Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia


24 people in discussion

Article Images
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

    Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case ("[TRM] is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction [1], but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.
    Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Sayeth Ritchie333:
    One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.
    EEng 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I've dropped a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. I am also of the opinion that MOS wars are largely pointless and have no opinion on the underlying matter, but repeatedly calling another user a lying son of a bitch (even if you use "SOB") is just not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    @Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Copy-editing as a battleground

    While The Rambling Man was clearly being an ass on Autodidact1's talk page, trying (successfully) to provoke a reaction, Autodidact1 has editing problems of their own, as a skim through their contributions shows:

    According to Autodidact1:

    Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness, Autodidact1, it's a way to clarify communication and presentation of ideas.

    (I know it's not within this noticeboard's remit, but I wish it were possible to ban Autodidact1 from constantly misusing "[sic]".) --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I was not being an ass
    Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?
    I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it
    It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.
    (good personal attack though!)
    Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Wikipedia, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    AKA Personal attack. So you think an accurate description of you is a personal attack. huh? Sounds like you could use a little self-perspective. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It's a personal attack. Obviously. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That's a strange new meaning of "obviously" I was previously unaware of. Your eccentric definition might explain your blathering on about "obvious" errors on User talk:Autodidact1. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Are you still here? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    ===proposed: Autodidact1 may not make edits against the MOS===

    Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If, at this late date, you still think your edits don't change facts or introduce errors[sic], then there may be a WP:CIR block in your very near future.[sic] I suggest you move quickly to show that you recognize where you messed up article facts.[sic] (Hint: It's explained in this thread.[sic]) EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [sic].Reply
    • The problem with "may not make edits against the MOS" is that no one on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) has absorbed all of MOS -- it's beyond human capability, so there would need to be a warning issued for each new kind of transgression. I think Mr. Pizza's idea is better, though I fear it may be overbroad. A third formulation to consider might be Autodidact1 needs to cut out the half-baked pedantry. EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Valid point. Maybe just a warning for disruptive editing, along with an explanation that introducing error in an attempt to "fix" what isn't broken is disruptive. At this point I think we could give an only warning, as Autodidact1 seems to be rejecting the notion that this introduced error. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Ironically, all those giving me a hard time on this fail to note that in the very diff provided above, my summary was "actually changing the meaning of the sentences". If that wasn't clear enough for the user making the repeated errors to find, I call WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Ironically, all those giving me a hard time...
      And what makes you think anyone missed it? What makes you think that one bit was sufficient? Also, how, exactly, is it "ironic"? Is it like rain on your wedding day? --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      I'm bored of this thread and the pointless point-scoring here. Have fun, I'm going to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm not going to bold an oppose, but there is so much to the MOS (and frankly, some of it is unhelpful or even arguably wrong) that I'd be happier simply blocking them for CIR if they continue to make factual errors without any recognition that they are doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • Agree. Introducing factual errors while making stylistic changes is harmful, blockworthy incompetence, so much so that I'm even going to pass up this opportunity to give TRM a hard time–a difficult but justified sacrifice. Levivich 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • The problem with a blanket ban on MOS edits is that it's treating a symptom: yes, it'll stop the half-baked pedantry in that particular area, but it's no the only space where Autodidact1 exercises their unsourced certainty. Take their edit-warring at I, Tonya
    • 07:14, June 22, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ →‎Critical response: That's not a "parakeet [sic]". Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure.
    • 20:46, June 23, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.
    Their response on my User Talk page It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt...".
    However, the very lede of Conure includes The term "conure" is used primarily in bird keeping, though it has appeared in some scientific journals. The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure, though Joseph Forshaw, a prominent Australian ornithologist, uses conure.
    So this is someone who not only practices unsourced, self-assured pedantry, it's self-assured pedantry that that's contradicted by the source that they claims supports them. That's a WP:CIR issue at work. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal: indef block

    Sometimes the community shows way too much patience in the face of patently obnoxious and disruptive behavior. This is one such case. The above thread (and its diffs) contain ample evidence that Autodidact makes careless mistakes in article space, refuses to follow the MOS, responds to criticism with juvenile insults and whataboutisms, and pulls a vanishing act when faced with the prospect of being held accountable. This is not something that we should tolerate any longer.

    Over a period of the last 3-4 weeks, Benicio2020 and I have been involved in a conflict that is starting to know no end. Beginning on 31 May 2021, I have made 14 edits to the Nubia (character) article, most or all in the Nubia (character)#Long-term publication absence which is the particular area where Benicio2020 and I have have been having a conflict.

    Benicio2020’s first edit on 19:38, 31 May 2021 was a simple revert, that deleted all of multiple interconnected points, in which he/she 1) claimed that it was all original research 2) neglected to contribute any discussion beforehand 3) did not attempt at salvaging anything or 4) did not attempt to add any references (which were already in the article or related articles that were wikilinked-to) that were relevant.

    After a simple un-reversion by me, my very next edit on 03:55, 3 June 2021 showed improvements on my part with the addition of 3 references for a medium-sized paragraph with less than 100 words. This was followed up by Benicio2020 the very same day (3 June) in a series of 6 edits over a period of 4 minutes, beginning at 13:57 going to 14:01. Some of these edits included what I would call rather petty quibbles over language choice, including an objection to my using the word “full” in a quote “a full twenty years” in reference to a publication gap for the subject’s publishing history (actually, 19 years and 11 months), although I later did make this more technically correct by further qualifying the statement. It was also in this series of 6 edits in one edit on 13:59, 3 June 2021, when Benicio2020 1) started a series of contentions of his/hers over a particular item of material by calling into question the reliability of the cited source for that material and 2) deleted additional material without any explanation whatsoever.

    In the next edit I made, on 18:05 4 June 2021, I changed the source from the one Benicio2020 objected to, to the primary source which, for this intent and purpose, was the best possible source. Benicio’s next edit on 20:15, 4 June 2021 was 1) a simple reversion 2) with the rationale that I was introducing opinions into the article and sourcing them to the new (primary) source, taking contention with the exact same material 3) in which he/she continued to delete accompanying material without any rationale, whatsoever.

    Since that time, Benicio has undone that work a total of 5 more times (including 3 simple reversions) without once ever having demonstrated at all that he/she has done any fact-checking on the particular item of contention, despite on 22:06, 4 June 2021 on the article’s talk page, my calling to his/her attention on 22:06, among other things “Not even an hour-and-a-half went by between my making that edit and you 1) deleting some material for no stated reason, whatsoever, and 2) making a deletion without any demonstration of consulting a source to determine its relevancy” (something that he/she has continually repeated to do). I reminded him/her again on the article’s talk page on 19 June 2021 that an editor must fact-check, linking to Wikipedia’s fact-checking policy and citing that she/he “h[ave] the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content” before he/she can start to make a contention about the applicability and relevance of a reference to the material it supports in the article.

    Benicio2020 has made repeated claims that I am injecting opinions, but how can somebody claim material in an article supported by a reference is an opinion if they have repeatedly and consistently refused to demonstrate that they have consulted that reference, themselves?

    Also, after my 18:05 4 June 2021 edit, and after I made the explanation that I mentioned on the article’s talk page on 22:06, Benicio2020 made 3 more reversions over the next 24 hours (curiously enough, stopping just one edit short of the 3-revert rule), all the while completely neglecting to engage with my discussion on the article’s talk page.

    Throughout all 5 of his/her reversions/edits since my edit on the main article on 18:05 4 June 2021, not only has Benicio2020 refused to demonstrate, every single time, that he/she has consulted the source to be able to argue the relevancy and applicability of the source to the corresponding material in the article, he/she has also, in all 5 edits, deleted other material for which he/she has failed to articulate any reason for deleting.

    Can I please have an administrator’s oversight on this?

    ETA: Sorry. Forgot to sign. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    This is a fairly simple case of QuakerIlK continuing to add their opinion to the article, in various phrases, while sourcing those phrases to a comic book (a primary source). I removed it because it is Original Research according to WP:OR. QuakerIlK has ignored me when I pointed out that you can't add your own personal interpretations of primary sources to articles. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This is a fairly simple case of Benicio2020 failing to demonstrate him/her having fulfilled their basic editorial responsibility of undergoing basic fact-checking to determine whether the material a source supports in an article is actually an opinion. Benicio2020 fails to grasp that visual evidence is more proof of a person's appearance (and cultural identity association) than mere text is. If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source. Additionally, Benicio2020's rationales for reversions/deletions are inconsistent. On top of that, Benicio2020's reversions and deletions include deletions of additional material, beyond the debated appearance and possibly resulting cultural identity association of Euboea, for which he/she has failed to ever even once articulate a rationale.
    I could be more helpful and more directly supply evidence to illustrate that the material in the article is accurate, making more irrefutable than ever any disagreement, but according to Benicio2020's rationale, which is faulty to begin with, there isn't anything I can provide OTHER than opinions, (because he/she actually wants text opinions from secondary sources to prove what the appearance and/or ethnic looks of Euboea are), which directly contradicts more objective and irrefutable evidence ever being applied, which puts me in a lose-lose position in Benicio2020's eyes, no matter what I do.
    I think with an administrator's proper oversight, this could be solved very easily, but I have already spent too much time and energy on this matter to further invest more time and energy only to have the contribution I have made be negated for no good reason. If I can be provided with either an administrator's written advice as to how to proceed in order to properly support the material in the article OR if Benicio2020 would care to realize that he/she is putting me in a lose-lose situation because he/she fails to understand when/why different categories of sources are applicable, then I am more than happy to proceed. QuakerIlK (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source This is absolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works; we use established, reliable secondary sources. OP is a pretty clear case of an editor failing to understand WP:OR and pushing their interpretations of source material (or interpretations/claims sourced to fan wikis) in the article. Suggest QuakerIlK familiarize themselves with the relevant policy, because they are fully in the wrong here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    "[A]bsolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works", Grandpallama? Your statement is both reductive and extreme, (in other words, wrong), and whereas you absolutely fail to quote any specific policies, I will not fail to do so. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Furthermore, as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Additionally, that section states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and "[a] primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". (The primary source I ended up using that got reverted/deleted 5 times by Benicio2020 was an excerpt from a issue of the main series of the Wonder Woman comic book, published by DC Comics. It is 100% relevant to the article and the publisher is DC Comics, which was, at the time of the publication of this source in particular, A Warner Communications Company.)
    As for the material, itself, fine. This shouldn't be necessary, but perhaps because of the audience, it is. Perhaps visual proof would help more than a bunch of text. Benicio2020, are you really going to claim, in light of this visual, that it is only an opinion that Euboea's “looks suggest perhaps East Asian or Hispanic ethnicity, rather than Caucasian ethnicity”? This is not an opinion, it is “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”. Frankly, in light of this visual evidence, I could easily issue a stronger, less qualified statement.
    If you don’t believe the context/sourcing, here is a video proving that this is from the stated source. [3]
    Again, this is not how Wikipedia works; this is a textbook example of original research with what increasingly appears to be some WP:IDHT thrown in for good measure. Your interpretation of this character's appearance is just that: interpretation. If you continue to dig in your heels on this, prepare for the incoming boomerang. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    By the way, since you are quoting WP:RSPRIMARY, you might want to pay attention to the text immediately below what you quoted (that you seem to have conveniently ignored), which is relevant in this situation: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The fact you just tried to edit war this back in while the ANI discussion is ongoing is unacceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Your accusation that I am edit-warring is utterly inappropriate - Benicio2020 was the one who started repeatedly reverting my edits, plus I was the one who initiated this complaint and I made that edit a little while ago only after going through great lengths to provide greater transparency regarding the sourcing. We're still waiting for an administrator to weigh in on this, aren't we? You also fail to grapple with the actual material and the related sourceing at all.QuakerIlK (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You are wrong on pretty much all counts, and Grandpallama has explained the relevant policies to you correctly. Please just drop it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where you can argue about the apparent ethnicity of fictional characters. If you want to include this, you have to cite a secondary source; posting your own interpretation of a primary source is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Does being "wrong on pretty much all counts" include the fact that not only Benicio2020 (at least 5 times) but now also Grandpallama have made reverts that delete, in addition to the debated material, material for which no rationale for deletion has ever been articulated by either one of them? That is part of my complaint. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    More supporting material, including 2 new sources, have been added to the article. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Two editors and an admin have now explained why this attempt to insert original research is inappropriate. Please quit trying to force it in. If you have other edits you want to make, that's fine, but continuing to edit war to include your personal opinions is going to lead to sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You completely ignored the fact that I introduced new sources and material and all you did was a simple revert. Your rationale for making the revert you just did is 100% baseless because neither you, nor Benicio2020 nor NinjaRobotPirate has weighed in at all on either the newly-introduced material or the newly-introduced sources in the article section. QuakerIlK (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    So, at this point QuakerI1K received a 24 hour block for edit warring. That should be a clear message that yes, you are edit warring QI1K. Once your block lifts, take your comments to the article Talk page, but do not resume attempting to force your edits into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    In addition to here at ANI, this has already been discussed at the article talkpage, at QI1K's talkpage, and at Benicio's talkpage. If we are advising QI1K to return to the article talkpage, they need to understand that it isn't an invitation to continue to push this particular edit; further attempts to argue that their interpretations and unencyclopedic language should be included in the article are just going to result in an escalation of sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The Hand That Feeds You, Can either you or NinjaRobotPirate please explain to me why once I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question that Grandpallama reverted that edit without either a review of the source or discussion of it on here by any involved party? Can anybody explain to me how I was being charged with edit-warring and was blocked and not Grandpallama? Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made ( Black characters in animation and Category:Black people in comics ), and why those categories remain deleted from that article and why none of the reversions of the articles by any of the other editors, other than myself, involved in this dispute, included rationales for the removal of those categories and why the categories remain removed/deleted without absolutely any rationale whatsoever as to why those removals/deletions persist? QuakerIlK (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This is not the place to resolve content disputes; you need to use dispute resolution for that. You were blocked because people were complaining about your edits here, and I saw you edit warring. Grandpallama hadn't made any additional edits on the article at the time I blocked you. Life is unfair like that. It also doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong when you're edit warring. This is explained in the policy itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    NinjaRobotPirate, can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring? They claimed in that edit's rationale "Explained by two editors AND an admin that this is inappropriate.", yet this most recent material to which Grandpallama was referring to there that I added at the time which included a new secondary source that supported the material, which is what both you and Grandpallama said was needed, was (and remains) content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked? None of the involved editors here put forth any effort whatsoever in discussing it.
    Was I guilty of vandalism in that edit? Was I guilty of inflammatory comments? Where is the disabusal process from you on this series of actions from my edit - "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)".
    I can admit that throughout this process I have been overly verbose, which is generally advised against in these sorts of processes. (It does mean that I am trying, though.) But as I have continually tried to make improvements on the material in question by further qualifications and articulations with an increasing body of sources that supports the material I add, the language directed against me by both Grandpallama and The Hand That Feeds You, that I "force" edits in, escalates, as does Grandpallama's warning of sanctions against me.
    If I continue to make improvements, which I have done consistently, that means that I realized that, to a certain degree, I was wrong in the past, but can you or any other involved party here admit to having made any mistakes throughout this whole process and consider that I might be being punished unfairly or that the article is being prevented from being improved by me? So far, I have seen no indication of that. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not going to repeat myself. I think the problem here is that you refuse to hear what people are telling you. If you continue down this path, the end result is an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Pretty sure NinjaRobotPirate wants to be done with this (so my apologies for pinging him), but a few of these claims merit response, especially since they are directed at me.

    • can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring I reverted you a grand total of three times. The second time I reverted your edit, it was because a discussion was ongoing here (which I very clearly explained/referenced above, in this very thread), per WP:STATUSQUO. The third time I reverted you, it was to again restore a policy-compliant version of the article after you were blocked and the problems with your edits were explained to you. I will not put words in NRP's mouth, but I don't think most admins would see those reversions as disruptive; on the other hand, after you initially inserted your problematic material, you reverted eleven times. Do you really not see the difference?
    • I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question You absolutely did not. You added a secondary source that supported a claim about the ethnicity of the actor who portrayed the character in live action, which you used to continue the attempt to push your original research into the article. At no point did you provide any sort of sourcing that supported your original research. The fact that you're not getting this is alarming.
    • Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made Sure. You made a bold edit of which 80% was highly problematic. It's not the job of other editors to dig through that edit and preserve the "okay" parts; if you don't want them reverted, don't bundle them together with material you have been told is contentious. It is not the job of other editors to clean up after you.
    • content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked If you haven't read WP:IDHT, you need to. Your content was discussed on the article talkpage (pretty calmly by Benicio2020, despite your constant needling). The fact that you don't like what other editors said about the content not being compliant with policy and that it needs proper sourcing is right there, on the article talkpage and on your talkpage and now at ANI. Please start listening and stop arguing.

    If you had engaged in good faith on the talkpage, you probably would have avoided the first block in your long editing career here. Instead, you chose to bring this to ANI, which resulted in shining a light on your edits. If I were you, I would walk away from this before editors start scrutinizing some of the similar stuff you've added to other pages. Grandpallama (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Your last 'point' on here is a clear-cut case of Hounding. QuakerIlK (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No, it's a point that even a casual glance at your editing history shows you have a pattern of adding unsourced material and opinion to articles. If you want to accuse me of harassment, go ahead and file another ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The "similar stuff" to which you referred in your 14:10, 30 June 2021 response has now been changed by me. That material is now even better sourced, and even an accusation of weasel words wouldn't stand up now. More responses from me on this overall discussion to come in the next few days. QuakerIlK (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Seriously? I looked at your diff and you are going to claim that this is not personal opinion?
    It was late in the Bronze Age, however, when what is possibly the single-most-significant change in the iconography of Wonder Woman's costume occurred.
    That's a blatant violation of WP:EDITORIAL. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[4]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

    HOUNDING:hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

    Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity.

    • Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[5]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[6]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[7]].
    Edit: this list of grievances was started on 24 Feb. POLEMIC notes grievance lists are only permitted when used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[8]].
    • Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]].
    • Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
      • Odal rune RfC [[14]]
      • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[15]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[16]].
      • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[17]]
      • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[18]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions
    • Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
      • Earlier today [[19]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[20]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[21]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"
    • Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[22]] 2nd [[23]]
    • Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
      • [[24]], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
      • [[25]], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

    I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[26]], Noteduck's page [[27]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[28] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[29] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[30] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[31] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[32] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[33] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[34] (plus BuzzFeed News[35] and Bellingcat.[36] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[37] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[38] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[39] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[40] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[41] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Noteduck, please indicate when you change your text. You have made significant changes to your reply above. As I noted below such changes may result in replies to your text that no longer make sense since the original text has been altered with items added/removed. Springee (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It makes me uncomfortable when editors cite mental health conditions to explain their on-wiki behavior. A lot of people suffer from a lot of things; anyone who is not healthy enough to participate here should immediately log off. Levivich 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[42]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[43]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[44]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[45]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[46]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[47]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment I ended up here because I lurk at HiLo48's talk page which references an ANN which references this one. I've seen Springee at work and they are a careful, polite editor who stays on the high road even when confronted by rough behavior such as that described above. I find the above construction of trying to paint an incorrect picture regarding Springee very opposite to that very telling. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    North8000, what points in particular do you consider incorrect? –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Basically every (mis)characterization and claim about what every diff shows.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
      • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [48][49]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
      • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [50] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
      • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [51] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [52]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
        • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[53]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, for fuck's sake, don't pretend that Odal was some backwater article. You know it was well-trafficked and heavily edited after the CPAC incident, and you're having a meltdown because someone responded to the same RFC that you did.
    As I mentioned earlier, this is the first 1RR violation that I've seen from Noteduck, and they quickly apologized and self-reverted when it was pointed out. On the other hand you and I have had several disagreements over what constitutes a revert, so I asked an admin for advice and it seemed to me like the three of us had a nice productive discussion about it. Do you see it differently? –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Please keep it civil. During the first month after the AE closed (24 Mar-24 Apr) Noteduck edited 7 article/talk pages that could be seen as AP related (Dennis Prager, WSJ, CPAC, Odal rune, Candace Owens, Douglas Murray, Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, 2020 US presidential election, A People's History of the US). Of those I have no involvement with the last 2. Noteduck had no involvement with WSJ, CPAC, Odal, Owens and Carlson but was either opposing my RfC comments or reverting my edits. They did have prior involvement with Ngo, Prager and Murray. If their comments and edits weren't related to mine it would be easier to see this as just hitting the same topics.
    Was it Noteduck's first brush with edit warring? Edit warring was one of the AE concerns. You also haven't made it clear why you were quick to warn me when you felt I crossed the line but you didn't even provide a curtesy notice to Noteduck that they had crossed the line. When you asked an admin it was clear that you were fishing for sanctions and made accusations of 1RR violations on my part which you have yet to support. Springee (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Back to the sandbox thing: If we give you the benefit of the doubt, you had a list of grievances up for a month and you're claiming that keeping a similar list for three days violates POLEMIC. This is one of those things that really feels like a double standard: It's hounding and uncivil when Noteduck does it, but we're expected to give quite a bit of leeway for your similar actions. If you're so concerned about it, I would hope you would remember to keep your own sandbox clean. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The grievance list was started by Noteduck 10 Feb. It's almost July and and still being added to. Do you consider 5 months timely? Blanking means little if they note that they can bring the blanked content back (the "blanked" content was added below) and if they keep adding new entries. You claim what I did was similar so lets compare. A specific list in less than a month, used at AE, never used again until blanked when the sandbox was cleaned a month after the AE closed. VS a continuous 5 month list, including many obvious errors, a portion was blanked but in a way that was easy to restore after multiple complaints that the list violated POLEMIC. The accumulation has continued even after several POLEMIC warnings. It's clear Noteduck has decided I've wronged them. To that end they are making a list, following me to continue their grievances at other articles, trying to drum up other editors for support (yourself included) and not trying to claim "but civil POV pusher" rather than reflect on their own actions. If they agree to stop personalizing disputes, MfD the list, and leave me alone all would be fine and we could close this right away. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    on the point about leeway: Springee has been editing for more than a decade and has far, far, far more editorial experience than I do. I've only been regularly editing since December 2020 (I have a handful of edits under an old account earlier in 2020). "Springee" gets 98 hits in the WP:AN archive; "Noteduck" gets 5. Springee should know the rules very well by now - and in fact, Springee does appear to know them when it suits their perspective. There's no reason for Springee to claim ignorance of editorial policy or expect preferential treatment Noteduck (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[54] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[55] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[56]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[57]][[58]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[59]][[60]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[61]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Just re the ping: sorry, I'm incredibly busy right now. I know I'm related to this stuff, and your retelling looks accurate at a glance, but I'll chime in properly a bit later when I have time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    (Non-administrator comment) Regarding the sandbox, from the content blanked in Special:Diff/1029281530, pasted below. The user accumulated a large number of grievances, mostly against Springee (talk · contribs). I note that some of the sources mentioned, such as CNN, are generally considered to be reliable, so they do have legitimate concerns about Springee. Their current revision says that they think it is Springee, not themselves, who should be AP2 topic-banned (esp. in relation to Andy Ngo). But, I think this warrants an interaction ban between the users as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [62][63]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[64] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[65] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[66] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[67] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[68]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

    In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position.

    Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[69][70][71][72][73][74] The New York Times and CNN,[75][76] National Review(!),[77] The Washington Post,[78] Newsweek,[79], The Washington Post and NBC,[80] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[81], Vox and The Daily Beast[82], the Los Angeles Times,[83] The Intercept,[84] the [[BBC],[85] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[86], BuzzFeed News,[87] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[88], Salon (website),[89] Forbes,[90] the Seattle Times,[91] Reports sans Frontieres,[92] New Republic and NBC News,[93] the Chicago Sun-Times[94] Politico and four other sources,[95] The Independent,[96] Daily Dot,[97][98][99] Reuters and Fox News(!)[100] Middle East Eye,[101] The Huffington Post,[102] Mother Jones,[103] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[104][105]Des Moines Register[106] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[107][108] and academic articles[109]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[110] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[111] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[112][113][114][115][116] - Wall Street Journal here[117][118] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[119] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[120][121][122][123][124][125] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[126][127][128][129][130][131] record of misinformation on climate change.

    On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[132] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[133][134], 7 March 2021,[135][136]

    For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[137][138][139] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[150] unwarranted deletion of material[151][152][153] especially misbehavior related to guns[154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[176][177][178][179] and whitewashing pages of firearms[180][181] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[182] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[183][184], [185][186], [187],[188],[189]

    Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[190] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[191] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[192] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[193][194] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[195] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged.
    UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto
    S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[196] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021

    [197][198]

    July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[199] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211]

    June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[212][213]

    June 2020: Andy Ngo [214][215][216], Tucker Carlson[217], Burt Rutan[218]

    Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

    This is another case of two editors who do not like each other. I propose a two-way interaction ban between User:Noteduck and User:Springee with only the usual exceptions. Since they both edit in the area of American politics, this will inconvenience both of them. Antagonism between editors should be inconvenient to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[219] and Springee's[220] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Re-open and support - Robert McClenon has withdrawn this proposal, but I'd like to repropose it. There is a problem that has to be solved here, and I think this proposal solves it better than any other, and specifically better than any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. Loki (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support The sandbox demonstrates tendentious behavior by Noteduck toward Springee, and an overview of User talk:Noteduck and its edit history shows Springee repeatedly complaining about Noteduck's edits and fighting between the users. Out of 145 edits to this user talk, Noteduck themselves made 46 and Springee made 44, or about 1/3 each of the entire edit history. A third opinion will be needed to determine if either user's edits about Andy Ngo are problematic, which would warrant a topic ban from this BLP or post-1992 American politics more broadly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    LaundryPizza03 I'd be happy for an uninvolved party to look at Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, though it needs to be said that these are just part of a much larger pattern of blocking unflattering material on pages related to right-wing politics, particularly through the relentless and protracted contestation of material on talk pages. Note that Springee has made 521 edits on Talk:Andy Ngo (16.64% of ALL edits made to the page)[221] Noteduck (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal #2

