's. They lie to User:BD241, saying that in addition to ignoring their argument, we ignored other IP users' arguments.
  • They admit in this thread that they use IPs 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    Are you sure about the second point? Could you point us toward the comments you are referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    @Firefangledfeathers: Yes, I am sure. I can't find the diffs, but you can copy and CNTRL+F any of these quotes from below in order to identify them:

    • It started with SinglePorpoiseAccount saying: Several IPAs on the talk page has questioned its bias over the past month, and off-site comments about Wikipedia articles like it indicating doing the same trend.
    • Then XOR'easter replied Shockingly, IP accounts complaining about an article doesn't actually mean that the article is bad.
    • SinglePorpoiseAccount replied Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore IPAs.
    • This is the important part, BD241 replied Those same IP accounts were also trying to insert links in the article to tweets by the auditors—not articles about these tweets, mind you, just to the tweets themselves—to counter the criticism of the audit being reported in reliable sources

    You can confirm BD241's statement by looking at the IP comments at Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit (the page is not archived).

    • This is the final comment SinglePorpoiseAccount made on the matter, the comment where they do not come forth about those IPs being them: Yeah, and they failed in doing those things because there were more experienced Wikipedians present. But that doesn't disqualify them as real users, nor does it invalidate the whole of their opinions. And that's assuming those aren't VPN IPs, as VPNs are increasingly common. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    FD's comment isn't even relevant to what I wrote. I didn't say that the charge is absurd, I said that using WP:DNTL to justify calling people liars is absurd. I've seen these misreadings/logical gaffes/evasions from FD (and resulting baseless charges, like his accusation that I didn't look into the charge, which isn't even relevant) numerous times. His conclusions might be right or they might be wrong, sort of like a magic eight ball. Jibal (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    It's not absurd to accuse someone of misconduct that they clearly exhibited, and link to WP:DNTL as justification for their misconduct (deceit). I'm certain it's not the first time someone has called another out for lying and linked to WP:DNTL. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    Nice to see you feel strongly enough about my "numerous" other comments to make WP:Personal attacks about my editing. Odd you never responded to them at the time of, though. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    Just chiming in to say the assertion that I'm one of the IPAs which were trying to insert Tweets as references is simply absurd. As I read it, this still growing thread and case clearly meets WP:SANCTIONGAME point 1 (accusations of sockpuppetry) and 5 (continued claims of lies). If this goes on I would suggest a move to warn FD. MrPorpoise (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    I did of course forget to mention 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6, which are the IPs I had just before I registered. SinglePorpoiseAccount 3:39 pm, 5 August 2021

    Special:Contributions/185.5.46.3

    Special:Contributions/185.5.46.1 ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Which diff by these IPs is inserting a Tweet into the article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The username "SinglePorpoiseAccount" alone implies an intent to cause disruption, and also heavily implies the user has edited here before and is familiar with what an SPA is. I've been reading into this incident for the past couple of days; personally, I'd suspect sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion. Patient Zero^talk 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  FIY, I have already put in a rename request to have it changed to MrPorpoise. At the time I registered I thought the pun would be found funny, but now I see how that's not how it has been viewed at all. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  User names don't imply any intent, they don't imply previous editing (though SPA has said they did edit under IP addresses), there's no evidence of sockpuppetry nor is this the place to raise the issue, absolutely no evidence of block/ban evasion, and none of these musings and imaginings even remotely support a site ban. -- Jibal (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it plausible but inconclusive as to whether this editor has previously edited under another name. I think their issues with accepting the reliability of sources stem from a poor choice of a starting point to edit Wikipedia. Articles on politically charged topics with substantial bodies of misinformation circulating in conspiratorial sources are rarely a good place to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I would suggest a general U.S. politics topic ban for a minimum of six months, subject thereafter to review of the editor's contributions to determine whether they have demonstrated productive participation and understanding of the rules. I expect that if they are in fact only interested in pressing a viewpoint in a contentious area, then they will be uninterested in editing substantially and for an extended period of time in other parts of the encyclopedia. However, I would not specifically oppose a site ban, deferring to the consensus of editors that there is a problem here requiring some action for resolution. BD2412 T 00:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support this more targeted proposal first I also share the impression that the evidence is suggestive of socking, but far too short of the threshold of anything substantial enough to ban on such a presumption. It does happen from time to time that an editor contributes extensively enough as an IP to be more than passingly versed on our ecosystem of policy touchstones to be able to site them more or less intelligibly. That behaviour, standing alone, cannot be used as a basis to presume a block evasion or other forbidden use of multiple accounts. I will grant that the claim of 15 years of residency here as an IP, combined some some of the more particular behaviours begins to strain AGF considerably, but, in that respect, if there is a feeling that WP:DUCK has been met here, the appropriate forum to request a checkuser is WP:SPI rather than just a ban on the basis of presumption.

On the other hand, there are some non-trivial concerns with WP:CIR and possibly WP:NOTHERE at work in this case. I do see an editor in Porpoise who is at least nominally making efforts at good faith discussion (assuming we are not being gamed by a sock, which, again, we should pursue the standard sock busting methodologies as that is concerned). I also think their confusion about the mandate of RSN and how that little aspect of the dispute played out looks genuine to me, and lends credence to the possibility that they really are just some sort of advanced amateur here who took their time in doing a deep dive on consensus building process but have been very slowly accumulating knowledge on general bits of policy over a long slow engagement with Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I am 100% convinced this couldn't be a very subtle snowjob regarding their past experience here, but I have enough doubt that I'm inclined to treat this editor with the default level of WP:ROPE I'd advise extending to any other editor who landed here because of strident positions in a contentious area. Therefor I am more amenable to this intermediary sanction to pull them out of the area where their conduct has raised concerns. Mind you, I actually wouldn't even support the TBAN on the present evidence, but Porpoise is asking us to take a lot on faith when there are some real questions as to the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, and since the alternative would seem to be a full ban, this intermediary approach seems to be a better outcome for them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would obviously prefer a temporary TBAN over a permanent SBAN, and U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude. Let's not forget the core of the issue, as I see it, is still a personal conflict between me and FormalDude and an IBAN would help me keep him at a distance. I admit I still have a lot to learn but I don't think I would make progress as quickly in useful areas for regular editing if I keep having to deal with this conflict. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention; I would urge someone to please review the sockpuppet cases where FormalDude has been involved, in a manner which is completely separate from this and regardless of the outcome here. If there have been real new Wikipedians wrongfully banned they need to be found and let back on the site with an apology. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's all of the sockpuppet investigations I've ever been involved with (grand told of four) so that everyone can see I've only ever been involved in overtly obvious sock puppetry, much like I think is the case here. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons power spells out above. I think the username is funny and should be kept, first of all. SPA is being accused of both having such a good knowledge of policy that they must be a sock, and also "blatantly misunderstanding" consensus. Which is it? SPI is that-a-way, I'm not seeing any actual evidence of socking. The evidence of accusations of misbehavior does not contain accusations of misbehavior except for the "lies" comment (which was bad and should not be repeated but is not sanctionable by itself). Arguing WP:COISOURCE is not pushing a fringe theory or conspiracy theory, and I actually think the fringe/conspiracy/sock accusations against SPA are more problematic than anything SPA has written on the linked threads (including RSN). Fundamentally, we don't ban people for disagreeing with us or holding an unpopular or even bad opinion. SPA should endeavor to avoid writing long walls of text and accusing people of lying; everyone calling for SPA to be sanctioned should be more tolerant of differing opinions. This thread should be closed with no action. Levivich 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich - I find their name funny and certainly agree it shouldn't be changed. (If you're offended by their name wait till you find out we have someone named Darknipples here!), SPA has stated they've used IPs prior to creating an account so it would be obvious they have knowledge of various guidelines here, If you're concerned about socking create an SPI, otherwise quit the socking accusations. Lastly as someone who hates walls of text for some weird reason I don't mind theirs... maybe because it's entertaining and worth reading dunno. ... Either way I don't believe we've reached the blocking or banning stage just yet. SPA should stop accusing people of lying etc etc but other than that I see no reason to block/ban. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I might agree that their username could be a good pun if they weren't an actual single purpose account who has only edited 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Give it a rest with banging the same drum. It's becoming rather boring. I'm well aware of their editing area and you didn't need to point it out for the fourth time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Formal, I agree with Davey on this. The username is a mildly amusing pun, made a bit more poignant by the fact that the pun seems to be accurate at this point.

  Don't get me wrong, I believe it represents an issue, but I wouldn't consider it an issue in and of itself.

  Also, if I saw some reason to suspect that the notions they have regarding sourcing and bias were amenable to change, I'd not support a ban at all. But the vast (vast) majority of editors who have expressed similar notions have been entirely unwilling to adapt to our norms here. I doubt SPA will, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't believe that unless a new user edits a bunch of different topic areas incompetently without any knowledge of our policies or how to work wikitext, they're obviously a sock or an SPA. Levivich 20:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  And I think it's worth remembering that even if they were an SPA, that is not in itself a cause for sanction. Being an SPA has a negative connotation here because it often overlaps with dogmatic attachment to one particular view on that single topic and/or a WP:NOTHERE motivation. But it's far from a per se relationship: an immense amount of work gets done on this project each and every day by editors who, if we look at their current or historical activities, would seem to qualify as what any veteran editor would classify as an SPA. What matters is not the expansiveness of their interests, but whether they apply policy/community consensus appropriately and neutrally to the content and engage in good faith when their fellow editors have concerns. That's precisely why WP:SPA is an WP:ESSAY, not WP:POLICY, a fact that people seem to forget a lot when using the term as an indictment (and I don't doubt that I've been guilty of it a time or two). SPA has taken on a pejorative tonality here because of a cultural presumption that editors who work across a variety of areas are demonstrating that they are here to build the project at large and not advance "the great truth" of one particular topic or protect any sacred cows. But it's important for us all to remember that the relationship is not a straight forward linear one: many exceptional community members have a very narrow focus to their work and many problem editors contribute disruptively and with extreme POV over a variety of topics. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the arguments made above and my own observations, this had crossed my mind while reading through the earlier discussion here but I held off because I didn’t have any long term knowledge of this contributor or a deep understanding of the context of the dispute. I’m glad that someone with more standing has opened this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sockpuppetry may be reported at WP:SPI where the claims will be diligently investigated by experienced clerks and CUs, so I will not consider them in this comment. The rest of the comments do not merit sanctions. The worst comment was saying another editor is lying, which may well be uncivil, but neither Wikipedia policy nor ANI enforces parliamentary language upon editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  It was FormalDude who made the accusation of lying, and absurdly justified that violation of WP:NPA by citing WP:DNTL -- Jibal (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - If there is enough evidence to confirm they are a sock of an active user this is not the proper venue. As mentioned that would be SPI. The user name is not to my taste but if we are going to allow possibly sexist or more offensive names than this, their name is not an issue comparatively. The bad faith accusations by them to others is not great and should be corrected but, past that I am not seeing near enough justification to ban them yet. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support 6 month TBAN from US Politics per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH, and would be okay with a temp site ban (1 month?) as a distant second, pending user consensus in this thread. I think an indef site ban is probably overkill at this point. WP:DONTBITE applies...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose They are a two week old account who foolishly jumped into a contentious political article. Mistakes were predictable and inevitable. What is more surprising to me is that they stuck around and decided to get involved in this ANI report and I think they are handling the criticism better than some of our experienced editors would be if they were the subject of a noticeboard complaint. It just happened to me and it is most unpleasant. Most new editors would have stopped editing and left at this point. If you think they are a sockpuppet, report them at SPI. Otherwise, hopefully they learn from their mistakes like we all did and start working in articles that are less of a flashpoint for discord. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose They've hardly done anything wrong except disagree with other editors. The sockpuppet accusation seems utterly baseless to me, and nothing else comes even remotely close to blockable behavior. Mlb96 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the charges, "For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above" have any evidentiary support. -- Jibal (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to warn SinglePorpoiseAccount

They have certainly used up a lot of editor time on a non-starter issue. That said, I join those who think sockpuppetry issues should be handled at SPI. Without that lens, this looks like a real scrap between two editors that spilled out into RSN. If SPA had thrown in the towel earlier we wouldn't be here. It seems they have picked up on that message, and are responding to feedback. Can we warn them to avoid WP:BLUDGEON and leave it at that for now? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I have opined above that part of the problem is that the editor dove into the wrong end of the pool, with contentious issues of U.S. politics. They have stated in response: "U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude". I think this is a reasonable compromise, though I'd caution that contemporary U.S. politics generally is best to avoid if you're running into steep consensus against your views on what constitutes reliable sources in that area. BD2412 T 05:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: If you think this merits a sanction or even a consensus for a warning it would help (me, at least, and maybe also others reading this) if you wrote up a report with the evidence. As the report is worded above it seems largely non-actionable, but I'll admit I'm not really willing to closely read the walls of text on talks myself to dig something out. Judging by some awfully dubious comments, such as this, perhaps there are enough issues for an article ban to be justified, if someone can make a decent report. But this section is not a decent report. (at the same time, it could also just be a series of misunderstandings) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: This statement, also noted earlier in the discussion, is also quite problematic coming from an editor with only a few weeks of history, and in the context of a politically charged topic with a strong fringe view. BD2412 T 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to maintain context, that was in reply to this statement. I'll admit I went too far both in demanding unanimous consensus and in the escalating tone, but I feel like it's important to keep in mind the accusations of lying went both ways.