    Enough has been seen and reviewed to at least raise concern about WP:hounding, WP:Battleground and against-WP:civility behavior by Noteduck particularly with respect to Springee. Noteduck is warned to avoid those types of behaviors. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I would support this or as an alternative I would accept a MfD Noteduck's sandbox with an understanding they may keep the content not related to me. This is a grievance list and a clear violation of POLEMIC. This is especially true since many of the claims are false if anyone actually looks at the diffs in question. Springee (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    If you'd like to see it deleted, why don't you nominate it for MfD yourself? –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I considered that but if we decide to MfD here it will be easier to ensure it is completed. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - Looking at the discussion above, I'm not sure there's agreement that Noteduck's actions merit a warning or even meet the criteria for those issues. It may be wise to wait for more input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins, before making further proposals to close. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support as proposer As the mildest remedy that has a reasonably good chance at resolving the situation. I didn't fully understand Springee's response/post. But they are referring to work there by Noteduck that appears to be aimed at using the system to "get" someone vs. just to solve an issue, would agree that that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support I've had limited access recently and will for a while longer. I think it's clear that Noteduck has been campaigning against me (see the diffs showing them contacting other editors out of the blue and in cases which they weren't previously involved). The POLEMIC list started in Feb is also a problem. Yes, they blanked it but then started it right back up so it never went away and as the collapsed section below shows, it's still very accessible. This list is a serious problem when editors presume it was in any way shape or form reliably collected. In addition to the fact that most examples don't contain context, they also have a lot of just plain wrong claims (saying sources were removed in cases where I was moving blocks of text, saying I violated 1RR when I self reverted then restored to correct my edit note etc). Finally, trying to bring being bipolar into this! Levivich is right, if a this is a problem that results in confrontational behavior then the editor should stay out of confrontational areas. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment not particularly sensitive Springee. At any rate, Springee seems to want an asymmetric rule that I can't collect material in my sandbox for use in WP:AN complaints. As we've already observed, this is a total double standard. I'll certainly be more mindful about the "timely" requirement of the policy but surely this is an important part of the sandbox function, especially for the sake of transparency about upcoming complaints. One glance at my sandbox reveals that the large majority does not focus on Springee but on my various pet projects to improve Wiki. I just made Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate btw and I'm quite happy with it Noteduck (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    There is no double standard. You have maintained a grievance list since February. That is only allowed if the contents are to be used in a timely fashion which you have not done. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the list is a POLEMIC, 0% is the upper limit. The fact that you deleted the list on June 19 means nothing if you show that you have learned nothing and started a new one. Springee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I guess I'm a bit confused here, was Noteduck not supposed to start a new list (as new issues emerged) after deleting the previous one? –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think that the "timely" part serves to make a distinction between complaints to try to resolve a current problem vs longer term constructions to try to "get" (deprecate or remove) an editor or just do battle with an editor. And the latter is presumably a reason for the polemic rule, particularly against another editor. Perhaps, in addition to the proposed gentle warning, if Noteduck could (you) agree to be extra careful and mindful of these objectives? North8000 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I think that is a good distinction. A month is reasonable period of time to collect diffs but if this list is still here mid July it will be a clear POLEMIC and now Noteduck would be clearly warned about the policy. Springee (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    well yes, I can certainly aim to keep material in my sandbox for no more than a month in line with the "timely" language of the policy. The material I gathered was not intended to be part of some aimless, vague polemic but rather the concrete basis for a WP:AN complaint. The sandbox is a convenient place to gather such evidence, which I'm sure is why you've used it for the same reason Springee Noteduck (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts,[222] especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If timely is your intent why gave you been collecting grievances for 5 months with no action? I'm glad you are able to recognize that the content I removed from TPUSA does not belong on the page. I'm certainly not obligated to try to make a case for the content to be DUE on another page which is what you are asking me to do. Springee (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo,[223] though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I and several other experienced editors did try to help you early on. Our efforts were met with hostility to the point that an AE was filled against you and you were formally warned. The Ngo material has been reverted by two editors and fails WP:V. The ONUS is on you to correct the problem. That you restored the same content you violated 1RR to add further shows that you didn't take your logged warning to heart. Springee (talk)`
    Springee recently launched an action in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard[224] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[225] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[226] Noteduck.
    Mis-characterizations aside, those are good examples of the Wikipedian, polite, and content-focused way to deal with content questions/disputes. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages like Andy Ngo ("Springee" gets 600+ hits in the page archives), whoops strike through Charlie Kirk etc. I had it on the brain because of the point about TPUSA above - please don't cherry-pick. As I noted in the earlier dispute in April, based on samples of around ~1000 of your recent edits, at times 95%+ have related to conservative politics-related pages. I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying (talk) Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... [[227]]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    In response to your edit above[[228]], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Conditional support - a first time warning is customary for new editors, but in this case, it is overly gracious, especially considering Noteduck's comment just above Springee's which begins with "A gentle piece of advice to Springee", and their noting that 95% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics. Wow - that statement provides some pretty big evidence of HOUNDING. Why should any editor care, other than a POV pusher, if 100% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics? Those are the articles that need attention because of strong POV pushing, and left-leaning news media that dominates the echo chamber, not to mention an issue of noncompliance with RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; all of which means there is typically more work to do on those articles. We leave our biases at login. WP is a collaborative project - we don't "advise" other editors whose views oppose our own, especially veteran editors, where they should or shouldn't edit. Admins are the ones who make that decision when there's proven disruption, and right now the only disruption I'm seeing is coming from Noteduck. I commend Springee for exercising such patience. Atsme 💬 📧 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Atsme, how do you feel about Springee's similar assessment: Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity, followed by a detailed analysis of Noteduck's edits? Why is it OK for Springee to calculate percentages of where Noteduck has been editing, but when Noteduck does the same thing it's considered hounding? –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, Dlthewave - for the sake of brevity, Noteduck's comments are political in nature, whereas Springee is being hounded and is expected to provide evidence of same. Atsme 💬 📧 11:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    As you note I think that a close review of this ANI thread itself says a lot about the situation. I'm not sure if you meant that my proposal #2 was too mild but for better or worse that's sort of how I roll. Perhaps a one way interaction ban would have been a better proposal to give decisive relief to Springee and be a stronger "we really mean it" regarding battleground mentality towards another editor. But the warning remains as the alternative that I support. And Springee themself supported it and so they likely feel that it is sufficient, at least at this "give it a try" stage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request.[229] I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April [[230]] and then again on 25 May [[231]]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Springee none of your posts on my page referred to the timely manner requirement. Noteduck (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That makes your failure to remove even worse. The first time I just said it violated POLEMIC. You didn't bother to follow up and check so that's on you. Either way, you were informed. The second time I included this part, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.". So you just decided to ignore the whole thing since the only reason to keep such a list would have to fall under the timely exception. If you weren't aware of it, after being told where to look, what more do you want. It's clear you were keeping the list despite knowing it was against user talk page guidelines. Springee (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That's not the best representation of the facts. Having started to regularly edit Wiki in December 2020, I had of course seen other editors use their sandboxes to assemble ANI complaints and discuss the use of sandboxes for this purpose, and in fact on 10 February I made an enquiry on your talk page about material you were preparing in sandbox for a complaint against me (though it was quickly blanked).[232] You did indeed quote WP:POLEMIC in a post on my talk page on 25 May, specifically the passage warning against Example text For context, the very next sentence of WP:POLEMIC, in the same dot point, reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Why omit this, especially given that your main objection here appears to be related to the timely manner requirement? On 25 June you referred to the specific phrase timely manner in this complaint.[233] It seems unduly to think I deserve sanctions based on not heeding specific points of editorial policy Noteduck (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose As someone who's often edited on American political topics where both Springee and Noteduck were participating I have never seen a dispute between them that I honestly felt was Noteduck's fault to begin with. This is not to say that Noteduck has been a perfect editor, but that I strongly oppose any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. For what it's worth, I would support the interaction ban above or even a one-way interaction ban against Springee: I think that there's a far better case to be made for Springee hounding Noteduck than vice-versa. Loki (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Are you saying this because you can think of any actual examples or just because you see this as a tactical move? Noteduck was warned about civility and edit warring at AE. Did other editors (myself included) start those problems? Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Nothing says "battleground mentality" like speculating about "tactical moves". Please, try to assume good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    struck Springee (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Loki, Springee has given pretty substantial examples of hounding. Perhaps you could give some to support your assertion of hounding by Springee?North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Oh certainly. Of the 37 sections on Noteduck's talk page, 11, or roughly a third, are sections started by Springee accusing Noteduck of bad behavior: [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], [244]. When these accusations have been actually reported to admins, none of them so far have resulted in sanctions for Noteduck more serious than one unenthusiastic warning once. Loki (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    There have only been two trips to the notice board, the AE that resulted in a warning and this one. If you look, many are good faith efforts to help a new editor learn the ropes. Others are for the exact behaviors that resulted in a logged warning. It's unfortunate that you and Dlthewave are condoning vs discouraging such behaviors. Even if you think Noteduck hasn't crossed a sanctionable line why encourage it? Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    LokiTheLiar, that's not hounding. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Thank you Loki and dlthewave for helping to set the record straight here. A search for edits made by Springee in my talk page history reveals 44 edits by Springee, or more than 30% of all edits in the page's history.[245] A search of Springee's talk page history shows 13 edits by Noteduck (though all have since been wiped).[246] This is hardly commensurate with the accusation of one-way, targeted WP:HOUNDING. Springee hasn't explained how they arrived at the point that "over 50% of Noteduck's edits since 25 March have been about me 'in some capacity'" [inverted commas mine], which they will need to clarify, and again I invite editors to look at the diversity of the contributions in my edit history[247] and sandbox.[248] Springee's stated desire to avoid interacting with me is hardly commensurate with their recent actions on the Andy Ngo talk page, where they:

    • on 18 June Springee pinged me in a subheading I had no prior involvement in,[249] having reverted a not prominent, 14-word short sentence I had added to a body paragraph on Ngo's page[250]
    • continued to contest this short sentence at length on Ngo's talk page for close to another two weeks, including repeatedly interacting with me without apparent distress[251]
    • on 25 June took this same short sentence to the no original research noticeboard,[252] on the basis that it purportedly failed WP:V requirements, only for other uninvolved editors to quickly affirm my longstanding interpretation of the contested sentence.[253][254].

    Given the outcome of the WP:NORN discussion they launched, I hope Springee will be restoring the material. As I've noted above,[255] I did not receive a specific reference to the point about assembling complaints in the sandbox being done in a timely manner from Springee, and would have applied the policy (though its wording doesn't lay out precise instructions for how to adhere to it) as best I could had I known. I'm happy to field any further questions Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Why? There is not a consensus of support and there are concerns about weight for such a claim. Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    do you not agree that the counter-arguments have been quite comprehensively refuted? Noteduck (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    A review of this ANI thread alone says much about the situation. Seeking to resolve a situation vs. seeking to deprecate an editor. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • Support per arguments of above support !votes, and how is this still open and unresolved? Closing with a warning and move on sounds reasonable. I also agree that the "evidence of hounding by Springee" above is not evidence of hounding. Levivich 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Hi, I am having a hard time with this used Bonadea after we disagreed on a topic related to a page names LGBT propaganda. I created the page and after my edit was reverted I wanted by Bonadea, I just wanted to discuss the problem with him and see what I did wrong and if we can agree on something. The main issue was that in his opinion propaganda had a negative meaning and that would break the neutrality of a page. While it is true that propaganda refers to a unfair way of transmitting information, as i explained on Talk:Gay agenda the fact that propaganda is an unfair way of transmitting informations about LGBT doesn't transfer it's negative attribute to LGBT itself. For example: Christian propaganda, while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing, when it is promoted through propaganda, Christian propaganda becomes something unfair. Everything was peaceful until this point before, this used started calling me a "bigot" here [256] (he used the edit description to insult me by saying bigots not welcome) and deleted my message from his talk page where i was trying to discuss the issues with him so we can solve it. The word "bigot" is a slur [257] meant to categorize me as someone exaggerated and unreasonable and it offended and discouraged me. The 2nd thing this user did was to call people who oppose same-sex extremists here [258]. Why would someone use such a bad word to describe others who have different opinions, taking in consideration the European Court of Human Rights stated that art. 12 of ECHR guarantee the right to marriage only to heterosexual couples and countries have the freedom to legalize same-sex marriages or not. Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. This user's attitude was aggressive towards me meant to discourage me and intimidate me by associating me with extremists. I am really sorry if I didn't address the complaint right, but i rarely edit on Wikipedia and I am not an administrator and i have no power when it comes to someone as Bonadea who is an administrator. --JOrb (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Just to make things clear: I have never pretended to be an administrator. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Bonadea: Basically, it means that JOrb would vote Support, thought they already were one :D ——Serial 16:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I considered you an administrator by mistake since I thought mostly they are the ones who have the power to delete an Wikipedia page.--JOrb (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Hold up. You're arguing at Talk:Gay agenda#What has Wikipedia become? that the word "propaganda" isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a plain old neutral word to describe something. Now here, "bigot" is always a negative, no doubt about it. So which is it, do words matter or don't they? Woodroar (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I suppose you don't know word "propaganda" is used on many Wikipedia pages XD. It's not forbidden word, there s even a dedicated page for it - Propaganda.--JOrb (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I was going to type up something longer, but realized that it's a waste of time. This ANI report is a nothingburger. The best outcome you can hope for, JOrb, is that it is closed without action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your opinion, sir! I am waiting to see other opinions, maybe some that are supported by arguments. Cheers! --JOrb (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing Hmmm. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    that's one of the things I decided against typing up above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Please keep your hate towards Christianity out of Wikipedia. Thanks you! --JOrb (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    JOrb, I identify as Christian, but I thought the same thing. The above good editors (and myself) aren't hating on Christianity, they are joking about our vast diversity and, well, inability to agree on anything at all. Please WP:AGF. Happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. Grandpallama (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, same-sex marriages aren't. That's what ECHR decided.--JOrb (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I would be careful when invoking judicial or quasi-judicial decisions: English Wikipedia encompasses many jurisdictions, and they don't always reach the same conclusions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You should stop talking. Jorm (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I was expecting someone to say that ECHR is only for Europe, but at the same time, have you identified another international court and another international convention of human rights that give people more rights that ECHR? On other continents, even the right to life isn't fully protected since they allow death penalties. Also, the reason why I invoked it is because only because of ECHR we talk about LGBT rights.--JOrb (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    So, to be clear, your position is that all law other than the ECHR is invalid? Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    My point is that no other international convention guarantees a larger protection of human rights than ECHR. You can check this fact.--JOrb (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @JOrb:, if my colleagues were not clear enough: This is going to stop now. If you can not stop yourself, I will help you with a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Since it continued, I blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. --Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    JOrb, Bonadea is not an administrator but I am. Your comments here are coming across as offensive for the sake of being offensive, and not for any purpose that would improve the encyclopedia. Take your bigoted arguments against non-heterosexual relationships to some other website, they are not welcome here. If you continue this, you will be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Oh dear. I stayed mostly away from Wikipedia last night, and had an early night so most of this discussion happened while I was asleep, but it looks like my input wasn't needed here at all. FWIW, I tend to have a fairly high tolerance for other non-native speakers of English (and native speakers of different English varieties) when it comes to different discussion styles and/or misunderstandings based on semantics, but this was way beyond that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    JOrb topic ban proposal

    Since JOrb has already appealed their block and seems not to understand why it was done in the first place, indicating they are likely to continue this disruptive line of argument if unblocked, I propose that they be indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning LGBT matters. They had already been warned about discretionary sanctions for gender disputes but I think a broader ban is warranted here.

    Comment Once in a while I think we should have a museum of boomerangs to deter people from opening threads like this. But then I think, Why stop them? It's so convenient when they walk themselves into the jail cell and practically beg us to slam the door shut on them. EEng 21:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, yes we should. Also perhaps an uninvolved admin can close this? There has not been any opinions offered in several days and I think there is a consensus. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    Hi all, can I please ask for more administrator eyes on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 28? Baffled by the influx of new editors to the discussion, I did some poking around and found a post canvassing contributions on Facebook (link in the discussion). From that discussion, there was another post linked, where an editor started to 'investigate' the editors who !voted for delete, as well as the closer (myself). Can't say the whole thing sits entirely well with me, and as such, I would appreciate a few more eyes on the discussion as it develops. Semi-protection may be required at some point if the canvassing continues. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

      Doing... things... Give me a sec. El_C 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Done. Okay, I did the thing. El_C 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Considering that OlivierAuber is essentially running background checks and posting personal information regarding the people who voted delete, disciplinary action against him may be in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I have already explained that this little investigation was motivated by the fact that the deletion of the P2P foundation article occurred precisely at the time when its founder Michel Bauwens was facing extremely violent personal attacks. I now think the two facts are unrelated and I am happy for that.--OlivierAuber (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    As this is a discussion that concerns you and Mitar, I pinged you both on your pages - Daniel probably should have done so when creating this. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I wasn't discussing any specific editors, rather just asking for more eyes on the discussion there, hence why they weren't pinged. I was not aware who was doing the off-wiki canvassing and if they had Wikipedia usernames at the time. Daniel (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Note that my suspicions were reinforced by the fact that Michel Bauwens told me that his IP was blocked by Wikipedia. It still is. Does anyone have any idea why and how to clarify this situation?--OlivierAuber (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree that my actions were canvasing because: it was not mass posting (I posted only to two places, here and here), my message is neutral (I am asking for people to leave comments, I even provided link to official instructions how to do so, without instructing what exactly to do), I disagree that audience is partisan (I invited a general population of existing editors and people who I think are experts on this topic, so that they can provide missing sources), and it was done with transparency (they were posted in public/open Facebook groups; they were not posted on Wikipedia itself, because relevant experts on the topic of the article in question do not have access to it, e.g., some reported that they have been IP blocked, which I think is a relevant specific reason not to use a talk page; moreover, for editors in question I communicate with through Facebook and I do not know their Wikipedia names and I even should not be trying to figure them out, so messaging them through Facebook is in my the most reasonable way). I think community around the deleted article was baffled about what is happening and I wanted to help them. I am not affiliated with the P2P Foundation. On the list of appropriate notifications it is listed that they are "Editors known for expertise in the field" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" which I think I did. Mitar (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The editor apparently has NOT been notified per "How to respond to canvassing"? There seems to be a lack of understanding. I don't think pleading guilty by confession will pass as an excuse. Is there an exception that off-wiki canvassing, to hopefully change a result of something, is alright as long as there is transparency and neutrality? I don't think so. IP blocked editors do need to know about these things but there may be a transparency issue with "they were not posted on Wikipedia itself" as well as a potential sock or meat puppetry issue. The main issue with canvassing is that even if seemingly well-intentioned it is counter-productive. Stealth canvassing is what is present when one of the "Appropriate notification avenues are not utilized with good reasoning and concerns of potential Votestacking is also a concern. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    "My message is neutral" & "without instructing what exactly to do" - really???
    • "The article on the P2P Foundation was deleted for not being notable, and the editors claim they could not find peer-reviewed articles attesting its role. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Wikipedia.../P2P_Foundation 'However, such articles do exist. I would appreciate if anyone could connect to them, and point to, for example, the following 2: Prophets and Advocates of Peer Production. By George Dafermos. . Excellent introduction to the role of the P2P Foundation in the context of the re-emergence of a commons movement that is linked to digitally-enabled self-organization. Digital Commons: Cyber-Commoners, Peer Producers and the Project of a Post-Capitalist Transition. By George Dafermos. [6]: Excellent introduction to the theoretical and strategic work of the P2P Foundation." (emphasis mine) - certainly seems like the bolded part is, um, "instructing what exactly to do".
    • "Olivier has done research on the wikipedia editors responsible for the deletions, it is quite instructive"
    And from other people on your post:
    • "If you want to overturn the deletion, then leave a comment. See instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review... You can follow my example there. You can also add more references/links/comments in there, too." (emphasis mine)
    • "Sounds like a nefarious attack.. P2P foundation is highly notable.. For many things.. But from populist pov, if only for where Satoshi first appeared! Just reinstate it.. But have a good look at who took that action." (emphasis mine)
    Daniel (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Off-wiki matters are, ultimately, the domain of the Arbitration Committee or Trust & Safety. El_C 14:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, if you want to overturn the deletion, leave a comment: provide requested information, as per instructions. I think you yourself said that if they provide two sources pointing to notability, that would change the decision, no? And please, I am claiming I have not instructed anyone, I am not claiming nobody suggested to no editor what to do. Moreover, the examples you are listing in fact are providing sources you are searching for and suggesting they should be propagated to the Wikipedia itself. Isn't this exactly what the original problem was? How is that canvasing? It is engaging community to obtain relevant sources to support the notability question. Mitar (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If you had simply linked up the sources on the deletion discussion page, it would have been fine, as it would have been based comprehensively on the strength of your case. Instead, you rallied supporters - whether you see it that way or not - and drowned a discussion with your allies, of both the versed and inexperienced variety. It gave the false pretense of there being consensus in your favor and as a result, you killed your own deletion review. Calling attention to your case, leaving an open door for biased community members to intervene, is a boilerplate definition of canvassing. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @OlivierAuber: if Michel Bauwens was physically attacked that's horrible. Physically assaulting someone because of their views is never justifiable. However that's a largely a matter for the police. And to suggest someone in the AFD was responsible for physically attacking Michel Bauwens is beyond ridiculous. Please don't make such a ridiculous claim again. Especially since the number of participants is so small, it's very close if not over the personal attack line. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That's not what they were suggesting, Nil. Rather, it seems there's a harassment campaign against this individual. That speaks to the motivation of the brigading. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @HandThatFeeds: (Came across this when searching for where I was mentioned.) A harassment campaign while something horrible is clearly not "extremely violent personal attacks" (emphasis mine) and it's offensive to suggest it is for those who have been real victims of violence (thankfully not me). Perhaps death threats or other threats of violence could be considered such although frankly even then they really should be called threats rather than attacks. This is not to downplay the seriousness of such threats, but they are not the same thing. Again I don't know what Michel Bauwens has suffered but when someone talks about "extremely violent personal attacks", this to my mind clearly gives connotations of serious physical violence so I AGFed that this is what OlivierAuber was talking about. If it's not, then all I would say is if editors are going to accuse others of involvement in such actions, they should be clear what they are referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    MordvinEvgen traverses sex difference pages and closely related pages to synthesize and bias information. He adds sentences that shouldn't be found in a children's book, let alone an encyclopedia. For example, in the empathy article, he said "and the correlation of the chromosome with only the female sex is controversial, which is contrary to common sense."[259]

    He's gotten multiple warning about the way he edits.[260] People have told him to stop adding his own analysis and conclusions to articles and to leave primary research behind him, but he continues.

    Here are some recent challenges to his edits.[261][262][263]

    When I said to him today that he should stop, he said he will continue. He severely insulted me and threatened me, saying, "YOU also don't publish the meta-analysis effect sizes, which is a dumb publishing method. You don't even have enough brains to open meta-analysis and arrange everything humanly. I said your edits will be removed in the future. If you think you will stop me, good luck..."[264] He put emphasis on "WILL."[265] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I have added userlinks to the top of this report. Hopefully both parties will try to avoid WP:Personal attacks such as 'don't have enough brains'. Sincge GBFEE's account was just created today (June 30) I hope they are aware that Wikipedia has procedures for resolving disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I think procedures for resolving disputes with MordvinEvgen are bound for failure unless he doesn't rail against the Wikipedia "system" (his words) when it doesn't work the way he wants it to. He says I don't know science.[266] Someone should tell him good science isn't what he does. If it was, his edits wouldn't keep getting removed for synthesizing the research and less than optimal sourcing, and he wouldn't keep getting warnings about them. He says I'm removing stuff I don't like, but I encourage people to look at his edits, many of which have been challenged by editors because he cuts what he doesn't like and inserts his commentary or own framing of the research. Multiple complaints from others about his edits are in the page histories. He's complained that I said he uses his personal commentary. He does. None of the sources say anything like "contrary to common sense"[267] or "It should be noted right away that the differences found in the brain do not necessarily mean differences in cognitive parameters." or "However, it is worth noting that evolutionary theories rarely reflect the true nature of the differences."[268]

    He says he plans to modify all of my edits. If he does, more of the same will come from him. He doesn't care for secondary and tertiary sources. Look at his newest complaint about tertiary sources, Wikipedia's unwillingness to give primary sources the same mouthpiece, and thoughts about me.[269] He calls me his opponent and an "it", and says he "can give a lot of examples of the failure of both your system" and my behavior. Does this sound like a person willing to listen and defer to the reviews of topics? He hasn't listened for three months! So what is the appropriate course of action for anyone to take regarding this editor if it's not to report him here? GBFEE (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Mordvin clearly has a lot of knowledge about some life science topics, but since his debut 32 days ago, he either hasn't quite assimilated some basic principles of verifiability and sourcing, or doesn't agree with them; likewise for some behavioral guidelines with respect to collaboration and civility. Most recently, as GBFEE pointed out in the OP, Mordvin has been mixing it up at Sex differences in psychology, in this case, with Crossroads. I don't expect all new editors to be on board and comfortable with WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS within a month, but Mordvin has locked horns with various editors a number of times already on these points, and is way too smart to claim ignorance. C'mon, Mordvin; you can be a great editor; just a wee dash of humility, a willingness to learn the particular environment of Wikipedia, and collaborate with other editors, and you will be. It's easier to develop good habits while you're still relatively new here. It's best to avoid doing things that motivate other editors to want to spend their free time scrutinizing your activities and bringing them here to this board. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • Good, someone opened a report on this user. I wasn't even aware of how widespread the problems were, but was considering opening a report if the issues continued. Admins need to take seriously what GBFEE says above. Here MordvinEvgen claims they were "adding more secondary sources and removing the primary ones"; in fact they did the opposite. After I reverted them, they made these edits, with unsourced original research and editorializing like "it is clear that stereotypes, expectations, and other social parameters can qualitatively influence...learning disabilities"; they also, for example, added a whole paragraph at the bottom using primary sources to argue against secondary ones, which is clearly against WP:MEDRS. At User talk:MordvinEvgen, you can see they have been told to not do this sort of thing for months. You can also see there from their arguments that they seem to give excessive weight to their own POV and edit based on their own ideas or findings. WP:Competence is required; this user should not be editing this topic area if they're going to keep adding primary sources and arguing on that basis. Pre-existing primary sources (that are not merely being cited alongside secondary sources) don't need to stay; but secondary academic sources (books and review articles) carry far more WP:WEIGHT than individual studies, of which there are many and which can easily be cherry-picked. They also should be more honest in their edit summaries and avoid personal attacks. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I don't know if I'm allowed to link to his IP address here, but he made an edit as an IP address a few hours ago and I reverted him a few minutes ago because the tiny piece he removed is in one of the resources. I think he's waiting for this thread to end, and then he'll go back to doing what he does. GBFEE (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Christoforos18 (talk · contribs) - blocked previously for adding unsourced information to BLPs and disruptive editing; talk page littered with warnings for the same; still at it today. Worth a longer block? GiantSnowman 20:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Perhaps a main-space block? It appears in the 6 years since they started editing they have not once noticed that talk pages exist. 2001:4898:80E8:38:B5B4:7B2B:FABF:3D (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @TheSandDoctor: I am under ER related to this so cannot block them myself... GiantSnowman 17:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    In this edit [270], NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote as his edit summary "I disagree with these removals - neither of the sections in question were unsourced or poorly sourced." This was in reference to the two sections "Doxing" and "Credibility" that I removed according to my understanding of WP:BLP. However, NorthBySouthBaranof also reverted four three subsequent edits I made, that had nothing to do with those two sections, and were simply an attempt to re-word this highly embarrassing article for Wikipedia into something approaching an encyclopedic tone. [271], [272], [273], and this experiment gone wrong [274].

    I politely asked if he would not self-revert his deletion of my subsequent edits [275]. He declined. [276] Whilst of course simultaneously admitting that he was aware that he removed additional edits that he did not mention in his edit summary. "Your other edits are also at least partially objectionable" - seems to me, a more than partially objectionable justification for reverting someone's good faith edits.

    And to cap it all off [277] he makes the ridiculous personal attack/accusation "That you personally want to drive sales traffic of Ngo's book to Amazon is not a permissible use of the encyclopedia". TomReagan90 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I'd also like to emphasize, that I believe my deletion of those two sections was compelled by my close reading of WP:BLP: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." Having a section on a journalist entitled "Credibility", and then just listing a series of attacks on his credibility - whether accurate or not - is not an appropriate tone for any encyclopedia article, let alone a BLP. TomReagan90 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Given that you have repeatedly refused reasonable requests on the article talk page to justify or explain your proposed changes to the article in question beyond a vague hand-wave at BLP (without detailing exactly what passages and sources you believe violate the policy) and instead ran straight to the dramaboards, I think it's clear to disinterested observers who actually has a "battleground mentality" here.
    Introducing external links to a book's Amazon.com sales page is not a minor edit, is clearly an attempt to drive sales traffic, and is clearly prohibited by policy. That you do not like me calling a spade a spade is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    "is clearly an attempt to drive sales traffic, and is clearly prohibited by policy. That you do not like me calling a spade a spade is neither here nor there." - personal attacks continue. if only you knew my political allegiances! As I've said, for the third time now, I only heard of him in the last 18 hours or so, as a result of the Mumford & Sons debacle. So what is it you're accusing me of? Being on Ngo's payroll, or just a fanboy? TomReagan90 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What other reason could you have for including an explicitly-commercial link to buy a book on a particular bookseller's website? Do you just really, really like Jeff Bezos? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That too. We're all in cahoots. TomReagan90 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I described my justification perfectly in my edit summary. I quote it again, now, for the 5th, 6th time? "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." - TomReagan90 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No, you did not. You removed a 7,000-byte section with a multitude of reliable sources, including the Columbia Journalism Review, The Oregonian, and the literal freaking The New York Times. You removed a 1,000-byte section sourced to two reliable sources, Vox and The Independent. Neither of those sections are unsourced or poorly-sourced. The burden is on you to justify your removal, and by plain sight any editor can see that the material in question has reliable sources. It is not incumbent on other editors to read your mind to determine why you think the material is unsourced or poorly-sourced. If you are not justifying your removal under those terms, then there is no reason to remove it - rather, you should edit it, and explain your edits on the talk page. (And if you did not intend to justify your removal under those terms, why did you cite the "unsourced or poorly-sourced" policy section in your edit summary? It clearly does not apply to either section.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No, the burden is on you according to Wiki Policy. WP:BLPUNDEL Under the heading of "Restoring deleted content": To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Furthermore, in case you didn't catch it the first 7 times: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion... "The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." And most specifically and importantly to the deletion of the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"): "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." TomReagan90 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You don't have a "good-faith BLP objection" here - the material is clearly reliably sourced and there are no claims that it is false or misleading. The sections in question do not facially violate BLP. That section of policy is not read to mean that anyone can unilaterally remove entire well-sourced paragraphs of biographical material from any biography merely by crying BLP and demanding that a formal consensus be established for each and every word of a biography. If that was the case, our biographies would be essentially barren.
    And again, you keep citing a section of policy about removing material which explicitly applies only to material which is unsourced or poorly sourced. You bolded the wrong section. You just admitted you don't claim the material is unsourced or poorly sourced. Thus, that part of the policy does not apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    OK, so state your contention clearly: you believe that having a section entitled "Credibility", that details all the ways in which various people have attacked his credibility as a journalist, is suitable for a journalist's BLP? You believe that? Yes/No? If "No", my removal was correct according to Wiki Policy, and your revert was in breach of Wiki Policy. If you think that is OK, that that is encyclopedic and not in breach of WP:BLP, then please, say so. Yes or No. Very simple Jack. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, I do - I think the fact that a journalist's credibility has been widely disputed, and that certain evidence has been presented in support of those disputes, and that those disputes have been widely discussed in sources including The Columbia Journalism Review and The New York Times, makes clear that the question is certainly worthy of encyclopedic discussion. And if you disagree, the place to have that discussion is Talk:Andy Ngo because ANI does not resolve content disputes. If you can get a consensus of editors that the section is inappropriate, then your position will carry the day and the section will be removed. If you can't, it won't. Very simple Jack. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thankyou for having the honesty (or stubbornness) to stand by your convictions. NorthBySouthBaranof believes the section/sub-heading titled "Credibility" should remain, as is. Stated here for the record. We'll see how that turns out for you. (Tough day at work I gather?) TomReagan90 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Nope. Why would I work on a beautiful Thursday? Got girl-drink drunk, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (P.S. neither the Columbia Journalism Review - if the original article ever even existed, no one seems to be able to source it - nor the New York Times article, say anything even close to supporting your preferred wording "Ngo's credibility and objectivity as a journalist has been extensively criticized". Even if those two sources did themselves "extensively criticize" him (which they don't) that still wouldn't support your wording. But I guess that's where you and me differ eh? I won't speculate as to what you do for a living, or make any accusations against you personally as you have done repeatedly to me, all I will do is state the obvious: we clearly have very different standards for what kind of language and what kind of sources should be included and relied upon in an encyclopedia. TomReagan90 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC))Reply