That said I have since learned the importance of WP:DISENGAGE when a discussion starts heating up and I have no intention of escalating again, the above really is just to maintain context for my quoted statement. I have learnt my lesson and I feel like I have demonstrated at least a basic level of restraint here since I started getting pointers from voting Wikipedians. In addition, while I stand by my opinions of the BFN article, I realize those aren't shared by the consensus of other Wikipedians (as made overwhelmingly evident in the RS/N) and I can't use those as basis to justify which sources to use. My apologies to everyone who has participated in this matter, including FormalDude. I would however stil want a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude, it seems we inevitably provoke each other and that's no good, neither for ourselves nor other Wikipedians. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I would support a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent MrPorpoise from provoking/derailing any future discussions I'm participating in. However, this may not be necessary as it has only happened twice thus far. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I would expect you to apologize too, or at least thank all these nice Wikipedians who have spent their time reviewing the matter and made meaningful comments (thank you Wikipedians!). Anyway, the IBAN needs to be mutual to be meaningful. That is all I have to say to you on the matter and I will not leave any further replies for you. MrPorpoise (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose warnings, ibans, or any other action per previous section. Levivich 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The account is abusing very harshly using vulgar terms and using racism, communalism. The below links I have attached shows the behaviour. Please take immediate action.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tamilianda https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF_%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE:Tamilianda

परवीनसिंहमिश्र4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is name of the account in Hindi Wikipidea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilianda (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The user has zero edits here. You need to go to the projects they have edited.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Tamilianda Ymblanter is correct that there is nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do to prevent an editor from editing in other projects; however, since the nature of those posts is exceedingly disgusting, and since they have been doing it at Meta and at Hindi Wikipedia (making it cross-wiki abuse), I have made a request a meta for it to be globally locked. I can't make any promises about whether the request will be acted upon or how long it will take; that's about all we can do here I'm afraid. I'm sorry you experienced that. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Animaljamfan123 and use of "tel:" links in Sour (album)

• Animaljamfan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sour (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been warned by me on at least a couple of occasions about the use of this "tel:" prefix in linking numbers in this article (one of which is actually not a telephone number) [217]. This has happened a number of times at the article in the past few weeks, at least since mid-June. They contend that they are not adding these links with said prefix. At this point I don't know whether to believe that or not, but adding these where they are is not only against the manual of style (external links don't belong in the body of the article, with few exceptions), but is highly disruptive as this kind of link is intended to dial a phone number from the device where the link is clicked. I would welcome any feedback regarding this.

My warnings to them are on their talk page at User talk:Animaljamfan123#Sour (album). MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

They also don’t appear to u detest and what “debut” means. Canterbury Tail talk 02:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Their most recent edit to Sour also violated WP:EASTEREGG, one of the guidelines they don't seem to have been warned about yet. Narky Blert (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Randomly inserting "tel" into edit windows is a feature of some software, mainly on mobile devices. See VPT archive. Such a link should never be in an article (unless illustrating "tel"). It's tough to blame the user for what the stupid software on their device is doing, but we can't block Apple or Google and disruption has to stop. @Animaljamfan123: Sorry but you must not save an edit with one of these bogus changes. Click "show changes" before publishing/saving so you can see what has happened. Repeated disruption will lead to blocks because there is no other way to prevent ongoing problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day an editor is responsible for all edits made under their account, even if they have automated software that does that (I’d fall short of saying it’s bot tool editing). If they have software that does such formatting then it’s their responsibility to turn it off, edit differently or remove it each time. And if this cannot be done, then they cannot edit. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Gonzafer001 bizarre behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs) may be a case of WP:CIR. Today he tagged an article I created for speedy deletion [218], without a valid rationale from the criteria. That doesn't seem like a huge problem by itself, but then I looked at his talk page, which is littered with PROD and XfD notices for articles he created on non-notable subjects, as well as notices about managing a COI and a sockpuppetry notice. They've also been repeatedly warned about vandalism and copyright violations. He also has repeatedly recreated an article about the Bellingham Metro News, of which he openly says on his userpage he is the founder and editor in chief. This all goes back to 2016. Their other edits today include stuff like this [219] and [220] as well as spamming a bunch of articles with the "sources" tag when it's not appropriate. In 2019 Doug Weller warned him for incorrectly tagging things for speedy deletion. [221] This editor clearly doesn't understand how sourcing works here, nor has any clue about what should be tagged for speedy deletion or how to correctly do it and it's wasting time and effort of people who know how to do this stuff. ♟♙ (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• As per above, doing NPP today, I have come across a number of erratic tags placed on new articles. My sense is that this editor has insufficient background / understanding of policy to be tagging articles like so. A stop needs to be put to this activity, making unnecessary work for other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I made a judgement call on your article. The older conversations on my talk page are irrelevant, feel free to remove the notice and I will move on, dispute the articles for deletion, I’ve been tagging pages that need more sources. Dispute it.. --Gonzafer001 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your judgement is consistently wrong and it's making a lot of extra work for people who have to clean up after your mess. You don't know when or how to correctly use speedy deletion tags and your pattern of past and current misbehavior and competence issues are not irrelevant. This needs to end, because you are causing damage to the project, either through an enforced ban from you using deletion tags or an indefinite block. ♟♙ (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So me nominating your page for deletion encouraged you to retaliate against me buy surfing through my past contributions and also nominating them for deletion. Isn’t that considered a (WP:COI). Engaging in something with someone whom you have filled a reports against?^{(User_talk:Gonzafer001)} I think we are both in the wrong here and we can use this moment in time to learn instead of censor each other, don’t you agree: instead of trying to censor me, could you reach me to become a better Wikipedian?User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gonzafer001: That is not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although other editors have introduced you to the COI guideline in the past you do not seem to have actually read it. As there seems to be a long-term competence issue it's appropriate to discuss it here. Citobun (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

*sorry User: Citobun. I will try to work on improving as an editor.. you gotta start somewhere though. You don’t start off as an expert, it takes time. Some people on here have been here for 17 years.. this is my 5th year. User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you posting from the future? (Check the timestamps.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Gonzafer001 was asked to comply with WP:PAID in July 2019 by User:SounderBruce and still hasn't complied. He and his sock have repeatedly been promoting him. They've been referred to WP:NOTABILITY several times yet continue to create articles lacking evidence of notability. And today's tagging was clearly faulty, I have no idea why he thought it was appropriate. He says he wants to become a better Wikipedian but he doesn't seem to have looked at the links he's been given which would have helped him achieve that goal. Maybe a ban from tagging and direct article creation might force them into learning our policies and guidelines, plus of course if they don't declare their paid status they will have to be blocked, but hopefully that won't happen. The ban should also apply to anything associated to them directly, eg the Bellingham Metro News. Doug Weller talk

How many years does it take to read the first sentence of a policy page that you're citing?

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Jibal (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Gonzafer001, after five years you're no longer considered "new". After one or possibly two years you may be able to successfully make this excuse, but not after five and certainly not after people have repeatedly pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and policies. Which, as Doug and Citobun say you've shown no evidence of having read and understood. Or you just don't want to follow them. I submitted the draft you created about your company (after it was repeatedly deleted and for which you were warned about WP:COI) because at this point it's spam. You can't write articles here about your own company. From your responses above, I can't tell if you have competence issues or are simply refusing to hear. Either explanation is very disruptive. EDIT: Even after this discussion you are begging another editor to help you get the article about your non-notable local newspaper from draft to article [222] - ♟♙ (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was very much tempted to indef per NOT HERE/CIR especially with EnPassant's link above, but I have left a final warning and will not hesitate to block Gonzafer001 myself. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Gonzafer001 is indefinitely banned from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected.

• Support - As proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Editor is wasting everyone's time, at best, with this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support While I have not analyzed this in depth, this appears to be a moderate remedy for a clear-cut problem. Clarity should be provided that they can appeal it and when. Even better if the ban could auto expire in two years, appealable in 1 year.North8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose something must be done, but this franken-proposal isn't it. Gonzafer doesn't have New Page Patrol permissions, so there's no reason for a ban on that. I strongly encourage Gonzafer to install Twinkle for any future speedy-deletion (on account of it saving time and making it easier for others to review edits), but that's not the type of thing ANI is in the habit of requiring. (also I'm not sure if Twinkle works when doing mobile editing - perhaps the WMF can work on fixing that.) Regarding COI creations - there may be a need for this editor to use AFC. I'm not opposed to requiring Gonzafer to use AFC for article creations where a COI is involved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  力, I use Twinkle on my smartphone (using Chrome in desktop mode). Aside from naturally being a bit fiddly due to the size of the screen, it works fine. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  力, I'm a little confused by your response... this is someone who has shown over the course of several years that he doesn't understand the very basics of how processes here work, seemingly refuses to read and attempt to understand them, and you want to give him additional tools to apply speedy deletion tags??? Editors are expected to understand how things work before using automated or semi-automated tools and those who misuse them routinely have them removed (including Twinkle). I think your proposal would inflame this situation rather than resolve it. As for NPP, he's doing it somehow, regardless of his permissions, because he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day. Bans are on behavior and don't necessarily need to involve removal of tools. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I see a new editor with a history of COI issues, but otherwise trying to improve the encyclopedia. If Gonzafer insists that the clear feedback here is not an opportunity to improve but instead complains (more) that people are "trying to censor" him, this may end with a full site block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  He's been here since April 2016, to me that is no longer a new editor. Just saying... ♟♙ (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment agree that this isn't the perfect solution, but now he's broken his sig so that you can't reach his talk and claiming he didn't, doesn't inspire good faith. He's a time sink, who hasn't proven to be a net positive to the encyclopedia Star Mississippi 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, once I saw that I no longer knew if he truly doesn't understand the basics, or is just trolling. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This Editor is wasting everyone's time. He is playing Admin in comment, trolling editors and acting daft. Agreed, he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day causing a lot of work which will have to be undone, eventually. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support' indefinite ban from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected. This is a fairly even-handed remedy. Further WP:CIR issues should result in editor being blocked from editing. There is an incredible lack of competence manifest. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment And now he admits he's lying and playing games [223]. Obvious WP:NOTHERE ♟♙ (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This edit summary certainly looks like trolling, and I'm not happy with the explanation. The continuing issues with signatures suggest competence issues as well. This is close to an indef. I'm willing to give them one more chance to explain themselves or at least to demonstrate they understand what they should not do going forward. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, or support an indef block. It seems even the opposer believes something must be done. I don't see why nothing is being done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Could an uninvolved admin make any necessary action here? ♟♙ (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Darkwarriorblake

Left an extremely rude and abusive post on my page. Really disgusting and not in Wikipedia spirit Urgeback (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the name of the reported user. Urgeback, you are required to notify Darkwarriorblake as per the instructions at the top of this page. I've done that for you. In addition, you should have included a diff of the offensive post. It's pretty easy; it's this one, and it is indeed out of line. The context is an edit war between the two users at Ghostbusters, which I have not examined.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The user was edit warring over sourced content. Rather than admit that they were completely wrong or apologize, they've run here looking for the intervention of a higher power. Not sure what else needs to be said. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This is what needs to be said, Darkwarriorblake: Even if that is so, that doesn't give you some magical exemption from the No personal attacks policy. Take this as a formal warning. Please don't do it again. El_C 14:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 , I glanced at it. Article talk page discussion of the dispute = 0. I've fully protected for 3 days. El_C 14:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think full protection is necessary. The disputed information is unequivocally correct and demonstrably so, no more edit warring should be taking place. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The full protection is intended to get you to start discussing at the article talk. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC

It does not give you the right to right rude and abusive comments no matter how right you think you are? You think I’m going to apologise after what you wrote on my page? You are the one who should apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urgeback (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Help undo a complicated messing with a disambig page by a noob

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Chris_Baker_and_Christopher_Baker

Basically a noob overwrote a disambig page and then moved it under another title. We decided that we need two admin actions:

• Split page history and put its top part into the draft space
• Revert the move.

I didn't find a good place in "Page handling" list of options: they are for actions of a single type. Please help or advise. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 - I've dealt with things like this a lot. Let me know if you need my help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah, we’re sorted: the dab page is back at Christopher Baker; Chris Baker is a redirect to the dab page; the attempted article is at Draft:Christopher R. Baker and I’ve left a message for Ragnarok861 to let them know that I’ve moved his edits to draftspace (I don’t understand why his talk page is all in bold text though). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

A stray '<b>' when he colored his signature [224]. Fixed [225]; pls revert if I overstepped. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s fine by me. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no crime, hear no crime... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This same thing happened with Mirikitani. Someone basically hijacked it to write a promotional article about some non-notable businessperson. I guess that's the new spammer technique. ♟♙ (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 - Cool deal! Glad it got sorted out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple abuses of process and subsequent mass automated edits in contravention of denied bot request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can somebody have a look at the farrago at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#RfC_on_adding_a_field_for_historic_county_to_the_Template:Infobox_UK_place and the following discussion?

Summary: this infobox template appears on every page for every settlement in the UK. A field for "historic county" – a complicated and contested concept open to multiple interpretations – has been added to this template through an unpublicised RfC process that did not reach consensus, but was closed by a likely sockpuppet. This field has then been automatically populated across tens of thousands of settlement pages from a single source, started without discussion and in direct contravention of a denied bot request. With this change now established as a status quo, with misleading or straightforwardly wrong content added on a massive scale and almost impossible to undo, attempts to reach an actual consensus on the subject are being stonewalled.

Background: this is in the context of a longstanding organised campaign by a group called the Association of British Counties[226] who exist to promote a very specific theory of the history of British counties, unsupported by most historical evidence or mainstream historical opinion. Supporters of this have been trying to get Wikipedia to reflect this theory for over a decade, see [227],[228], [229], [230], as a few examples out of scores of them, and "Wikishire",[231] their own alternative wikipedia reflecting their frustration that wikipedia doesn't follow their standpoint.

Details:

• An RfC was set up on the infobox template talk page,[232] by Songofachilles, but no notification was made to publicise it on any relevant talk pages or wikiprojects until five days after the RfC closed.[233] Even this single belated notification was actively resisted by the RfC starter.[234] This technique of engineering "under the radar" RfCs on this subject to avoid the involvement of other interested editors has been used by a similar group of editors pushing this subject before [235].
• The proposal has the effect of breaking wikipedia content guidelines that have been in place for over a decade,[236] but there was not even a notification made on the guidelines' talk page.[237]
• An attempt was made to close the RfC, by the RfC starter, after just one week.[238]
• The RfC was then closed without notice [239] by User:Graham Shipley, for whom this was their only wikipedia edit since 2017, and whose edit history before that date suggested strong views on the matter being discussed, conveniently coinciding with those of the editor who started the RfC.[240] I make no direct accusation at Songofachilles here, but the evidence that the RfC closer is some form of WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPET of an interested editor seems quite strong: it seems unlikely that a real user, having not edited wikipedia for five years, would suddenly and spontaneously pop up from nowhere to close an RfC on a infobox template talk page and then disappear again.
• The RfC closure declared that consensus had been reached on the basis that "Around two-thirds of contributing editors supported adding a field for the historic county".[241] This is clearly not a consensus, particularly on an RfC on a relatively obscure template talk page with widespread repercussions, deliberately unpublicised anywhere else, that would overturn longstanding guidelines. If you read the RfC discussion you will see that there remained a large body of well-argued opposition from many longstanding editors.[242] you can see from subsequent discussion that this remains the case.[243]
• User:Owain without discussion then started the automated population of this field across tens of thousands of pages with data from the single source that he/she favours,[244] despite the fact that no agreement had been reached within the RfC about what content should populate this field, and no discussion had been had about it being automatically populated. This automatic population continued even as attempts to find a consensus took place.
• When a bot request was belatedly submitted for this automatic population this was denied on the basis that there was clearly no consensus for this content.[245] This denial was simply ignored by User:Owain who has continued populating this field at a rate of several thousand edits a day (unhelpfully flagged as "minor", despite being highly controversial).[246]
• Despite immense effort by multiple editors over several weeks to try and find a consensus that could allow this field to be used in a way that could reflect the multiple points of view on a complex and nuanced subject, including at least six separate proposals,[247] no consensus has been reached and the editors behind the original change, having managed to establish their pov as as the staus quo across tens of thousands of settlement pages without consensus, have now declared that it's "time to move on".[248]

Suggested next steps:

• The over 10,000 automated edits made by User:Owain, without consensus and in direct contravention of a denied bot request, should be reverted. This has to be the priority.
• The field that was added without consensus by engineering an under-the-radar Rfc closed by a likely sockpuppet should be removed (or maybe just hidden?) until an actual consensus can be found as to how this field should be used and whether it should exist.
• Maybe the RfC process should be re-run, but with the widespread notifications required by the guidelines to bring in the proper range of interested and disinterested editors, and proper closure? As you can see from the multiple attempts made on the talk page, most editors involved are happy to try find a compromise here. The sheer scale of the current damage across UK settlement articles does need to be corrected though.

Sorry if that's a bit long - it's a complicated situation! Thank you for your help. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid this is a total misrepresentation of events. The original addition to the infobox had the benefit of sourcing the data directly from Wikidata. This part was removed, leaving the field to be filled-in manually. The bot request was just a courtesy on my part, as per Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser: "If you will make many or fast automated edits using AWB, you may wish to use a separate (or bot) account for that purpose". There is no requirement to use a bot account to make edits of this nature. The data added was from the reliable source that was mentioned in the original RfC, a completely uncontroversial gazetteer published by the UK Office for National Statistics, namely the Index of Place Names in Great Britain. Editors are free to add additional references if they see fit. The "several weeks to try and find a consensus" appeared to be nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to undermine the RfC. If there are any conflicting sources, this is solved in the usual method outlined by Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. It does not require weeks of bad-faith 'discussion' and then an Administrators' noticeboard incident raising! Owain (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Importing from Wikidata is a benefit? In my experience, it's riddled with errors. Narky Blert (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, it was. I was very quickly able to identify a number of errors stemming from its use and questioned the method used (for example, with this diff. For clarity, initially the field was set to automatically populate on every instance of the template without users being able to access the field in any way; this has since been reverted (by Jonesey95 on 24 July) and the field now has to be added manually (or semi-manually at least). One of the biggest issues with the data is that it's complex in a minority of cases and the ways in which the data sets that are being relied upon have been built doesn't reflect this complexity. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Graham Shipley doesn't look very genuine to me. What's he got to say on the matter? Has he also been alerted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I posted a notification on his talk page, along with everyone directly mentioned in the above, and the other main involved editors, trying to keep a balance between both sides of the substantive underlying content argument. JimmyGuano (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, so I see now. On second thoughts User:Graham Shipley may be perfectly genuine, looking at the edit history. It just seems a bit odd to not make any edits for four years and then suddenly spring up and close an RfC. A grand total of seven edits in 2017, three in 2016 and none in 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the points and the version of events that JimmyGuano sets out above and will aim to do so here as soon as I am able.—Songofachilles (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My read on this is that 1) The RFC closure is dubious, as I would think the outcome was closer to a "no consensus", !votes pretty much equally split between "adding useful information" and "avoiding bloat" (neither having a strong policy win over the other). Participation was low but I'm also seeing names of established WP editors on that so I'm not so worried about how the RFC was conducted (though yes, it should have been notified to the UK Wikiproject). But because it was closed by Graham here as a support for the addition, it made the subsequent edit request to alter the template look legit. 2) Post-RFC and everything else, it seems very clear that what needs to go in the field (if it is to be kept) needs a great deal more discussion (should this pull from Wikidata; is the ONS data accurate; that there may be multiple historic counties for a given settlement, etc.)

Even if the RFC was a proper RFC with closure, the resulting questions that have been raised tell me that a fresh RFC really is needed there, dealing with both if there should be such a field and if so, what should it contain, with clear instructions that an uninvolved admin needs to close it. Short term, the field should be removed from the template (which will simply mask all the edits by Owain) until a more clear consensus was obtained. --Masem (t) 14:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been a participant in the debate and am thus unambiguously WP:INVOLVED, nevertheless I want to recognise JimmyGuano's report as an honest, accurate and dispassionate summary of events. I do not recognise any validity in Owain's categorisation of it as "a total misrepresentation of events". Multiple errors have been pointed out in the source: Wikidata obtained it from the Office for National Statistics, which obtained it from the Historic Counties Trust. The proponents of the change have resisted sourcing from the Ordnance Survey, the national mapping agency that employs professional cartographers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman This is not true. See, for instance, my comments of 28 July on the Infobox: UK place Talk page: "That said, of course I appreciate that there are other verifiable sources on the topic of the historic counties and I don’t have a problem with those being referred to as well, where appropriate" and "If a discrepancy between, say, the ONS data and the OS data for a place's Historic County is identified (and it's really only detached parts that could bring up any discrepancies): note it in the Infobox by listing the alternative and reference it" and also, for instance, my agreement to PamD's 29 July suggestion (in which they state "Perhaps we should list both the OS and ONS "historic county", sourcing each one directly in the infobox and annotating..."). Unless I missed it, nobody has an issue with any verifiable, reliable source being reported in the Infobox, nor should they.—Songofachilles (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Non-UK admins may be somewhat bemused by all this. Be aware, it is impossible to put into words just how strongly a portion of English society feels about Historic Counties: they will defend to the death the right of Rutland (less than 40,000 residents, and only one 'big' town, which is still so small that no one outside Rutland even knows it exists) to be recognised as an Independent Kingdom, exempt from occupation by the evil forces of McDonalds [249]. Meanwhile, another small portion of English society is utterly certain that those who pursue Historic Counties are all grumpy, middle-aged blokes living in the past, who can't bring themselves to accept the fact that Huntingdonshire was abolished. So live with it. And yes, Huntingdon District Council's first act after being abolished was to have their formerly-blank bin-bags printed with a pretty castellated city-symbol and the words "Huntingdonshire district council", much to everyone's amusement. But the point is: These two groups will never agree, and the remainder of English society will enjoy the battle, as one of those scenic events that happen, a bit like costumed re-enactments of the Battle of Hastings. We have had arguments about boundaries for centuries, millennia (we're secretly proud of it) and at any given time, multiple organisations have often been defining counties simultaneously in different ways; no one quite understands the whole mess, and most people don't really care. But those who do, care very much. The consequences are: (1) You can hold RFC's from now until 2031, and every single one of them will end with whichever side 'lost' claiming foul play and demanding another RFC/consultation; (2) the problem is never going to go away. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree with that summary. However the ANI is not an attempt to forum shop. It is specifically about abuses of process and should be considered in those terms only. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele I would disagree with that summary as extreme in its examples and trivialising the issue. As the person who started the initial RfC on this issue, I wouldn't defend this issue 'to the death' (you have no idea how many times I've almost lost the will to live on this since the initial RfC in June), no one (I know) claims that Rutland should be an 'independent kingdom'; just a county - which it is and, lastly, I'm not middle aged (is 30 middle aged nowadays, I don't know, might be?!) and I'm not usually grumpy except for when dealing with this issue on WP :) —Songofachilles (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Songofachilles I apologise for the tone of my summary. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that in a situation this emotive (I believe it is genuinely emotive) there is a risk of a content-dispute getting mixed up with a dispute about abuse of process, because I do not believe any consensus is possible, no matter how many RfC's are held, and I think it quite possible that individuals (few, but it only takes a few) on both sides of the debate may resort to pushing the boundaries of process, opening themselves to complaints that process has been abused, when the RfC doesn't have the outcome that their adversaries would like to see. I feel guilty saying this, because it's close to assuming bad faith, but I think unfortunately it's realistic. As I say, I'm sorry that I put it rather flippantly, and certainly didn't want to cause offence. Elemimele (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I endorse Elemimele's general remarks. Don't even get me started on Todmorden, historically split between Lancashire and Yorkshire, but since 1888 solely within Yorkshire (and since 1974 West Yorkshire).

Within living memory, you could only play for Yorkshire County Cricket Club if you'd been born in the county. This raised tricky questions about the status of people who'd been born in a place which had once been in Yorkshire but was now in Lancashire; and possibly the reverse. Dancing angels come to mind.

Back on topic, the concerns raised by this thread worry me too. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• As BAG, I would say the editing in contravention of a denied BRFA [250], and then justifying it under the premise of "semi-automated editing" (above), is concerning alone. The RfC closure here also appears dubious, not least due to the (un)suitability of an account with ~100 edits to close the RfC. Interestingly, it is that account's only edit since 2017. Whatever is going on here is concerning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• OK, just looking at this, the closer had not edited for a long time an has very few edits, as mentioned above. This is the major issue.

• Another supporter, User:Lookesmiley, had not edited for five years
• Another supporter was an IP with one edit
• Two other editors appear to be single purpose accounts purely adding historic counties to pages (i.e. [251])
• One supporter was a very strange account which appears to have done little but comment on multiple RfCs [252]]
• Another editor (Cosmicsqueaker) was editing for the first time in four months [253]
• Another editor for the first time in two months. [254]

• Overall, IMO this is very unsatisfactory in terms of the RfC itself, and especially its close. This leads to the proposal that the result of the RfC should be vacated, the infobox parameter removed, and the automated edits rolled back. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've vacated the close. Black Kite You're an admin so you should be able to mass-rollback this and, more importantly, edit the template page, more easily than me. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    • OK. This is not simple, though. The change to be reverted is this one, but there have been following edits. As I don't wish to mess up a highly visible template, pinging MSGJ as the editor who implemented the change, and Izno and Jonesey95 as template editors who happear to be familiar with it. I've also closed the RfC so that another editor doesn't come and close it again as Supported, due to the issues above. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Reverting the 10,000-odd edits made by Owain is not simple, either - as they were a while back, many have been edited since. If the parameter is removed (or hidden?), does it matter if it's still in the article, since it won't be shown, or will it make the template fail? Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
        • I disabled the parameter per the above. It doesn't make the template fail but they should still be removed. Primefac has a bot authorised to remove deprecated parameters, which is effectively this case, so he may be able to fix that part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Articles using the now-vacated parameters will be added to Category:Pages using infobox UK place with unknown parameters by the job queue. This can sometimes take a few weeks or longer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm on a week's holiday starting tomorrow, but since it takes time to populate the cat I'll deal with it when I return. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
              • @Primefac: If you prefer I can just leave a notice at the AWB request page. There's already some pages (about 1800, I just checked) in the category; example edit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
                • Totally up to you, but given that it takes a while to populate a cat it makes more sense to give it more time than less. If you decide to ask for someone else to handle it, just drop a note on my talk so I don't spend the time setting it up. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• BTW, what do we do about the possible sock/meat campaign, possibly by Association of British Counties or its affiliates/supporters? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader This is pure speculation/jumping to conclusions. Do you have any evidence to support your claims? I am the editor who started the RfC (the result of which has now been reverted before I even had chance to make my case on this page) and, although I am now a member of the Association of British Counties, I was not a member of it at the time I started the RfC and during the time the RfC was open for comments. I started the RfC completely at my own initiative. My membership of an interest group is personal information that I should not have to disclose here, although I feel forced to do so because of the baseless allegations being made. Even if I had been a member of ABC when bringing the RfC, or had discussed the RfC with fellow members, I fail to see what difference this would have made. Are editors who are members of interest groups forbidden from discussing the issues around that interest group on WP? Please refer me to the rule or guidance that states that, if so.—Songofachilles (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC).