    Why don't you just admit that your edit summary was deliberately misleading (containing 6 reverts, not 2), and that my 3 edits were constructive, an improvement, and you had no good faith reason to revert them? If not, tell us, tell us what's wrong with those edits? Are they not written in a much more neutral, encyclopedic tone? Why did you revert them? TomReagan90 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • Hang on. NBSB you're saying linking a citation to Amazon.com is improper? Can you explain that? Levivich 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Does this diff look like a citation to you, Levivich? Because it clearly isn't - it's a prohibited inline external link. Please read before commenting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Yes, that looks like a citation to me, in a section called "Bibliography". Since when is linking the title of a work in a bibliography section to Amazon or Google Books or whatever prohibited? Or is it because it's a work by the article subject, is that the issue? What policies are you referencing exactly? Generally, could you please explain your thinking instead of restating your position? Thanks, Levivich 01:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      The original cite had a link to the neutral ISBN template, which has multiple international options to find the work; they reduced it down to Amazon.com (which of course is useless outside the US for everyone else). Linking to one seller of a product clearly violates WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Have you never read WP:ELNO #15, Levivich? It's right there in black and white - promo inline links to single bookselling companies are deprecated and have been for... decades? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    My $0.02: you can put the book in the bibliography - that's not the issue. The issue is that you added it in the form of an external link, something that is explicitly forbidden by WP:AMAZON. And as for the accusation of advertising, I'll assume good faith on your part, since there's no evidence of intentional advertising. MiasmaEternalTALK 01:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    @MiasmaEternal: I personally could give approximately two-fifths of F.A about the linking edit - which I admitted above was an experiment gone wrong... and how in god's name am I supposed to know that such a thing as WP:AMAZON exists?! (I've made 200 edits in like 18 months, such is my Wikipedia career). What I would appreciate comment on from established editors, is the fact that NorthBySouthBaranof deceptively mass reverted my contributions, by attaching a deliberately misleading edit summary, and downgraded the quality of the article - the precious lede in particular - without any justification. He continues to refuse to provide any justification, because it's clear to anyone who looks at the edits, that they are an improvement towards establishing some semblance of NPOV. And he's also accused me three times now of having some personal or financial stake in Ngo TomReagan90 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    First time I've seen WP:AMAZON (or WP:ELP)-- thanks for pointing to that. @NBSB nevermind, this was the explanation I was asking for. Levivich 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I think that a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order here. If you're going to remove several sections of reliably sourced content, then you'd better be prepared to explain why exactly they're poorly sourced rather than just copy-pasting long passages of policy and expecting that to suffice. It's also concerning to see accusations of "downgrading the quality of the article" as if their edits are automatically better than someone else's. Judging by their misunderstanding of neutrality, it may be wise for TomReagan90 to stick to less difficult articles, refrain from "experimenting" with adding e-commerce links and avoid mass reverting until they have a stronger grasp of how things work around here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for that, very constructive. Another personal attack. (P.S. It may be boring to read, but Wiki Policy is actually very well thought out, a lot of work has clearly gone into it. Please, just read WP:BLP, the whole thing, and then come back and argue - on the merits of content and policy - what I did was wrong) TomReagan90 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, our polices are well thought out. However, you can't just cite policy and delete something with no further explanation. You must at least explain why the material you removed is a violation of policy, not simply assert that it is. This is what Dlthewave is trying to impress upon you. Simply replying with "read BLP" is not helpful at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Proposed boomerang

    I would like to formally propose a boomerang block or ban for TomReagan90. I tried handling their related requests at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, when I and another editor pointed out a fundamental flaw in their argument they responded by removing our posts [278]. From what I can see if we’re talking about "Misleading edit summary, deceptive editing, battleground mentality, personal attacks” then the shoe fits TomReagan90 much better than it fits NorthBySouthBaranof (if it even fits at all). They’re also on the BLP noticeboard complaining about the supposed “clear breach of WP:BLP" over Ngo while at the same time using their user page to host disparaging comments e.g. "fringe publicity hungry hacks” about a living person comparable to Ngo. At a bare minimum they clearly don’t understand our BLP policy and refuse to learn about it, if that refusal to learn continues then the community really has no option other than to find them WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    It was an edit conflict. I didn't intend to remove your post/s. Look: https://ibb.co/njswzxT That's the article that comes up for me, no mention of Ngo. That's where the confusion arises from. And my User Page is not an encyclopedia article. Standards are very different, I'm sure you'll agree. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    *WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPEN LINK ibb.co just tried to nuke me with malware and is on the known threats list of my institution. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's::::You have identified the source that is being misrepresented. It's blindingly obvious that this editor is doing so, and, rather than using a lousy browser, has edited the output to misrepresent the source. Yes, calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation, and I am being very serious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Back]] (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    ibb.co is an image hosting site. I just checked the link out in a VM and it's fine. That being said, bad actors have used security flaws in the site to propagate malware, and it should probably be added to the blacklist here, for that reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You clearly accessed the right article [279] you just refused to read the whole thing. You knew what the first sentence was (it does not mention Ngo), but then you claimed that there was no mention of Ngo in the article which just isn’t true. WP:BLP applies to *all* pages on wikipedia, including user pages and talk pages. It is the exact same standard. This is looking highly disruptive at this point, either that or we have a WP:COMPETENCE situation in which case you still need to either shape up or ship out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) I'd try refreshing the page, turning off adblock, or even a different browser. For some reason, I couldn't scroll at all the first time I loaded the page. But the CJR source does say discredited provocateur Andy Ngo about 3/4 of the way through the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    In any case, if you come across a reference that you can't access (be it a book you don't own, a paywall you can't afford to pay, a broken link, whatever), the appropriate course of action is never to simply remove the content. You should assume that the editor who wrote that section was able to read the source and use it appropriately. And in this case, they even quoted the relevant passage in the reference! –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I agree. But I am reading a completely different article! It has no mention of Ngo. None. The quote is not found. I can post you the screenshots of every single word. I can copy and paste the text of the whole article. It was not a mistake on my part, or your part, it obviously shows different content to different audiences (many news websites like the BBC, the Daily Mail (well, not really news is it...), etc, do the same thing, automatically, without you being aware of it. You can't assume that the content you have access to in the United States is identical across the globe. TomReagan90 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Here: https://imgur.com/Tz0QVAj You can see from my Search function, Andy Ngo does not appear. TomReagan90 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    There is a minor rendering discrepancy on the right side of that search box. It could be due to a video card issue, but it could also be due to the search box being edited. I'm not confident that it's the latter, but it remains a possibility.
    Regardless, Tom got the idea of posting screenshots from me, because I earlier posted a screenshot showing that the name certainly exists in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Pretty sure it is edited. That same page has "ongoing" in the article twice that should have shown up in the search. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think it's edited. It's just that he has deselected the edit box and you cannot see the cursor. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts (which is, let's face it, an even money bet these days) that's what's in the edit box is "Ngo[BLANK SPACE]", which would explain it not finding "ongoing"... but also explain it not finding the actual invocation of Andy Ngo in the article, as his name is followed not by a space but by a comma. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That's actually the exact possibility I had in mind when I mentioned the possibility that this is just a graphical glitch. Finding a substring in a larger string is such an old and well-tested function that the odds of a browser glitch causing this are virtually null. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know what you're playing at. You just blanket reverted 15 of my edits. Each of which I gave a precise, policy-sourced justification for in the edit summary. And the article is supposed to be on 1RR. All I've received is accusations of bad faith, lying (I'm not seeing the same article, how many times do I have to say it), and reversion of every single one of my contributions. Fair enough, I'm done, you beat me. I give up. I've lost the will to live. Congrats. Improving the article was obviously of no concern to you, just hounding a presumed, assumed political enemy? (If only you knew my actual political allegiences! Never mind my nationality!). I certainly won't make the same mistake again. Ciao, Ciao! TomReagan90 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support BLP topic ban or block per CIR. Even after being told to read the source and where to find the quote, TomReagan90 is still playing dumb and denying that it's there. This editor has no business working on BLPs. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Cheers buddy! (see screenshot above) WP:BITE TomReagan90 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, I saw the screenshot. I'm guessing it's a browser issue, what with the badozens of tabs you've got open, or maybe Chrome being, well, Chrome. Which is why I (politely) suggested refreshing and trying a different browser, but also told you where in the article the quotation was located so that you could actually read it. That you still haven't just, you know, read the article with your own eyes says you're not ready for editing contentious articles like this. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    For what it's worth, when I accessed the article from a New Zealand VPN, Andy Ngo was still there. It was the first time I have ever looked, so not a cache issue. Not sure what to make of it, quite honestly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support block as not here to build an encyclopedia. TomReagan90's userpage is an anti-Wikipedia diatribe containing a glaring BLP violation, which is ironic since this editor claims to be upholding BLP policy, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support BLP topic ban or block, they appear to be either unable to read articles accurately, or willing to lie about it, neither thing should be involved in BLPs or Wikipedia in general really. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support block Their recent comments at WP:BLPN, WP:3RR, Talk:Andy Ngo, User:TomReagan90 and here at ANI show that TomReagan90 has no faith in our processes, is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is unwilling to even take the first step towards improvement by acknowledging the issues with their edits.
    The whole story about an article displaying differently for users in New Zealand sounds extremely fishy to me but even if we're generous enough to take it at face value, an editor who causes this much drama over a minor source access issue probably shouldn't be editing at all and certainly shouldn't be editing BLPs. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose any sanction against TomReagan90. This editor is plainly here to build an encyclopedia (he quotes Wikipedia policy, for heavens’ sake!) and is transparently honest. But he is an inexperienced editor who has wandered into a contentious article, and doesn’t instantly understand how Wikipedia works. Why would he? Wikipedia is a very odd place – which could do with a policy such as ‘assume good faith’. Oh, wait…. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      I'd be more inclined to believe that if TomReagan90 showed any inclination to listen to people when they are telling them that they are wrong about the policy. It mostly appears that they are attempting to use policy as a sword to get their way in a content dispute. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What is the difference between attempting to use policy as a sword to get their way in a content dispute and attempting to apply policy in a content dispute? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It's one thing to be a new editor and blunder into disputes. It's another to almost instantly open a dramaboard thread accusing a longtime, experienced editor of having a "battleground mentality" - when all that editor has done is ask them to justify and discuss their proposed changes to a contentious article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    As far as I am aware, being a longtime, experienced editor does not make anyone immune from having a “battleground mentality”. I don’t edit American politics because I don’t know enough about it (that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it) but I have a very strong impression that almost everyone who edits American politics develops a battleground mentality after a while, and loses the ability to assume good faith in anyone who disagrees with them on any matter. And your comment makes it sound as if on Wikipedia, all editors are equal – but some are less equal than others.
    By the way, I see that the lede has recenly been changed to describe Andy Ngo as a journalist ‘per RFC’.
    Sweet6970 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Mostly that they don't seem to care about what the policy actually says or means, just that it might help them get the outcome they want. Seeing as several people have corrected them and they persist with the same incorrect assertions. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Or perhaps they are just interpreting it in a way which is not informed by deep and lengthy experience of Wikipedia. After all, it is not obvious that on an article which has a 1RR restriction, it is permitted to revert 15 edits at once. I seem to remember reading some discussion somewhere about how unclear it is as to what actually constitutes one revert. I wouldn’t be confident that I would get it right. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Nobody should need any rule to tell them not to tell lies. That is something that most people learn from their parents well before they become capable of editing any web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No. He is not "transparently honest". He is very transparently dishonest. Quoting policy says nothing about anyone's honesty or otherwise, but misrepresenting sources does. The policy on assuming good faith doesn't mean that we accept editors who tell bare-faced lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What source is being misrepresented? If it’s the article about Nancy Cooper, then I tried it on my own browser (not sure if that’s the right word), and CtrlF found a reference to Andy Ngo buried deep in the article. When I tried it from TR’s link, it came up as nothing found. Having a lousy browser is not the same as being dishonest, and calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If you're talking about TR's ibb.co and imgur.com links, those are just screenshots of the beginning of the article. CTRL+F (or anything, for that matter) isn't going to find "Ngo". In any case, if you're having trouble accessing a source, you shouldn't be using that as an excuse to revert editors who do, and you certainly shouldn't double down when your error is pointed out. And yes, the accusations against TomReagan91 are quite serious indeed, which is why sanctions have been proposed. –dlthewave ☎ 21:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (after edit conflict) You have identified the source that is being misrepresented. It's blindingly obvious that this editor is doing so, and, rather than using a lousy browser, has edited the output to misrepresent the source. Yes, calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation, and I am being very serious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It is not ‘blindingly obvious’ to me that the source has been deliberately misrepresented. It is perfectly possible that the so-called ‘misrepresentation’ was a technical mistake. And if the source is being obviously deliberately misrepresented, there is no point in doing so, because the supposed misrepresentation would easily be discovered. Your certainty that a lie has been told does not make sense. You need better evidence before you make such an accusation.
    It’s late where I am, so I probably won’t reply any more tonight. Thank you to all for your courtesy to me in this discussion.
    Sweet6970 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I mean this with all due respect, but the argument that "your evidence must be false, because no one would deceive this way as evidence would be so easily obtained" is sort of like a Joseph Heller pastiche. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I would never attempt a pastiche on such a brilliant book. But I do sometimes feel that when I’m editing Wikipedia, I’m living in it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose TR90 doesn't have a history that says they will be disruptive and it's understandable that a relatively new editor might make some missteps dealing with an article as controversial as the Andy Ngo article. That said, this should be a clear warning to tone it down, slow it down! It might be the case that the editors on "the other side" are biased POV pushing, policy ignoring jerks who just want to make very article... [blah blah blah]. But far more often, far more likely "the other side" is actually a good faith editor who thinks they are working to make the article more impartial and better overall. It's good when a controversial article like Ngo has opposing views so long as everyone makes a good faith effort to follow the rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and critically WP:CIVIL. TR90, I think the ball is in your court. Take it break (you decide how long), then start thinking about what you think is wrong with the article. I'm happy to talk about it. I think editors like TFD would be and TFD is a very sharp editor who hopefully would be willing to help you take the things your gut is telling you is wrong and turn it into "wiki-law" (not WP:WIKILAWYER) compatible argument that can be used at the talk page to get things done. Yeah, that means sometimes things go slowly but the alternative is no change. So I oppose with the understanding that this can't repeat. Springee (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Non-admin comment: I wondered why I had his user page on my Watchlist so I had a quick look through his contributions to remind myself and I rediscovered this trainwreck of an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar. I leave it to others to decide whether this, taken in conjunction with the disparaging comment about Sarkar on his User page, is indicative of an ongoing pattern of disruptive and non-neutral behaviour with respect to politically sensitive BLPs. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • NAC: I'm seeing some editors mention WP:CIR in the boomerang. The editor's clearly new; would them being assigned a mentor to teach them policies and provide feedback assuage concerns, or would this prove to be insufficient given other behavioral concerns? This could be coupled with a temporary topic-ban while the user develops skills in other topic areas. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This editor doesn't need to be taught about Wikipedia policies, but simply be taught not to tell lies. That is the job of parents in the first few years of life, not of mentors for adults. It is not Wikipedia's job to rectify such things. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    NAC No, this is clearly someone trying to 'right a great wrong', and these type of editors abuse the noticeboards and processes to try to do so. Their userpage throws up a 'be kind they're new' template...followed by a couple tract rants against admnis with bolding and small blockquote templating that suggests they know exactly what they're doing here. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Blocked from Andy Ngo for three months. TomReagan90's editing of Andy Ngo is highly tendentious. In this edit, they removed the statement that Columbia Journalism Review has described Ngo as a "discredited provocateur" and also removed the source, an article in Columbia Journalism Review which calls Andy Ngo a "discredited provocateur". Their edit summary falsely states that "source doesn't even mention Ngo". Yes it does, and the sentence containing the phrase "discredited provocateur" is even quoted in the footnote itself, if one reads it. Then they go on to put "by whom" templates[280][281] on statements supported by eight sources giving examples of "whom". And so on. I have blocked them from the article for three months. This is per my own discretion; it's not an attempt to close this discussion, in case people wish to come to a more comprehensive determination. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC).Reply
    Support siteban, or at the very least a ban from BLPs. If you're deliberately attempting to misrepresent sources to fit a POV, that should be grounds for an immediate ban on editing the topic areas you're doing that in at minimum and the whole site at most. This behaviour is revealing about his actual goals here, and cannot be explained as anything but wilful and malicious ignorance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    SethRuebens is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is adding his personal accusation of plagiarism to Britannia (TV series).

    SethRuebens began editing in December, 2019. All of his edits are about his insistence that Britannia (TV series) plagiarized his work. The sources he provides fail WP:RS (see related discussions at Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Britannia (TV series), and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#BGlobal Quoting Robin Mukherjee, as well Talk:Britannia (TV series)). SethRuebens was blocked 31 hours 24 Jul 20 for disruptive editing, blocked indefinitely from editing the article or its talk page on 31 Jul 20, then blocked for sockpuppetry 3 Aug 20. On 4 Mar 21, he was unblocked after an appeal to ArbCom (with a restrictions against editing the article).

    SethRuebens resumed editing 8 Jun 21 at Talk:Britannia (TV series), posting the same arguments multiple editors rejected last year. He continued the arguments at Talk:Britannia (TV series) and RSN[282] this week, as well as disputing with Slatersteven on User talk:SethRuebens.

    SethRuebens, who admits to being Ben Krushkoff, the person making the accusations of plagiarism, has made one minor constructive edit to Wikipedia not related to Brittania. SethRuebens is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and is solely interested in promoting his claims against the show's creators. His tendentious editing has used up many hours of multiple editors' time as they try to explain WP:RS and why his personal websites don't suffice to support adding a criminal accusation against other people to an article. I propose a site ban for SethRuebens.

    Note: I have set up news alerts for both the TV show and Ben Krushkoff; if reliable sources give coverage to the plagiarism claims, I'll add it to the article myself. Schazjmd (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Dear Administrators,
    I was granted permission to re-join the site after the Arbitration Committee looked into this very matter. It was agreed, by them, that I could rejoin and make edits, and continue the debate on the talk page of the Britannia article, which is what I’m doing now. The fact that other editors don’t want to engage in a debate is not a reason to ban me! I have started to make edits on other pages (and as a language teacher, MA grad and someone who has been paid to edit others professionally published work, I am more than capable of doing so).
    Please note, thousands of people across the world, including a number of subject experts and academics, agree with me that the article on Britannia is inaccurate: referring to Jez and Tom Butterworth as originally creating the series is simply not the truth. Naturally, as the person who has been accredited as creating the material which this show was substantially been based on, I object wholeheartedly to the article being left as is (as do others, even if they’ve had no experience of editing on here).
    In the words of another user, quoting Wikipedia: articles should include facts on a subject that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance. The letter from the Head of Scriptwriting at the UK’s leading Creative Writing course, and a number of other references from highly respected academics, supports the notion that this it is, unquestionably, a matter of academic and intellectual significance. How can a $100 million show based on plagiarism NOT be??
    2000+ people have signed the petition supporting me on Change.Org. It is therefore also a matter of societal significance.
    A three page article about the case, written by an IP and business law specialist, has been published in a national/internationally distributed business magazine. This is a tertiary, reliable, independent source.
    I have noted that a small clique of editors have continually tried to ban me from the site, both before and now (including most of the names supporting a ban for me). WP:LAWYERING has been used at every opportunity, when nobody has been able to answer my questions on the matter. I have my own suspicions as to why. There are a number of vested individual and corporate interests who would want to keep the truth from being told: there IS a dispute over the creation of this show, Sky HAVE been served with a Cease and Desist Letter on the matter, and hundreds of thousands of people (at least) now know about it. Reliable sources have commented on it.
    Attempting to ban me from the site and/or from making edits to Britannia’s talk page would be a clear breach of my right to freedom of speech and just supporting an article that is not neutral in its views. Why would anyone want to do that, especially when it’s been made clear that I have the support of the vast majority of people (almost exclusively) who have looked into the case and from a number of expert sources about this matter?
    A very expensive legal battle will continue and this debate will go on. The only logic about stopping it from happening on the talk page is because certain people don’t want the truth getting out there. SethRuebens (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    SethRuebens, a few points I'd like to be clear on. First, and probably the most important: what did you mean when you wrote A very expensive legal battle will continue and this debate will go on? Are you suggesting that you will take legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, or against individual editors here, if you were to be banned from this topic?
    Second, you need to recognise that you have no freedom of speech on this website. As is made clear in the Terms of Use (which you agree to abide by every time you click 'Publish'), editing here in any form is a privilege which may be withdrawn. Freedom of speech is not a concept that has any relevance to this environment; you are not in a public forum, you are editing content on a privately owned website, hosted on privately owned servers. You are required to abide by the rules, or your editing privileges get revoked.
    I haven't reviewed the sources myself, but it seems pretty clear that everyone involved in the dispute except for yourself (and a single new account created very recently with an exclusive interest in this subject, which is in itself rather suspicious) is of the opinion that the material is not well-sourced enough to be used on the page. Around here, we would normally call that a consensus to exclude the material. You would normally be expected to accept that and move on to editing something else. To be honest, you are giving the very strong impression that you are here to improve the encyclopaedia; I think that you are here to right an injustice, which is not our purpose. Is there anything you can say that might make me think differently? Girth Summit (blether) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Girth Summit, I was referring to the legal battle with Sky (UK) Ltd and the people who were responsible for taking my work, only.
    In terms of my rights to edit on Wikipedia, I have been granted permission to edit the talk page of Britannia and continue the debate there by the Arbitration Committee, as well as edit other articles, which I am starting to do (which is really what I meant by 'freedom of speech'. WP:WIKIHOUNDING from a small clique of editors, is both disrupting to me and annoying: it's affecting my enjoyment of editing and debating, as are the threats to try and ban me based on my desire to discuss the sources in a fair and constructive way.
    I am not responsible for the action of others here, but naturally I would be happy to hear others from outside the small clique (who are hellbent on keeping me from even discussing the matter) to join in. Who wouldn't
    Here's a question for you: why do you think it's so important to a small group of editors to stop me discussing this issue on the Britannia talk page, when I'm not making any changes to the article itself? Even if what I'm saying annoys them (unintentionally) or they disagree with me, surely there is no need to kick up such a fuss or try to ban me using any means necessary. Either debate me with me or don't. SethRuebens (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    SethRuebens, thank you for clarifying the point about the legal battle.
    The accusation of HOUNDING does not apply: you are not being followed from one article to another, all of your issues are coming from a single talk page, where you are not being allowed to get your way, and in continually arguing against consensus you are stretching people's patience.
    Freedom of speech, and the lifting of a block, are two very different things. Arbcom lifted the block on your account, but that action does not give you licence to ignore our other policies and guidelines, including the sourcing requirements for making controversial assertions about living people. It also does not give you a free pass if the community decides to ban you, either from the subject area, or from the project (as has been proposed below).
    To answer the question you posed: I think it's important to them because you appear to be using Wikipedia to further an external agenda, rather than to help write an encyclopaedia. Or, to put it another way: they believe that you are being motivated here by your own sense of injustice and a wish for 'the truth' to be known, rather than a dispassionate interest in ensuring that Wikipedia has accurate and well-written articles about a wide range of subject. There is no reason why you would know this, since your experience here has all been about a single article, but the people you are in disagreement with are widely-respected and experienced editors, who understand our editing guidelines very well, and who have a diverse range of editing interests stretching back years. The idea that they have some nefarious purpose in attempting to prevent you from adding this stuff is, frankly, preposterous, and you should withdraw it. Girth Summit (blether) 14:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Girth Summit Re. the hounding, it’s more a case of members from a small group of editors attempting to get me banned, at every turn possible, for having the audacity (!) to do something I have now been given permission to do by the Arbitration Committee: i.e continue the discussion on the talk page. If it’s not hounding, it’s WikiLawyering, or just being done as a way to try and silence me in my quest to find out why the sources aren’t acceptable to them and this site.
    Wikipedia’s WP:BLP policy states that ‘any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source’. Nobody has explained, satisfactorily in my opinion, why the 3 page Bglobal article, dedicated to this matter, cannot be considered a reliable source (it most certainly was published, which can and has been proved). It was being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, but rather than answer all my questions on the matter, or debate it to its conclusion, I was banned from the site (at the bequest of one of the same small clique of editors who have constantly been against me even discussing the matter). Following the policies and guidelines, I appealed, won that appeal, and yet the same thing is happening again.
    It’s not an assertion to say that multiple academic and experts agree with me that this television show was based, substantially, on an unauthorized adaptation of my work. It is a fact. On top of the published magazine article which references this, (independent and reliable), there’s a University Law Faculty’s online newsletter, as well as a number of independently published letters and posts from academics and experts, that confirm this.
    Given what I have mentioned above, and looking at the actions of editors who are grouping together to try and ban me, as opposed to providing clear explanations as to why reliable independent sources aren’t deemed reliable and independent by them, I feel I have every right to question their motives. To suggest that the people (both individuals and corporations) who so many others believe took and used my work don’t have a vested interest in keeping a reference to the fact off Wikipedia would be far more preposterous, in my opinion. But you know what they say about opinions! I’ll not mention mine on the matter again, as obviously it will be used against me and I wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings.
    Sticking to the facts, rather than accept the one about me being allowed to discuss this matter on the talk page of the article - and edit other pages (which I am now doing) - it is clear that the easier option is to try and ban me. That seems totally against Wikipedia policy and guidelines; against what this very site is about. SethRuebens (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The irony is if you do take this to court it will get the very kind of coverage that would enable us to include it (as you have been told, more than once). As to why you should stop discussing this, first off (as has also be said to you) wp:blp applies to talk pages as well. Secondly, you have added nothing new to this discussion since coming back, it is the same arguments over and over again. There comes a point when you are no longer in fact discussing the topic, but badgering Wikipedia to get your way (I have already, I believe, pointe you to wp:tenditious). Nor are we trying to stop you discussing it, you have discussed it. What we are is fed up with telling you it can't be added (and read wp:not and wp:talk talk pagers are not wp:forums to discuss the topic, they are there only and solely to discuss improving the article), and you are just making the same arguments over and over again. You have been allowed your say, its now time to move on.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    There's no irony in the fact that's getting this to court is something I am doing my utmost to make happen. It is a costly and time consuming process that is ongoing. It doesn't take away the fact that hundreds of thousands of people know about the dispute, and that is supported by numerous academics, experts and thousands of people (nb all majority and significant minority views should be included in articles). What makes no sense to me is why you would say you are not trying to stop me discussing it and that the matter has been discussed to its conclusion, when key questions remain unanswered. Instead of answering them, I have been threatened with and am indeed facing being banned by the people who I am asking the questions of (far more ironic, don't you think?). SethRuebens (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No the irony is if (and when) this goes to court you would get your way, so wait until it does, and you will get your passage in the article. You have discusses it, and all you are now doing is just saying the same stuff over and over again, that is not discussing it is wp:badgering, in fact, a year discussing it. And all of your questions have been answered, every one of them, you have been told wp:undue means multiple RS must say it. you have been told that SPS is not RS for this kind of claim wp:blp. You have been told that anything published on your website is not an RS. you have been told it does not matter how many people know about it, what matters is how many RS have reported it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    With respect I have asked questions on the reliable sources noticeboard about Bglobal that were never answered, before I got banned the first time round. And as for 'anything published on my website is not a RS', I would ask why: I have republished references and links to reliable and independent sources who support me or have referenced the news. I don't want to waste your's or other editor's time, though (as much as I don't want to waste my own). I'll maintain my absolute belief that the article is, in its current state, inaccurate and and does not represent all majority and significant minority views that have been published on the matter. My fight for justice outside Wikipedia will go on. SethRuebens (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Why would something that is published by you not an RS about you? Really? We have no way of knowing if you have edited those "testimonials" or if indeed they are even real, can you really not understand that? As to your last statement, is that is not a clear statement you are wpnothere nothing will be. We are not here to wep:rigthgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    SethRuebens This noticeboard is for issues surrounding conduct, rather than content matters. You have asked a number of times why nobody has addressed the BGlobal article, so I've left a comment on the article's talkpage with my tuppence worth on that matter. I know it's not what you want to hear, but I hope that it will at least partially explain why people appear to be so averse to accepting your proposed changes: in short, what you are trying to do is not how we write articles. Instead of accepting the judgement of multiple experienced editors who have reviewed your sources and found that they do not meet the requirements for content of this nature, you are accusing them of being a clique who are acting in bad faith to frustrate you: that combativeness, and the fact that you keep bringing up sources which you have been told repeatedly that we cannot use (like a Change.org petition or an open letter published on your website), is why people are losing patience with you and calling for you to be banned. Girth Summit (blether) 11:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    SlaterstevenHow can I possibly have edited a 3 page magazine article that was printed and published last year (not by me!) and distributed nationally/internationally? Or the posts made by Industrial Scripts to their 50,000 users?? Or the University of Westminster’s website??? In terms of the other testimonials, links to which I’ve posted on my own website, the suggestion that I have edited these to benefit myself is absurd (just check the links provided). Any suggestion that I could or would have edited the letter in support, from a world- renowned subject expert (who gave me permission to re-publish it), is also, quite frankly ridiculous.
    Don't forget, I am not hiding my identity here, Slatersteven: alongside writing and editing, I am a lecturer and teacher who has volunteered for NSPCC campaigns, nationally, and coached children’s sports voluntarily. Why would I risk my career and a clean criminal record by falsifying documents and sharing them publicly? It makes absolutely no sense. The people involved would have attempted to sue me for libel or get me arrested!?!
    For the record, I’ve even offered to share the original magazine article (in PDF format, provided by the publisher) and the email and letter from Mukherjee on WP:SHARED and remain happy to do so. As stated the other links can all be verified. It's seems, for some, that's it's far easier to spread mistruths and try and get me banned rather than look into the matter and accept the fact that it's not just me reporting it, but a number of independent and reliable sources. SethRuebens (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Come to think of it, how do we know you really are Ben Krushkoff? You might actually be some enemy of his trying to embarrass him by making a pest of yourself on Wikipeida. EEng 11:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Why would you do what you are doing here, which is not exactly looking good for you right now? And by the way not only have you sock puppeted (which is hiding your ID) you are not in fact using your real name, and have described what happened to you as "outing". So yes it might well be you tried to hide who you were until you were (in your words) "outed". We do not know, nor can we confirm anything, that is why we need RS to report it. THis is my last word here, its clear there is a consensus here for sanctions, and nothing you have said indicates you get or care about why people are saying this. This should really be closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your input and feedback, Girth Summit. I will respond, if I'm still allowed to (!), later, but I'm glad to see someone has actually taken the time to read the article and provide some constructive thoughts, as opposed to jumping in with a blanket criticism of the sources provided (and note I'm not suggesting Change be used as a reference, but the fact that 2,000 people have signed a letter of support clearly indicates this matter is of societal significance).
    EEng#s hilarious, but am sure the Arbitration Committee can confirm it's me based on the email I used to communicate with them. Debating an article that thousands of people clearly think is inaccurate, and that involves my own work and reputation, will never embarrass me, in spite of the hounding and lawyering. Article 27 of the UN Charter of Human Rights:
    Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
    Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
    It's obvious what parties should be embarrassed here and I'm not one of them. Regards, Ben. SethRuebens (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Joe jobs always say that. EEng 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Slatersteven Fair enough, but I still see this as you (and others) leading a posse trying to sanction me, as opposed to finishing the debate to a fair and reasoned conclusion. Just as below and the comments on the Industrial Scripts reference: you've asked if there's a COI with them, which I've answered there isn't, and then have gone silent. They are subject experts, a reliable and independent source, who have been proven to have reported on the case to their 50,000 followers. Given that they're one of a number of sources to have done so (University of Westminster, BGlobal, other subject experts and academics), I can see no reason why it's a bad look to point this out and let people know (via the talk page) that the article doesn't accurately represent all views. You also haven't responded to the logic in suggesting that I could have altered people's posts, which I responded to and is blatantly preposterous. Anyway...
    If I have to wait for further references to come to light, then so be it. I'll bide my time, edit some other articles in the meantime, and wait (Should I not be banned). However, taking away my right to debate and talk about the article on its talk page is akin to stopping me participating in the cultural life of the community and taking away my right to protect my moral interests resulting from a literary production of which I am the author. It is, in other words, a breech of human rights. Well done. SethRuebens (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You have no human rights to edit any website. Your "right to debate" is protected from interference by public authorities, which Wikipedia is not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I consider Wikipedia to be a valued part of cultural life of the community I live in; the one we all do. I am quite sure that committee members and the site founder would agree that it should adhere to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (just as Sky UK say they do, but are ignoring for the sake of profit). I'll have a look to see if it's enshrined in any policy documents, at some point. Thanks SethRuebens (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You would be incorrect. The site's stance can be summed up at the essay WP:FREESPEECH. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I understand and accept that I don't have the right to edit here if I've broken the rules (but I had been allowed to edit the talk page here, as well other articles, prior to doing so). However, with the article remaining 'as is' Wikipedia is also infringing on my rights as set out in the UN charter, just as Sky UK are: I, like anyone, has the basic right to the protection of the moral interests resulting from any artistic production of which I am the author. And I have been acknowledged as being such by the UK's leading Creative Writing faculty, at the time, and a number of others. If people think I'm embarrassing myself, or am being (unintentionally) annoying to others by trying to defend these moral rights, then sorry, but not sorry. I'll leave it at that. SethRuebens (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The UN charter or Declaration of Human Rights are not legally binding documents on individuals or private entities. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    No all of the above is what the courts are for, not Wikipedia, and that is where he needs to take this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @331dot: AFAIK the UDHR is not legally binding on anybody, including governments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    They are, however, the universally accepted moral principles or norms that apply to a human's rights (which 'are commonly understood as the inalienable, fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being'). If you don't think that Wikipedia or corporations should respect human rights, then that's down to you. Personally, I do. SethRuebens (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, but it becomes really hard to take a discussion seriously anymore when the UN's Human Rights Declaration is cited at ANI to excuse misbehaviour. I must admit it's the first time I've seen it here, though. I suggest acquainting yourself with the right to remain silent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    SethRuebens There is no human right to edit any website and no human right to enter private property and speak your mind; I can't enter your residence against your will and do or say what I wish there. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Arbor-treeish break