WP:COI is rather obvious - such editing needs to be disclosed. Also, irrelevant of that, and purely FYI since you don't appear to have gone through on this, I must also note that your comments stating your were going to close an RfC which you opened and in which you commented in a substantive fashion (indicating your clear support for the proposition) are quite in breach of the usual guidelines around here - see WP:INVOLVED. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The editing behaviour of several commenting editors (as pointed out by Black Kite), as well as the RfC closer's, suggests to me that offwiki canvassing took place. (Note I'm not saying you had anything to do with it.) The OP says supporters of this campaign have been promoting this for a decade. The latter is a reasonable explanation for the former. I think we need to nip the issue in the bud so we don't run into similar problems again, given that institutional memory sucks. This dubious outcome shouldn't have been able to proliferate on over ten thousand articles, for over a month, before it hit ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is of course often impossible to prove off-wiki canvassing, even if the results make it obvious that it's happened. There may be some socking involved (i.e. the IP), but if you look at the contribution history of a number of the accounts that mysteriously returned from a long break in editing just to opine on this RfC, they're clearly different people (i.e. 3 of them edited articles about places in 3 different areas of the UK). In the end, we clearly cannot allow a clique to make end-runs around process here through canvassing, especially in such egregious ways as this (you may not have noticed, but the result of the RfC was implemented in a manner that way exceeded its remit, even if it had closed properly as Support). How we enforce that is another question. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I was not a conflicted editor, as I have stated above. @RandomCanadian re. your 'purely FYI' comment, many thanks for that, but the reason I did not close the discussion myself is obviously because I both realised and had it pointed out to me by other editors that this was not the correct procedure.—Songofachilles (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been following and contributing to this wide ranging historic counties debate for several years and my pro-HC views are not in doubt. I had no role whatsoever in starting this current debate that has created the infobox field. I am not and never have been a member of the Association of British Counties or any similar group. What I have seen is a dysfunctional set of anti-HC rules and guidelines that were originally established back around 2003 by what appears to have been a relatively small group of editors who have since treated their original decision as set in stone and not to be interfered with by anyone else. Attempts at reasoned and meaningful discussion have usually been stymied. The complexities of this HC debate have assisted in making any changes difficult to accomplish. An alternative version of what has happened now is that the anti-HC group was caught off-guard and that correct procedure was indeed followed in getting the new/restored HC field put into the infobox, even if that procedure followed more closely the letter rather than the spirit of the rules. I would question whether this wider dispute is really one of those arguments to which there really are two equally valid views, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Many of the references used by the anti-HC people do not stnd up to closer inspection, even the academic works, although at first sight appear sound. That is not to question the indepence of the authors but instead the interpretation of the sources. This is complicated further by a lack of free online access to certain texts. A meaningful discussion on these sources has proven almost impossible to have but woul, I think, go a long way to overcoming the mistrust and antagonism that has become ingrained here. About this specific problem now, reverting the new HC field would be pointlessly unhelpful. Whether or not it should be reverted, it should be left in place while a bigger discussion on how to handle HCs takes place. Leaving it in place with some editors moaning and groaning at their keyboards will be no different from how things have been for many years where some other editors have been doing exactly the same. As it is now it is doing no harm: removing it now will cause harm. This wider debate must take place otherwise there will never be a situation that both sides can live with. Incidentally, JimmyGuano's comments above are loaded with subtle misrepresentions and barely disquised digs at other editors. There is no insummountable problem with the HC field, the meaning of 'historic county' or countless errors with the sources. Most of these so-called problems are spurious invention by a certain group of editors. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comments like the preceding one are unhelpful "muddying of the water". It however speaks as to bigger difficulties with solving this dispute because both:
  1. They are evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area (something ridiculous to have a fight over, IMHO - historical counties seem to be only ever relevant for stuff like County cricket: which is best enjoyed as a neutral from an ocean across); and
  2. They fail to assume good faith and instead dwell well into WP:ASPERSIONS territory by accusing an unspecified "anti-HC" group of censorship and misinterpretation
• In short, as somebody previously uninvolved, I just fail to see what the previous comment is but more of the usual "much ado about nothing" and "more heat than light" that comes out of virtually every ANI thread about a wider dispute. If you have evidence against specific editors, come up with it, instead of making vague unsupported speculation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • As for procedure: no, the closure of the RfC was improper (the arguments that this is infobox bloat that is non-key information and doesn't need going in the infobox, especially since it can be covered appropriately in regular prose, are more convincing in terms of WP:INFOBOX; at best, this could have been closed as "no consensus"; if the discussion had lasted more time - one week is not usually enough for an RfC), and the RfC, which seemingly affects a wide number of pages, was not properly advertised, which beggars belief: this is a collaborative community, and getting more editors involved in discussions that will have far reaching impacts is certainly not a bad idea. As for the issues about the Association of British Counties or similar advocacy groups; WP:NOTADVOCACY deals with that plainly enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Roger 8 Roger It is ironic that you characterise JimmyGuano's post as "loaded with subtle misrepresentions and barely disguised digs at other editors", as unfortunately, much of what you have written here is either false, or evidence-free attacks on other editors.
  • The RfC was not widely advertised, so many people without the page on their watchlists would have missed it.
  • There were a number of good-faith Supports in the RfC, but there were also a number of very suspicious Supports as listed above.
  • The RfC was then closed by an account making its first and only edit for four years, and whose editing contribution suggests an interest in historic counties.
  • The RfC was then implemented to add data automatically from Wikidata, which is not only a non-optimal idea but was not mentioned in the RfC at all. The RfC starter claimed that it did, and when it was pointed out that it didn't, tried to claim that the RfC didn't say that you couldn't do it that way.
  • User:Owain then submitted a bot requested to populate the field which ws refused. When it was refused they then proceeded to edit around 10K articles in a semi-automated way to add the parameter.
• The result of this sequence of events, which frankly is purely disruptive, is as follows
  • The result of the RfC is vacated
  • The change to the template has been reverted
  • The semi-automated edits to add the parameter will be reverted by a bot.
• I suggest that the small group of highly-involved "pro-HC" editors step back from this subject now, because whether they were or were not involved in the obvious canvassing and other disruption, the optics don't look good here. TL/DR: if you try to force your changes into Wikipedia by disruptive means, you make it more likely that they will not be adopted. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite Thanks for sharing your suggestion, but I won't be following it. You cannot unilaterally silence an editor or group of editors because of unfounded speculations and your view that the 'optics don't look good.' One or more good faith slip-ups in the conducting of, for instance, an RfC, should not lead to that editor or those editors being ‘cancelled’ and having to 'step back' from a subject. I have read the WP conflict of interest guidance in detail (it highlights, among other things, writing about yourself, being paid to write on subjects, etc.) and I am satisfied that there would be no conflict of interest from me continuing to engage in debate around this issue and I certainly intend to do so.

Although I didn't ultimately get the chance to respond to @JimmyGuano's points above prior to the parameter’s deletion and the reversion of all related edits, I would only have written what I have already stated multiple times on the Talk page for the Infobox:UK place in recent weeks. Among the key points I have made there are that: 1/ The term ‘historic county’ is a defined term (namely, the 92 historic counties of the UK) by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the Index of Place Names in Great Britain (IPN), and, by extension, the UK Government; 2/ The IPN published by the ONS is a verifiable, reliable source for historic county data and one that is suitable for WP, the purpose of which is to report information published elsewhere only; 3/ The RfC, initiated in good faith, showed clear support for this field being added to the Infobox:UK place and was closed for discussion when only one additional comment had been received over the space of its final week; 4/ The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to withhold information because of the risk that readers might be confused, but to present all of the information and give readers the tools and opportunity to inform themselves, especially, as here, on the differences between things which, at first glance, seem alike but are different; 5/ Our job as editors at WP is to report from verifiable sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), not to present information in a way we would like it to be presented, or believe it to be best reflected. As stated here, "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors.”; 6/ The parameter itself was subject to an agreed compromise, which was that the historic county data would not be added to articles which already have the correct historic county name as a shire_county or lieutenancy; 7/ At least one of the opposing editors who has commented on this page in the past 24 hours had previously stated that they ‘accept the consensus’ that resulted from the RfC; and 8/ Notwithstanding any of the above, no one was ever opposed to multiple sources (i.e. non-ONS sources) being used and referenced, where appropriate, despite constant complaints to the contrary which have now ultimately led to the pursuing of the deletion of the parameter as a point of principle.—Songofachilles (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be having an WP:IDHT issue here. An RfC where multiple deliberate underhand methods were used to force a particular view through is most definitely not equivalent to "One or more good faith slip-ups in the conducting of, for instance, an RfC". Meanwhile, your point 5 ("Our job as editors at WP is to report from verifiable sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), not to present information in a way we would like it to be presented, or believe it to be best reflected") is precisely what the editors who disrupted the RfC actually want! Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No, Black Kite, the only 'issue' I have is that I disagree with you. And I repeat that I do not appreciate your accusations and the conclusions you've drawn in the absence of evidence to support them. In my opinion, my point 5 is not what the editors who disrupted the RfC want, at least not all of them. But, in the commons that is WP, we are of course free to disagree :) —Songofachilles (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

We may need an RFC on whether historic counties should be included in infoboxes at all. On 11 and 12 August, an IP editor added historic counties to London Borough infoxes (which use {{Infobox settlement}} for some reason) by using other parameters eg subdivision_type5= Historic county, subdivision_name5=Kent[255]. I don't know if it's a coincidence or if the same's being done in other articles. NebY (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd see that as part of the same dispute. IMO would be better to go broader still and instead look to get guidance on how to discuss historic counties in the body of articles. That will inform what mention they get in lead and infobox (if any). Articles often see historic counties only mentioned in the lead (eg Wantage).--217.32.153.153 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to the admins above for tidying up the short-term mess. As has been observed in other posts here there is also a longer-term mess though. The unfortunate irony is that historic counties (in the broadest sense of the term) are of course very important and do indeed carry at least some contemporary relevance and should indeed be comprehensively and prominently covered by Wikipedia (what does being "anti-HC" even mean???). It is however very difficult to do this in the face of a decades-long onslaught of editors primed with a "correct" view by the Association of British Counties, determined to maintain and enforce that view even in cases where this is clearly contradicted by the evidence. And that does have the effect of making things antagonistic, because a task which should be about reflecting what is often complicated, messy and ambiguous history descends into a fight between tidy, convenient but often mythical orthodoxies. Wikipedia generally manages to deal with situations like this eventually though, even in immeasurably more consequential areas like Vaccines or the Armenian genocide, it just feels mildly absurd to be discussing county borders in the Pennines in the same category. What would seem a sensible next step? An RfC on the broader subject, with the involvement of both interested and disinterested wikipedians, well-policed by admins? I think a lot of UK editors just try and avoid the subject though because of the endless amount of grief and absurdity it involves. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is one of the many issues where you have entrenched views and therefore poorly-formed "we must do this"-type RfCs tend to go round in circles. What would probably be useful is not an RfC immedaitely, but a discussion about what may be possible ways forward. In that way the discussion isn't one that a particular side can "win" (because nothing will happen directly because of it) and the standard of discussion tends to be better. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Someone's already suggested with this diff, that we add a traditional county parameter to the infobox... Perhaps WP:UK or, more likely, WP:UKGEO might be better places to have any discussion going forward as they're more likely to attract a wider range of views. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Another RFC will just go round in circles (unless conduct violations, such as sockpuppets, occur). My thought on a way forward is discuss how to handle the historical information in the body text (on UKGEO). All sides agree the full information should be included in the body. The body gives the space to include everything relevant, and ensure it is phrased in a way that is NPOV. Once we have best practice for the body text, that will indicate what (if anything) should be mentioned in the lead. That in turn guides the infobox.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
      • This seems a sensible approach to further discussion on this issue to me too.—Songofachilles (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Good. Closing this now, as further discussion is not really relevant to ANI. Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vandalism by 147.158.160.27. Peter Ormond 💬 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You need to report at WP:AIV? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

AIV is the correct venue - IP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated unsourced genres additions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Despite multiple warnings on their talk page as well as personal requests from an admin to source their edits, this user continues to disruptively add unsourced genres to articles. On top of that, they have yet to make an attempt to communicate with concerned editors on their talk page regarding their problematic behaviour. Please could I ask for some assistance with this. Thank you. Robvanvee 06:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree! Robvanvee 11:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the report ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flyer22 Frozen SPI opened by Kolya Butternut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For reasons that make no sense to me Kolya Butternut has opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flyer22 Frozen. The alleged evidence is from 2012. IMHO this needs eyes on it ASAP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The link you presented is a dead link.CycoMa (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this and was curious about it myself; it was surprising, and I assumed that the statement "Behavioral evidence and off-wiki evidence that Flyer22 is alive have been submitted to Arbcom" would be followed with additional information/evidence. If such evidence has been submitted to Arbcom, I would would expect that an Arbcom member would move forward with the appropriate action, if any. Perhaps the mention of 2012 evidence was intended to establish that there appears to be a history of (alleged/suspected) sockpuppetry. In any case, it seems like a pretty heavy allegation to make without someone from arbcom with access to the evidence weighing in. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If this investigation is being done based on private evidence then it should not be posted on-wiki. Arbcom has access to checkuser tools, I see no point in posting on SPI and on the user's talk page if this is based on private evidence. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the accounts at the SPI were blocked by Risker back in April. R has not edited for several days so I will leave a message pointing to this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