    • Support ban as timesink editor using Wikipedia to further an external dispute. Only today they claimed here that Just as there are references to sources who are reporting my certainty that my work was taken and used without my permission (BGlobal, Industrial Scripts and others). The Industrial Scripts claim relates to a single social media post which says Is this "arguably the biggest case of intellectual property (IP) fraud in the history of television"? Ben Krushkoff thinks so.... and links to one of SethRuebens' websites without taking any stance on whether the posed question is true or false. FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    So, a world leading script editing company, a 'reliable source' (subject experts), posts a reference to the case to 50,000 followers 'independently' - I don't even know them and didn't ask them to - yet this is not somehow reliable and independent? (they also referenced'staggering' and 'non-coincidental' elsewhere, btw). You're basically confirming my point, here, yet suggesting I get banned in the same post. OK. SethRuebens (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The only claim that these are "independent" comes from YOU, which, automatically makes them NOT independent. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It's not a claim, it's a fact: I have no sway over two academic faculties, the world's leading script editing company and a respected business magazine's editorial staff. Believe what you like, but please don't write mistruths. SethRuebens (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Do you have any kind of COI with the world's leading script editing company?Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Absolutely not. I have never worked for them, have no personal relationships with anyone who works there (or any of its directors) and didn't ask for the link to be shared. SethRuebens (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I have no sway over... That's nice, but irrelevant: You -- yes, YOU -- are the one claiming that you are getting this support. You. YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF BOTH THE CLAIM AND SUPPOSED SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIM. YOU. You can't even get the Daily Mail interested in your claim. --Calton | Talk 11:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support action. If this person believes as they do, then they need to pursue that in the proper forum, which is not Wikipedia. They don't really seem to be here for any other purpose. If they are interested in editing in other areas, a complete topic ban from this matter might suffice, but otherwise a NOTHERE block may be needed. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The clause which claims that the Butterworths created Britannia is disputed by thousands of people (academics, experts, Joe Public and myself). It is highly pertinent to the article and already was agreed it could be discussed by the Arbitration Committee. Without a reference to the fact, how does the article accurately represent all majority and significant minority views? SethRuebens (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Weird how this "widespread abuse" supposedly opposed by thousands of people, including academic experts, has somehow escaped the attention even of the Daily Mail, nor have these academic experts spoken out on their own -- and no, scanning pieces of paper and putting the images up on your website is NOT them speaking out, it's you, the guy trying to sell the world on your claims, trying sell the notion those unverified and unvetted pieces of paper as evidence.
    You've claimed some of this "proof" i being "republished" on your website, yet you have completely avoided the question of WHERE they published in the first place, And I do mean published, not typed out and printed out: published. In a journal, newspaper, etc, NOT your dodgy website, places (plural) independent of you. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion is about an article written by a well-respected IP and business journalist, printed and published in Bulgaria (which is in the EU), and distributed nationally and internationlly: BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611. Likewise, the user above has linked to a reliable source posting news of this to their 50,000+ followers, and there's the link to the University of Westminster's Law Faculty newsletter (published online).
    When have I written this involves "widespread abuse"? This is about a small group of people and the unauthorised use of my work. Over two thousand people have signed the petition supporting me, which is also easy enough for you to verify (so not 'supposedly' at all).
    Your above post is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Why would you do that? SethRuebens (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    PS. The fact that Sky spend millions in advertising in the UK press, and that this involves another media house (News UK), is it any wonder that the UK media are reluctant to print a piece exposing those responsible, that pits a foreign sounding individual against a much revered British playwright? The Daily Mail is no long considered a reliable source by Wiki, anyway, right??? It doesn't change the fact that it's the accepted academic opinion that my work has been heavily plagiarised, and news of this has been featured in reliable and independent sources. SethRuebens (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support topic ban from Brittania and its talk page, and from discussion of that TV show anywhere, broadly construed. If multiple reliable sources report on what this editor is obsessed with, then other editors can add it to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support T site ban (as an involved editor) I have no idea what Arbcom thought when they unblocked a pure SPA whose only reason to be here is to push a (BLP busting) agenda, and it would be nice if we could see the reasoning. Thus I am unsure just a TBAN is any good, as they are not here to do anything but fight for this claim to be added (so will in effect be a full ban anyway, so why not give them one?). They have refused to listen, when policy has been explained to them, and have exhibited a total battleground mentality. In fact, they have breached (as far as I can see) a number of policies. All to try and get us to include a claim, that no significant RS has deemed note-worthy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Changed to Tban as they have expressed a desire to edit elsewhere, that might be for the best.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • And given the UN bullshit and their "right to fight" I think now a full suite ban is in order, it's practically a manifesto they will continue to fight for their rights here. Why has this not been closed now?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support siteban. We've already had one Bogdanov Affair; we do not need another. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The fact that my name ends in +off/ov is pretty much where any link to The Bogdanov Affair starts and end. They were accussed of taking someone else's work and faking PHD's. I am the one who academics, experts and thousands of people believe has had his work taken. But sure, I am off part Eastern European heritage, so guess that makes me somehow a bad person or a fraud. SethRuebens (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The article in Bglobal (reliable and independent) wasn't published until August 2020, and was not part of the original edits. As for them being widely ignored, just because the MSM in the UK/US hasn't picked up on them yet, doesn't mean they've been ignored. Academically, they haven't (I've lectured on the case, as confirmed by the University of Westminster, and been supported publicly by a number of academics). They haven't by society either (hence 2,000+ people have signed the petition in my favour). I'm not trying to change the article myself; but taking away my right to discuss it on the talk page is in breech of what the Arbitration Committee have allowed me to do and also, I'd argue, goes against my basic human rights. If you don't want to join in, then don't (nobody is forcing you to). SethRuebens (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support ban as a completely uninvolved editor who's just wasted about an hour trawling through the history of this... 'dispute' - community time and energy is better spent elsewhere. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • This is the umpteenth time the user has claimed some kind of (specific) permission to discuss this matter. I think we need to know what they were told by Arbcom, exactly what the terms of their unblock were. As I find it hard to believe Arbcom would (in essence) say "you can ignore wp:forum and just discuss this in any way you like", if they did we need to be made aware of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      This is the Arbcom announcement. The "archived discussion" consists solely of a link back to the announcement, so it all seems to have taken place in email, I presume. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Yes I checked that, It is why we need Arbcom to say what was agreed, as I find it hard to believe they would have given blanket permission to treat a talk page like a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    For the record, this is an exact copy of the body of the email (I've withheld the committee member's name who sent it, as I don't know whether that would be permitted):
    The Arbitration Committee has been discussing your appeal and we have come to a consensus to grant your appeal subject to conditions, specifically:
    1. You are restricted to one account
    2. You are restricted from editing Britannia (TV series but you will permitted to edited the associated talk page
    3. You must comply with the COI disclosure guideline - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI
    Please let us know if these conditions are acceptable, and if so, which account you will be using. Also note that an on-wiki record will be made of these restrictions.
    On behalf of the Arbitration Committee (...) SethRuebens (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Siteban It's incredible the time we spend on stuff like this. It's perfectly obvious this guy's here to push his own personal and (likely) financial interests. There's zero possibility that he can contribute usefully. Full site ban and be done with it. EEng 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support ban per EEng and Allie. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      When a user starts citing the "UN Declaration of Human Rights" to support their "right to protest" in the form of editing Wikipedia articles to promote their personal/financial interests, my support for a site ban only grows stronger. WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTADVOCACY etc. Seems like a nice person, but their purpose is not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia, and thus are a WP:TIMESINK as far as Wikipedia is concerned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support ban or just a TBAN if there's interest in doing something other than self-promotion. This editor is wasting our time. I'm also concerned they're working with BillsonBobletian. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support Tban just in case he's actually able to constructively edit in other topics, but given he constantly brings up the fact that he got "2000+ signatures" on a Change.org petition as if that proved notability, I'm afraid there might also be some WP:CIR concerns here. —El Millo (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support site ban. He's an SPA who's shown himself utterly incapable of understanding or willing to acknowledge anything which contradicts his self-serving spin on policy, guidelines, acceptable behavior, or common sense, really. Given that track record, I CANNOT imagine how he could contribute productively in general, given hs inability to learn anything which isn't self-serving. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    From someone who has written a load of untruths about me, the sources being referenced and the nature of the discussion. Fair enough. SethRuebens (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support site ban I was granted permission to re-join the site, this is far different from being "granted permission" to resume a POV battlefield approach to push one's own agenda on the site, and I'm not seeing any change in that regard. — Ched (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support site ban - Per Alfie, EEng and Calton. They have shown zero interest in anything other than pushing their own agenda, the very definition of not being here to build an encyclopaedia. We have wasted quite enough time on these shenanigans already. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I note that they have still only made one edit outside this one cause (not even subject, just their cause). I still think only a Tban, so they can show they are here to create an encyclopedia and not just use us to strengthen their claim (and I suspect if we did include this that is what they would do use it as a bolster to their claim) in a court of law.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      I can't parse that bit in parens. EEng 16:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      That they are not only interested in just one topic area or even topic (as are most SPA's), but a very specific issue within that topic. That they are here for one reason alone, and that is to promote their grievance against the writers of the show, not even to improve the article itself.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Support ban, utterly uninvolved admin already worn out by this user's posts all over the place about his pet project. I'd have already implemented it myself if it weren't for the arbcom unblock. It is clear that this editor is not here to contribute productively to this encyclopedia. Maybe there will eventually be coverage of his lawsuit, but there is no consensus right now that there's reliable sourced coverage of his accusation and therefore it does not belong. If he wishes to edit logged out, there's no reason this shouldn't be a violation of his unblock and therefore be reblocked.Star Mississippi 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • Extended comment given arbs' comments below, it seems that any admin can ban without fear of ArbComm should they see consensus to do so. As I've since !voted, I won't, but my advise to you, SethRuebens is quit digging. Asserting your moral right is another flirtation with no legal threats and further proof that you do not understand the sourcing and cannot navigate your COI and edit responsibly. Star Mississippi 01:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • OP comment The continued arguments by SethRuebens display either an inability or an unwillingness to understand and accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. An editor who cannot recognize the difference between reliable and unreliable sources cannot contribute productively, which is why I believe the site ban is preferable to the topic ban. Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Ban, as is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. What on Earth were Arbcom thinking of by unblocking such an obviously disruptive editor? I think we should be told some time before the next election to that body. Is there a way to ping Arbcom generically, or do I have to contact a member individually, which I prefer not to do because I dislike doing anything that smacks of personal privilege? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      While I can't answer what ArbCom were thinking with this unblock (I was inactive at the time, and I'm unwilling to speak for anyone else), it may be worth clarifying that nothing in ArbCom's unblock gives this editor permission to act disruptively, nor should it be construed as preventing the community from dealing with them accordingly. In particular, taking up contributor time by fighting one's legal battles on the pages of Wikipedia is not behaviour that should be tolerated. – bradv🍁 18:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      @Phil Bridger: to your other point about pinging: as far as I am aware there is no way to ping the committee. It would certainly be handy but I just can't think of how it would even work. Closest thing we have is emailing the committee, but as you can see you've already got at least some of our attention here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Beeblebrox, couldn't you use a group ping template? The FA coordinators have one, {{@FAC}}. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      We could; the arb clerks also do at {{@ArbComClerks}}. It's currently possible to ping all the arbs by including everyone individually on {{re}}, but people don't often do that because it's quite disruptive. If we had an official template, I'd worry about over-use (oh, this is an official option, let's use this for any minor thing). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      @ArbCom: I created a notification template. I'm a little concerned that this pings a lot of people, but if it ends up getting used frivolously or abusively we can always disable it. – bradv🍁 00:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Hi everyone. If I were here not as an arb, I would be voting to siteban – indeed, I would've imposed a full site block myself. As an arb, I'll step forward and apologize for this one. I also won't speak for any other arbs, but I voted to unblock because SethRuebens had credibly resolved the sockpuppetry part of block (the sole siteblock reason, in which two accounts were used and convincingly disclosed to ArbCom in the appeal) and committed to avoid further sockpuppetry. In retrospect, I should have voted to deny the appeal, but I think it was a closer case than we can see in retrospect. When ArbCom unblocks a user, especially with restrictions, we aren't trying to confer "immunity" of some kind on the user: my hope is exactly the opposite, that it be treated as a last chance, super ROPE unblock. The instant SethRuebens became disruptive upon return, I would've wanted him blocked without question. That clearly isn't the message that we sent here, especially if admins are saying they would've blocked had we not earlier unblocked, and I'm sorry about that. I take full responsibility for all the trouble this has caused. If anyone has any feedback on how we can better convey it's-a-last-chance-not-immunity message beyond imposing restrictions, please let me know. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • @L235: Thanks for explaining this. IMO WP:AC/P is less than clear about what the community and/or admins can/can't do with respect to arbcom blocks/unblocks, and I think it would benefit from some revision. Levivich 20:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    KevinL Please note, I have not set out to be 'disruptive on my return' at all and am sorry that you think this is the case.
    Please note I was banned (from what I can recall at the bequest of a user, who I believe had a credible link to one of the opposing parties in this debate), prior to having simple questions answered on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Given that I was specifically allowed to rejoin as an editor and make edits to the talk page of Britannia, I had simply presumed that the debate could continue until it's conclusion. It was never made clear to me by the Arbitration Committee that it couldn't.
    Of course, I am not happy that a number of editors have tried to misrepresent the sources I have provided (above and on other pages) and have gone straight for the jugular (i.e. people have been saying it's only me or a website I've made that references this controversy, which is simply not the case, and immediately set out to have me banned again). However, I have noted that some of the editors have come up with one or two valid points that I'm prepared to accept on the matter and will refrain from making further edits on the talk page until the matter is resolved (one way or the other), at least after responding to the last comment made there.
    I do, however, stand by my statement above regarding my human rights. Sure, I might not have the right to edit on this site, and it can be taken away from me (fair enough). But the article will be infringing on my moral rights as a creator as set out in Article 27: I have the basic right to the protection of the moral interests resulting from any artistic production of which I am the author. I am supported in my certainty that Britannia was based on my work by thousands of people, including from within academia and the industry. A failure of Wikipedia to recognise these rights would be morally wrong in the eyes of those people, and a growing number of others. Thank you for your time, Ben SethRuebens (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Again, just because you're not satisfied with the consensus outcome doesn't mean the discussion hasn't concluded. It has, and your continued insistence that you're owed some additional explanation ad infinitum is highly disruptive. 2600:6C60:6A00:1B2:7C23:D112:B70C:1FCC (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I am supported in my certainty...
    No, you're certain of your support, despite your complete inability to provide hard evidence of actual support.--Calton | Talk 11:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    It is clear from here and this [[283]] that they are going to continue to push this agenda on Wikipedia. That nothing we say (admins, involved editors, uninvolved editors Arbcom) will alter or moderate that desire. It is also clear (with the whole Arbcom unblock) that they will twist whatever they are told to an interpretation that will give them a justification to continue. This has run its course, and nothing more can be added by either side that has not already been said more than once. Can we please close this now as a massive time sink? The consensus is clear and pretty much snowy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • Support site ban I've commented on the content and sourcing at the article talk page, so am not in a position to close this discussion, but I concur that the consensus is clear and that this is a time sink. SethRuebens has failed to recognise that every experienced editor who has looked at this has concluded that the sources simply aren't good enough, and has gone from accusing his interlocutors of bad faith attempts to silence him, to claiming that we are infringing his human rights by following our content and sourcing policies. I don't believe that he has any interest in editing articles that aren't about his campaign, and thus support a site ban rather than a topic ban. Girth Summit (blether) 12:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    Moglix has been deleted multiple times since 2016. It has recently been nominated (once again) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (3rd nomination).

    To give a background on how this specific iteration got to the deletion nomination, Hayema K made the page for Moglix in the article space. Celestina007 moved the article to the draft space, telling [284] the article's re-creator that the article did not match the verifiability standards. Hayema K proceded to add sources, remove the AfC tag, and move the draft into the mainspace without going through the AfC process. After seeing the article in the mainspace DJRSD tagged the article with a potential undisclosed paid editing notice and nominated the article for deletion.

    Several editors, including me, participated in that nomination discussion. Today, Hayema K made a !vote for keep, but also pinged three specific editors who had participated in prior discussions on the topic: Cunard, David in DC, and CNMall41. Hayema K stated that the aforementioned editors may want to give their opinions here as well.

    It's pretty clear why only three editors were picked from prior discussions—the pinged editors had !voted to keep the page in previous deletion discussions, and were the only three to !vote in favor of keep in the most recent deletion discussion:

    In fact, these three were the only ones who !voted for keep in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination).

    There were four editors that commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) that !voted for delete/speedy delete. Hayema K has not pinged any such editors.

    From the above, the actions above Hayema K show a clear intent to stack the discussion in their favor, by selecting only editors whose stance on the issue is known and lean keep. In my view, this shows that Hayema K is currently here to WP:WIN, rather than to build an encyclopedia.

    In light of the above, I propose that Hayema K be:

    1. Topic banned from deletion, broadly construed, for a period of 1 year and
    2. required to submit articles they create through Articles for Creation for review, until the user becomes extended-confirmed.

    — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Pinging other editors from previous discussions is not canvassing. However, being that Hayema K pinged only those they sought favor with, I would agree with Mikehawk10 and support the recommendation on this. There is also a strong smell of WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID with Hayema K. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Calm down 1. Topic-banning a brand new user from everything to do with page deletion over a single questionable edit would be an overreaction. Don't WP:BITE and so on. 2. All COI editors are required to go through AfC by default so we just need to make this new user aware of that existing requirement (as well as the requirement to disclose their COI). There's no need for any tailor-made sanctions at this time IMO; instead, an attempt to educate the user should be made and only if that fails should we be looking into other options. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The user is not new unless they are extremely fast on the uptake of rules and policies and general wikilingo. While it is a vague possibility, it's far more likely they either went from an IP account to a named account, made a new account, or do a lot of lurking (enough so that they should definitely know better than to canvass). Jcmcc (Talk) 13:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The editor who nominated the article for deletion also did some inappropriate canvassing (by pinging specifically the two editors who "recently declined the article"[285]) and even though two wrongs don't make a right, it's hard to ignore the fact that Hayema's canvassing merely restored the balance, if you will. They do seem to be a quick study, as you noted; it's therefore not unreasonable to believe that they arrived at the idea of pinging other editors who are likely to be sympathetic to their cause by looking at what the afd's nominator did; sanctioning them for it would be ridiculous. Instead, they need to be made aware of the fact that they followed a bad example. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Pinging only editors who voted the way you want the current discussion to go is surely an effort to stack the vote. And, at least circumstantially, this looks like an editor who knows our rules, rather than an a actual new editor who deserves bite-insurance.
    I think some consequence is required, to teach this editor and to protect the project.
    I take no position on whether the proposed consequence is too harsh, nor on the article in question. I hardly edit any more and defer to folks who do on those questions David in DC (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Having closely examined this saga, what I can say is I do believe it does our reputation a disservice, what message are we trying to pass across by voting to retain a possible COI article on mainspace? If an editor has a COI with their creation then they ought to know to pass it through the AFC process and not try to circumvent it and if/when circumvented it is behoove of senior editors to correct such. I really do not think we should be actively encouraging such behavior. It’s a slippery slope. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • No this is not a "new" user: their contributions show that immediately after becoming autoconfirmed, they plonked down a well formatted article about their favorite company Moglix [286]. The editor then comes to the AfD discussion and expresses, in perfect wiki fluency, I don't believe it qualifies for WP:G4. The 2nd discussion took place around 4 years ago and the topic has since received an abundance of significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG with ease. That's the typical behavior of UPE editors. AGF and BITE are not a suicide pact. JBchrch talk 12:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • And now there is an SPA IP (who also commented above), making accusations of me being disruptive. Sigh. Would request someone take a look and if I am disruptive, sanction me. If not, please block this editor as WP:NOTHERE. At this point, this is wasting too much of volunteer editors' time playing whack a mole with people trying to use Wikipedia to promote this company. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Your re-addition of the coi template to an article where it no longer serves any useful purpose (because the issues have been resolved) in an edit which also re-introduced several other issues, such as decapitalizing the first letter of one of the sentences (diff) was unambiguously disruptive and referring to me as an SPA (even though I'm clearly not, one look at my contributions is enough to determine that) constitutes a personal attack, but I oppose any sanctions. Instead, everyone should calm down and focus on what's best for the encyclopedia. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I was routinely editing pages..... Out of the blues this user SpacemanSpiff comes on my talk page and given me a block threat... admins are being requested to kindly control bullying to new users.. thanks in anticipation DavidWood11 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    In case you didn't notice, SpacemanSpiff IS an admin. A brief look at your (David's) talk page shows multiple warnings by multiple editors. Posting here shines a light on that fact. You may want to consider the idea that if multiple editors have issues with your editing, then perhaps you need to change your editing. So no, I personally won't be talking to SpacemanSpiff about anything he's done since he hasn't done anything wrong. (IMO). Personally I suggest you heed the warnings, but YMMV. — Ched (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That warning is more than appropriate, almost every edit of yours is some sort of POV pushing. I had to bring up your conduct here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065 § User:DavidWood11 – Severe competency issues to which you said you needed time to respond but never did. It got archived and now you are back again after a month with the same issues. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Okay since DavidWood11 needed more time to respond last time his competency was brought up here, and has now decided to return to this board, perhaps now is a good time to address those concerns. You have had a few months since then to submit your "side in the defense against the allegations as levelled by Tayi Arajakate". HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @DavidWood11: last time you asked for more time and waiting for it to be archived. I think this time we should address the situation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Okay David, every attempt has been made to communicate with you about these issues. If you want to disappear when the community attempts to communicate with you about them then I will consider those attempts at communication to have failed. I urge you to take Mr. Spiff's warning seriously, I have added your talk page to my watchlist. If you do want to discuss these matters then this is your chance to do so. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I'd like to make a complaint against Alex 21 for repeatedly undoing my edits in The Flash (season 7) page. The thing is, I've added 'Interlude I', with a Twitter link as source and a screenshot because the Twitter is private. He simply refuses to accept it, even though 'Graphic Novel 3' has the same kind of source. I hope you can put an end to this. Thank you. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    You must notify any user that you discuss here about the existence of this discussion- but this forum is not for resolving content disputes. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Ok. So where do I report him for abuse? 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I have placed the required notice on the user's talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    190.89.167.143 requiring a source for an addition to an article is not abuse, it is good editorial discretion. It is part of our standards that things be sourced. I suggest that you stop trying to add things to the article and instead go to the talk page and present reliable sources.
    Continuing to post the same thing to the article over and over day after day without presenting a source can result in you being blocked from editing for edit warring. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I did present a source. Eric Wallace's twitter. It's not my fault if the guy can't acess it, but other people can. That means it's a valid source. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I suggest you actually read our reliable source policy rather than just its title. Twitter posts are not a reliable source, nor is it a secondary source. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Oh yeah? Then how about the Graphic Novel 3 source that he just removed? That thing is unsourced now. Someone warn him that. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The screenshot of the twitter post? Are you even reading what is being said to you? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I have asked them to read the RS policies, IP I suggest you drop this before there is a boomerrang. Screen shots are not RS, it is arguable if even the Twitter post would be.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Have reviewed it and Alex has done nothing wrong. As previously discussed above, Twitter is not an appropriate source to use. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    IP added sales links of Amazon as sources to American Pie (film series) diff. I reverted. They reinstated it and left a message on my talk page stating " I just put the same sources as the other four movies" which is brings in the issue of WP:OTHERCONTENT. Additionally, their statement is false, as only one other minor American Pie film articles had Amazon links (that weren't added by this IP). I removed the Amazon links and a link to another sales site from that article here and cited my reason as WP:ADV. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    This IP editor is not listening to the community and has become disruptive because of that. I think a block is in order. They keep repeating their incorrect opinions and ignored everything said by other more experienced editors.
    Their disruptive edits have continued since this discussion has given them feedback. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. As always, welcome review of the block by all. Daniel (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Given the long term that the IP has had the same owner I think this is an appropriate length to get their attention. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    Seems to be creating ridicules content like List of Blocks on Minecraft which is completely unsourced, and it seems the user has created numerous versions of the page before that has been deleted. This too me seems disruptive to wikipedia and I can't see it being stopped unless an admin takes strong action. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    User hasn't edited in a month. Unless they return and start doing this kind of thing again, I don't think there's a need to do anything. (Non-administrator comment) I'm dumb. – Rummskartoffel 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Rummskartoffel: Incorrect, they created the now delete article, which I assume means their recent contrib got deleted also. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You're right, I didn't pay attention to that. Struck. – Rummskartoffel 11:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It's also a copyvio - it's an unattributed copy paste of a page from the minecraft wiki. For some reason they've also been copying and pasting the talk page across, compare Draft talk:List of Blocks in Minecraft to https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Block. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I have deleted all of their Minecraft pages; the images alone would fail NFCC, let alone the text (such as it is ) being a copyvio. All were completely unsourced, as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Perhaps the user does want to add blatant Minecraft content in Wikipedia which is illegal per WP:NOT. A quick response from the admins is possible for him not to post "oh no, not another Minecraft content in drafts" thing.