An administrator has deleted the SPI to refer it to arbcom. I support this action. If the investigation is based on private evidence then it should take place in private. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm discussing with the administrator/Checkuser who deleted the SPI. It was not an improper SPI. I have personally blocked most of the accounts mentioned in the SPI, and had extensive discussion with Arbcom about that (non-public) investigation months ago, after which I blocked the accounts in accord with Arbcom's instructions. Risker (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting I'm aware of this thread, and that I deleted the SPI as it seemed to be something Arbcom was dealing with privately. The ramifications of any outcome of that SPI would need to be handled carefully. No history has been lost, any admin is able to view the deleted content and if needs be the SPI can be restored. I'd welcome a statement/update from Arbcom regarding the situation ~TNT (she/they • talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• The behavioral evidence presented here is compelling, and it appears that the SPI deletion was out of process. I hope Arbcom will put some finality to this situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: as stated above, the deletion of the SPI was solely due to the specific claim that "off-wiki evidence [... has] been submitted to Arbcom" and the overall sensitive nature of the allegations. I absolutely do not want to be seen to be brushing away the efforts of editors to investigate such a claim, nor do I want this not to be investigated. To the contrary, I absolutely must insist that ArbCom respond to this situation promptly, if for no other reason than to justify (or overturn) my interim action of deleting the SPI ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  TheresNoTime, I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but from my perspective you absolutely did the right thing. There is nothing about this situation that needs to be discussed publicly, and as in any case involving editor privacy, it's better to be safe than sorry. – bradv^🍁 04:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  TNT, I did not mean for my post to sound like criticism of your action in such a sensitive situation, and I am sorry if it did. This, on the other hand, seems uncalled for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) PS: I have not seen the SPI; only the post I linked above, and Risker’s post, both of which point towards a legitimate, good-faith filing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  The filing may be in good faith and I think MarnetteD could have been better in the wording of their replies, but I think we should remember why there is so much concern. Accusing an editor of what's being claimed here is IMO one of the most serious accusations you can make that relate to Wikipedia. Acting in good faith especially in a case like this doesn't override the tremendous hurt you can cause by being wrong, it just means we generally don't want to sanction you for it. I'm not saying an editor should ignore it if they feel there is sufficient evidence, but considering the ramifications of them being wrong, they should seriously consider if there's a better approach, like keeping it off wiki. And whatever arbcom's failings, and acknowledging I haven't seen the case instead just looked at the accounts accused, I fail to see why it would be so urgent for a resolution even if you're understandably unhappy about it being nearly 4 months without any visible action. Despite being a BLP hawk, I personally feel it's generally the wrong framework for stuff related to on-wiki handling of an editor's onwiki activity. But in this case, I think it does provide the necessary guidance. Especially since the editor has a family member occasionally active here. I don't think "sorry I accused your deceased sibling, and you, of what I accused them and you of" really cuts it if it turns you're wrong. There is simply no apology that does. Noting even without this, we really have no idea whether or when a family member may check out an editor's talk page, so we always should take the utmost care. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, ArbCom did deal with this, after a very extensive investigation. The issue here is that some people disagree with our decision, and therefore have decided to try and make it public. – bradv^🍁 05:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. In that case there's not much more I can say given there's still a lot which is intentionally not public and I don't feel it's helpful to speculate on the possibilities except: for those who were aware of at least come of the background, I strongly feel making this public on-wiki was the wrong way to handle it whatever you knew or suspected and felt about how things had been handled. (To be clear, this isn't a comment on Risker who while I may not agree with all they've said, I understand is in a difficult position.) In other words, personally I would have preferred to just leave this with whatever arbcom had decided although it seems that may be tricky now. If Kolya Butternut wasn't aware of any of this, my earlier comment IMO still applies but putting aside the human issue, this also demonstrates the risk of their approach namely they've evidently unintentionally opened a large can of worms. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  I provided new evidence of continued socking, and more off-wiki evidence. The past decision was on past evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As one of the accused, I'm putting this here for others' viewing. The one editor above who says the evidence is compelling because of a pile of sources I listed has left me confused. Others talked about listing a pile, but they didn't, so I did, and it's not as big a pile as the piles an editor listed at Talk:Sex and gender distinction. That editor also used colons before presenting their sources, indentation, and bullet points. Our listing of sources don't look like how Flyer22 Frozen usually listed hers. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, defenses like these for sockpuppetry are not meaningful, because by indicating that you know that something was identifying you are also indicating that if you were a sockpuppet you would have changed it. This is, broadly, one reason WP:SPI doesn't require and even sometimes discourages notifications, since outside of rare situations where you shared a computer or connection with someone else or something there is little defense required against an SPI accusation - either the evidence is there or it is not. Most of the time the best thing to do is simply ignore it until / unless you actually get blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty clear based on the diffs and comment presented by Newimpartial in that link what they thought identified the editor as a sock. And it makes sense to note that a sockpuppet would change some aspect of their style so as not to be noticed. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is like an episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order. EEng 03:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: to whom are you referring to in your edit summary? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Ham Burger [256]. For the record: all joking aside, this is very much the sort of thing that needs careful handling, in private (at least until more facts are known). EEng 04:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, pitchforks down, my apologies! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think we have previously afforded WP:BLP protections to editors before; in any case, we should. I can not fathom why anyone would ever do what is being alleged. So, in my opinion, until ArbCom declares that it is true, it is best that these allegations not be aired or discussed in public. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this should be closed and archived at minimum if not revdelled. I also find the suggestion that Flyer22 did such an elaborate scheme with no actual benefit in return deeply implausible. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm with those who support keeping this offwiki for now. While some of the available evidence is on-wiki, it seems some of it must be private. Let's give arbcom a chance, I'm sure once they've reached a conclusion they will make a statement and we can consider what to do on-wiki. I appreciate it sounds like it's been a while since some oddities were first noticed but I assume the length of time without anything is because of the complexity and sensitivity of the case. Notably, in any case based on behavioural evidence, the possibility of some sort of false flag operation is always there. In most cases, the chances of this compared to the greater likelihood of ducks or horses may mean it's not something we worry about a great deal. In this case, either possibility is troubling enough that both seem to be zebras. So really we need that private evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting too that many serial sockmasters considered her their enemy. At least one of them was known to mimic other users, but I forget the name of that one at the moment. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• This should be kept on-wiki and the SPI be restored. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Because ... ? EEng 04:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Because Arbcom has had (almost all of) the evidence for five months? As I have noted elsewhere, my blocks of several of the accounts named in the SPI were done the way Arbcom told me to do them. I get that Arbcom wants to not inflame things, but to be honest I'm not sure being risk-averse to this level is really helpful. It was inevitable that this was going to wind up onwiki at some point; I'm actually kind of surprised it took this long. Risker (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC) NOTE: to be more specific, the SPI doesn't need to be named what it was originally named; it could be named for the first identifiable sock. Risker (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Whether the investigation is private or public, it appears to be time for ArbCom to address this publicly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Given arbcom is in possession of the private information and we are not then they are probably in a better position to decide that than any of us. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  And this is exactly why we should not be doing this on-wiki right now. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I put in my defense above us. Nowearskirts (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• This has gone on far too long and gotten far too out of hand. Kolya_Butternut needs to be blocked, and subjected to both a topic-ban from Flyer22 and an interaction-ban from her brother Halo_Jerk1, to remain in force indefinitely should KB be unblocked. We're deep into harassment territory now and it needs to end immediately.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I still don't want to be "involved", and still don't have a theory of the case. But I'm having trouble holding in the fact that seems obvious to me, that given the knowns and unknowns in this case humanist metaphysics fails as a way of approaching it and leads to entrenched, value-laden positions on "both sides" that don't help understand the situation, much less resolve it. While this is "interesting" as a kind of phenomenological experiment on the editing community, I see a lot of hurt being done, and I really hope ArbCom is able to take measures this time that are based on more modest underlying assumptions and that are more effective in futureproofing the community than what seems to have been done so far. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Let ARBCOM do their work. That they have taken 5 months so far is neither here nor there. Editors need to be patient. The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. Mjroots (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Well, this is upsetting. I gotta admit that it is a bit of a hmm that it's been taking ArbCom 5 months to, what, verify a real person? Are ArbCom that overworked? Do we need for the WMF to hire them professional help of some kind (researchers/investigators)? Was this SPI-leak-of-attention a protest against this delay? Not rhetorical questions. El_C 14:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, looks like a leak-of-attention. El_C 14:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @El C you may be interested in the two short comments bradv has made above as an individual. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, okay, if you see the person Bradv tell him he's not leaving jail, either, alright? El_C 15:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a very serious accusation, one that should be backed with serious evidence. Making the accusation onwiki with no evidence (including if the evidence cannot be provided onwiki) is effectively aspersion-casting, as nobody else can determine the validity of the claims. But if ArbCom has been sitting on it for 5 months, then perhaps a discussion needs to be had about how much of the situation, if any, may be discussed onwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, then could the SPI be reopened so that I may have the opportunity to present select on-wiki evidence to show that the case has merit? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Speaking only for myself: "it" is doing a lot of heavy lifting, in my opinion, in the various places that says ArbCom has been sitting on it. ArbCom received a private SPI and agreed with the evidence that suggested those editors were meat or sock puppets of each other. They got blocked. After a thorough investigation we decided there was insufficient evidence to name a sockmaster. That happened 5 months ago. More recently there was a suggestion of some new sock or meat puppets which has been under discussion. Speaking only for myself it was not, again in my personal opinion, nearly as strong as the evidence we'd received initially. And even more recently, as in basically simultaneous with the public SPI, there was an extensive amount of new evidence sent to us.

Everything about these allegations, whether true or not, to cause real hurt to individual editors and harm to our community. We see that in this very thread. What I have tried to do as an arbitrator with this incident, and what I see my fellow arbitrators trying to do even when we disagree, is uphold community policies around things like SOCK and DOXING while also upholding community norms around things like transparency. As Bradv said above, "ArbCom did deal with this, after a very extensive investigation. The issue here is that some people disagree with our decision, and therefore have decided to try and make it public". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, if I'm following correctly, Bradv is saying that arbcom finished its investigation/made a decision, and that the person(s) who had presented the original evidence didn't agree with that decision. KB is saying there's new evidence, presumably gathered after that decision was made. I'm thinking KB presented that evidence to arbcom, who said, "no, we aren't going to keep opening new investigations every time you find another diff" and KB decided it would be helpful to make this public. And so here we are. —valereee (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As noted above this is basically correct except we are still discussing recent evidence presented to us (which we had communicated to KB) and the most recent evidence came with the decision to go public. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Then this discussion should be closed down and ArbCom left to get on with it. Personally I find this attempt to prove that FF is still alive and faking her death appalling and know that it will be hurtful to her family. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the interpretation provided by DW is far from being the only one that would make new evidence relevant to ArbCom. It is also most certainly not my interpretation of events (which I have formed at a considerable remove). Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

RE: which I have formed at a considerable remove — Eep. Not sure just repeating that is gonna convince folks that this is so. I agree with Doug Weller, btw. If you have further evidence arbcom-en@wikimedia.org is that-a-way. Why is this even being discussed publicly? El_C 18:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, please explain why you didn't send ArbCom the evidence privately seeing as it involves a (presumably) recently-deceased editor? El_C 18:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Just on the questioning of my remove, I'd say that six months of not acting on, and trying not to consciously reflect on, these issues for more than six months counts as considerable remove compared to the statements and actions of others. Of course, perspectives inevitably differ. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The point is that, like Flyer22, your main focus on the project has been largely WP:GENSEX in nature (in the opposite camp, lest we forget), so these qualifications, well, they sort of ring hollow. But sure, whatever, this item is a distraction now, anyway. El_C 18:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, you seem less aware of my months of category-gnoming and listbuilding, quite unrelated to GENSEX, or my work in WP:N policy development, all during the last year. Largely seems yo be doing quite a bit of work for you here. But whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, for some reason, please stop. El_C 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You're planning on giving me an IBAN again? Because the one you gave me last time was not especially merited, as I believe you understood by the time you finally removed it. 19:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

*sigh* El_C 19:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It would also seem ironic to me were I to face sanctions the same week I received more Talk page death threats than ever I have before. But you do you. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, stop tarnishing the legacy of the great Kit Duncan! El_C 19:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm also not Flyer22 Frozen. Do I have to sacrifice my anonymity to prove it? I don't think I look anything like Nowearskirts.[257] I don't think taking an interest in an area Flyer22 Frozen took an interest in and rvting an editor means I should be caught up in this. I can glean she made long posts, and I made a few at a page,[258] but so did EvgFakka, and EvgFakka shares more page history with Flyer22 Frozen at the moment. (I looked when researching these accusations.) Because she was in those areas, EvgFakka and I are going to share page history with her. When I look at the people Kolya Butternut singled out (myself, New Sheriff in Town, Earth's gate, and Nowearskirts),[259][260][261][262] I find the weakest evidence. I can find no evidence. And I assume New Sheriff in Town and Earth's gate were checked back in April. I've also likely been checked by now.

I would suggest someone contact Flyer22 Frozen's brother, but it looks like he saw this coming and has been through the ringer. The posts on his talk page give an indication he was recently trolled and reveal that Flyer22 Frozen had a line of stalkers who followed her to pages.[263] Doing my own research, I now understand why the user who filed the ArbCom case against Flyer22 Frozen posted to my talk page and to Nowearskirts's talk page.[264][265] The people making these claims apparently held a grudge against the deceased party, and I think there's some cause for concern about bad-faith coordination between these parties. From what I glean from the brother's talk page and SMcCandlish's post in this discussion, Crossroads and SMcCandlish know things we don't. The brother brought up Wikipediocracy. If they also investigated this, what happened there? Including me in this report is a severe disservice to me because now I'm under a cloud of unwarranted suspicion and maybe always will be, which looks like the intended result. Please sort it. GBFEE (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Meanwhile at the WPO "lying transphobe Beeblebrox" is being super-trolled. Where's Jake when you need him? El_C 18:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

For anyone doubting that something really weird is going on here, I think GBFEE's above comment should prove it, for reasons that I hope are obvious to anyone who's read their fair share of sockpuppetry denials. I won't speculate as to who exactly is behind their account, but there is a 0% chance that it isn't someone already well-known in the GENSEX topic area.

I think the best thing that could happen right now is for an arb to close this discussion, with the understanding that if ArbCom resolves to not act on the latest round of evidence, there will be a public SPI for anything that can be shown on-wiki—per Risker, not under Flyer22's name, but rather under the name of the oldest known sock. Someone is here to push a vendetta, and something needs to be done about it, whomever they are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no words. So the best thing for me to do is to not defend myself, which was the advice given to Nowearskirts?[266] I spent nearly three hours reviewing what I could, reading up on ArbCom, etc. and etc., before I finally decided to reply. Checking and blocks were brought up for this case. After reviewing what checking meant, I thought it was pertinent to point out that two of the older accounts Kolya Butternut singled out weren't blocked and that, if the replies from two of the ArbCom members is anything to go on, I've also probably been checked. If a check isn't going to clear me, then it would seem the only thing left is for me to hand over my ID. Unless it's absolutely required, I'm not responding in this discussion again. GBFEE (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

If any admin/CU/arb is curious as to why I'm so certain you are a sock of someone, they are welcome to email me. But I doubt I need to spell it out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I do think that since the cat is out of the bag, it would be useful to just have a basic statement of the facts, which seem to be, at this point, roughly - there is (or was, since current sockpuppet investigations are still being investigated) someone socking using Flyer22's editing style, but it is possible, perhaps even probable, that this is a joe-job. Either way, though, we do have a recurring sockpuppet we need to deal with, and regardless of who they are anyone who falls into that sock's editing pattern well enough to be a WP:DUCK needs to be blocked. Given that, I feel like we should have a (much more cautiously-worded) SPI stating these facts, under a different title, so editors know where and how to report sightings of that serial sockpuppet without it devolving into, well, this. It could instruct anyone who finds information about the sockmaster to hand it privately to ArbCom. Then ArbCom can continue to look at whatever evidence is handed to them, if they feel it justifies another look. This seems to me to be what Risker suggested above. Regardless of ArbCom's conclusions on the latter point it is clear at this point that someone is doing something that needs to be shut down - if we assume that it's a joe-job and agree to treat it as one unless ArbCom says otherwise, then that only makes catching the sockpuppet more pressing. Speaking as someone who does edit in this topic area and is therefore likely to run across the sockpuppet eventually if they keep up, I'd prefer to have a more standard way to report them, even if it comes with some warnings about being cautious in terms of not assuming who they are - lacking an SPI casepage is a huge impedance to dealing with a sockpuppet because it makes it harder to track long-term behavioral information, timelines, etc, all of which are key parts of making an SPI case and deciding whether I am convinced enough that someone is a sockpuppet to make such a case in the first place. I've seen huge amounts of time wasted at eg. Race and intelligence dealing with recurring socks and I don't want to find editors wasting similar amounts of time arguing with a sock that may just be here to play us all as part of some ridiculous scheme. --Aquillion (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed and revdeletedd with a very strong warning that continued public discussion will result in site bans - this is not suitable for discussion in public owing to the privacy and outing concerns and should be left to Arbcom and/or T&S.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Question If what Bradv says is correct, and "ArbCom did deal with this, after a very extensive investigation. The issue here is that some people disagree with our decision, and therefore have decided to try and make it public.", why haven't those trying to make it public been blocked yet? Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know about you, but I'm definitely considering it. For better or worse, though, I wanted to give Kolya Butternut a chance to respond to my query first. El_C 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  I feel like I'm getting mixed messages about what I may have done wrong. I feel like I don't know how to defend myself if I am not permitted to discuss even the on-wiki evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The reason you didn't (if so) contact ArbCom privately first was...? The redacted version will do. El_C 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I emailed them the names of two new sockpuppets and asked if they needed more evidence that Flyer22 is alive and socking. They asked me for evidence, and I posted an SPI (of three new-to-me sockpuppets, many new IPs, and the previous alleged sockpuppets) at the same time as emailing them the evidence. I am not aware of on-wiki evidence ever being confidential, but out of an abundance of caution I did not present any publicly, and I wrote that I would let Arbcom decide which evidence in this sensitive case should be made public. Risker said that it was an appropriate SPI.[267] From what ProcrastinatingReader said, it sounds like I should have provided on-wiki evidence. If that was the mistake I can still provide on-wiki evidence to show that the SPI has merit. I'm sorry but I have to step away from the computer. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So, let me get it right: rather than reply to ArbCom's email that requested further evidence, you saw fit to publish said evidence on-wiki. I don't even know what to say to that. El_C 19:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really saying what to do from here, only that one cannot make an allegation, especially of this severity, without evidence. If it's not possible to make it onwiki with evidence (perhaps because giving evidence publicly would violate our policies, such as those on doxing) then the comment can't be made onwiki at all.

You don't necessarily need a master in mind to make an SPI report, and unless you have the evidence to show for it I'd personally not have named a master at all in such a case (unless the nature of the evidence requires it, I suppose, but then you have a conundrum). If you do name one, especially when the master is an editor believed to be deceased and thus unable to defend themselves, you should be very sure of your conclusions, because the implication is that an editor lied about their death (a pretty serious charge if true). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to provide any onwiki evidence when Arbcom just got that evidence and there's good reason to believe it should be private. I have to say it's kind of mind-blowing that anyone would think it was okay to publicly accuse someone of faking their own death in order to sock simply because after arbcom didn't decide in your favor last time. I cannot figure out what made you think it was a good idea to send this to arbcom and SPI simultaneously. —valereee (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point really. At this point, it actually doesn't matter whether the claim in the SPI is true or not, it's the concept of posting it on-wiki that was the issue, which was, at the very least, a monumental act of insensitivity. As Risker said "I am not saying definitively that there is only one answer here, mind you", and she is absolutely right. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment If "gender-related issues" is really this nasty a topic area, perhaps we need to consider an Israel-Palestine General Prohibition on non-ECP editors. Or at least ECP a few foundational terms such as gender. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Support. I do not know enough about this specific case to comment on it - nor do I want to. However, I strongly feel that no -phobic muck has any place on WP unless supported by RS as a named person's opinion. Narky Blert (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As my computer stopped working a short time after opening this thread I have not been able to reply. I saw the SPI notice placed on Flyer 22's talk page and when I checked the report the only on wiki evidence presented was about a block in 2012. IMO the claim as it stood was offensive and amounted to WP:GRAVEDANCING. Considering the situation my responses were more restrained than they might have been. If this happened to any other editor who had been listed as deceased I would do the same out of respect for their memory. As I mentioned if I am wrong (which will be a sick at heart situation) I will most certainly be apologizing to all involved. MarnetteD|Talk 22:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• The committee is preparing a public statement on this matter. This usually takes more than one day, but we are trying to go about it quickly. Please be patient, it's the weekend. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• This certainly gives new meaning to "Flyer22 Reborn", not to mention WP:GRAVEDANCING. Now will someone please close this misbegotten thread, possibly with a tasteful haiku or Burma-shave? It's making my skin crawl. EEng 03:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mundong Earth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Unlinked names without explanation in List of former Star Magic artists. Disruptive edits in Juddha Paolo. Added an image to the article depicting an unknown private person. Already tagged the image for speedy deletion in Commons. Carl Francis (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Averroes 22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Averroes 22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was following a recent discussion in Talk:Armenian genocide#Last edits. I didn't have the time nor the mood to join it, but that besides the point of this report. The user Averroes 22 was arguing with multiple editors for his changes, presumably trying to reach consensus. While arguing, they made some questionable remarks to multiple editors that can be seen as personal attacks:

you look don't understand what "cultural assimilation" [1]

You look don't understand well [2]

You look don't read it well[3]

Besides their perfect understanding of english language, and at the very least uncivil conduct, they also left a threatening message on my talk page, giving me "only two options" 4. Keep in mind, I only reverted their edit in Armenian genocide: Revision history because I saw no clear consensus achieved in the Talk:Armenian genocide#Last edits page. They were also blocked previously for personal attacks Talk:Averroes 22.

The user lacks basic civility when talking to their fellow editors, at times their comments seem to be personal attacks and threats. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You look didn't notice this comment. I didn't say that you have "only" two options, you can ignore my messages if you like, but according to Wikipedia's policy, this is not recommended. You seem to assume me very bad faith, for I have not threatened to hurt anyone if my options are not followed, and I have also vowed not to use these terms that might be misunderstood. --Averroes 22 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, a borderline case, it seems to me. On the one hand, I really don't think those diffs strike me as violations of CIV (and for what it's worth, I think I'm on the more proactive side of the scale regarding perspectives on when to act on violations of that policy). It looks very much to me as if this is a language facility issue: Averroes seems to be basically competent in English, but every other sentence there's a syntactic/morphological construction that goes a little haywire. It seems to me that the above diffs are efforts to say something along the line of "I don't think you read the source correctly" and similar statements, but lacking the ability for social nuance in English, they aren't able to frame those observations in a way that doesn't sound curt, hyper-critical, and maybe even bordering on aggressive. But for all we know, in their first language they may have made these statements perfectly civil. On the other hand, I note that the previous block for incivil behaviour apparently involved talk page content that had to be revdelled, so...

The question of disruption on the topic is equally mixed. Averroes seems to have a fairly decent grasp of (and respect for) policy, and they also aren't pushing an extreme POV on that article (particularly considering the scope of controversy for the topic), but rather are arguing about some nuanced questions. They've been here not quite a year, so they are either a quick study or (I think more likely) a contributor to one of our sister encyclopedias, where policies may not be quite identical--a multiple account situation is another possibility, but I see no evidence of that and there has been no mention of socking or disruption. I personally feel (from this admitedly limited review of their contributions) that they are attempting to contribute in good faith and that there is evidence that they are capable of accepting criticism.

At a minimum, Averroes needs to be reminded that it is not appropriate to restore content to an article while there is an active discussion of the acceptability of that content ongoing on the talk page--that is to say, they need to be advised to review WP:BRD. But I'm not sure more aggressive action is needed here than that. While their conduct is not perfect in every respect, considering the full context, I don't get the impression of a user who is incapable of adjustment, or even one who is especially resistant to advice. I suspect this is mostly a growing pains/language barrier problem, more than anything, and not one which impinges upon basic competency. I'm not sure there is much to do here other than to advise Averroes to take greater caution regarding WP:edit warring and perhaps spend a little more time considering the wording of their interactions such that they don't come off as incivil. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Well, thanks for your comment. But I would like to ask two questions: Have you seen this? And how long should I wait to undo the edits if there is no response on the talk pages, or many of points in the discussion are ignored? --Averroes 22 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a subtle and complicated question. Before I get into the nuances and how they may apply here, I'll list three relevant policies, in case you haven't read any of them: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:DR. Now, how you handle a situation where a discussion had died out without arriving at a firm consensus (and I'm not saying that is the situation here, but starting from that point for arguments sake, sine it seems to be your position) depends on a number of factors. If the consensus was clearly against you, or just leaning against you, you should probably do nothing, or at least wait a while before broaching the subject again. In situations characterized by BRD (that is, where you made an edit and it was reverted) best practice is to leave the older, stable version of the content (or absence thereof) in place, until there is some firmer consensus. In cases of marginal consensus or mixed/no consensus, you might also consider utilizing a dispute resolution process (such as WP:RfC) to gain additional perspectives from the wider community and/or try to find a middle ground among the differing perspectives. You generally shouldn't consider being the last person to comment on the issue to be an indication that you have prevailed: if consensus was against you, this will definetly be perceived as edit warring, and even if consensus was unclear, you generally cannot insist upon your version pending further discussion--no matter how convinced you are that it is the correct one--unless it was the older, stable version.

That last point is particularly important: remember that being convinced you are right (even with regard to a policy argument relating to broad community consensus) and having consensus are not the same thing (WP:CONLEVEL). It's true that local consensus on an article talk page is not determined merely by a headcount of editors supporting one version or another. For example, if an uninvolved editor were to close an RfC on an issue, they wouldn't just count the !votes, but would also consider how the arguments harmonize with policy requirements (a higher level of community consensus). But as a proponent arguing within a dispute, you should never go ahead with applying disputed content unless the discussion has ended in some sort of concrete fashion, with either a formal close in your favour or at least an overwhelming majority endorsing your view once the discussion has petered out. Not everybody has to agree, but there is a significant threshold for declaring consensus. I hope that is helpful: you'll have to forgive me as I am writing this in a hurry as I rush out the door. If anything needs further clarity, don't hesitate to ask a question and I'll respond as soon as possible! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Ok, what should I do if a group of editors are continuing to ignore of many points I make and they using circular argumentation in the talk page, but they insists on undoing my edits for no apparent reason (like this)? --Averroes 22 (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, from that edit summary, it is not clear to me whether the other editor is reverting you merely because they felt your re-introduction was premature with discussion still ongoing (that is, a procedural revert of edit warring) or if they felt this change was inappropriate under policy, given the sourcing and content, or a combination of the two.

However, step back from that edit, I will examine your question in the abstract: that is to say, what should you do when you are convinced that other editors are wrong in their conclusions, but said editors are not willing to engage with you on the matter to your satisfaction? Well, that again depends on the circumstances. In certain contexts, you often just have to let the matter go, at least for a time, particularly if you are supporting a very minority opinion among the editors contributing perspectives to the dispute. But more often, you usually will have at least one community tool available to you for bringing in a broader community analysis. A decent summary of these options can be found at WP:DR. For the type of dispute you are in right now, one option is WP:RfC. You should always try to discuss the matter at length on the talk page first, but if discussion grinds to a halt and editors are still at a loggerheads (meaning, unable to come to an agreement or move past a particular point), RfC can bring in additional perspectives by inviting in other community members who will either break the deadlock or maybe even suggest a middle ground or alternative approach.

But whatever process you use, you'll need to learn to recognize a lost cause and just let some things go. Don't keep pressing the issues across every space or process you can find, or you may find yourself running afoul of our WP:FORUMSHOPPING or even WP:Tendentious editing policies. If nothing else, trying every possible angle before you accept that you just aren't going to win a the day on a given argument will get you a reputation for being unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK. It is simply the nature of the beast that you will sometimes have to accept consensus going a different way now and again, despite being thoroughly convinced you have made the right call. Even the most experienced editor who knows this project and it's policies inside out, who is contributing in areas in which they have detailed and nuanced understanding of the facts and the sources, and is a brilliant rhetorician/communicator would still have to concede some point or another here regularly. Editors who cannot internalize this fact will simply end up here on this noticeboard over and over again until the community removes them from the areas they can't collaborate in (or from the project altogether)--or else, an admin just blocks them independently. This is very much a "you win some, you lose some" sort of place, and the editors who end up having the most stamina for the duration are those who recognize that early on and do not attempt to die on every hill (that's an English metaphor about picking your battles/figuring out when is the time to let things go).

By the way, if you do use an RfC here, be sure to read the policy carefully, especially the part about neutrally wording the question. If you need help formatting an RfC/wording the inquiry, please let me know and I will be happy to help. Mind you, as per the previous paragraph, I'm not saying it's necesarily the way to go here--you need to look at the situation, decide how much you feel this one edit needs to occur, calculate how realistic you think your chances are, based on feedback so far, be honest with yourself about whether the RfC would be more helpful than disruptive, and then make your call balancing all of those factors. But whenever you do make your first effort at RfC (or any other WP:DR process) and need any further advice on how to do it as neutrally and appropriately as possible, you can feel free to message me for advice: consider this an open offer. You can also ask for similar advice from the WP:TEAHOUSE and/or at WT:RfC. Best of luck to you, whatever you choose to do from here. And remember: for virtually everything here WP:THEREISNORUSH: it's more important to take things slow and build support and make it clear you are willing to discuss in a civil and calm fashion. Believe me, it will pay off. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Ok, thanks for response, but you look didn't understand what I mean. That revert occurred before the discussion began on the talk page. In the summary of the previous edit, I asked the person who reverted my edit to explain to me what exactly the problem was on the talk page, and then I surprised by this revert with that strange edit summary. Sure, I'm willing to concede a point, but I want a clear reason, why should I concede it? I can't concede it just because it doesn't agree with the personal opinions of a tag team. And I want to add an information, not everyone disagrees with me, there is another editor who agrees with me [268]. --Averroes 22 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

But you see, you introduced the change to the standing version of the article here. That makes you the "bold" editor in terms of WP:BRD (bold -> revert -> discuss). Once someone (DrVogel) had reverted you, whether you liked their explanation or not, the WP:ONUS (burden) was on you to gain consensus before reintroducing that change. Reverting the revert, as you did, before securing that consensus, was therefore edit warring, and it was appropriate for the third party (Kevo327) to re-revert you, even with an edit summary that made no reference to the underlying content dispute. Does that make sense? This process can feel a little non-intuitive (complicated/not obvious) at first. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: This is my first revert, not this. Where is the Wikipedia policy which said that a third party should revert the edit warring edits?!! Of course, this is don't make sense at all. You cannot solve an edit warring by another edit warring. --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"This is my first revert, not this"

Correct. You introduced an edit. That edit was contested, and reverted. You should have then gone to discuss the contested edit (on the talk page, not in edit summaries) and only re-introduced it after gaining consensus for it. WP:BRD; WP:ONUS.

"Where is the Wikipedia policy which said that a third party should revert the edit warring edits?!!"

Well, that's not exactly what I said though. Technically editors are advised that it's not necessarily the best move to revert an edit that is itself the first step in an edit war. But it all comes down to context, and I can tell you that it's beyond unlikely that your average editor would find fault or disruption in Kevo's revert there. But my main point was that they didn't revert you without an explanation: it's just that their reason didn't pertain to the content question, but rather a procedural one: basically "this edit is contested; you need to gain consensus before adding it again", which they expressed (perhaps suboptimally, I will grant you) as "stop edit warring". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Averroes 22, you mentioned a tag team. Who are you referring to? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Averroes 22, I don't think that you have been intentionally being rude - quite confrontational, but not uncivil to the point of requiring administrative intervention. The tag teaming accusation is a problem though - just because there are multiple people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are coordinating their actions - it might just be that you are wrong. It's an accusation of an abuse of process - if you don't intend to provide evidence for it, you should strike it, because casting aspersions is actionable.