    I also nominated one of his now-deleted pages before in the MfD but it was kept per some obvious reason.

    As for the image thing I still don't encounter such thing before (I'm not in Commons, sorry).

    As for the copyvio thing said by a fellow IP above I'll better ignore it as it might lead to another or such a bad thing around us.

    Look at the user's talk page especially the names of his deleted drafts it is all Minecraft-related. A topic block, specifically a block on any video-game related articles would have been feasible for this action... But still keep an eye on him. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 15:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    And their response to the draft being deleted has been to vandalise someone else's user and talk pages by moving them to draftspace and blanking them. Can someone move User:TheWikiholic's user page and talk page back to their proper locations? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    User page has been brought back. I want to say something that Barlan Samson is editing Philippine-related articles in his contributions page. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 03:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It's not a lot of editing going on, but going and vandalising another users, user-page, is another red-flag. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Good day and the user removed the notice of the speedy deletion nomination of one of his Minecraft-related drafts, uh oh... User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 09:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Rockstone35: For me, as he created several (or two) Minecraft-related drafts that were deleted, a topic ban from video games is my first choice as a precautionary measure. But still keep an eye on him. User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 11:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I should not for posterity the sockmaster appears to be Frional Leeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the same use of song lyrics in edit summaries and focus on Alexbrn. Cases should probably be merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • In Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Noticeboards_2, it states that "you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user." If the following item of mine is inappropriate here, I would be grateful if you can instruct me to other dispute resolution methods.
    • I have interpreted the following dispute as a conduct dispute rather than a content one. Please correct me if you think my interpretation of this dispute is wrong.
    • In Talk:Mesut Özil ([[288]]), the honourable editor User:Walter Görlitz accuses me of being a nationalist. Despite my categorical denials based on my supporting evidence (I deem some of my previous edits are sufficient to disprove this honourable editor's claims on my personal view of the world - nationalism - which I reject completely and utterly. e.g. I have been trying to improve anti-Turkish sentiment and anti-Greek sentiment articles at the same time - for which I have also draft content for both articles' improvements.), I have still being kept accused and labelled of a nationalist, which makes me extremely uncomfortable and unhappy.
    • I can accept if I have made an editorial mistake causing these personal accusations, but such edits do not reflect my political view. However, the honourable editor User:Walter Görlitz thinks, otherwise.
    • I kindly request you to guide us in this dispute, if possible. Many thanks for your time.

    17kuti (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I'm not seeing any such accusation. In this diff, Walter Görlitz even clarified that he's not accusing you of anything, and only meant that your edit is similar to that of Turkish nationalists. Also, maybe don't use phrases like "Kurdification attempts" because it's not a good look. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. That was the purpose of my edit. I have seen similar edits, but the sources speak for themselves. I probably should have just written, "sources do not support rationale provided with removal". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Many thanks. I believe and think that the honourable editor Walter Görlitz had said everything necessary to label me as a nationalist apart from directly stating that "you are a nationalist."
    However, everything has been resolved from my point of view now since this honourable editor conceded that his/her first edit summary has the potential for the culprit and could be written without involving any presupposition of my personality, my view of the world and my intention for this edit. In addition, I understand and imagine the honourable editor Walter Görlitz's frustration due to dealing with all these nationalists on such a trivial item - and his immediate skipping of many steps in Graham's hierarchy of disagreement - possibly I would do the same if I were him/her. Nevertheless, I kindly want to remind him/her the principle of presumption of innocence. One million edits/reverts by nationalists on the same item cannot and do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I am a nationalist if I edit the same item posteriori. I couldn't care less if Mesut Ozil is a Kurdish or a Turkish or a Malay. My motivation for this edit has been clear: I had seen two extremely unreliable sources regarding a living person while I happened to be there to add something about his public relations to some of the politicians. My mistake was the edit without discussion that I had safely assumed that this extreme non-verifiability could be apparent to literally anyone -novice or expert user- and safely considered some of the Wikipedia rules stated in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (e.g. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page.) Yet immediate revert by the honourable editor Walter Görlitz, and the content of the edit summary (which I deemed personal rather than to the topic) led me to defend myself in terms of my personality as well as the verifiability of sources. Finally and unfortunately, I ended up doing a research on a topic which I literally did not care before. (I decided to finalise the research, but this is for another discussion on content.) I believe that the issue of the conduct of the user has been resolved.
    Lastly I kindly remind the honourable editor Walter Görlitz again that the principle of presumption of innocence is a real and a not-rarely-happening notion; my solid understanding of anything does not make me of that thing (re:"imply a solid understanding of Turkish nationalism"), and please put a right amount of effort to acknowledge and disseminate the different choices of identities made by groups of people since Kurds had suffered a lot from many denials to their identities (e.g. Denial of Kurds by Turkey) (re:"I know that Turkish and Kurdish nationalists see a distinction between being both Kurdish and Turkish, but the real world does not.").
    I believe that the honourable editor Woodroar is right about stating that the phrase of "Kurdification attempts" in that edit was very ugly; yet I am afraid it also was intentional. My personal experience on reading the ugly fights on "Turkification/Arabisation attempts" on Saladin or "Kurdification attemps" on Ismail I etc. was led me to coin a term that (which I decided to never use again) the item in question is so very poorly resourced that it looks like virtually fabricated by a nationalist of the sort. It was my mistake, and learned my lesson thanks to your feedback.
    Many thanks both of you. I wish you a very pleasant experience of Wikipediaing in the future. 17kuti (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    A disruptive IP user;

    ...is causing significant disruption to Wikipedia. The user is repeatedly not engaging in good faith, and on the contrary is repeatedly engaging in petty and racist identity politics. The user is clearly a right wing Hindu nationalist who keeps trying to cause drama and hound productive members of the Wikipedia community.

    He first came to the community's attention in the talk page of the Love Jihad article (where he clearly believes the conspiracy theory is real along with the absurd idea that Wikipedia editors are "paid" by some shadowy organisation) where he has repeatedly been accusing others of being "unbelievers", "Islamists", "destroyers of Hindu civilisation" and a whole host of other nonsense (such as "He has joined Wikipedia to support Islamists, Muslim fundamentalists and Pakistanis").

    He also seems to have a particular dislike of White people.

    He is now going around WP:CANVASSING other users in an attempt to try to bully me to stay away from articles that have grabbed my interest (effectively engaging in Witch Hunting). On top of this he is assuming my racial identity, being extremely racially abusive and does not seem to want to participate a positive member of the Wikipedia community.

    He also seems familiar with Wikipedia's policies which makes me strongly suspect that he has previously been banned from wikipedia before. His IP sock accounts are also causing significant problems. Can someone please help me out with this? NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Since that range has produced nothing but garbage for at least the last couple weeks, I'm blocking Special:Contributions/2402:3a80:1102:e15c:a867:8c24:49c6:aa9e/42 for 3 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for sanctioning the IP. However, I feel given the nature of his actions a 3 day block seems rather tame...? He simply does not engage in good faith editing. Rather he always ends up causing disruption as he repeatedly tries to derail threads. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It's a pretty large range, and before the last couple weeks there were some useful edits from someone else there, so I want to see if something shorter works. If it resumes I'll at least double the duration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That is understandable. I will report anything further here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Hi Crowell78 (talk · contribs) is engaged in WP:TE on the Bill Cosby article repeatedly adding non consensual content to the lede. I warned the user here. I would have taken it as a content dispute until I noticed today that the user is also reverted HawaiianHulaLog (talk · contribs) comments on the talk page here. TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) has also I think attempted to discuss the content with the user on the talk page Talk:Bill_Cosby#allegations_should_be_mentioned_in_lede. Its a pretty vanilla content dispute (not a bad one even), but the user should not just TE the content into the lede and then revert user's talk page comments. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • This is a content dispute that's being discussed on the Bill Cosby talk page. There are several editors on there who believe that the accusations against Cosby deserve to stay in the lead as they have for a while, but TrueQuantum keeps removing it. So I'm afraid this is a disingenuous and misleading report by Jtbobwaysf.
    As for HawaiianHulaLog, the editor is obviously here just to troll. That's why I reverted them. And I actually thought about reporting them. As can be seen by their contributions, they are making wildly sarcastic comments on talk pages about how all men are rapists and all women should be believed, etc. Their post prior was oversighted by an admin because it was so ludicrous and defamatory/libelous. Pinging Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) who reverted them, and TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) who warned them before they made the latest post on the talk page. --Crowell78 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Btw, for clarity, if we're going by consensus which is what I think was meant here, it's 4 (Asaprocky, IP, Jpcase and DeCausa) in favor of keeping it in the lead, against 2 (TrueQuantum & Jtbobwaysf). Also TQ acknowledged on the TP that the consensus seemed to be in favor of keeping it in the lead and yet afterwards proceeded to remove it again.
    All this mind you because of one measly sentence that summarizes in a neutral manner a key aspect of the body and the subject's notability as covered in RS, but yet doesn't even illustrate the severity and uniqueness of the allegations (50+ women and nearly all drug-facilitated sexual assault). --Crowell78 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    We shouldn't hold reverting HawaiianHulaLog's comments against anyone. Pure trolling, and I'd love to see a ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Just no. It looks like a couple editors have taken the Cosby conviction being overturned to try to remove other negative material from the lead and then accuse those restoring it of "righting great wrongs". The material in question in this particular case is information about whether to mention the allegations (not the conviction, but the many allegations that of course were not litigated). Crowell78 didn't add that material but rather restored it after TrueQuantum et al. repeatedly removed it. If there is POV-pushing going on, it doesn't appear to be Crowell78. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Just noting here that HawaiianHulaLog has been WP:NOTHERE blocked by Bbb23, which is a move I support and would've probably either gone the DS route of a topic ban from BLPs or blocked outright based on the latest comment had I seen it first. I believe holding the revert of their edits against anyone to not be the right course of action; I have revdel'd it as I did their last one yesterday. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Here because I was pinged. My involvement was one post to the talk page thread where the three editors involved have been getting into it. I can’t see that Crowell78 has been engaged in TE or RGW. This is just a content dispute which is somewhat heated. TrueQuantum and the OP, Jtbobwaysf, seem to believe that the overturning of the conviction should result in the stripping of all the allegations from the lead. Crowell78 believes they are still relevant to the lead. (My personal opinion is that TrueQuantum and Jtbobwaysf have a strong POV which they are trying to push through per Rhododentrites’ post above.) My post on the talk page made the simple point that those allegations were in the lead and had consensus support as not UNDUE back in 2018 before the conviction and I don’t see the conviction and its overturning alters that as there was no implication for the other allegations. (Although, to be clear, the overturning should be added). Crowell78 reverting HawaiianHulaLog’s post seems fine as that user was obviously trolling. This should be closed with a trout for Jtbobwaysf and instruction for everyone to calm down. DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm here because I was pinged and seem to be discussed as participating in a dispute. There is no dispute here in my perspective. I really couldn't care less about Cosby and am not seeking to push any personal POV. I simply want to follow our shared BLP guidelines and take into account the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. The lede in 2018 was accurate and objective because Cosby at the time was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers in a court of law and convicted of aggravated indecent assault. But now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned Cosby's conviction. That means that according to American jurisprudence Cosby is now presumed innocent. There is already whole entire sections in Cosby's biography that discuss all 60+ accusations in detail. But the lede is an especially sensitive place for a BLP. To argue that everything that was in the lede when Cosby was found guilty should still be there now that he is legally presumed innocent is contrary to our policies. It seems to be POV pushing to argue that nothing should change here when this is a monumental shift. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Just as a point of order: it does not mean he's "presumed innocent," it just means the process used to convict him was tainted & the conviction is no longer valid. Innocence & guilt are no longer relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      You should actually research what you are saying here. Whenever any citizen for any situation is not found guilty, or if that guilty conviction is overturned, then that citizen is quite as a matter of fact PRESUMED INNOCENT. This is the basic foundation of a free and fair democratic society. Literally nobody is "found innocent" in a court of law because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only places where this is not true is probably North Korea and the former Soviet Union. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      No, you should cite that, since it's not true. Presumption of innocence has a specific meaning in legal terms, and you're stretching it beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Oh for heaven's sake, it absolutely is true -- for formal purposes as far as the law is concerned. That doesn't mean we, in our article, can't recite the background facts, the fact that he was convicted, why the conviction was overturned, and so on, leaving the reader to make of it what they will. EEng 05:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • @TrueQuantum: What you said about the lede in 2018 is irrelevant to my point, if it was in answer to that. I was referring to the lead as it was immediately before the conviction in 2018. Before his conviction, there was a paragraph in the lede on the allegations against him, which were not subject to his conviction and overturning. The overturning of the conviction has no bearing on that. 17:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As DeCausa and Crowell78 have noted in their comments above, consensus had been in favor of including the accusations in the article's lede before Cosby's conviction had even occurred, and current consensus is in favor of continuing to include these accusations in the lede. In fact, upon looking through the Cosby article's history, I'm noticing that the accusations were included in the lede at least as early as 2015 - before Cosby had even been charged. If the accusations were notable enough for the lede at a time before Cosby had even gone to trial, then they should certainly still be notable enough for the lede now. The fact that Cosby went to trial and had his conviction overturned doesn't make the accusations against him less notable than they would be had he never faced trial in the first place. --Jpcase (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    This IP address is changing material in concert tour articles, including removing and reverting redirects that have already been deemed so, as they were undersourced. In the article End of the Road World Tour, he has continuously added misleading information about certain venues in the European leg of 2022, as well as adding shows that were not part of the tour. Outside of the article, when removing redirect from pages, he ended up threatening Richard3120 with another IP which I am certain is from him on the Ballbreaker World Tour. I have been reverting his material, but he continues to revert back, and not leave any reliable sources for his claims other than saying that "it is back". HorrorLover555 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    His IP address and the others he's used

    Blocked the /64 around the IPv6 address, and the v4 address. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 02:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for the help. It does not look like the IP address has understood why they were blocked as shortly after, he proceeded to disruptively edit the Ballbreaker World Tour redirect, and try to dodge reverts that way, insisting on keeping the tour dates in, even for the album article which the redirected tour is supporting. He has also disruptively edited the Stiff Upper Lip album article and the redirect for its tour article, which I've had to revert. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for the ping HorrorLover555... the insults don't bother me, and I understand that any AC/DC tour is very likely to be notable (they are one of the biggest live acts in the world today, after all), but the IP doesn't seem to understand that you need the reliable sources first before you create the article, and not just make a list of tour dates based on fan websites. Richard3120 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Kanto7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There has been persistent issues with the editing of Kanto7, most recently with regards to inserting large swathes of unsourced text into article with zero attribution or explanation. (Examples: [290][291][292][293][294].) These edits are very poorly formatted, with strange spaces before punctuation, and what even appear to be picture captions. My guess is that they are pure machine translations, but I can't be sure. On occasion they have noted they were copying off other wikipedias (Spanish, Dutch), but it's possible that they are also copying from elsewhere given this warning for the now deleted Danish Iceland (currently a redirect, perhaps an admin may be able to check a deleted version to confirm). These rare edit summaries, given only during edit wars, seem to be basically all of Kanto7's recent communication, even most of their reverts lack an edit summary. They have received numerous warnings, going back a year regarding communication ([295][296][297][298][299]), edit warring ([300][301]), and the need for sources/attribution ([302][303][304][305]) (examples are non-exhaustive). These mostly go unreplied to, and judging by continuing actions, apparently ignored. (They have replied on their talkpage before, so they do know it exists.) There have been two AN/I cases opened before (December 2020 and February 2021), but no action was taken in either. I'm not sure if this is WP:CIR or a deliberate refusal to communicate, but this disruption has taken up the time of numerous editors across many pages, and as of this third report it is well past the point where some administrative action needs to be taken on the matter. CMD (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I left a warning at User talk:Kanto7#Warning regarding collaboration and copying. The edits adding large amounts of text are obviously copied from somewhere but a couple of searches have failed to find them. Interestingly, this edit has seven occurrences of a heading including the bogus text "Edit" (search for "Edit ===" to find them). I propose waiting for a day or two. If there is an explanation or if problems cease, do nothing and wait for next time. Otherwise, block indefinitely with a note that they can be unblocked as soon as they explain their edits and agree to not edit war when others revert them. Feel free to ping me if any developments occur although I should see anything here or at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Kanto7 has been a problematic editor from day 1, particularly in their penchant for adding content without sourcing. I had the pleasure of welcoming them with a unsourced content warning ([306]), had to follow up later with an additional note on the lack of sourcing ([307]), and again last month ([308]). A quick perusal of their talk page shows that I'm not the only one concerned about their edits. For someone reverted so often, their use of talk pages is paltry (86% main page versus 7% article talk pages [309]). I think it is time to pull the plug. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I agree but what about their reply and my subsequent warning at User talk:Kanto7#Warning regarding collaboration and copying? That section could be evidence supporting an indefinite block on the grounds that their English is weak, their editing is problematic (e.g. "Edit ===" above), and thinking that unattributed copying of text was ok despite their talk page is the final straw. On the other hand, they did reply. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    It was a very limited reply that did not remotely allude to the issues of "collaboration" and "repeat contested edits" that you raised. The quite basic issue of WP:V also remains unaddressed. They have now made a small edit to Spanish Guinea which while not an issue in itself, does nothing to address the issues that have been raised with the text they have edit-warred in there. CMD (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    There are also definitely WP:CIR issues. In this edit (which both CMD and I reverted), for example, Kanto7 replaced a large chunk of well sourced content with largely unsourced content (possibly copied from the Spanish wikipedia but unacknowledged). This replacing of content on the engish wiki by copying from other wikis without examining sourcing of either the copied text or the removed text is not only symptomatic of an editor who doesn't understand sourcing but is also a symptom that they can't make meaningful contributions in their own right. Frankly, Kanto7 is just a time sink for other editors. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I have just reverted another one of this user's edits at Spanish Guinea, where they appear to have replaced sourced content with a largely unsourced unattributed translation from eswiki. I would agree that unless Kanto7 gives a sincere undertaking to stop such disruptive editing that a block of some sort is warranted, if only to prevent a drain on editor time cleaning up after them. firefly ( t · c ) 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    User keeps altering/removing sourced information that doesn't suit his POV, notably at Pan-Turkic related articles such as Nihal Atsız and Pan-Turkism, where he keeps coming back to edit war.

    Nihal Atsız;

    [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316]

    Pan-Turkism;

    [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] [326]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    @HistoryofIran: What POV? In the Nihal Atsız article I just replaced the schools he attended with a more accurate information, also included in the source. In the Pan-Turkism article, which I explained my reason in the talk page, I just wanted to get more attention to reach a consensus.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Turkism&oldid=1028908303

    As seen here, you said earlier that I should take it to talk page. But when I do it, no one cares.

    Regarding the other edits I always explained what I do and included the sources. Where did I do POV edits?--Isvind (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Is that so? "He studied for some time in French and German schools, then entered the military medical school in 1922, but abandoned it three year" page 205, Ultra-Nationalist Literature in the Turkish Republic: A Note on the Novels of Hüseyin Nihâl Atsiz. How does omitting information make it more accurate? If there were more schools he went to, why not add them?
    No one cares, or perhaps no one agrees with you? Also, you created a section on the talk page on 1 July [327], and proceeded to continue edit warring in the same day, not even waiting a day and completely ignoring WP:CONSENSUS [328], that was certainly not part of the advice I gave you. Edit warring does get you attention indeed, hence why I reported you. And how does this justify all your other edits? "Explaining" your edits does not make them constructive. I'll let an admin deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The last time I editwarred with someone (also in the Pan-Turkism page) someone came to talk and we discussed, ultimately to reach a consensus which I'm not violating since. However, this time, it doesn't happen. Someone says I should explain myself in talk, but when I do, no one cares. At first I thought they didn't see, this is the reason of reverting. But apparently they just don't care.

    Regarding the last Atsız edit, I still don't understand the reason for reverting.

    Regarding other Atsız edits, I added new information and expanded existing information about both his personal life and political views. How and why isn't it constructive?--Isvind (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    If there were more schools he went to, why not add them?

    I saw it now. I'm adding.--Isvind (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The pan turkism article has 172 watchers, of which 23 have recently viewed the edit history. If 22 people besides yourself aren't bothering to answer or to agree with you then that's a somewhat clear indication that your edit is in the far end of the "no consensus to do so" area of edits. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Admins eyes please on 106.204.234.208, who has made an ultimatum(?) for 500,000,000RS (6 million dollars and change).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    How about a 500,000,000 year site ban?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Also a revdel is very necessary. Lot of people aren't very tech savvy and for someone like that it could appear very frightening. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed, not that I am sure how or why they would pay up anyway, so its just trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Slatersteven, yes of course it's likely just trolling. But, um.. I think you should remove the NOTDUMB message from the recipient's talk page. I don't think it would help them if they aren't in on it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry I will claify why I posted it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    How did I end up blocking both 112.79.110.143 and 106.204.234.208? What a mystery! El_C 13:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I tried to report this at AIV, but an edit filter prevents me from doing so with the message "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed."

    Vandalism across multiple articles (primarily, but not exclusively in BLPs with edits like unsourced add/change of birthdate, years_active, spouse, nationality, occupation, etc.) over at least the last several months. Might be LTA/VCV. Favonian blocked the range from editing one BLP article for one year and blocked two sub-ranges (see list below) entirely for 6 months (also for BLP violations). However, the vandalism is widespread across more than just that one article or those two sub-ranges, with a spike in last 30 hours or so from 37.212.65.33 (e.g., against Shaun Fleming, Eleanor Noble, Oz Perkins, Spencer Fox).

    Action requested: The 37.212.64.0/20 range should be fully blocked and perhaps extended to the entire /17 range. I note, however, that there are hundreds of recent edits in the 37.212.0.0/18 sub-range on volleyball-related articles, that, upon a cursory review, may not be vandalism or attributable to LTA/VCV. Consider, too, extending all of the blocks to one or more years.

    Below is a partial list of 37.212 IPs/ranges that have these sorts of vandalism edits.

    – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Trying to limit the collateral damage, I have blocked 37.212.64.0/20. Now 3 of the 8 /20 sub-ranges of the /17 range are blocked, so it may only be a matter of time before all of it is blocked, and there'll be much rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth. Favonian (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I don't think there is much to tell. This edit shows everything.--V. E. (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • It does. It shows that you complained about a source being removed from an article, FPaS agreed with that removal and called the source "bullshit". He called a source "bullshit" - there was no attack on an editor. For that, you slapped him with a badly-formatted civility warning. Frankly, if I were FPaS I don't think I'd have been as polite. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • @Black Kite: Are there any civility limits when commenting on sources cited by other editors? For example if someone else said "This fucking source which is ought to be burned in hell is unreliable" to describe another source cited by another editor, would it still not violate civility? Or should I assume that in this case the word "bullshit" is on the lower end of civility spectrum? I'm just asking to know for the next time.--V. E. (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No, not really as we can say what we like...about a SOURCE, what we can't do is say what we like about an EDITOR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    There have been a number of discussions about using "fuck" on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, it seems to be okay to say "fuck", but not to direct an epithet containing "fuck" at another editor. That is to say, telling a specific editor to fuck off is a personal attack, and sanctionable. No comment on the merits of this report. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Calling an editor "fucker", sure, but isn't saying "fuck off" just a vulgar "go away"? I don't see how that's a personal attack. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I agree, but that was not how the last discussion I participated in went, as I recall. Could be that consensus was that it's "uncivil" but not a personal attack? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Hey, don't forget about fuck head — endless variation. El_C 14:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) These racist apologist sources are a disgrace — not that this reflects on you in any way, dear editor, I would never dream... El_C 14:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) On the merits: FPaS' opinion that a source is "obvious bullshit", posted below a request for opinions on that source, is so far removed from a personal attack that it calls into question the motive of this report. Yes, when a source is bullshit, we should call it bullshit. If you were directly addressing the author of the article then maybe it could be construed as a personal attack, but that's not even close to what happened here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    These three (at least) IP editors, all in the 49.207. range and all geolocating to the same neck of the wood, are on a mission to brand Leif Erikson as a Catholic missionary. I don't know if the editors are one or more people, and whether being multiple editors (technically) amounts to edit warring, but maybe something could be done to prevent this? (PS: I'm notifying the first of the IPs on the above list of this ANI, but only the first.) Ta, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The range is a /20, so I decided to semiprotect the page for a couple weeks. I see it was configured to have PC indefinitely enabled, and my page protection skills are very rusty; if the PC falls off after the semiprotection expires just ping me and I'll reinstate it. (Also, underrated header!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The Blade of the Northern Lights - If you're not sure as to whether or not pending changes protection and semi protection interfere with one another, the answer is 'no'. Pending changes protection is a completely separate function, just like with move protection and edit protection. You can add pending changes protection alongside semi protection without issue and set them to expire at different times and it'll work just fine. It would be nice if we could do the same with different edit and move protection levels (such as adding two days of full protection to an article alongside an indefinite semi-protection so that we don't have to worry about having to re-apply the semi-protection after the full protection expires), but that's obviously a discussion for another time. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, good to know! No matter where you go on Wikipedia, there's always someone who knows a whole lot more than you about something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The Blade of the Northern Lights - You bet. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I was under the impression that Ortizesp (talk · contribs) was under an indef topic ban related to page moves (i.e. not moving pages without using RM). So was Ortizesp. This all flows from a series of unfortunate events, detailed at:

    1. May 2019 ANI;
    2. June 2019 ANI; and
    3. August 2019 ANI.

    The second ANI report did actually result in a two-month topic ban, introduced by @Kudpung:.

    Anyway, I recently approached Ortizesp about requesting a loosening the topic ban. But if he isn't even under one, it's all immaterial...can anybody clarify whether or not he is? If not then great (although I still suggest he uses RM for all but clear cut/non-controversial moves to prevent further issues!), if so then I think it's time we discussed changing it. GiantSnowman 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • It doesn't look to me like they have any topic ban, GiantSnowman. An indefinite topic ban from page moves was proposed here (by yourself), but, by my count, didn't get consensus, nor was the discussion closed. So the two-month ban, long since expired, appears to be all of that nature that they ever had. This is supported by the fact that I don't find the username here nor here. Bishonen | tålk 20:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC).Reply
    Thanks for confirming my suspicions - in which case @Ortizesp: you are free! GiantSnowman 11:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Much appreciated! Thanks! @GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    Nuevousuario1011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, since they began editing, been disruptive on Napoleonic related articles, constantly attempting to change the results and other information to make the French look better, always against the manual of style and infobox instructions, and frequently despite the references saying the opposite. Some general examples of this.

    • Battle of La Rothière Changes the result from "Coalition victory" to "Coalition tactical victory, French strategic victory". Repeated in this edit.
    • Battle of Eylau Changes the result from "Inconclusive" to "French Tactical Victory, Russian retreat". Also similar change from "Inconclusive" to "French Tactical Victory", with an edit summary of "read the sources who you cited and you will got this result" (more in-depth analysis of this article later)
    • Battle of Austerlitz Changes the result from "French victory" to "Decisive French victory". Also see identical changes
    • Battle of Ulm Changes the result from "French victory" to "Decisive French victory"
    • Battle of Quatre Bras Changes the result from "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory" to "Strategic French victory, Tactically Indecisive". At same article also makes repeated attempts to change the result from "Coalition victory" to "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory". Also attempts to change the result from "Coalition victory" to "Inconclusive", and even attempts to change the result from "Coalition victory" to "French victory"
    • Battle of Toulouse (1814) Changes the result from "Indecisive. Allied victory and French victory are both claimed" to "French victory"

    At the Battle of Eylau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, the "Inconclusive" result was originally added in March 2019 by an IP editor, with four different references. I have provided quotes from three of them at Talk:Battle of Eylau#Fabricated claims which prove they support the added result, so I have little doubt the fourth reference will as well. Despite this Nuevousuario1011 has repeatedly changed this without any references at all.

    • 17 September 2019, with an edit summary of "Changed the result from indecisive to French Victory, as all the sources including Wikipedia in all the other idioms say, as well as the analysis from a military point of view, and as it was before the last edits of this page"
    • 13:57, 24 July 2020, with an edit summary of "read the sources who you cited and you will got this result"
    • 11:26, 27 June 2021, with an edit summary of "Well the battle was a french tactical victory, we could argue about what it really achieved to say "strategic", but as the new rules does not tolerate mixed results, the defacto result is the one who at leas won in either category, thus the French won. They were checked but not defeated, they took the field, etc" (while also adding back all the references that don't support their change at all)

    Their "reading of references to obtain results is best demonstrated in the next article, Battle of Quatre Bras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Per the diffs above, they have repeatedly tried to change the result of this battle, see Talk:Battle of Quatre Bras#Making it up as you go along for more extended details on this. The different versions include one of the following additions each time; "Strategic French victory", "Inconclusive" or "French victory". Each time they cited the same reference, pahe 378 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica which can be seen here and contains nothing clear about who won that particular battle. Their similar interpreation of source material to try and claim a French victory at another article can be seen in this talk page post, where they say Acording to the sources the battle of Redinha was a succes by the Frenchs and a failure for the British, (also known as) French Victory, followed by a bunch of quotes that say nothing like that.

    Last but not least, we have their edits at Battle of Friedland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which resulted in an IP editor complaining at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Battle of Friedland Page (for full disclosure, I have reverted to Nuevousuario1011's incorrect version several times, believing some unexplained IP edits were introducing errors, when in fact they were attempting to fix the deliberate errors introduced by Nuevousuario1011).

    • 21 December 2019 with edit summary of "Numbers as presented in wikipedia in french spanish italian, etc with references, cleaned repeated sources", changes the French strength from 80,000 to 60,000 and the Russian strength from 46,000 to 84,000, adding a book reference by David Chandler to support the figures (the several pre-existing book citations contain quotes which confirmed the previous figures were correct). The IP editor and Djmaschek have both confirmed the claimed Chandler citation is false, his figure is 80,000 for the French strength.
    • 10 July 2020 Reverts back their incorrect figures
    • 23 September 2020 Reverts back their incorrect figures, with an edit summary of "Restoring the numbers before last modification, respect the sources please, and remember first than all the order of battle, to made estimations, the Russians deployed more than 60.000 on the western bank of the Alle river, but overall, there where more than 80,000, the French on the other hand where understengthed". The "respect the sources" statement is particularly breathtaking.
    • 11 November 2020" Reverts back their incorrect figures, with an edit summary of "the other way around, i already explained". This was after the previous editor (visible on left hand side of diff) said "There was a small but very major mistake in the page, Russian vs the French numbers were flipped, as clearly indicated in the sources"

    Since then they have made several edits changing infobox figures, which I have detailed as problematic at Talk:Battle of Friedland#Infobox (which the editor refuses to reply to directly) and User talk:Djmaschek#Seeking help from an expert, and validated user. (yet again) (where the editor makes a series of bizarre claimes, saying an order of battle claims a Russian strength of 77,000 and that a university professor published a "break down" of the respective strengths, neither of which are true).

    This editor is either deliberately adding false information to Wikipedia, or completely lacks the competence to edit. I do not know which and don't particularly care, but something needs to be done to stop this editor from damaging the encyclopedia any further. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Here is my answer to the warring from the acusation from the same user in no more than an hour ago. Please take a look, the same who i told before, i ask cordially to you to look for.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Every edit who i made is warred by FDW777, thus is imposible not to war about it. I tried to explain, show sources and everything within a month, if commited a mistake then i apologize, but the user take this as a sign of incompetence from me. The rivalry seems to be from early June when i contested a change who he made at the Quatre Bras article. In any case he got what he wanted, and i asked him if he could help with another articles, and just used it to speak against me. Please look at everything, edits, talk pages, third user talk pages, wiki project talk pages, and the only constant is the user FDW777 reverting my own edits, using credible words to defend an inaccurate fact. By the ways on the article of Berlin i talked to the user who made the change and told me who indeed there was no confrontation.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

    I was also asking other users especially admins for help, and the one who give me the welcome (who didn't answer) help regarding the rules of and what is aceptable or not. However again the same user just revert edits, and when i move them back he reverted them, or when i make my own edits he revert them, last time 46 seconds he took, impossible to even made a major edit. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe if someone here oould look for what happen since early june, will understand my problem on taking serious the corrections from this user. I don't complained because i believed who at some point the user will acpet somee of his mistakes. And let me alone, but that didn't happen, so i use this to put fowards, the reasons of the multiple edits. and please do not doubt in asking me something. If you need.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

    my question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruedi33a&diff=1032027773&oldid=1032004487

    my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1032130791

    the current edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Berlin_(1806)&diff=next&oldid=1032140031 Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

    Another source of dispute with the acusing user.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=1032000328&oldid=1031995931

    notice the comentaries please.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

    Other case of the user reverting my edits.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1030552220 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1030954407

    Current form, with my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1031083525 Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

    Besides the fact of not having power to edit because i am geting reverted by the user. Last night i made some edits to put in line cites, and today already reverted. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    right now the article of Friedland is exactly as FDW777 wanted it to be. Yet here are the edits. Who i made and he reverted. (the first one ironically was me acknowledging the problem with Chandler source, yet the user FDW777, instead of help, just used it to revert everything.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=1031305363&oldid=1031293374

    The sources who i used detailed in the edits.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031308267 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031311097 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031312093

    And here is FDW777 four days later

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031894574

    He claim i do not use the sources, however when the sources back what i edited, he soon try to find a way of discrediting it. The talk pages are also imposible, it is just the user FDW777 saying who everything is wrong, and never a third user. But having a "published book", a "military historian order of battle collection", a "university profesor with prestige, in a public detailed article", who said something different, must be considered. I didn't in my edits, denied who in the past i made a simplisitic asumption when i begun editing. But my last edits are only based on sources. Those edits, never removed a source, it just expanded the range of posible numbers, (even if i would want to make a paragraph detailing the sources) i at least cited them. As you may notice i am not a good english speaker, but i can comprehend things well.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Austerlitz and Ulm always said "Desicive" until you changed it, i changed it once, because it was not what it used to be, and there was no explanation. Once he explained it to me i never edited that again. (of course he end in a warring edit with another user, but it was not me)Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Note: Nuevousuario1011 temporarily blocked for edit warring for a week. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    Bhushan m bhandari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Bhushan mohan bhandari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Two recent blocks have been served under the 'm bhandari' account but still the poor behaviour persists under both accounts. In particular, he still insists on removing the AfD on Dharmathma (1988 film), despite serving two blocks for this behaviour. Annoyingly, he has decided to now do this under the 'mohan bhandari' account, likely because this account has a clean record and will start from the bottom again in terms of block length. Is there any way that these two accounts can be treated as one entity as it is clear that this user is using both accounts to 'game the system' and, when one account gets in too much trouble, he ends up using the other account to vandalise. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    See also WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 77#Tabulated data. I think this editor is trying to help; it may be a case of WP:CIR rather than malicious intent. Certes (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I wouldn't label this editor's edits as vandalism, they appear to be editing in good faith. But, WP:CIR is definitely an issue here, clearly epitomized by their biography masquerading as a user page and their total non-use of article talk pages (except for 3 instances of removal of talk page headers for unclear reasons). A CIR block is probably warranted here unless someone has a plan for rescuing the editor. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I've blocked the newer account as a sockpuppet. Doesn't seem to me to be a legitimate alternate accound. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    See the Government and Politics section of the Dunoon article. scope creep Talk is in my view using Neutral Point Of View as a disguise to make a political point. The changes I made to the Dunoon article were factual and had NO political bias. Greenfinchchick (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Greenfinchchick: you have not informed Scope creep that you have started this thread, as the big red banner at the top of this page tells you to. I will now do so for you. Scope creep seems has asked whether you have edited here before under a different account, and you have not answered that question: please say now whether you have used different accounts in the past. Girth Summit (blether) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I have had different a username, however I have nothing to do with the editor scope creep had blocked, do not know them or ever communicated with them! Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Greenfinchchick, Scope creep is not an administrator, and cannot block anyone: which is the account that you say Scope creep 'had blocked', and why do you think he had them blocked? What was your previous username? Girth Summit (blether) 14:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      User:Fionn12, was blocked after having an edit war with scope creep, for making a reasonable argument their edit on his talk page., in my honest opinion. Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Greenfinchchick Fionn12 was blocked by Bbb23, an administrator with huge experience in sockpuppet investigations, on the suspicion of being a sock. As far as I can see, Scope creep had nothing to do with that: he didn't raise a report at SPI, he didn't reach out to Bbb23 to express any concerns, unless I've missed something. You haven't indicated the name of your prior account. Girth Summit (blether) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      FWIW, their prior user name can be found in the edit history of their user page. This is a re-named account. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment This editor has come in with a political agenda, who I think it is the same editor that was blocked 4-ish weeks ago, Fionn who was themselves, another editor, the name escapes me, who was also blocked. They both had a NPOV approach to editing on Dunoon, the exact same pattern and on several other Scotttish articles around that time and one article had to be page protected. They add United Kingdon geographic location into geographical articles that didn't exist in the original consensus that was worked in about 2006-2007. The consensus was that there would two levels of location, for Dunoon it is Argyll and Bute and Scotland. For Scottish geographic articles its Scottish geographical info, for English geographic articles, it was English geographic info, for Wales... and so on. There is no need for United Kingdom level info in these articles, as it is already represented in country and county level article. Everybody who works on these articles follows that consensus. scope_creepTalk 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • My username was changed because I chose an inappropriate username. Why this is relevant baffles me?Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I strongly refute scope creeps assertion that I have a political agenda, my edit on the Dunoon article was factual and totally neutral!Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Greenfinchchick, please could you answer whether you have previously edited Wikipedia using a different account. A previous username for your current account is unlikely to be relevant. TSventon (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I have twice joined Wikipedia and both times have been made unwelcome! I live on Cowal so could see information that was wrong/outdated, so joined to correct both times. I would just leave the history alone, I did, I left. I notice no apology as of yet? My original edit that was reverted has not been restored as they was no problem with it, it was not "political! I hope the editor that is disguising his reverts/edits with NPOF will be sanctioned as none of this would have occurred. Especially as there was NO justification for his actions!Greenfinchchick (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Greenfinchchick, you have still not addressed the question that you have been asked several times now: what was the account that you used previously, under which you say you were harassed by someone associated with the University of Glasgow? Girth Summit (blether) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Like I said, I dealt with it I left and consider it finished. Considering doing the same this time (leaving). Wikipedia is not a welcoming place. Greenfinchchick (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Greenfinchchick, you created an account with a username that clearly indicated that you had an axe to grind with someone associated with Glasgow uni; once you were unblocked, you immediately got into a dispute with an editor who declares in his userspace that he lives in Glasgow, at a page that has recently been the target of disruptive sockpuppetry. You are being evasive about the name of the account you used in the past. In short, you are making it very difficult for me to believe that you are acting in good faith here. Girth Summit (blether) 09:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Looks like Wikipedia has not changed, the harassment continues! See my talk page. As well as this thread. My original edit on Dunoon has yet to be fully restored. I say yet again it was not political in any way. Looks like I will be leaving again. Wikipedia has a reputation in my circle of friends, that Wikipedia is not worth the trouble simple edits entail. Greenfinchchick (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      Greenfinchchick, nobody is harassing you: Scope creep has even apologised to you for saying he thought you were connected to those blocked accounts. Now, as outlined at WP:ALTACCN, when you create a new account you are expected to provide a link between the new account and your old one, in the interests of transparency and accountability. The exception to this is described at WP:CLEANSTART, but since the username you chose when you created this account explicitly (and obscenely) referenced prior conflicts you have had on Wikipedia, I cannot see this as a legitimate 'clean start' account. If you wish to continue using this account, you will need to disclose your original account's name, or it may be blocked as an WP:ILLEGIT account. Girth Summit (blether) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • This is a time sink. I have indeffed the user as WP:NOTHERE. I see no way in which the user is an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    I want to report this user for did not added sources in most articles editing by the user, especially in BLP articles. The user also did not describe the changes in edit summary column in most of user contributions. I already warned the user for multiple times, but the user keep on doing that disruptive edits. Stvbastian (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The article in question is List of governors of Alaska. Example: [329] Now, y'all may think, vandalism? What vandalism? But the trend, at least as I've been trying to establish and convince others of its advantages, is to remove such biographical information. That's not what this article is for. I would very much like to discuss this with them, but they aren't interested.

    Looking back at the history of the article, you'll find an IPv4 come along in April and make the change. I revert it with a request to discuss. They did not. I protected it to force the matter. Right when the protection expired, another IPv4 popped up, leaving me a helpful message on my talk page: [330] Another protection, another expiration, and now an IPv6 (from the same part of Australia) has popped up to do the same.

    So another protection, another expiration, and another dynamic IP. I'm tired. They don't want to discuss, they have a dynamic address, I'm tired of protecting it, I'm tired of trying to get someone to discuss, so, I give up. Y'all please do something. I would very much not like one of the governor articles to fall behind but if that's what our Australian friend wants, that's apparently what they're going to get. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Golbez, this looks to me like a slow motion edit war over a content dispute, namely whether or not to include birth and death dates in the tables. I see no vandalism here. Am I missing something? You have not explained your thinking on the article talk page. Instead, you have used your administrative tools to prevail in a content dispute. Have you read WP:INVOLVED lately? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I don't understand how I'm supposed to resolve a content dispute with a dynamic IP whose only communication so far was "FUCK YOU". --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I really don't understand how this is vandalism, it seems like a genuine dispute over if birth and death dates should be included in the list..Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Then you are more than welcome to discuss the edit, as I have several arguments against that but I'm always open to discussion. However, this IP has made it clear they are not interested in discussion, and I can't force them into it, so. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Golbez, please explain why you called these edits vandalism and why you used your administrative tools when you are WP:INVOLVED. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Edit warring rises to the level of vandalism when the only response you get from them is "FUCK YOU". --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If Golbez thought the edits were vandalism it would explain why he used his tools while involved, since there is an exception to involved for obvious vandalism.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Correct. And seeing the reaction this is getting here, it would seem that was the correct action, since no other action is likely to be taken. Like, seriously, what are my options when a dynamic IP is making an otherwise acceptable edit, but refuses to discuss this change? I can't discuss with them, I can't edit war, I can't block, I can't call it vandalism, I can't get mediation because they won't respond, so pray tell, what option do I have? --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Golbez, you still haven't made a case, according to policy, why these edits were actually vandalism. What you should have done then, and what you should do now, is explain the reasons why you oppose the edit at Talk: List of governors of Alaska. You should have used various forms of dispute resolution like a Request for comment or a Third opinion. You could have asked for input from other editors involved with similar list of governors articles. If you believed that the article needed protection, you could have asked at Requests for page protection. There were many options available to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The onus is on them to justify it, not on me to oppose. I gave them multiple chances to do so; they declined. I can't go to third opinion before we get a second opinion. I can only discuss with someone willing to discuss. If you would like to try, go for it. --Golbez (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Golbez, please read WP:ADMINACCT, and then please answer the direct questions that I asked you above about whether these edits were actually vandalism, and whether you were WP:INVOLVED when you protected that article twice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I'd rather not. I've answered several times, and I have asked several questions and gotten no answers, so. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The edits were clearly not vandalism as Wikipedia defines that term, and therefore the exemption does not apply. As I see it, Golbez misused the admin tools to prevail in a content dispute and a few minutes later, the IP dropped the F-bomb. This is a content dispute exacerbated by Golbez's misuse of the tools, incorrect accusations of vandalism and failure to make a case on the article talk page. I am not saying that the IP's conduct was exemplary because it wasn't, but as a long time administrator, Golbez is held to a higher standard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with you, the edits were clearly not vandalism, I was just explaining why I thought Golbez used his tools in the situation. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    FWIW, I've reverted the IPs additions. If the ever-changing IP can't communicate properly, then it's best he be range blocked. Or, the article protected. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Golbez, I think it would be helpful if you would confirm that you understand you're not to use your admin tools in a content dispute. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Golbez: Pinging you here to alert you to Ponyo's reply.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Noted. Yes, I understand I am not to use my admin tools in a content dispute. --Golbez (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    User:RedX8 has been persistently creating Abdullah Sulaiman Al Rajhi, an article they have an admitted conflict of interest on, see User:RedX8. This has been moved to draft at least 3 times, and it has been explained, repeatedly, to RedX8 that they must use the AFC mechanism because of their COI. They have just recreated the article again. The article also contains an image which is a clear copyright violation, which they have uploaded to Commons twice, to avoid scrutiny. They have been given repeated warnings about both the COI edition and the copyright violations on User talk:RedX8. It seems clear to me that they are only here to promote the subject of the article and not to build an encyclopedia, and that they won't stop unless blocked. Laplorfill (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Drawing attention to the recent conversation on my talk page, where RedX8 first claims not to have a conflict of interest. When I show them the COI notice that that they put on their userpage three days ago, RedX8 claims first to have forgotten that, then not to understand what it means. This is a single purpose account whose first edit on en.wikipedia was to add a COI notice on the very subject that they now claim not to have a COI about. I will leave it to experienced admins to draw conclusions about that. Laplorfill (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Could someone review this maintenance template removal. The talk page discussion about the template is here. Thank you. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    (Non-administrator comment) This seems more like a content dispute, which does not require admin attention and might be better off discussed at dispute resolution if the discussion isn't currently reconcilable. Is there any conduct issue that you're concerned with? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Infinity Knight has been edit-warring with 4 other editors, in order to have the opinion that Mondoweiss is a "Hate site" in the lead, no less. See link link. Then he added "page's introduction does not sum up properly the content of this page. The introduction consists of self-descriptions exclusively by the people behind this website" instead. See link
    This is not "Maintenance", this is pure POV-pushing, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If there is an edit war going on, I suggest you take it to the edit warring noticeboard. Otherwise, it's a good old fashioned content dispute. MiasmaEternalTALK 01:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Definitely not about the content dispute, rather about the process of maintenance template removal. Is it appropriate to remove the template which was discussed, without addressing the issue? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Infinity Knight, there was nothing wrong with the removal of the tag. You boldly added it; another user thought it was unnecessary and removed it; you're now discussing on the talk page. Bear in mind that the purpose of such tags is to draw attention to a potential issue with the article: it has done its job, attention has been drawn, discussion is underway. Girth Summit (blether) 06:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Girth Summit: It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid, unless it truly did not belong in the first place. see Help:Maintenance_template_removal. The template was removed 16 minutes after it was introduced. Was the issue flagged by the template remedied first? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Infinity Knight, unless it truly did not belong in the first place is the crucial part of that quote. You added the tag, but another user thought that truly did not belong, and removed it. Now you're discussing the content - so go do that, there is nothing here requiring administrative action at this stage. Girth Summit (blether) 11:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    KansasC785 (talk · contribs) seems to have a lack of understanding of WP:NOTDIR and insists on adding store directories to every shopping mall article.

    The first time I called them out on this, they replied with "I know it was an expansion and clean up, thanks for sharing your opinion". The fact that this user seems to think an official Wikipedia policy is "opinion" shows a lack of understanding.

    They restored the info to Bal Harbour Shops and claimed that the information was "important" and "not a list". Once again I have reverted the info for now.

    I think it's clear from GA-class shopping mall articles such as Colonial Plaza or Great Lakes Crossing Outlets that you don't need to list every single store. Stores are prone to constant change.

    I don't want to violate WP:3RR and could really use some intervention here. The user's dismissal of policy as "opinion" really seems to be the big one here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Did he provided sources for the changes? If so, I don't see a problem. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You could, I dunno, check if you wanted to know.
    The most recent one, yes, he provided a source: the mall's own website. This is not a good source, because a) it's not independent; b) it doesn't show any evidence -- which a reliable, independent source would -- that it's important enough to include; and c) it's unnecessary, because if someone wanted to know what stores are at the mall, they can go to that website themselves. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    OK. Yep. I looked at the recent one. I will keep an eye on him.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You will keep on eye on him? Maybe someone should keep on eye on you instead: you have all of 104 edits or so, starting this account in March. Of thos 104 edits, 95 or so are Welcome notices on new-user talk pages; you have all of three Article edits. What, exactly, are you doing? --Calton | Talk 01:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers
    --- KansasC785 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    On the Shopping Centers portals it says it's nice to list several stores that may be of prominence, and speaking of which the sourced material was for posterity and I did source it with information not only from the center but in other cases local newspapers etc. I never meant opinion, I was WP:BOLD and looking again at the shopping center page it states as such. I apologize for "lacking" whatever it is that you have, but I have sourced and provided relevant sourced information.

    In my view, the editor cherry-picked a bunch of names from a primary source, seemingly to push the POV that this is a "luxurious" mall. MollyPollyRolly, how do you interpret WP:NOTDIR in this specific context? Isn't that policy important? On the other hand this noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I was operating under the assumption of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers not puffing articles, they were already made I simply was correcting ones that were not factually accurate as of the date I edited. Simply helping the project

    Signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasC785 (talk • contribs) 01:05, July 7, 2021 (UTC)

    I also don't believe I was given "Shortcut
    WP:REVEXP
    Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

    Thanks User:KansasC785

    A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony." when the reverts were made by User:TenPoundHammer - — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasC785 (talk • contribs) 01:19, July 7, 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can explain the choices you made for this edit, where it's an alphabetical list of store, written in all caps (making the wikilinks worthless -- compare your "JIMMY CHOO with "Jimmy Choo") and with no bullets or even commas separating the individual (so "JIMMY CHOO LOUIS VUITTON PRADA"). By what I suspect is no coincidence whatsoever, the mall's directory page renders their store names in alphabetical order and in all caps, leading me to believe that your selection process was to copy the text from the directory page and run a macro to put brackets around copied text.
    In other words, it's not encyclopedic content, just you adding a directory here. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    User:Calton I believe that you are attacking me and claiming bad faith, I did none of the such as you accused me of. In other words, don't assume anything simply because you hypothesize it, and alone peddle it. Sincerely

    KansasC785 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I notice that you avoided addressing a single thing I raised, so congrats on helping build my case for me. Perhaps you could try answering without deflection? Or at least take some advice from other editors? --Calton | Talk 00:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    190.141.223.82 has vandalized Sevda Erginci muitple times. Please block this IP address

    Ethan2345678 Instances of active and persistent vandalism should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What on earth is going on with that article? It's a complete, garbled mess, I've seen machine translations more coherent than that; I have no idea how anyone would determine what's vandalism, it doesn't look possible to make it more of a mess. Trying to think of a reason not to send it to AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I think you are commenting on the results of that vandalism. Here's the version from the article before the edits today, and, while short, it doesn't look like a complete mess. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    This article : https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pint-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html provides rather strong evidence that enforcement of actual wikipedia policies and such, like WP:OWN, WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED etc, are sorely lacking. Just checking if wikipedia admins are on the whole taking the stance they've been taking lately, or the one that Colin championed for years. I don't know who the involved users are, so I can't notify them. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Do you have any specific concerns that are not a content dispute? Your post is very vague. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • The thing is, the Wikipedia editor who wrote that linked article, who claims they are responsible for this edit is, by spreading conspiracist crap claiming that I (I am easily identified by their descriptions of me in the article) am "curiously aligned with Big Pharma, Big Vaccines, and Big Regulators", is part of the problem; the article gets re-tweeted by the article subject[331] and the rabble is roused. There have already been threats of violence against me, and it is likely that stuff like this is fuelling it. It's really something for arbcom to handle, surely? Off-wiki brigading against Wikipedia editors is one of the more unsavoury trends to have emerged during the pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • (Add) Also note Heterodox2021, another ivermectin WP:SPA, has discovered my twitter account and has been posting inflammatory (and, as it happens, untrue) material on twitter: see User Talk:Heterodox2021#Off-wiki activity. Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    In my defense, I did not create my account with the intention to be a single purpose account. Somewhere around 15 years ago I had an account, but I have no idea what it is at this point. It is true that the edits to Dr. Bret Weinstein's page motivated me to again create an account, but the intention was never WP:SPA. And while I admit that my initial twitter post was in fact inaccurate, based on a misreading of the diffs, that has since been corrected with indisputably accurate information. I turned to twitter essentially out of horror upon seeing the clearly paritisan edits occurring on the page, and even the restoration of those edits when deleted. Certainly there are partisan edits on both sides, but my attempt to suggest neutral language, indisputably more accurate, still retaining its criticism of Dr. Weinstein, was roundly rejected by Alexbrn. Purusing the history, it is also clear he is batting down any edit he personally deems either "disinformation", "misinformation", or attempting to tone down the rhetorical nature of phrasing. No lay user visiting Wikipedia has any idea how the sausage is made, so on the talk page I could suggest edits and have them batted down until I am blue in the face, and nobody would ever know what is happening. Thus I have taken it to Twitter, and I will continue to do so, with factual citations, double-checked, until this process is corrected.Heterodox2021 (talk)
    Does this rise to the level of a WP:NOTHERE block? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    WP:NOTNOTHERE -Heterodox2021 — Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I invite anyone here to review the discussion. My commentary starts at: The claim that there is "no evidence"...
    (Non-administrator comment) I reviewed the discussion, and I'm inclined to agree with Alex's answer - "no good evidence" is not the same as the "no evidence" included in your suggested edit. And, just so you know, I'm getting more than just a whiff of WP:RGW in the paragraph above. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This noticeboard is for discussing editor conduct, in this case your opposition research and resulting off-wiki harassment. If you'd bothered to try even slightly to understand how Wikipedia worked before starting your scummy antics, you might have realised the Weinstein content is being discussed on four (!) noticeboards with wide participation. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Off wiki harassment is way past not here. The only thing that should be written about is how poorly admins support those, like Alexbrn,who hold the line against the conspiracy theorist everyday. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Heterodox2021, you are clearly just here to push fringe theories, the fact that they have been rejected is because your ideas don't deserve to be included in a fact based encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I don't actually know much about this ivermectin dispute. The little bit that I do know is that the OP (50.201.195.170) has posted a medium-length POV soapbox on the ivermectin talk page [332] about drug pricing. (as an aside, I would point OP to this RFC and this ArbCom decision about drug pricing which would both point to us not including that information).

    It's also the same IP who's been on that talk page in the past (January 2021) pushing a POV about Ivermectin's efficacy and actually antagonizing admins in that context (for which they received their second block). And just a few minutes ago, accused me of a COI in a personal attack on a different admin's talk page [333].

    They have also posted a userspace essay which I perceive as a vandalism/parody attempt at mocking WP:NOLABLEAK. They also recently accused me of "censorship" and "fabrication" when I replaced a CN tag with a set of sources including direct quotes that form the basis of a paraphrase [334]. In that same breath, they again requested admin intervention for a content dispute [335], as they have done in many many content disputes as shown above. To be completely frank, I am not sure what this user adds to the project except to instigate disputes and cast aspersions. I think OP is WP:NOTHERE. I would be happy to be proven wrong, the IP has acquiesced to argument and reason on occasion, but I fear the impacts of this IP that are counterproductive far outweigh those that are productive.

    They are not, it must be said, a new user. They may be an IP, but they have made nearly 1000 edits since 2018 and have been blocked 3 times in that span [336] for this exact type of behavior (most recently in February of 2021, but as far back as July 2018, 2 months after their first edit). They do not appear to be improving their behavior. IP's edits have been a drain on editor time and admin time. Much like this ANI report is a waste of same, that resulted in the blocking of a different instigating editor. For all of these reasons, I propose that the OP deserves a boomerang topic ban from COVID-19 and associated treatments, or a 1 year block in my humble opinion.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    After warning them for personal attacks and placing a DS notice - by the way, Covid is subject to regular discretionary sanctions since 21 June - I realized that I'd blocked this editor before for a month for promotion of ivermectin as a panacea, and they'd been blocked for personal attacks before that. Since they appear to have moved back into Covid topic and returned to attacks on other editors, I've blocked them as a regular administrative action, for three months. I think a topic ban is probably worthwhile, but since they weren't formally warned of discretionary sanctions, it would have to come by some other means. The userspace material appears to be a POV content fork enshrined in userspace, under a pretense that it's an essay. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Acroterion, Totally understandable re: DS, may have to wait for them to come back and do it again for it to be a TBAN? But if they learn a lesson and stop editing where they can't keep a level head, or they just start editing constructively, then everybody wins, no TBAN necessary!
    Thanks for the mopping. Agree with your assessment of that user essay 100% but I desperately desperately don't want to propose the MfD myself 1) because I'm supposed to be on a wiki break (I keep tryna get out, but they keep pullin me back in!), and 2) because the other examples of these POV fork-y essays from users that have gotten banned or blocked have not gone well. The one I linked is a user that is indefinitely TBANned from COVID-19, and the essay itself was part of the reason for the TBAN. And yet people continue to vote keep. Never have I understood the importance of !vote as well as I do now.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The DS notice mostly serves as a means of enforcement if they return to the same subject after the block expires. I've deleted the essay as a POV fork pretending to be an essay, and a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Specifically, it's a misuse of userspace to attack groups of editors, persons or groups, and misuse of userspace for something that looks like something in project space, the figleaf essay header notwithstanding. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Hello. Today, I stumbled upon User:Lugnuts and found that they are back to their old ways again - creating one or two-line stubs, using database entries as sources even for living people's birth date which is a serious breach of WP:BLP.