I also think that you have a shaky grasp on what constitutes a reliable source. You have understood that self-published sources are not reliable, which is good, but you should not be describing peer-reviewed academic journals as 'self-published sources'. You gave a couple of links to the pages of Science Direct on that talk page (this and this.) Those pages set out explicitly that Science Direct accept press releases from universities and the like, and that they republish them with only a light copy edit. That is a very different thing from a peer-reviewed academic journal, which accepts research papers from academics, and sends them to other academics for comment. Those academics may reject the paper, or they may suggest areas that need to be improved prior to acceptance. They're not the same sort of thing at all: you need to accept that. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Science Direct??!! LOL. You seem to copy the comments by Firefangledfeathers, even his misspellings. You can see my responses on Talk:Armenian genocide. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should reply if you have a specific thing in mind, just maybe. And not waste everyones time, directing editors to certain pages. We aren't suppose to dig up your responses and assume which one you mean by "just look at this talk page LOL". Also, what's funny about asking a question? You really should elaborate next time instead of unhelpful comments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you elaborate on your "tag team" accusations, as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and ZaniGiovanni: Hi again, if you insist, I will explain again. So do you think that the already peer-reviewed academic research will no longer be academic because a public information officer who published these academic research? Also, why are you questioning the public information officer and not the academics? What if academics aren't really academics? Or if they have prejudices in certain topics? --Averroes 22 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A number of editors have tried to explain this point – let me see if I can clarify by wording the explanation differently. Science Daily does not publish academic research. It publishes press releases about academic research. Those are different things, in the same way that, say, a publisher's advertisment for a book is a different thing to the book itself. A publisher's advert for a book would not be a reliable source, whereas the book itself might be. Science Daily publishes, in effect, universities' advertisments for research papers. As such, its articles are not reliable sources. Wham2001 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22: I don't want this point to get lost amongst the other, also important, avenues of discussion. You mentioned tag-teaming above, and described tag-teaming behavior in this comment at ZG's user talk page. You also edited a policy page to link to WP:TAGTEAM in the midst of this dispute. Three users, including me, have asked for an explanation. My first hope is that you will strike your comments. Failing that, can you please clarify who has been tag-teaming and indicate what evidence you have of that misconduct? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I was explaining why evidence and arguments are more important than number, but I didn't accuse you specifically. I wanna ask, how did you notice my edit in the policy page, was you hounding me? --Averroes 22 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I do feel comforted knowing that you aren't accusing me of tag-teaming, so thank you for clarifying. I hope to extend that comfort to the other users involved. Is it true that you are not accusing anyone tag-teaming?

I did look through your recent contributions to see if you repeated your tag-team comments in other venues. I don't believe that to be hounding. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

simply because any person can bring with him other like-minded people and ask them to support his side in the discussion. diff

Averroes22's explanations and justifications are starting to get repetitive. Every time they're confronted about their questionable comments, they seem to not have a definitive answer. I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that saying "any person can bring with him other like-minded people and ask them to support his side in the discussion" to be just saying "arguments are more important than number". You were already implying that some or one of us presumably has brought like minded people to support their side, which is an attempt by you to hint at tag-teaming or canvassing. And please, read what WP:HOUNDING is before asking ridiculous questions. You're being reported in ANI, it's natural that most editors would probably check your recent contributions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Averroes 22 The question of whether it's called Science Daily, Science Direct or whatever is irrelevant. The point is that press releases are very different from academic research. I don't want to be disparaging, but the fact that I am having to explain this to you does tell me that there is a lack of understanding on your part on how academic research works. Academics produce research, which their peers evaluate, and once everyone is clear that it is valid, it gets published in journals or monographs. Those are reliable sources. University PR departments then write puffed up press releases about the significance of the findings, stressing how important and original it is, to catch the media's attention. They don't lie exactly, but their purpose is to promote the institution not to present findings neutrally, and they tend to simplify things and omit nuance because of the audience they are trying to attract. They are not reliable sources, and I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you.

Now, to the tag-teaming accusations. I'll make this simple: either strike out those accusations, or be clear about who you are talking about and provide evidence, or I will block your account from editing. You may not cast aspersions of that nature here. Let me know if you have any questions about what I've just said. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, GS, that was an ec. —valereee (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Averroes 22, you've been blocked multiple times, including for making personal attacks, and you've been asked multiple times to explain your accusations of tag-teaming, which without evidence is a personal attack. Please explain what you are referring to and show us this tag-teaming. —valereee (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Well, thanks for your effort to explain it to me. but I also have a question. You look have mistaken, the ScienceDaily is publishing the reports by public information officer, not "PR departments" (please read this again). After I read public information officer (who known also as "spokesperson") article, the PIO (spokesperson) he's supposed to be officially appointed by the university or any other thing he works for, so why do you think he might lie? --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Averroes 22 They aren't "lying". They are slanting the announcement to make their institution look good. That is what public relations departments do. We do not consider press releases to be reliable sources, and if you can't understand that, you shouldn't be editing. —valereee (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Averroes 22 asked at RSN whether ScienceDaily was a reliable source and was told "no" a week ago. I also said as much at Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry, with a pointer to churnalism. It's the job of university "public information" people to make their employers look good, and ScienceDaily circulates what those people put out. Many other websites do the same. None of them count as reliable, independent sources, because they're all just repackaging what they're given for clicks. This point has been explained enough times, I have to wonder if not getting it is willful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Averroes 22, 'PR' is an abbreviation of 'Public Relations': a 'public information officer' is another name for someone who works in that role. 'Spokesperson' is another such name. I have not said that such people lie; I explicitly said that what they do isn't lying, but it serves a different purpose than the work produced by the academics. Academics produce research; PR teams publicise universities. They report on the same basic information, but they do it in very different ways. Now, I have lost count of the number of people who have told you this: please just accept it. I don't like linking to ALL-CAPS jargon, but WP:IDHT is worth reading. Keep this up and you may very well be blocked as a time-sink. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. This is a time-sink. Blocked one month. —valereee (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blockhaj making rude edit comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blockhaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) swore in this edit comment, and their next one is little better. I reverted the edits anyway, but should/could they be deleted so that the swearing disappears? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Where is the swearing? —El Millo (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo - Steelpillow is referring to the edit summary that was left in their first diff. I don't see where any foul language occurred in the second diff they provided. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I know, I just saw no swearing in that and was hoping the OP clarified what word/s they were specifically referring to. —El Millo (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, the OP is probably offended at the use of the term "Jesus Christ" in the edit summary. While this language may be offensive to some people, it does not justify revdel, nor any other sort of admin action. As for the second one, I'm honestly not sure what the OP's complaint is; it's mildly sarcastic, I guess, but that's it. Maybe the OP dislikes the flippant usage of the term "heart attack"? I don't know. Regardless, there's nothing actionable here. Mlb96 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The edit summaries could be seen as offensive to some people, but they do not qualify for revision deletion under the guidelines. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, if you guys say that what was said is not swearing or overly offensive, this can be closed. (FWIW, all my life invoking Divinity in the context of such negative emotional outbursts has been known as swearing. My dictionary includes in its definition "... an oath or a curse or bad language generally." Every forum I have ever been on regards it as unacceptable language, see also the article on profanity. I guess you Admins beg to differ.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The threshold for revision deletion is very high. It's generally only used for copyright violations, severe BLP violations, posting of personal information, and the absolute most egregiously offensive language (i.e., slurs). Mere profanity does not meet that standard; in fact, there is profanity on this very page (the word "fuck" appears six times, for instance). Mlb96 (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for revdel once (and got it). An editor had called me the C-word. My skin is thick enough to ignore that - but it was by a second editor on a third editor's TP, and I thought that crossed a line.

One of the peculiarities of the English language is the use of the F-word as a euphemism for the Deity (in FFS). Bloody, a common mild expletive in many dialects of English, was at one time considered grossly offensive. IMO, it's the plain intention in an ES which matters. There's a difference between a forceful opinion and a deliberate insult. Narky Blert (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

68.193.199.8 Attack other users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reverted his edits and then he wants to attack Me, Mvcg66b3r,   melecie   , BlueboyLINY, LooneyTraceYT, Tvstationfan101, and now  Kylo Ren III  ClueBot NG, and DaxServer. Screams in my pillow. Frank^T•C 18:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Think we may have conflicted there in regards to revdel! Apologies ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Sorry about that! I just ran across that IP editor in my watchlist and saw the edits in their contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Olden Creed and persistent disruption

Olden Creed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing infrequently for around two years now and still doesn't appear to understand basic policies. They have been made aware of discretionary sanctions, been advised and warned numerous times, but with no changes in behavior or any communication beyond edit summaries. Most of their edits involve spamming inappropriate categories they create across articles and adding poorly sourced material, much of which is a product of original research and soapboxing, along with edit warring over them and inappropriate use of edit summaries. Diffs of some recent examples are as follows:

• Special:diff/990998797 Removal of "paramilitary" sourced to multiple academic sources on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh along with addition of unsourced material. Edit marked as minor.
• Special:diff/991776124 Restoration of the above. Edit summary, "you can't just delete material without first discussing it on the talk page". Followed by addition of an unsourced line in Special:diff/991776513.
• Special:diff/1023184455 Creation and addition of "Lutyens media" to the article of The Hindu, the addition is repeated on several other pages. The category had to be deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 14. From the appearance of their talk page this isn't the first time.
• Special:diff/1037839484 Addition on same page as first diff, partly unsourced and rest sourced to to an unreliable source (WP:IBTIMES) for an extraordinary claim.
• Special:diff/1037840611 Restoration of the same, plus another unsourced line. They also claim in the edit summary that they have added another source but they haven't.
• Special:diff/1037842814 Restoration of the same.
• Special:diff/1037844692 Addition on an unsourced line on another article.
• etc, etc.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Olden's userpage was created by a sockmaster named Tubslubeamorepersempre (I am not saying this is definitely a sockpuppet, it's just not very common for someone else (let alone a blocked editor) to create an editor's userpage, so it may be worth checking for behaviour-related links just in case), and Olden has called one of TA's edits as vandalism (which equates not assuming good faith IMO). I have nothing else to say about this. Tube·of·Light 05:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic banned. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP help at Leandro Campaz

I've requested page protection and reverted to a recent, more stable version, but the mass disruption goes back weeks. I can't tell good edits from bad at this point. More eyes, and perhaps some knowledge of the sport, would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ve flagged this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you, Malcolmxl5. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The article's sorted now. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I knew it looked weird when I protected it. And yet... El_C 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nonetheless, I'll have to put this in your quarterly performance review, El_C. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, there's a reason why the WMF only pays me in hugs and kisses — behold my cover letter! El_C 02:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My lord, where do you find this stuff? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, my brain has become too plump for my skull! El_C 02:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User threatening legal action

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sabarikarthik1991 is threatening legal action against another user Lanious in Maravar. [269] Removed neutral content and restored caste glorification content. Calls other person lower caste also. Continuing to remove neutral history from very reliable sources and writes caste glorification without any reason.[270] 2409:4072:6E86:92D9:97EF:C150:3123:B856 (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• IP, you are required to notify an editor when you start a thread about them here. I have done so for you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NLT is very clear on this, and the threat is also very clear in that edit summary. User:Sabarikarthik1991 please withdraw that legal threat or you will be blocked until you do. WaggersTALK 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2409:4072:6E86:92D9:97EF:C150:3123:B856 is clearly making misleading statements and making false accusations. There was no mention of "lower caste" in any of the edit comments I had made. If the user believes himself or herself as lower caste, the blame does not lay on others. In fact, User:2409:4072:6E86:92D9:97EF:C150:3123:B856 and Lanious are inciting caste hatred and demeaning a particular caste Maravar repeatedly. The users must stop propagating caste based hatred and caste based slurs on Maravar which are against Wikipedia's non-discrimination policy [271]. I can withdraw the threat of legal action if there are actions made to stop Lanious and IP User:2409:4072:6E86:92D9:97EF:C150:3123:B856 from making further edits on Maravar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabarikarthik1991 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who are you and warring you

Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rahil mirza9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Akhtar Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following a long standing and much discussed image dispute over at image at Akhtar Raza Khan, Rahil mirza9 wrote following my issuing a disruptive warning against them: Who are you why you are uploading the photo of Akhtar Raza photo is not allowed in Islam I am warring you for the 1st and last time you don't upload the photo upload the Taj pic of Akhtar Raza not a photo. Upon that warring/warning I have decided expedient to revert my final change of that image to bring the matter here. I invite Rahil mirza9, or any member of the community, to suggest any topic ban or other block the community may care to issue against myself over this matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have given a discretionary sanction notice to this user covering the topic of India broadly construed. I have also informed then that we are not censored, and not subject to the rules of Islam. I have let them know that giving such warnings(I am assuming they meant warnings not warrings) or demanding that others follow the rules of Islam is disruptive and can result in a ban from the topic area or a block on their account.

I suggest we wait and see how they respond. I believe it goes without saying that you don't have to obey their religious demands. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime I have restored the image by backing out Djm-leighpark's self revert. There is no reason to wait on that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's significant sock and meatpuppetry in the Barelvi area. One (now indef blocked) editor has been canvassing on and off Wiki to push an agenda. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScholarM for some info. I can't say whether this is linked or not, but the account was created after the indef block. —SpacemanSpiff 05:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) If Wikipedia truly is to be The Free Encyclopedia then our stance against censorship needs to be absolute. We cannot make exceptions for any reason, even when that reason is a religious rule. If warring continues I would suggest applying WP:ABAN excluding talk (no edits to the article talk so far) for Rahil mirza9, unless there are specific reasons to suspect a wider ban is appropriate or the same behavior persists elsewhere after an ABAN. MrPorpoise (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:HanKim20

• HanKim20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The account has made several disruptive of * Hanfu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) this month, and the modified content is completely wrong and distorts historical facts(e.g.:[[272]][[273]][[274]]) He edited "that Chinese lost their original type of this Han clothing because Mao Zedong burned every cultural heritage in 1966.5.16 called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. So Chinese made imaginary shape of hanfu in 2000s. But these days, Chinese argue that modern hanfu is actual traditional clothing of Han dynasty. However, it is not." is clearly making misleading statements. Once it is found to be corrected, it will be tampered with by him, which will have a bad impact on users browsing this entry and make people understand the history of errors. Percy233 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• 61.85.198.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP belongs to the account HanKim20. Percy233 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A bock is needed here.

Zamro waro

User talk:Zamro waro has a long list of notifications of draftification of articles which were obviously unit for mainspace. The use is now recreating the articles again, yet again blatantly unfit for mainspace (and in such case I can't draftify them again as the existing drafts are preventing the move). In other cases the user has moved draftified articles back to mainspace without any attempt to improve, such as Draft:Minerals in Pakistan and Draft:Current Muslim liberation movements. There may be language competence issues, or it may be a simple case of tendentious editing or WP:CIR. In any case, the user has not responded to the advice which has been given, is not improving the encyclopedia, and is wasting other editors' time trying to clean up after him, so a block appears necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In Draft:Minerals in Pakistan, the reason given for the abundance of minerals in Pakistan, gold in particular, might be considered controversial. Narky Blert (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that one needs a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

An independent reliable source. Narky Blert (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Placing CSD notices on Muhacir, Niazi and Hamza Ali Abbasi, and the CSD notice on and page move of Alizeh Shah are also causes for concern. Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Also concerning is that Draft:Current Muslim liberation movements contains the statements that "Israel has recently resorted to new atrocities against the Palestinians" and that "Israel is trying to erase the name of Palestine" (with no sourcing, of course). Neiltonks (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The lede of that draft gives me little cause for optimism. "There are as many free and independent countries as there are in the Islamic world. There are even more non-free Muslim regions that are forced to live under slavery. [...] And this stance clearly states that it is their right to unite the Muslim-majority areas into one independent Muslim state. Islam is a complete code of conduct. From life to death, a Muslim lives according to the teachings and principles of Islam. In a foreign country where religion and society are based on separate traditions, it is not possible for Muslims to live their lives according to the rules of religion. Because the government, religion and people there consider these rituals and customs as useless, unnecessary and hinder them and impose restrictions on their payment. In the same way, religiously, they remain compelled and subjugated." Narky Blert (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Single-purpose promotional account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Arpit.sachanh is a single-purpose promotional account. They have been editing since 2019, but have not been noticed yet. The account promotes the company RIMSc Academy, whose article they recently created but was speedily deleted. My reports on this user at AIV have been removed as stale twice. WIKINIGHTS _talk 23:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Evidence: inserting link to own website diff, userpage makes it clear that they intend to promote a company (permalink). WIKINIGHTS _talk 23:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misogynistic edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this IP has been making numerous edits and leaving edit summaries in Spanish that are grossly misogynistic and worse. They were previously asked not to leave edit summaries in Spanish, but apparently they think they are funny. They also blanked another IPs talk page, so maybe they are a sockpuppet. Can someone please investigate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is a dynamic IP address geolocating to Concepción, Chile. They also made several insulting edit summaries in Belarusian: [275] and [276], and then a Spanish-language insult at [277]. I have also CSD'd User talk:2A02:C7F:8FAC:A600:54D7:42AF:719D:9812, where they left another misogynistic Spanish-langauge rant and then blanked the page. Recommend block and RD2 for all edit summaries by this user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Usedtobecool

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He's thinking himself to be superior editor of wikiproject Nepal. He deleted content of Kingdom of Nepal to create a redirect without any concensus. Its not enough, everytime he makes numerous changes on articles and reverts factual data. I feel he follows any political point of view. His contributions and logs prove this. These should be identified in detail. It's much, he feels he can do anything due to previlages he has got and his experience. Please, take action on him. Wikipedia should be bully fair without biased point of view. Hope, truth wins.Curious km (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Curious km: I have oversighted the previous revision, as it revealed your IP address. No meaningful context has been removed, and this is a specifically noted legitimate use of the oversight function. No comment in regards to the above complaint. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Curious km: RE: His contributions and logs prove this — that is not proof. Proof should be submitted in the form of diffs. Thanks. El_C 19:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

this appears to be the edit in question, which Curious km has now reverted. It appears to be a question of Nepal vs Kingdom of Nepal. Not being fully educated on such things, I'd suggest a WP:RfC on a merge of the two - unless they are two completely different countries. — Ched (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, but why is it here at ANI? That's what I don't understand. Usedtobecool made a WP:BOLD edit (diff), Curious km reverted (diff of current version). That's it. Usedtobecool has observed the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. They have engaged the article talk page (here). At a glance, this looks like a bogus complaint, with some un-evidenced WP:ASPERSIONS sprinkled on top. El_C 19:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I started the talk page discussion three days before redirecting the article. Since no one had responded, and since the article had obviously turned into that mess over time (2002 revision), I thought a BOLD action might save time. Neither WP:ATD-R nor WP:BLAR discourage making a bold redirect.

I was happy to ignore this, but this editor's POV-pushing has started to actively interfere with my work.[278][279][280] This is completely unacceptable. They obviously went to the article with the object of interfering with my work, as it happened right after I mentioned the article on my talk page[281] and now they've left me this message. Please make sure they commit to leaving their politics out of Wikipedia. I am going to bed now, but I will present a full history of this editor's POV disruption tomorrow, if required. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed. Usedtobecool has not done anything that warrants an ANI report. The user did raise the issue on the talk page [282] and waited three days (no other comments) before redirecting. The edit was undone a day later by Curious km, and is now being discussed on the talk page. I see no valid reason for Curious km to have brought this to ANI just hours after undoing the redirect. Meters (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, see Usedtobecool writes much with a Maoist favour. See his recent contribution in 2004 Beni attack proves this. He makes many articles related to Maoists. I believe it's not bad to follow an ideology. Promoting it on Wiki is totally wrong.[283] In recent article, 2004 Beni attack he included the facts never published anywhere. It's known only to onces involved in this. Maoist are the cause of removal of monarch in Nepal. There are many other parties in Nepal. I can't sum all of them here but see clearly his contributions to prove his connection with maoist ideology, party members and incidents.[284][285][286][287][288] Yes, see his contributions on article KP Sharma Oli when there was dispute between Maoists and him.[289] I also request the deletion of article 2004 Beni attack. It lacks inline citation with major events listed. Monarchy was removed in 2008. It became of no use and how come 2004 Beni attack be a fruitful article for Wikipedia? Is it written in encyclopedic tone/language? These all prove the behaviour of editor. He always uses his knowledge and experience on Wikipedia to make wrong doing on Wikipedia.Curious km (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Curious km, why are you still presenting assertions that are un-evidenced (again, diffs, please) as if it is actual evidence. It is not. No evidence = no proof (a tautology). You are casting aspersions, even after I warned you against doing so. Please stop doing that. This is a volunteer project, we are not to gather evidence for you. Rather, you are the one expected to compile and summarize it to back up your claims. The principle of WP:BURDEN that governs submissions in the main article space, is also one that is required elsewhere on the project, including for claims of editorial misconduct. El_C 20:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Noting that the diffs were added after El C's reply; this kind of refactoring is common with Curious' posts, which should be read diff by diff. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Curious km blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I wrote a lot of stuff — yay! El_C 00:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Sad but well deserved at this point. Hope this does not put me off assuming good faith and trying to help new editors in the future. I had thought this editor could be an asset if I could get them to keep their bias in check. But I did not foresee their obvious COI with Ainaa (TV program) putting me in their crosshairs so squarely for simply pointing out that it was related to Draft:Bishwa Prakash Sharma. I will note here for the record that, this editor has edited from, based on the overlap at Draft:Bishwa Prakash Sharma, Ainaa (TV program), Bimalendra Nidhi, Draft:List of democratic parties in Nepal, Nepali Congress, KP Sharma Oli and Third Oli cabinet, and behavioural pattern, at least the following:

• Special:Contributions/103.10.29.66
• Special:Contributions/110.44.124.174
• Special:Contributions/43.245.87.217
• Special:Contributions/43.245.86.21
• Special:Contributions/110.44.124.164
• Special:Contributions/202.51.76.34
• Special:Contributions/103.10.29.85, who created another bogus ANI report on Yeti Dai
• Special:Contributions/110.44.121.41
• Special:Contributions/43.245.86.39
• Special:Contributions/110.44.124.182
• Special:Contributions/43.245.86.49

Not looking for confirmation, obviously, which is not needed anyway. But I hope these can be blocked. If not, I would ask that admins reviewing future unblock requests take this into account. If left unblocked, I will just have to create an SPI next time they edit, which is no problem. My thanks to @Bbb23, El C, Ched, and Meters:, and kind regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone for the triple ping. The reply tool kept saying it had failed to post. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, activity from these IPs is at this time Stale. El_C 03:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C,@ meaning that they haven't edited after the account was blocked or ...? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C,@User:Ched, @User:Nirmaljoshi, @User:Yeti Dai, @Bada Kaji, @User:CentreLeftRight, @User:SunDawn, @User:Nepalaya001, @User:Dimadick, @User:Chipmunkdavis, @User:Bbb23 Thus is my last edit to Wikipedia. Keep my words, this user:Usedtobecool will destroy wikiproject Nepal misusing his knowledge on Wikipedia. How come [290],[291] be notable without reference where this editor is main contributor? Where did these informations come from? Where are reference? Would Wikipedia allow others doing similarly? I had references for Ainaa (TV program) still you deleted it! Very good. How's 2004 Beni attack notable? He's not getting reference from months and with insufficient references, it's published in mainspace. How can People's Liberation Army and Nepal Army coexist in same country? Does any country have two armies? Please see recent contribution of this user![292] I had made this change to remove confusion of two army in same country. This article lacks dissolution date while it's dissolved. Not only me, other users also want major change in this article who is major contributor to Wikiproject Nepal.[293] You all blocked be and dumped my contributions. It's ok! May peace leave on Wikipedia and Nepal. I always played for peace and non biaseness on Wiki. See these before you all make an image of me in your mind, [294], [295], [296], [297], [298]. Do you still not regret blocking me as sock poppet? Rpthanks for blocking me before I could bring more evidence. Seriously, I won't defend myself to get unblocked. My last decision.110.44.115.209 (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Amazing how many edits you made after this, your last edit. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• El C How is this even sockpuppetry? The accounts weren't used in an overlapping time frame, and it's patently obvious from the usernames it's not an attempt at being covert. I'm also not sure about blocking a user and then deleting their pages per G5 (doesn't that criterion require the user be evading a block at the time of edit; per the three block logs, I don't see which block was being evaded [299][300][301])? The 'socking' justification isn't obvious, although reading the above I suspect there is no great loss. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  Also ping blocking/deleting admin Bbb23 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) ProcrastinatingReader, there's been generally an increase in disruption to Nepali topics lately, so indeed, these semantics seem a bit on the meh side. But, my summary just stated that salient fact: that there has been a block with the reasoning provided being "socking," by Bbb23 (un-pinged). Feel free to archive this part now, or query him further about that, I guess. Up to you. Post-ec addendum: ah, I see it's gonna be a thing. Okay! El_C 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• The three accounts are socks. The fact that they are serial doesn't change that. They are disruptive, they edit in the same areas, they edit in the same fashion, they fit all the criteria of socks. Nor does the fact that their usernames are similar change that; many socks use similar usernames despite the red flag it raises. In this instance, if they were so successful in not avoiding scrutiny, why did no one find them except me (I was definitely looking)? The three accounts followed a distinct pattern. They edited disruptively, things didn't go their way, so they "retired". Then later they created another account and did the same thing. The last account hadn't reached that point yet. Also, the second account was actually indeffed by HighInBC on June 27 for "harassment in form of threats, and disruptive editing". Two days later, in an apparent moment of misplaced kindness, HighInBC unblocked because "User has promised not to engage in pointy page moves and to avoid being excessively hostile to other users(even vandals). They also recognize it is not acceptable to pretent they know a logged in users IP". Later the same day they were unblocked, the user asked that their userpage be deleted, while at the same time slapping a Retired template on it, and in their edit summary saying "User died". An admin removed the speedy tag and some userboxes that were invalid. Yet another admin removed a userbox where the user falsely claimed to be a New page reviewer. The user replaced some of the admin-removed userboxes, including one that says the user ranks #1 in article creation. Nothing happened after that except my tagging the page "now". If you want diffs for everything I've just said, you're welcome to dredge them up. I've already spent too much time justifying blocks of a very disruptive individual who's used at least three accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• The basis for that unblock was that I thought perhaps the threat "I have catched your IP and its traced" was the user not knowing the correct terminology to say that they have referred the user to a checkuser and admin. In hindsight the user was not making an innocent error. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• • The fact that they are serial doesn't change that. Editors are not allowed to abandon accounts and start new ones? The three accounts followed a distinct pattern. They edited disruptively, things didn't go their way, so they "retired". Then later they created another account and did the same thing. The last account hadn't reached that point yet. The "distinct pattern" is based on two instances? Can you also address why you're reverting these editors with "rv sock" edit summary, given the editors were not evading a ban or block when the edits were made? Levivich 19:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

    Even if they were socks, I don't see how that lets one G5 their articles/other pages[302], because they weren't blocked at the time of creating those pages. It seems like a disruptive editing block combined with IAR page deletions, which perhaps is reasonable but then call it what it is, not a 'sock block' + G5. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

    I agree with this part. It was an unintentional mistake. In my head (not a pretty place), I thought the second account was in fact blocked, even though they had been unblocked. I am not going to do a wholesale restore of the deleted pages, but if anyone requests a restore, assuming it could not have been speedied for other reasons, e.g., Draft:Sano Paila, which could have been deleted per WP:G3, I will do it. Please don't request a restore purely for procedural reasons. Also, any administrator can undo my delete if they wish. I don't recall doing any "rv sock" edits, but if any editor agrees with the sock's edit, they may revert me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23, El C, and Canterbury Tail: The editor is back with another IP Special:Contributions/103.10.31.57 [303] [304]. I have no comment whether the block was appropriate, but if the editor does not wish to appeal as they have stated in their posts, then they should not be questioning the deletions on ANI or editor's talk pages and should definitely not be continuing to edit in the dispute area of the encyclopaedia. Other editors in good standing are free to discuss the appropriateness of such deletions but not them. If they wish to query their block, they are free to do so, but should do it on one of their talk pages. They are free to ask for editors to post here as always although it doesn't seem necessary this could be dealt with via a normal unblock request, don't see why we need an ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  BTW, I've reverted most of the latest IP's contributions except to user talk pages. As I said, the editor can appeal and then edit if this is granted or not appeal and stop editing. Especially since the blocks are recent, it's ridiculous for them to suggest some other option. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh there's also Special:Contributions/110.44.121.23 [305] (see [306]). While the editor started editing with the above IP soon after, I'm not sure if this IP is stale given that they seemed to edit with it 2 days ago in between edited with the 110.44.115.209 above. Note I also reverted the edits from today from this IP but not the edits from 2 days ago given that it doesn't seem these were block evasion per the discussion above. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 11:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)