    Recently, community decided to remove their autopatrolled rights and allowed them to edit and create articles without any restriction based on promise that they will research-well and will follow WP:RS strictly. But, here we are again, they are creating permastubs within span of two minutes and (Redacted)

    Now, they are also prolific contributor and their edits are more than 1M and we need more of them. What I suggest now to is give them a rest on article creation (Redacted)and can continue editing articles as they are doing. That will help them to break their habits and may help them to mend their ways.

    Lastly, we don't want to loose them either, so article creation restriction is required now as we have already given them a chance. Hope they will cope up with this and will abide by community's advice this time around. Thanks. 95.145.220.124 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Database sources such as Olympedia are reliable sources so perfectly valid for dates of birth- no evidence has been given to the contrary, and if you want to debate this, it should be done at WP:RSN, not by starting an ANI thread about an editor. And not all of these are permastubs- I'm sure most of them could be expanded at some point in the future, and I have historically expanded many articles created as stubs by Lugnuts, which demonstrated my point. Stubs are valid articles, they're just articles that have yet to be expanded. Also, please refrain from making assertions about other users- saying they have OCD is not appropriate, and may be considered a personal attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    IP: I have redacted the parts of your complaint where you make comments about another editor's mental health, and where you claim knowledge of another editor's motivations. Please do not make such comments again, particularly with regards to other editors' mental health.
    Have you taken any steps to discuss the particular concerns about these sources anywhere? For example by asking Lugnuts whether he is confident that the sources are reliable, or raising a query at WP:RSN? He might have responded well to a good faith request that he stop creating them while the sources were discussed. Girth Summit (blether) 09:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    All the ANI thread stated was the removal of the auto-patrolled right, which happened, and no other restrictions. Since then every single article I've created has been patrolled by another user. Here's a list of the most prolific in that area. In that three months, each page has been flagged as patrolled, with no issues of concern raised (that I can recall). Maybe the IP would like to question those other users to find any issues, or indeed how they know so much about this specific issue for a new user. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I'm still on a Wikibreak but noticed this and felt it was important enough for a quick comment. User:Joseph2302 is quite wrong and should not touch any WP:BLP until they re-familiarise themselves with policy. Nor should Lugnuts assuming the IP's summation is accurate. Database sources, even if they are WP:RS cannot reasonably be considered "widely published" and are generally not "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". They should not be used as the sole source for a date of birth. If there are no better sources, the content stays out of BLPs. It does not matter how confident editors are that the information is correct. The whole point of BLP policy on this matter is that we need to go beyond the information simply being correct. Whatever else Lugnuts may or may not be up to, if they are indeed violating BLP and they refuse to self-correct, they need to be topic banned. N.B. because I will be logging out straight after, I will point BLPN to this discussion. Nil Einne (talk)
    By all means start a discussion at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN about this, but don't threaten me by telling me that I don't understand WP:BLP. I understand it perfectly well, and will not be adhering to your threat that I must stop editing BLPs simply because you disagree on one source. I consider the above a threat and a personal attack on my competency as an editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    My view is that database entries about non-notable sportspeople should be presented not as biographies (which they aren't), but as list entries. Reyk YO! 09:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    No comment on Lugnuts, but I will say it is not appropriate to log out of your account to make a complaint against an editor. It should be done through your primary account. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    A BLP discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Possible BLPDOB problem- this should smooth out the BLP-related issues. Though I still question the conduct of an IP whose first edit is a personal attack, and another editor who demands that I must not edit BLPs simply because I disagree with them about the reliability of one source. Both of those things need admin consideration, the sourcing doesn't (as it needs the WP:BLPN discussion). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If that is their first edit then I am a unicorn. This is ax grinding while evading scrutiny plain and simple. I have already given them a warning and will follow through on it if they continue. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, this underhandedness does detract from what is otherwise a legitimate concern. That and the ad hominems. Reyk YO! 12:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I don't have any BLP issues, but I do have notability issues. Lugnuts created stubs for a bunch of Venezuelan softball players from the 2008 Olympics, but on the team lineups I can find from that event, some of them do not appear. I'm pretty sure that being a non-playing squad member of an Olympic team is not notability, especially if one can find nothing else out about them. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Black Kite. I've just double-checked all those, and they did all take part (at the Olympics) at some stage. For example, Bheiglys Mujica's bio states Competed in Olympic Games. Compare with Kristen Karanzias of Greece who is listed as a non-starter, and doesn't have a wiki-article. Also, most if not all of the Venezuelan team won medals at other multi-national tournaments, such as the Pan-Am Games. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Good stuff. I couldn't find team line-ups for all the games, so I'm guessing that they appeared in the ones I couldn't find. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • The date of birth of footballers do tend to be the subject of reliable sources given the enormous interest in the sport, for example, in the U.K, The PFA Premier & Football League players' records 1946-2015[1] contains thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of dates of birth of people who have played in the Football League and Premier League. Now, I don’t know whether worldfootball.net is a reliable source (I note it is published by Heim:Spiel, a company that specialises in sport data) but that’s a discussion, I think, for WT:FOOTY and WP:RSN, not here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    References

    1. ^ Hugman, Barry J., ed. (2015). The PFA Premier & Football League players' records 1946-2015 (First ed.). Hextable. ISBN 9781782811671.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    • Just noting that I also have concerns about including DOBs on BLPs that are sourced to a single database as WP:BLPDOB requires DOBs to be "widely published by reliable sources". The BLP policy for DOBs is about a privacy concern, rather than merely an issue of verifiability or reliability ("the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified"). As I also stated on the BLPN thread, this concern should be even more important if the articles are about relatively non-notable individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Reporting Ethan2345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again since the previous report was archived without action. This time, the user is persistently removing useful links.[337][338][339][340][341] Their talk page is filled with warnings, to which they respond with brief thank-yous before proceeding with their disruption.[342] KyleJoantalk 10:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    This user has misunderstood MOS:SURNAME and other naming conventions, often citing it when making unrelated, needless changes despite multiple explanations. Other disruptive edits include ignoring linked policy explanations and providing useless edit summaries, even after warnings. They've also miscomprehended talk page posts (perhaps due to a slight language impediment), used arbitrary reasoning in discussion, and re-added personal information onto their user page despite a warning. At the very least, I think their talk page, littered with warnings that remain greatly ignored, is an indicator of the state of their contributions to Wikipedia. Reverting their disruption is getting repetitive.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not certain if it's relevant (apologies if it is not), but this recent edit to Basic English appears similar to some noted by Bettydaisies. I happened to note this ANI on Ethan2345678's talk page when asking about a subsequent edit that removed internal links, not unlike what KyleJoan noted. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I want to apologize on what I did on these articles. By now, I start to familarise on manual of styles and guidelines. And I’ve tried(I hope) to use edit summaries more proficiently and summarize about what I’ve edited on pages. I’ll be more careful in the future about this, especially about naming conventions, links and probably what other people warned me in my talk page. I want to just improve this encyclopedia, thank you. Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Yet you've continued, even after this response. You've misunderstood MOS:OL by unlinking "somewhat familiar" phrasing, missed the MOS:DUPLINK policy on lead links, regarded England and Jordan to the same recognitive level as Japan (mentioned in OL), and, in the same edit, going for another irrelevant, unconstructive MOS:SURNAME citation you've been repeatedly warned against.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Ethan2345678, Thank you for your response and we appreciate what you said about wanting to improve Wikipedia. But please consider this: YOU, as an individual editor can do very little to improve the overall quality of this encyclopedia. It's just too big, with too many articles and too many people making uninformed or destructive edits at the same time as you are trying to improve it. Therefore, it is only through COLLABORATION with other editors that we, working together and not against each other, can make a real difference. I only know this because at one time I, too, thought that I could make a difference by my own individual efforts, until I embraced the spirit of collaboration with others. Does that make sense? So, as another editor put it, please slow down and try to focus on a narrowly targeted set of articles to work on. Since you yourself have stated that your English language skills need a certain level of improvement, perhaps you should focus more on controlling pure WP:VANDALISM or improving articles that are mere stubs or even start-class articles that need a lot of work, as opposed to WP:GOOD or WP:FEATURED or articles that are already well on their way to this level of quality. Please, PLEASE consider these things and know that I am not criticizing you, just trying to offer constructive suggestions. I welcome your comments on this and I'm sure everybody else who is following this thread would love to read them as well. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What is “Start-class articles”? Also, I edited at a very high rate, so there’ll be some errors. I think my English is strong enough but I made many errors because I was too fast. So maybe I have to slow down. Ethan2345678 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Ethan2345678, thank you for your response and for thinking about this. See Wikipedia:Content assessment for definitions of the different article classes. Feel free to message me at any time on my talk page for related discussion. This thread will probably be closed or archived soon by the people who run this page. Cheers, Johnnie Bob (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    And once again, making useless edit summaries and changing referential terminology for no reason. It's unfortunate this thread hasn't received administrator attention, which might encourage you to read this thread much more carefully.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Bump. Ethan2345678 was previously copy-editing, despite what they admit is a less than perfect grasp of English and including many UK articles, where they ran into trouble changing the way members of the Royal Family are referred to based on a misunderstanding of the MOS guidelines on surnames; these two well-intentioned edits also show a lack of awareness of non-US context. Overall, the editor appears to be going mainly on personal taste; this edit, for example, added a link to New York City (surely as well known as the countries to which they have been removing links) to a plage replete with links, on the stated grounds of the page being underlinked. (I looked at that edit because the previous edit to that page was the last where they used the strange "Updated since your last visit" edit summary highlighted by Bettydaisies above.) They have since refocused on vandalism-patrolling, possibly based on a well intentioned suggestion, but they are reverting and warning for substantially good-faith edits such as this (corrects the team name to match the pipe; a player whose transfer has been recently announced, the article is being changed a lot and I'm not sure what the correct number of caps and goals for his previous team is so haven't edited it myself). Since Ethan2345678 was miscopying the warning templates, someone has now suggested using Twinkle, but I do not believe they are competent to do vandal patrolling, and they have already admitted above that they were working too fast. I am going to suggest on their talk page that they pivot again to much simpler maintenance tasks. Reverting people, they are doing as much harm as good and one reverted editor has already contested on Ethan2345678's talk page their very strongly worded objection to use of a non-English word. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Please look at the page Midakanatti which was heavily disturbed by the locals of that place and the main user was blocked recently. But now logged out disturbance has started. KINDLY PLEASE PROTECT THE PAGE BY not allowing IPs to edit.--Msclrfl22 17:04, 7 July (UTC)

    I've requested page protection here. In the future, you can request page protection through Twinkle, by going to the TW in the editing toolbar, and choosing RPP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I just wanted to point out that Bluerules (talk · contribs) is unilaterally deciding what is superfluous and what is not, and is overall acting as though they own the article. The heavy text trimming was started by the user, not by me.

    This is the article: [343] I don't want to engage in edit war so I'd rather tackle it here before it escalates any further. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Seems like a content dispute. Have you tried discussing it with the user on the talk page? See steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    AnyDosMilVint, both of you have already edit warred: please take a close look at WP:EW and WP:BRD. You added a load of stuff - that's a Bold edit. Bluerules disagreed with the additions, and Reverted your additions. The next stage is discussion, but neither of you have used the talk page yet. I suggest you go over there, and start a discussion about whether the content (which I haven't looked at) is appropriate for the page. If you can't agree, as ProcrastinatingReader suggests, you should take a look at the options in dispute resolution. A report here is very premature. Girth Summit (blether) 12:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, I'm editing the talk page. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    For context, this article once had an overlong plot section. I was the editor who trimmed the section to meet the length guideline. I am not opposed to further edits that improve the page - [the edits made by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_2&type=revision&diff=1032343959&oldid=1032300485] AnyDosMilVint (talk · contribs) have not been helpful. They include character interpretations/speculation, real world information, original research, and misleading details. A talk page has been set up and I'll see where it goes from there. Bluerules (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    After Katya1202x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made personal attacks on their talk page on two occasions [1][2], I asked them to stop [3]; they removed the message without responding. Today, after being reverted by another user for adding incorrect information to an article, they went to that user's talk page and made another personal attack [4]. DanCherek (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The editor has made nine edits so far. One of them was a copyright violation which required rev deletion, and three of them have been obscene personal attacks. I considered an indef, but have decided to give them one chance to shape up: blocked for a week, with a warning that the next time will likely be indef. Girth Summit (blether) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    In February 2021, I made a number of general fixes and copy edits to the Gadhimai festival page. Apart from fixing a variety of minor grammatical, markup, and formatting errors, I also corrected a few claims made on the page, based on existing references. User Georgethedragonslayer has recently gone ahead and reintroduced a slew of errors to the article and deleted at least one reference that supports particular claims on the page that this user has removed. After I reverted these changes, the user undid my revert, and at this point it is approaching an edit war. My sense is that the user has a motive for making these changes, and they are engaging me in bad-faith dialogue, both on theirs and my own talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    @Revirvlkodlaku:, this seems like a content dispute that is best handled on the article talk page (I don't see a discussion there). I see that Georgethedragonslayer is flirting with violating 3RR and have dropped a warning on their talk page but, ideally, this should be discussed on the article talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @RegentsPark:, I'm not sure if you read through the discussion I've had with Georgethedragonslayer so far, but the individual has reverted my work in bad faith more than once. They have deleted two reputable references that demonstrate that the point they are trying to make is false. This seems like a clear case of someone obfuscating an inconvenient fact that they feel strongly about. How do I resolve this on the talk page? You can see that the individual is recalcitrant, refusing to engage in reasonable dialogue, and even making wild accusations about my own motives. How do I go forward with this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Revirvlkodlaku: Ideally, the discussion should take place on the article talk page and, if you can't resolve it there, you should seek dispute resolution (WP:DR). I took a look at their contributions and I don't see any reason to believe that they have a particular POV or agenda on this festival (if I've missed something, please feel free to elaborate). Explain your position on the talk page, give them a chance to respond, and then see what happens. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @RegentsPark:, Georgethedragonslayer has repeatedly deleted reputable references that demonstrate the fact that the festival has gone on despite being officially banned. They have removed these and claimed that the festival ended in 2015. How is that not a particular POV? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    That's not necessarily a particular POV. It could be their reading of the sources. Which is why, assuming your reading is different, you need to use the article talk page to explain your postion. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @RegentsPark:, I don't understand. This individual is deleting references that demonstrate a claim he is denying. How do you not see how blatant that is? I get the feeling that you haven't looked at this thoroughly. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Revirvlkodlaku, I've started a discussion at Talk:Gadhimai festival#2021 Updates. The issue is that we don't resolve content disputes here at ANI. If you can reach a consensus and Georgethedragonslayer continues to revert—or if they refuse to discuss at all—then that becomes a conduct issue. Right now, it's just both of you reverting and warning each other over content. Woodroar (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    How this --> [352] belongs to Christianity and European secular politics Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    .. or this -->[353] ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Which of the words "European," "secular," and "politics" does not apply to The Holocaust? Levivich 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    None...Could you explain better? I don't grasp it.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Clearly none of those edits were about Christianity. "European secular politics" is more difficult to assess because it's far from clear what that's intended to mean. I looked through the discussion which led to the ban to seek clarification, but didn't see anything there which clarified the question. (Though I may possibly have missed something due to a TLDR effect.) In fact it isn't clear to me how Wugapodes found a consensus for "European secular politics" in that discussion. Some of the editing reported here is perhaps in the spirit of some of that which led to the topic ban ( e.g. inserting the idea that the Holocaust in Poland was done only by Germans), and so some editors may think it should be covered by the ban, but given the vague wording of the ban I don't think it would be fair to treat it as a ban violation. I suggest that the best way forward may be to take no action now, but for editors to discuss possible ways to clarify the scope of the ban. JBW (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    It's been almost a year and I don't have time to go through the discussion again. From my close it seems my thinking was that some people wanted a TBAN from European politics writ large, while others wanted it more narrowly tailored to European politics as it relates to religion (i.e., secularism). I agree that it's not clear, I even said in the close "Participants weren't clear on what that means", but we've since clarified it somewhat. For example, this discussion clarified that the TBAN covers "political topics with strong ties to Christian ethics" such as abortion and homosexuality. A week ago E-960 just blatantly violated the Christianity prong of the TBAN for which they were blocked (report), and the reporting editor also raised concerns about E-960's editing of The Holocaust article. I'm personally beyond the point of assuming a good faith misunderstanding about the scope of the ban; to me it seems like they're intentionally pushing the limits of what's allowed. The goal of bans is to stop disruption and wasting editors' time, not be an endless source of wikilawyering. I'm fine with clarifying the scope of the TBAN, but I doubt we could craft one that won't be so squishy as to allow continued breaching experiments. Absent an unambiguous TBAN, I'd suggest we impose the CBAN some editors suggested last August. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Folks, you have to be clear here. Seriously. Otherwise, it's a puzzle for the person that is under these unclear restrictions. Sanctions at this point would be more than unfair. I'm copy-pasting your evaluation Wug· while you were imposing the ban:

    There is consensus for a community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed. Participants weren't clear on what that means but my understanding from the discussion is that it includes: (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics. Since that's an interpretation of the discussion, I want to explain specifically how I came to that conclusion. The original proposal was a topic ban from all religious topics, not simply European religious topics, and some editors explicitly stated they wanted "Christianity and European politics" as more tailored to the area of disruption. In discussing what that area of disruption was, narrowing "religion" to "Christianity" was pretty strightforward, but participants tended to focus on European politics as it related to the editor's views of secularist politics rather than European politics writ large. Some people did suggest they intended the broader "all European politics" interpretation, but there's not a clear consensus for the broad interpretation. Either way, editors suggest E-960 take some time to cool off, and their willingness to enter into a voluntary TBAN shows they understand that necessity. Some suggested a cban, but there was no consensus at this time. Some suggested a block, but per the discussion and WP:COOLDOWN there is no consensus to impose a block at this time.

    The user under sanction didn't breach any of the above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    First, I don't see how editing The Holocaust is related to the topic ban scope, unless it is the extremely broadly construed, where of course any edit to anything related to Europe is wrong. I mean, sure, The Holocaust was carried out by Europeans, some of whom were Christians, interested in politics, and Nazi Germany was obviously secular and political, errr... Yeah, so I don't see how this is a TBAN violation. Given that E-960 had not breached the ban for nearly a year, and has now been hit with this weird critique, I suggest that A, we vacate ban, and B, BOOMERANG is employed to examine those who reported him for BATTLEGROUND mentality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    E-960 was blocked just last month for violating the ban. It did not include (AFAIK, since I wasn't involved there), some of his edits on Poland and a couple of other articles: [354][355][356][357][358][359] (the IPN, mentioned in a couple of these, is a government agency). François Robere (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Last week's violation also broke the Christianity portion of the ban. This week's editing of the Holocaust breaks the "European secular politics" portion of the ban. The Holocaust was the state-directed murder of six million Jews by European Christians in Europe. The victims of the Holocaust were chosen on the basis of their religious background. The Nazi justification of the murder as being motivated by Scientific racism, is pseudo-scientific nonsense, the victims were solely selected on the basis of their religion and their ancestors' religion. The Holocaust falls within politics, and specifically secular politics, being a state act of murder on the basis of nullifying Freedom of religion. The Nuremberg Laws preceding the Holocaust make the religious basis of this murder obvious, as this source points out:

      According to the Nuremberg Laws, a person with three or four Jewish grandparents was a Jew. A grandparent was considered Jewish if they belonged to the Jewish religious community. Thus, the Nazis defined Jews by their religion (Judaism), and not by the supposed racial traits that Nazism attributed to Jews.

      State murder of people on the basis of their religious background (Britannica: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II") is an extreme case of anti-secular politics.--Astral Leap (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This is stretching the definition/scope of the ban to the point where it’s hard not to question the good faith behind these demands for sanctions. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND and attempts to WP:WIKILAWYER really do eventually stray into harassment/griefing of the target. Volunteer Marek 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm not sure how my most recent edits even come close to violating the TBAN, it's a historical issue, not one related to Christianity or Secular European Politics (Abortion, LGBT issues, Separation of Church and State, discrimnation on the basis of Christianity, etc.). When someone says SECULAR politics it usually refers to issues which I listed above, otherwise it's just POLITICS, and the whole point of adding the word SECULAR is to differentiate from ALL POLITICS. So, let's deconstruct my TBAN which resulted from edits on the Religion in the European Union article. I would assume that it makes sense to impose a ban on topics related to Christianity or politics that involve matters connected with religious beliefs or secular/humanist ideas (as we have a clash between the two in Europe and elsewhere). However, based on the most recent charges against me, apparently I would violate my TBAN if I discussed the current and ongoing issues related to the Coal Mine Dispute between Poland and the Czech Rep., because a political dispute over a coal mine is SECURL POLITICS to some folks, and apparently it makes sense to accuse me of violating the TBAN because the issue of coal mines in Europe is related to the article from which my TBAN stems from Religion in the European Union. We all know how EU energy politics is related to EU politics on Religion. Same can be said for trying to correlate history with current Secular European Politics. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The definition of SECULARISM in SECULAR POLITICS states: "In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government." So, how are my most recent edits related to this and fall under Christianity and European Secular Politics? --E-960 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • "Secular" does not mean the same thing as "secularism." The TBAN is written as "European secular politics" but if it's meant to be "European secularism politics," that's something different. Frankly I wouldn't have filed this if it was "secularism" instead of "secular." Levivich 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      You're right Levivich, but in fairness to E-960, Secular politics is a redirect for Secularism. I don't know whether that's valid or not, but it could at least add to the confusion here about what the intended scope of the TBan was. Girth Summit (blether) 15:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
      IMO secular politics shouldn't be a redirect to secularism but that's neither here nor there. I agree there's enough confusion about the scope of the tban to merit some clarification. I also share Wug's concern about boundary pushing, given E made edits to the same articles that led to the block immediately after the block expired, but a clarification of the tban scope might help with that, too. I guess the Nazis were secularist as well as secular, so the entirety of The Holocaust might still be covered under a secularist politics TBAN, but I haven't thought enough about that particular point yet to make up my mind. Levivich 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I think this is like moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. Wug clearly differentiated between Secular Politics and Politics in the closing statement, noting that some wanted to apply the TBAN to broader Politics as a whole, however the final decision was to impose the sanctions for Christianity and European secular politics. As for my recent omissions, I admitted to them and noted that they were not intended to be a statement of some kind to fight the power, prove a point, or disrupt Wikipedia... they were just my mistakes. I served out the 1 week block, and those omissions should not be viewed as some kind of an attempt to flaunt the TBAN, as some people interpret it to be. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, Levivich, please consider what was written in the closing statement: "European politics as it related to the editor's views of secularist politics rather than European politics writ large". --E-960 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    @Wugapodes, JBW, and Girth Summit: what are your thoughts on closing this by changing the WP:EDR entry from topic banned from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed to topic banned from (1) Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics (language taken from Wug's August 2020 closing statement, quoted in full above)? Levivich 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Levivich - How will this proposed little change make it easier to follow the restriction and help stopping shady reports such as this one? Would you please explain? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Please stop pinging me and asking me sea lioning questions. Levivich 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (?! excuse me?) Well, perhaps WP: BOOMERANG should be, in fact, delivered. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Look, this is silly. Given enough bad faith you can always make connections and stretch the meanings of words to connect anything to "secular politics in Europe". Joe Biden? He's a politician (check). He went to Europe (so?). And there was that whole thing with the bishops (so related to "religion"!... who cares). Would anyone seriously argue that this TB is meant to cover Joe Biden? Come on. Just change the TB to "anything related to homosexuality and abortion" and be done with it. Straightforward and hard to game. On either side, either by skirting around the edges or by filing bad-faithed ANI requests that border on harassment. Volunteer Marek 16:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella - please cool it with the accusations about bad faith and shady reports. Unless either of you care to make an evidence-based case that this complaint has been raised in bad faith, you should at least try to pretend to assume good faith. I for one am prepared to believe that it is a good faith misunderstanding between the various parties on what the TBan was meant to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Girth Summit - Yes, actually, after examining Levivich's comments on their talk page, I believe that they were indeed confused, which also demonstrates that the extent of the ban needs to be clarified. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Levivich - I don't personally have a view on what the wording of the TBan should be at present, but I'd be interested in hearing Wug's view on the matter. If I get time later I may read through the original thread and the close properly to make myself better informed, but you know how I don't like giving half-baked opinions... Girth Summit (blether) 17:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Girth Summit: I'd welcome fresh eyes. I gave my thoughts further up, but to clarify somewhat, my main concern is cutting off the need for further discussions like this. Including the original TBAN discussion, this will be the third time we've discussed what the scope is within the past year which is eating up human resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The goal of community sanctions is to stop disruption, not be a source of endless wikilawyering (see WP:NOTBURO) which is why "broadly construed" is included: it empowers administrators to take action on edge cases where the spirit of the restriction is violated if not the precise text. No consensus for a TBAN from European politics, writ large, doesn't mean the community thinks the editor should still edit there, and we should take the stronger interpretations (which did not reach consensus last August) into account when understanding "broadly construed" especially when we are still dealing with concerns a year later. If nothing else, the TBAN discussion last August should have put E960 on notice that their behavior in the Euopean topic area as a whole is viewed as problematic by the community and should probably not be outright avoided even if not expressly prohibited. The sanctions last month should have demonstrated that they are still being observed and that perceptions have not changed much. Yet here we are, again, spending time trying to turn obvious "it is unwise to behave like this" sentiments into ironclad "it is prohibited to behave like this". I'm not necessarily advocating for increased sanctions---I'm not even convinced the behavior reported here is particularly problematic---but from the amount of time I've spent on this the last few weeks I'm not convinced the TBAN as it stands is preventing disruption so much as spreading it to new people and venues. That needs to be fixed in whatever way we think appropriate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    FWIW IMO there's nothing particularly problematic (certainly not ANI-worthy) about the edits I linked to if E is not tbanned from "non-religious European politics" (which would include the Holocaust). I was concerned with the edits that led to the previous block, which included removing the collaboration and medical experiments sections from The Holocaust in their entirety because they allegedly push a POV. After the block, the edits to the Poland article were about collaboration as well. But if E's tban doesn't cover the Holocaust then it's probably just a content dispute. I would ask for some official clarity one way or another about whether this tban does or does not cover Holocaust-related content (and I bet E would like that to be clarified, too). Levivich 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Some thoughts:

    1. Levivich filed this in good faith.
    2. The diffs are out of the scope of the ban.
    3. The ban should remain in place, as it's been less than a year and there have been multiple violations.[360][361][362][363][364][365][366]
      1. The easiest way to clarify the scope would be to limit the ban to (more or less) recent politics - from fall of Communism onward.
    4. E-960 edits in good faith, if sometimes tendentiously.
    5. The sort of bad faith that's been on display in this thread is the very tip of the iceberg that's WP:APL.
    6. The fact that MediaWiki is unable to stop editors from interacting with subjects from which they're banned is ridiculous. We keep arguing about trespassing instead of having the landlord install locks.

    François Robere (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The IP user 162.221.181.67 has been suddenly and rapidly removing Berber-language names from the lead sections of pages; they dubiously claimed that they were "reverting" the edits of a former sock user, which was true in many cases (though most of the edits were a while ago) but certainly not in all cases (such as here and here, where the material was a result of edits by others, including myself). They've since started to edit-war on two pages (here and here), after previously receiving a warning for edit-warring here and here.

    The IP has also recently been editing other users' talk pages, mostly in old discussions in which they have no role and in which another was a sockpuppet or was investigated as a sockuppet, mostly by inappropriately striking comments from long-finished discussions (example), even in archives, or unnecessarily adding tags or other material on the pages of inactive blocked users (example).

    They've been given many warnings on their talk page, but their reactions (like this one) suggests they will not listen. R Prazeres (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    (non-admin comment) "Striked" in their ESs is an unusual word. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    (Non-administrator comment) Looks like the IP got blocked for 72 hours by HighInBC. MiasmaEternalTALK 23:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The user "Ghuaadg441" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghuaadg441) seems to delete sourced content he dislikes related to East Asians. Not sure if a single purpose account or not, but action should be taken. I have already reverted him, but he again deleted large amounts of content and gave a confusing edit summary. I am reporting this event here (Genetic history of East Asians), as I don't want to start an edit war. I was told to report it here. Maybe its disruptive.46.125.250.23 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    (Non-administrator comment) I see no evidence that there is a pattern of disruption by Ghuaadg441 (talk · contribs) or 46.125.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); this seems to be based entirely on a short-lived content dispute at Genetic history of East Asians (page history). However, this edit summary by Ghuaadg441 casts aspersions of sockpuppetry against a nonexistent "HunanZH", and it is unclear whom "Hideki" is referring to. Also, you did not notify Ghuaadg441 of this discussion on their talk page, as required. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    They are referring to the creator of this image ("HunanZH"), who is indeffed on Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    If it is the images that were removed due to upload by a problematic user, then Ghuaadg441 might be correct to remove them if the images failed verification or present a fringe POV. But who is "Hideki"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I couldn't find a more appropriate place to put this; I almost started an SPI, but the accounts came so quickly and had such diverse start dates, that it looks more like a concerted organized attempt to subvert consensus at Julia Salazar by multiple seemingly well organized users. In 2018-2019, there was a lot of edit-warring and bad faith accusations and many now-blocked accounts were involved in an ongoing fracas to either delete the page or include weasel words that violated BLP and BLPCRIME, and give undue weight to fringe claims, call her a liar and insinuate she was a criminal in Wikipedia's voice, etc. The issues were solved, some on the talk page, some via SPI, and some here at ANI two years ago and the page has been largely stable.

    Then, last week the "she's only famous for lying" crowd came back:

    1. 11:58, 30 June 2021‎ 74.64.43.66
    2. 12:03, 30 June 2021 Competitionlawnerd
    3. Because these happened within 5 minutes of each other, and dealt with the same issues, I left the named account a warning about editing while logged out with no accusation of bad faith but also warned them about adding poorly sourced info. They immediately deleted both notices, so at this point I had no reason to think that CLN wasn't the same user as IP 74.64.43.66.
    4. CLN re-added both their comments and 74.64.43.66's as well as starting a conversation as requested on the Talk page

    Here's where it gets interesting and seems so well coordinated, and why I stopped responding on the article talk page and why I'm choosing not to put ANI notices on the involved editors, because I had been harassed and hounded by some of these same types of editors from this page in the past. They are hewing very close to the rules and not making any individual violations, but nevertheless, the weight of the circumstantial evidence and timing seems clear something was afoot and I waited to see how many more accounts would show up.

    1. within 20 minutes Bowmerang shows up and agrees
    2. Competitionlawnerd comments again and agrees with Bowmerang by name
    3. later that night Egawaryuki21 comments and agrees by name

    This would not be that notable on a highly-trafficked page, but Julia Salazar is not. There had been no comments on the Talk aside from some assessments since the fracas mentioned above exactly 24 months ago. And it would not be notable if these were high usage accounts. But they are not.

    1. Competitionlawnerd made the account in August 2019 (right after some others involved in disrupting Julia Salazar page were blocked, made two hundred superficial edits through November 2019, then one edit in October 2020, one in May 2021, and then a flurry June 30, 2020 about Julia Salazar.
    2. Bowmerang account dates to 2011, and has not been much used at all or recently, with 4 edits since November 2018 and none since September 2020, but was on the Talk page to agree with CLN within 20 minutes
    3. Egawaryuki21 account likewise is not tremendously active, but appeared here same day to agree with the movement

    (Note, I think Freelance-frank made a good faith edit, despite suspiciously moving content out of a standard section for BLPs ("Early life and education") to make a larger section for this undue weight topic).

    I bring up the 2018 and 2019 edits at this page, and allude to the harassment from those editors, because:

    • how deftly Competitionlawnerd found this section of my talk page which they edited with a clumsy faux warning in media res of a talk page section originating from 2018. My talk is unarchived and over 530 kB, there's no way they found that section idly if they didn't already know it was there.
    1. That section was started by Knowitall369 who edit-warred relentlessly on Julia Salazar and hasn't edited much since 2019.
    2. That same section was also surprisingly "found" by a "different" editor again in July 2019 by ODDoom99, who has edited about nothing but Julia Salazar and me personally.
    • And, all three of these users take the unusual step to refer to the subject as "Ms. Salazar":
    1. Knowitall369 and again
    2. ODDoom99
    3. Competitionlawnerd
    • It's also worth noting that some of the most vigorous voices for first deletion, and then for inclusion of overwhelmingly negative innuendo were the blocked-for-socking E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz.

    The last time I got involved with this page to prevent it from becoming just a smear, named and anonymous accounts harassed, hounded, and gaslit me for months, fuller details found at ANI here and ANI here, with 24.47.152.65 undoing my edits on dozens of different pages and accusing me of anything that might stick on those articles' talks.

    Just looking for how to handle this type of socking, meating, or brigading that seems unlikely to be organic. Since July 2019, edits of this ilk (e.g. lying about her record or being Jewish) have only occurred sparingly, out of only 62 total edits in almost two years:

    • Only 5 instances from 4 accounts in those 23 months:
    1. 13:32, 20 November 2019‎ 172.127.21.153
    2. 21:05, 16 March 2020‎ 172.127.21.153
    3. 00:08, 30 July 2020‎ 107.242.117.46
    4. 14:50, 11 September 2020‎ 50.1.114.34
    5. 20:46, 12 October 2020‎ 2601:646:9300:da80:d837:ddba:b08f:6528
    • Compared to 5 instances from 5 accounts in 9 hours:
    1. 11:58, 30 June 2021‎ 74.64.43.66
    2. 12:03, 30 June 2021‎ Competitionlawnerd
    3. 13:12, 30 June 2021‎ Bowmerang
    4. 13:50, 30 June 2021‎ 4.16.132.250
    5. 21:00, 30 June 2021‎ Egawaryuki21

    If this is the wrong place, I'll move it, but seemed like it would be too open-ended for SPI, and they're seemingly backlogged at that. A lot of admins chimed in at previous ANIs linked above and on some of these suspicious users' talks, but don't want to canvass and ping any. Huge congrats and thanks if anyone read this far, kinda why it took me a week to post. JesseRafe (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Article talk page aside, main article   Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. El_C 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    User:M-Mustapha appears to be misusing the rollback function by reverting good faith edits without edit summaries or engaging in the discussion on the Talk page. This instance reverts my edit (I'd forgotten to log in, apologies!) but looking at his user talk page and contributions it seems to be a recurring problem. --CaribouFanfare (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    This is fine. There's obviously a content dispute that is being discussed on the talk page, but the status quo ante is to include the material, and the edit summary used is trying to twist policy to win an edit war. The appearance was that Endlesspumpkin was trying to evade scrutiny; while that was not the case I do not blame M-Mustapha for rolling back the IP edit. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Ah, sorry! That wasn't the intention. I'll look over the policy again. CaribouFanfare (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    CaribouFanfare - On an unrelated topic, I went ahead and suppressed your IP address from that edit for you in order to keep that information private. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    RogueShanghai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly disregarded ONUS to include (and edit war over) disputed content while knowing that they needed consensus to include and not the other way around.[367][368][369][370][371] In addition, they have called themselves a member of the Barbz on Stan Twitter. According to Rolling Stone, the Barbz are an army of devoted fans willing to defend [Nicki Minaj] at any cost.[372] Is this not a COI disclosure? Nil Einne has cautioned them about their bias,[373] but it doesn't seem as if their editing habits have improved. KyleJoantalk 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    What does my personal life and the fanbases that I am in have to do with any of my editing work? WP:NPA. Also, Rolling Stone has it 100% wrong. Barbz are not a crazed army of angry fans willing to defend Nicki at any cost. That is a common misconception. We are simply a fanbase for the Queen of Rap, Nicki Minaj. Me stating that I am a Barb is no different than saying the words "I am a fan of Nicki Minaj," which there are plenty other editors who've stated the same thing on Wikipedia. I don't remove all the stuff about her controversies such as collaborating with particularly problematic men, because Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, instead just trying to add context and correct facts to them. At least I am disclosing the fact that I am a fan of Minaj, because the people that don't say it, they're even worse. Which brings me onto my next point...
    Hell, in fact, the only reason I joined Wikipedia to contribute to the Nicki Minaj article is because there's another editor on here, [374] who seems to be part of the Bardigang, constantly adding false information about Nicki Minaj. It's not just me either, I've conferred with other editors who've agreed that this person is trying to erase Minaj's impact. This editor has been accused of nonconstructive false edits before, [375] sockpuppetry, [376] and seems that most of their editing is unconstructive edits towards Minaj. I am trying to recontextualize the negative things that he is adding about Minaj, but he seems unwilling to collaborate on the talk page. You also need consensus for REMOVALS. For example, the "Queen of Rap" for Minaj is already consensus, as per decided by editor consensus a few months ago. [377]
    Now, let's talk about your unnecessary behavior. You keep pulling ONUS out when YOU were the only editor who disagreed with the footnotes for the Pose (TV series) article, and as I said in my reply on the noticeboard, you were repeatedly rude, uncivil, unwilling to discuss changes on the talk page, unnecessarily snarky and immature. [378] I was willing to collaborate and have a cordial discussion, but you were rude and failed WP:5P4. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"(talk to me!~) 06:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Rolling Stone is a reliable source per WP:RSP. ONUS says: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; it does not say disputed content gets included if there's only one dissenting user. KyleJoantalk 07:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    KyleJoan, you can't be invoking a consensus per an RfC when that RfC hasn't concluded yet. Not to be harsh, but that ought to be obvious. El_C 09:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: I'd rather not go too much into the content dispute, but I only opened the RfC to be courteous toward RogueShanghai's view–even though an archived discussion had established that it was not MOS-compliant. Not only that, but a user had reiterated in the RfC's parent discussion that the issue RogueShanghai brought up, which led to their proposed solution, was not a real issue. The RfC has been active for almost two weeks, and it's pretty clear where users are leaning. Whether it results in a consensus to exclude or no consensus, RogueShanghai's proposed content is without consensus for inclusion, is it not? KyleJoantalk 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    KyleJoan, an RfC is a formal dispute resolution request. You can't half-measure it. Anyway, the longstanding prevailing practice is for a (non-SNOW, non-procedural -closed) RfC to be opened for a minimum of 30 days. Personally, I've closed a few at around the 20-day mark, but rarely if ever do I go below that. El_C 10:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: If I was wrong for referencing the RfC in my edit summary, I apologize, but that doesn't change how RogueShanghai created an issue despite having been told what the MOS directs users to do. It was never my responsibility to open the RfC, and if I withdraw it, the onus would still be on RogueShanghai and not on the users who had established the prior consensus. That aside, may I ask for your thoughts on the potential COI since you're here? KyleJoantalk 10:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    KyleJoan, again, you can't withdraw it, you can't half-measure it. You've launched it and now you're bound to that process. And, again again, you can't revert on its basis while it remains ongoing. About the COI: while I've yet to look at the evidence, it seems it'd be more connected to anything to do with Nicki Minaj, rather than this series (which, full disclosure, I've never watched). El_C 10:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: I have no intention to withdraw the RfC–it was hypothetical. I've conceded that I shouldn't have referenced the RfC in my revert; I should have written that it was based on the prior consensus to follow the MOS and not mentioned the RfC at all. And yes, the COI would be related to the Nicki Minaj topic. I never even brought up the series until your response. I only used the diff as an example of RogueShanghai's refusal to adhere to ONUS, which has been more prevalent than what is shown in the five diffs. KyleJoantalk 11:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    KyleJoan, ONUS is loosely enforced if at all — it isn't usually binding in a strict way like the Consensus required rule is, for example. Ditto for the MOS (unless egregious). Anyway, you should let the RfC run its course and not be edit warring over its contested content in the meantime. El_C 11:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: I'll let the RfC run its course, but to reiterate, there was a consensus: it was to follow the MOS. It wasn't as if there was a random consensus unrelated to a random MOS. Can we now discuss the potential COI? Because I'd be happy to drop the stick if that part of the report is without merit. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 11:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Being a fan does not make a COI by wikipedia standards. Being closely connected to the subject such as being family or an employee does. So yes I think dropping the stick would be great. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Although still on Wikibreak, I saw I was mentioned at ANI since I happened to see it in my email for this account. Since this wasn't important I didn't intend to reply but I logged in to deal with another matter (at BLPN) so I'll just offer a quick comment. I stand by my comment that editors who are extreme fans (or opponents) of someone tend to create problems when they edit. And sorry but if you're giving yourself some name in more than jest, whatever you say you mean by that, by my book this puts you into the extreme fan category. These editors should extra take care when they edit something about whatever they're a fan (or opponent) of since their views may lead to poor edits and so a partial block or topic ban or worse. However it's also clearly not a COI, except in relation to that fanhood. I'd also note my view remains (even if it's getting extremely unpopular), that we should never block or topic ban someone for editing directly with a declared COI instead only if their edits are problematic (which is most of the time). We strongly discourage it but shouldn't be blocking for it. So even if there were a COI, while it may change things a bit, I would still say, okay but in terms of ANI, so what? In other words, either way I'd say you need to establish the edits themselves are a problem, not the nature of the editor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I agree in spirit. I would use the word bias, reserving the term conflict of interest for actual connection to the subject. However pedantry aside in spirit I agree. That being said I have not seen any clear evidence of excessive bias here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Sysops are requested to plz clarify that whether 1. the new information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is applicable to wikipedia or not? 2. If wekipedia comply with these guideline, then wipedia plz disclose the name of India based (a) resident grievance office, (b) Nodal grievnace officer (c) Chief grievance officer 14.139.114.211 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    You probably want to contact the foundation for a definitive answer[379]. My guess would be no, but I don't speak for the foundation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I am in reception of various representations from the resident of India stating the status of Wikipedia should be classified as Intermediary. As it is understood that wikipedia is edited by general public and open to all. Here i am directed to contact the involved party about there say that, whether wikipedia shall be classified as intermediary in the recently drafted Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 of India so the words of any editors shall be counted as consensus. 14.139.114.211 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This is a legal question and is not subject to the opinions of administrators nor consensus of the community. Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This thread shall be considered as an official statement from Wikipedia and shall be enclosed as an Annexure to further file proceedings. Thanks14.139.114.211 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    No significant response received, implies unresponsive 14.139.114.211 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

    May I suggest that the IP be blocked after their straightforward legal threat (This thread shall be considered as an official statement from Wikipedia and shall be enclosed as an Annexure to further file proceedings)? --JBL (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Well, if they're going to file some kind of legal action based on "please contact the Wikimedia Foundation" then I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that courtroom. But yes, they should be blocked: they've made a plain statement of intent to commence legal action, not merely a threat. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, guys, I didn't pick up on that. El_C 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I've given them a week break for the obvious threat above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    This may be the relevant notification (in English from p19). I am neither a lawyer nor an Indian (and would know better than to offer legal advice if I were) but if anyone is to be sued for being "unresponsive" by making two helpful replies within minutes to a query raised in the wrong forum, I'll fetch my popcorn. Certes (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I am fairly confident that this IP is not in charge of who gets sued under this rule. If it was anyone in a remotely official capacity they would have taken our advice regarding contacting the foundation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    The Reason I am putting this Sockpuppet Investigation Request here instead of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations page is that the 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range to too big and only an admin can open a Sockpuppet Investigation Request for 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range. Here is the information on the 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range and why i think it is connected to Tevin21 and why i think that 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range is a direct sockpuppet of the Banned (User:Tevin21) which is banned indefinitely. I will include some edits that 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range made and User:Tevin21 made for comparison

    Tevin21 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Backlash&oldid=1002524283 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Horror_Show_at_Extreme_Rules&oldid=1002420534 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WCW_Bash_at_the_Beach&oldid=1002146827

    2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ED00:A0B5:E7B4:B52D:4AB9, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:401A:4700:C4E5:AD28:73EE:5B16) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Backlash&oldid=1023520278 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Horror_Show_at_Extreme_Rules&oldid=1023659312 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WCW_Bash_at_the_Beach&oldid=1016760211


    I believe that 2600:8800:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 ip range (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ED00:A0B5:E7B4:B52D:4AB9, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:401A:4700:C4E5:AD28:73EE:5B16) and Tevin21 are connected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/2600:8800::/32 

    Chip3004 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    User:71.8.186.153 has made several edits to We Heart Seattle deleting or undermining criticism, deleting at least one source, inserting incorrect formatting, and violating WP:NPOV. Edit summaries have sometimes been accusatory. Examples:

    This user and User:192.119.178.213 have made unconstructive edits to the page; this makes me consider requesting semi-protection for the article, although as the primary contributor to it I would appreciate a second opinion on the subject. Thank you for your consideration. White 720 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I've lblocked that IP and sprotected for 2 weeks. Feel free to redact those edit summaries above, I've already revdel'd em from the revision history. El_C 16:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Done. Thank you! White 720 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You're welcome, happy to help. I've now revdel'd em from here, as well, so you're all good on that front. El_C 16:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks again! I really appreciate the quick response. White 720 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Adamant1 was blocked for two weeks by Drmies after this ANI thread last December. This was "an old-fashioned civility block, in particular for condescending edits...and continued badgering". Drmies expressed his hope that "there won't be a next time". Regrettably, that hope has not been fulfilled. To the contrary, the incivility, aspersions, and condescending comments have continued almost uninterrupted since the block expired. Some diffs:

    • Diff 1: "I find it extremely hard to believe you [Grand'mere Eugene] even care about the guidelines and aren't just cherry picking what fits your agenda when your citing such obviously horrible examples."
    • Diff 2: "So, really [ClemRutter], spare us all the fake consternation about it."
    • Diff 3: "No answer from either of you [Grand'mere Eugene and myself] huh? Go figure. It's odd how willing both of you are to fly off the handle at a moments notice, but then are completely unwilling to provide evidence for your spurious, nonsensical accusations. The same thing happened on the notability talk page. It was all good when you could gang up on me and go off, but then you both dodged out as soon as I asked you a few basic questions and other people who disagreed with you got involved. Lmao."
    • Diff 4: "...you [Grand'mere Eugene] don't even care about or follow the things you give other crap about. It's nothing but massive projection."
    • Diff 5: "I could really care less what your [Hammersoft] opinion is, because it's not based in reality and is completely non-nonsensical....Your exactly the kind of person I'm saying this project shouldn't be held hostage by."
    • Diff 6: "At this point your [TheAafi] just talking in circles about nonsense to avoid the problem or answering my question."
    • Diff 7: "So, I'm sticking by the fact that it [your edit] was bad faithed on your part and completely inappropriate. Both of you [TheAafi and Goldsztajn] seem to be deflecting a lot and making up a bunch of excuses for why the article should not be deleted."

    To summarize: we have seven separate diffs accusing six separate editors of "bad faith[]", "deflecting", "making up a bunch of excuses", not "even car[ing] about the guidelines", "cherry picking what fits your agenda", expressing "fake consternation", making "spurious, nonsensical accusations", and holding the project hostage. And that's after a two-week civility block, an ANI thread, and an AN thread. I won't opine about what the appropriate remedy is, but one thing is clear: what we're doing is not working. Drmies said in his ANI closure "once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it". That's what I'm asking for here. Civility is one of our five pillars, and the "personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments" evinced in the above diffs show a "chronic, intractable" behavioral pattern that has the effect of discouraging or driving away good-faith contributors. I hate having to come to ANI – I really do. But I'm convinced that it's the only way to address the serious, repeated, and systemic issues with this user. Respectfully yours, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Just to address this in the most succinct way possible, Extraordinary Writ and Grand'mere Eugene have for weeks repeatedly made uncalled comments about me using the words private and public in my AfD votes. There was a discussion a few weeks ago that both of them were involved in where I explained why I was using private/public to evaluate the notability of schools, yet they both continued going off about it for weeks after. Two days ago I asked Extraordinary Writ both in an AfD and on their talk page to stop making said comments because I don't find them productive, their reply was to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist on their talk page. Which is rather rich considering their now accusing me of uncivility. When I'm the one that was repeatedly called out, even after explaining myself, and made it clear that the endless commenting wasn't productive and should stop.
    As far as the specific examples, IMO they are extreme cherry picking.
    Diff 1. I think I'm within my right to say to someone who has repeatedly called me out for not following the guidelines that they should stop doing so if they don't care about the guidelines themselves.
    Diff 2. Clemritter had made an extremely personal comment to me before then that I was treating schools like boy bands. Then he went off about how AfDs shouldn't be personal. Which I was responding to and he agreed wasn't his best sentence. So he admitted it was his bad, we worked it out, and I see nothing wrong there.
    Diff 3. Extraordinary Writ had started a discussion on the notability talk page where they and Grand'mere Eugene went off on me. Grand'mere Eugene accused me of ranting (which wasn't very civil), Extraordinary Writ went off on a side tangent about fruit, and then they both dodged out when other people came alone. Sorry, I expected people who repeatedly went off about something to be more involved in a discussion they started I guess?
    Diff 4. Same as the other ones. Sorry for expecting people to be consistent and not dodge out on discussions they started as soon as people disagree with them.
    Diff 5. This is neither great example of the extreme cherry picking going on here. Hammersoft was rather rude to me in the comment above mine. Including saying I was "choosing what you want to see" and that people who disagreed with them were giving them "a public flogging." So I said I didn't care what their opinion was. I see nothing wrong with disregarding such hyperbolic comments. I'm pretty sure Extraordinary Writ would have done the same thing.
    Diff 6. TheAafi was being rather arguementive and dismissive toward me and a few other people in the AfD. They were clearly talking in circles. I'm not sure what Extraordinary Writ thinks it's an example of except for me responding to someone who had said such rude, dismissive things as "I don't see any merit in your questioning."
    Diff 7. I find it rather odd that Extraordinary Writ is using me saying something is bad faithed and inappropriate as an example of incivility, or aspersion casting. Plenty of people, including Extraordinary Writ, call out others about being good faithed. Plus, Extraordinary Writ was perfectly fine accusing me of making up grand conspiracies and that somehow isn't incivility or an aspersion, nor was Grand'mere Eugene accusing me of ranting, but me saying someone is being bad faithed is? OK. I don't really have anything else to say about this. Sorry I so uncivilly expected The Aafī to answer my question about madrassa without them dismissing my question as meritless I guess? Sorry I told Grand'mere Eugene he shouldn't repeatedly go off about me not following the notability guidelines since he's not following them either? I mean, really what else is there to this? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I don't want to bludgeon this discussion, but I do want to address the accusations made against me. These evidence-free allegations (unaccompanied by diffs) against numerous well-regarded editors illustrate precisely my point: that Adamant1 casts aspersions and fails to assume good faith. And when there's a clear and long-standing behavioral issue, evidenced by a previous block for precisely the same reason, accusations of cherry-picking ring hollow. Courtesy pings to ClemRutter, Grand'mere Eugene, Hammersoft, and TheAafi in case they wish to defend themselves against these charges of "extremely personal comment[s]", "repeatedly calling [someone] out", and/or being "arguementive and dismissive". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What do you want a diff for? I'm more then willing to provide them. I assume people can look at your talk page to confirm the "grand conspiracy" accusation that you made toward me when I asked you not to make comments about the public/private thing in AfDs anymore. Not that I won't provide a diff for it or anything else if need be though.
    • Comment

    Diff 1: TheAafi said there wasn't any merit in my question and mockingly called it a "curiosity."

    Diff 2: Extraordinary Writ makes the "grand conspiracy" comment in response to me asking them to stop bringing up the public/private thing in AfDs.

    Diff 3: Grand'mere Eugene accuses me "opinionated ranting."

    Diff 4 Grand'mere Eugene votes keep because "I really like Bearian's standards (above)" while also calling me out in the same paragraph for not following the notability guidelines.

    Diff 5 Grand'mere Eugene accuses me of attacking him, Bearing, and Extraordinary Writ. When I said absolutely nothing insulting about Bearing. Let alone him or Extraordinary Writ.

    Diff 6 Then he is unwilling to provide evidence that I attacked any of them when I ask for it. Instead he responds rather uncivilly by saying "Life is too short."

    Diff 7 Extraordinary Writ rather uncivilly accuses me of "sullying this discussion with straw men, ad hominem attacks, and aspersions" because I apparently wrongly thought he agreed with Johnpacklambert about something.

    Diff 8 ClemRutter saying "Delete the fake concern then- not my best sentence.!"

    Anything else?

    --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    I see no incivility in any of these diffs, and I believe they speak for themselves in showing the clear bad faith that Adamant1 is assuming against his fellow contributors. But regardless, this goes back to something that was said in the last ANI thread: Adamant1 seems to think that "other editors are bad, so it's okay to be bad in other ways." Accusing people of "ganging up on" you, "fly[ing] off the handle", and "giv[ing] other [people] crap" is never acceptable, even if you somehow believe yourself to be right. If you really felt that myself, ClemRutter, Grand'mere Eugene, Hammersoft, and TheAafi were all incivil, assuming bad faith and doubling down on that perceived incivility is assuredly not the right way to resolve that. This Arbcom statement of principles expresses the concept well: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." As the diffs I cited above show, Adamant1 has repeatedly deviated from that requirement. I think I've made myself crystal-clear, so, in the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON, I don't intend to respond further unless specifically asked to do so. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I totally agree with that guideline. How exactly did either you or Grand'mere Eugene follow it by repeatedly calling me out in AfDs about the public/private thing though? Where did either of you directly raise your concern about it with me? I don't see a discussion on my talk page about it by either of you. I wasn't the one repeatedly bringing it up in "votes" either. You were. How is that directly raising concern with the person in a civil manor?
    There's really zero evidence that either of you attempted to work it out personally with me outside of just repeatedly making comments about it, telling me what to do on the Notability Guideline talk page, and then bouncing afterwards so you could open this. Let alone did either of you do any of that in a direct, civil manor. It's not on me to work out your personal problems. Nor was it on me to continue trying to resolve the issue with you after you called me a conspiracy theorist and Grand'mere Eugene said there wasn't enough time in the day to discuss it. Seriously, you can't just blow off a problem that's had multiple discussions you decided not to participate in or where actively hostile toward and then cry foul about the other side not raising it with you.
    Both you and Grand'mere Eugene keep going off me about me not following the guidelines when your the ones that have been completely ignoring them. I followed them when I directly asked on your talk page not to bring up the private/public thing again. Seriously, your sitting here telling me I should have raised this directly with the editor in question when that's exactly what I did. You just blew it off and then reported me for doing exactly what your now saying I should have done LMAO. If that's not a clear example of how ridiculous this is, I don't know what is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    You should both step back and let others comment. 131.107.1.226 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    After seven years' editing here, this is my first encounter with ANI. I'm retired from a 30-year career teaching university students literature and writing courses. I had no tolerance for incivility in my classroom. But editors here sometimes react with uncivil responses.
    Adamant1 responds with intensity, and in the instances cited by Extraordinary Writ, it's been disruptive. I did ask him to refrain, but he doesn't seem to have the emotional filters to be civil and argue the merits of his interpretations without accompanying personal insults. Conversations among editors go sideways because people get distracted by his walls of text that do not reason effectively or succinctly. Regrettably, here we are. Respectfully, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Last time I checked there's no limit on the amount of text someone can have in a message. Still, I apologize if I write overly long messages sometimes, but there's not a clear line between to much text and enough to make the point. Plus, I'm a little on the OCD/ADHD/Autistic side of the spectrum. Which tends to get exacerbated when I'm being forced to respond to multiple people and messages at the same time. Like here and on the notability talk page. I likely wouldn't write long texts if it was just one person making one point at a time though. That said, IMO it would be more productive to stick to arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of the things that are being said though instead of dismissing people's opinions based on some arbitrary, imagined character limit that they supposedly went over.
    JBL wrote a pretty long message on the Notability talk page. So did you. I still read over and considered both your messages though. I didn't just blow off what you said because of how long the message was. I assume people can show me the same courtesy. I haven't seen you calling JBL or anyone else, out over message length either. So it just comes off like a weird, personal, and specifically dismissive thing to take issue with. Especially because you never asked me to shorten my messages. You just called them "opinionated ranting." I would have been more then willing to chop them down if you had of approached it in a good faithed, civil way though. Instead of insulting me. I can also almost guarantee that if I had just ignored the discussions all together (like both of you did) that we would still be here but just be complaining about me not discussing things. I seriously doubt there was any amount of civility or discussion (outside of something along the lines of purely fawning supplication) that wouldn't have led to me being reported by Extraordinary Writ. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    WP:BATTLEGROUND --Hammersoft (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    • Comment - I concur with the other users that User:Adamant1 is not complying with the four pillar of Wikipedia. The question is whether they are an editor who is a net negative to the project, and should be banned, or whether they are capable of moderating and improving their discussion style, in which case they should, nonetheless, be given a block for at least three weeks, because they haven't learned after the most recent block. My opinion is that we should assume good faith, which means that they should be given a block of three weeks for continued incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    What incivility exactly and what about the blatant incivility of the other people involved in this that I provided diffs for? Writing long winded messages isn't against the guidelines. Nor is asking people to stop referencing me in their keep votes or excepting people to be consistent about things. There's zero evidence I've done anything else that is worthy of being blocked for. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Bogadanbog (talk · contribs)


    There is a user called Bogadanbog who is constantly adding ideologies without any sources, or without credible ones which don't even mention what he added. In other words he makes up ideologies, and when you roll back them, he undoes it. He refuses to use the 'talk' page, he never adds any reason to his edits and he actively changes things.

    I have had to undo two of his edits for disruptive editing, and I have received multiple thanks from users engaged in the content such as Autospark, member of wikipedia for 14 years and an extended confirmed user Barumbarumba. The whole community is always very civil, and we all work with each other for the best content and descriptions for wikipedia, however this user refuses to talk with the community, he does not add sources and makes up his own ideologies and undoes when someone rolls back his content. In other words he is very disruptive.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bogadanbog

    Bogadanbog already has multiple warnings by other rollbackers for disruptive editing. And we hope he stops doing this.


    Older warnings: April 2021 

    Please stop your disruptive editing.

    If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Save Romania Union, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

    Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to USR-PLUS. Vacant0 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


    --BastianMAT (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

    User:Sergio Skol received a level 4 warning for adding unsourced material in March (although they deleted it from their talk page along with subsequent & prior warnings); since then, they have added unsourced information to Teddy Bridgewater (violating WP:SPORTSTRANS), Tajae Sharpe, Bruce Hector, and Jaleel Johnson. For the latter two, Sergio Skol changed their positions, but left the references which state the correct information intact. Hatman31 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply