Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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

Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon

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

---

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Discussion at WT:TENNIS re capitalization

Reporting User:Dicklyon for continued disruptive editing on hundreds and hundreds of articles. It took me hours yesterday to undo only some of his 100s of edits, of which he was warned. A discussion was opened about this right here because another editor disagreed with his changing 100s to 1000s of articles. While discussing, of which I see no consensus and where he pinged another editor with the same pet peeve he has, he starts doing it again tonight. After 2+ days of discussion! He has done this multiple times at Tennis Project articles where some of us have to revert all his edits. He never does just one. While a couple of us vehemently disagree with his view, we had discussed changing the header to something different that could work for all. Instead, he goes and claim consensus and 100s more have been changed.

This has to stop. I'm not sure Tennis Project has ever been busier in fixing these trivial items than we are the past month. We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. If this was the first time he has done this it might be handled differently but this is blatant in our faces disruptive editing and he should absolutely be required to revert all his edits until the Tennis project figures out how best to handle its chart columns and rows. This is urgent because he is changing so many articles even now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The tennis articles are indeed very busy in fixing trivial over-capitalization issues, since there are so many of them and since they're pretty easy to fix with JWB. But you've chosen to pick on one particular fix for reasons that are hard to understand and have been roundly rejected at the discussion you linked at WikiProject Tennis; more days won't change that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get 2+ days of roundly rejected by the same crew that always follows you around. One of which you invited KNOWING how they feel. It is not consensus, you were warned as such, it's under discussion, and yet still you change 1000 articles. The Project will very likely change this to something else like W–L if a heavy consensus ever forms to that odd pairing you want. You are blatantly misusing JWB for the umpteenth time and it must stop. I would be inclined to take that gadget away from you it's gotten so bad. That is why we are here; your disregard for the situation, and the discussion. And this has happened before very recently. You should know better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I did ping the editor who had done similar changes there before; his edits were not objected to. As for blatantly misusing JWB, I don't know what you're referring to; are there accusations some place? I generally use it only for uncontroversial simple pattern fixes, such as downcasing per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They have been controversial and you know they have been controversial. This is an item that will affect every single tennis bio in existence. Countless thousands or 10s of thousands. If there is something you don't like about a chart, the TennisProject may change things to make it more palatable. A handful of your buddies should not be able to change every tennis bio.... that requires a massive consensus. And 2+ days of talk and changing a thousand articles after being told not to is DISRUPTIVE EDITING. You should know that in your 16 years of editing as it's been told to you recently. It was also told to you in discussion that it's not clear with W–L|(16–7) and Win–Loss|(16–7) that MOSCAPS applies. You said yourself that W–L is functional, not W–l. But this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss your blatant disruptive editing in the midst of 2+ day discussion that has no consensus, where you went and changed 1000 articles to your way of thinking that now MUST be changed back. That is wrong and will always be wrong and you need to be reprimanded for doing it yet again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Countless thousands or tens of thousands"? No. There are 1397 tennis biographies with the table row header "Win–loss". This is the only recent place where you and Sportsfan have objected to using sentence case and prefer to use title case; but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was about to raise the issue of Dicklyon's recent edits with JWB here at ANI as well. I am the editor that Fyunck(click) refers to above who "disagreed with [Dicklyon] changing 100s to 1000s of articles". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The main issue with their editing is that they are already making hundreds of edits to implement what they voted for in a discussion that is still active. It may very well be the case that their personal preference wins the discussion, but whether or not it does is not the issue here. The issue is that they are basically WP:SNOW-closing their own discussion after three days. Before they made their recent batch of edits, I suggested an alternate option that only Dicklyon is against, but most others haven't commented on yet because it wasn't part of the original post that started the discussion. To me, it's pretty well-accepted at Wikipedia that if there's an active discussion going on (and especially if you have already been reverted), you don't make changes to implement your option until after the discussion is over. That goes against WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that Dicklyon has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So my last 6 years or so of good work since being welcomed back is to be ignored in favor of this long memory of a bad time? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not being blocked in the last 6 years doesn't mean you've been doing good work all that time. It could just mean you've gotten better at avoiding a block. Plus, you were blocked in 2019 as well, so not completely better at it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A third thing to note is that Dicklyon did the exact same thing last month in which they rushed through a change affecting dozens of articles after leaving that discussion open for not even two days (see here). I warned them against doing that earlier in this new discussion here, yet they still ignored it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How is that the exact same thing? Did anyone object? How does your "warning" of March 6 relate to my edits of Feb. 21? Did anyone react negatively to any of those changes? Not that I've seen. What are going on about? Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The TennisProject had the same thing happen several months ago with a different user Ruling party for prematurely changing the names of dozens of Davis Cup articles while a discussion was still going on and they were blocked for it (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Those things from Ruling party are nothing to do with me, and completely unknown to me. I'm sorry if you're having a bad time due to the actions of others, but don't put that on me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

And that's the big thing. This is becoming habitual with Dicklyon. He has admitted having a "Pet Peeve" about capitalization with no room for any other views or flexibility. I can guarantee this will not be the last time he does this unless something is done, and I'm really getting tired of doing 100s of reverts ALL because of him. Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked Dicklyon to make those edits based on what I thought was consensus (all the newest tennis season article use a certain format, so I thought it reasonable to apply the same format to older season articles). User:Wolbo has expressed his preference for the older format and reverted the changes. As those edits by Dicklyon were based on my apparent misapprehension of the consensus, they should not factor into anybody here's conclusions about Dicklyon. Letcord (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wolbo: No, the changes I did at Letcord's request at User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task are not the ones at issue here (not clear why Sportsfan is throwing in this distractor, or why Fy is using it as somehow supporting his issue that he came here about; there was no contention or disruption, but a little reverting since I took your request as representing something the project wanted, which wasn't right). I took those to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, and undid some of them, but we didn't undo the case fixes; nobody objected to lowercase "draw". Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. Unless there is a discussion showing a consensus for the recent changes, I support an indefinite topic ban for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have. If necessary, I'll later dig up a few of the previous battles about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fy already linked the discussion showing consensus for "Win–loss", and MOS:CAPS has broad consensus. Of my last 20,000 or so case-fixing edits of the last month or so, there's this one little item that he and Sportsfan are the only ones objectig to. They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper_names? was clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a blatant lie. Consensus was not reached in 2+ days. I'm not sure how you figure these things. To change every single tennis bio takes a lot more than a couple of friends agreeing with you. They are always the same couple plus you called one over in canvassing. With discussions like these an alternative may find a place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of Wikipedia having a long consensus about how to capitalize. Article titles, section headings and table headings are in sentence case. A local consensus does not outweigh a Wikipedia wide guideline. Yes, while this is being discussed, such edits should stop, but there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This also happened at New York City Subway, Dicklyon attempted to ram through a page move to "New York City subway", subtly changed section headers of user's responses to the page move, accused the relister of "canvassing" and then immediately opened a move review (also failed) when the outcome wasn't in his favor. As such I also support an Indef topic ban. Cards84664 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As for subtly changing the section heading, I was reverting to the original heading that I created in this edit, which someone else had subtly changed without my consent. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I used the proper RM and MR processes there. How is this "ramming through"? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The closing notes of the review specify that there should be "no rush to renew the discussion". Cards84664 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a 10-year interval before the previous re-opening, and I don't expect to bring it up again in this decade. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the interval between this re-opening and the review. Cards84664 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The move review followed shortly after the RM discussion close. That's standard. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion, but the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. I oppose any warnings/sanctions against Dicklyon based on the evidence so far, which shows a bigger problem of a small group of editors trying to invalidate project-wide consensus at a WikiProject talk page. Bigger, but still not that big, as this issue is barely noticeable by readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you think a strong consensus has been reached in that discussion, then close it and leave an explanation of the outcome. Why is it still open then? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Advice received. I do get impatient when people like Fyunck and Sportsfan throw delays into routine work. It took November through February to fix the overcapitalization in "Men's Singles" and such over their objections, but we got it done, including bot approval for thousands of moves. Sometimes a lot of process is needed, but not in the current case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  And we get angry when you skirt the system and implement a thousand changes without consensus that we have to fix. And since this happens over and over your "advice received" rings hollow. You need to change your tactics from now on or this will happen again and again. Have you changed back all your edits... I sure don't see it yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's no need to get angry. WP:BRD serves us well. I do a lot of bold changes, and about 99% of them never provoke a comment. For the ones that do, we discuss. Did I jump too soon when I thought the consensus of MOS:CAPS was clearly re-affirmed for "Win–Loss"? Perhaps so. Otherwise, my "tactics" are mostly effective and uncontroversial. I've changed the case of about 200,000 letters in recent months, and you're picking on a tiny slice of that, while others are thanking (including 6 in the last few days) and supporting me in moving WP toward better consistency with our WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  As for changing back all my edits, of course not. If you mean particularly the downcasing of "Loss" for row header "Win–loss", I've prepared a JWB settings, preparsed, and counted the 1397 tennis bios that that would apply to. I don't want to undo them without consensus, as I'll probably end up re-fixing them again if I do. It's about an hour in each direction. Let's settle it back at the project discussion if there's more to decide, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Therin lies your problem and one reason we are here today. You are putting the cart before the horse. It's do it my way, then hold it hostage until we agree. No thanks. Change them all back because for sure it won't stay that way. As another tennis editor has stated, we will change them all to W–L before we go to Win–loss in the row header. Change your disruptive edits back so the project can decide. It could likely be that no consensus will be reached and nothing will change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This "tennis is so special" argument gets tiresome. No other area would cap them as "Win–Loss". See for example titles: Win–loss, Win–loss record, Win–loss record (pitching), Win–loss analytics, List of all-time NFL win–loss records, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  It not a question of tennis being special. What gets tiresome is you using this silly response over and over and over and over. W–l and Win–loss in the table header would be ridiculous no matter where it is located. But again, that's not why we are here. We are here because of your constant over-and-over again disruptive editing. That must STOP. You change hundreds and thousands of articles with no consensus at your own whim and then refuse, as above, to change them back when challenged. That is not the Wikipedia way. That is not working and playing well with others. Your fixation on the most minute supposed rules is a danger to the cohesiveness of working on Wikipedia articles. Again it has to stop. Revert yourself so the Tennis project can look at things. There are at least three editors right now trying to revert all your damages. You may do it in the blink of an eye but it takes us hours and hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that "W–l" would be a ridiculous header, but nobody has suggested such a thing. I didn't touch any of the headers "W–L". But sentence case headers are normal, not ridiculous. We are not here for any "constant over-and-over again disruptive editing"; we're here because you won't accept the consensus and MOS:CAPS advice to make this header sentence case. If there's something else that brought you here to complain about that, you haven't clarified what. I've done over 20,000 edits in tennis articles fixing case errors, and while you delayed me a few months with discussions on a few of them such as "Men's Singles", the consensus there was clear, and I got no pushback while or after doing all those. In a later round of case cleanups, you decided to react to this one table header. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, that is not why we are here. We are here because of your disruptive conduct, and fabricating consensus over 10,000 articles that are managed as best as possible by WikiProject Tennis and others. Win–Loss in a row is not clear and is a minor blip, yet it was being discussed and 2+ days later you puffed up your feathers and changed 100s or articles... which are still not reverted by your disruptive editing by the way. Before making all those changes you should have waited a week or so until an easily seen consensus (or not) appeared. Had we seen some huge Win–loss, tennis project would likely have said to change them all to W–L instead, as we do at the top of the table. That would be the time to do those changes and not before. You work with people and you don't ram things down their throats with 1000 disruptive edits. Your style seems to be with a baseball bat and a shredder as opposed to discussion and compromise. That has grown tiresome and you have been called to the mat on it here.
  

  At the very least we see that others have the same issue with your disruptive editing style and if it happens again you could be topic banned or blocked. I'd rather you change your ways than have that happen. I'd rather you not sit there with a stopwatch to tick off the days of a discussion. I'd rather you say at the end of a discussion "do we all feel like this has run its course?"; "Do we have any alternate suggestions that could work to get even more editors onboard?"; "Do we allow some more time for those who could be on vacation or could be involved in humanitarian aid?". Those are things that play well with editors. That means you are trying to find the best solution for everyone involved instead of bulldozing the conversation. But right now, your continued actions have me not trusting any of your motives or any of your edits. I feel I have to scrutinize all your tennis edits for fear they have overstepped. I don't want to feel that way, but I do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I do hope you and others will scrutinize my edits and let me know if I get something wrong. But this thing about "Win–loss" being disruptive is nuts. If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a lie. I said I would bring it up a level if you continued without consensus, of which there was none! That is why we are here. Your stated "Per Peeve" on all capitalization issues at Wikipedia, where they become the pinnacle of all issues, where everything else gets pushed aside to the point where you become judge, jury, and prosecution in 2.5 days is a problem. There are so many ways this could have gone where we could have told you to change things to W–L as a compromise. But that was sidestepped by the fervor of that "Pet Peeve." You need to learn to work with people much better than you have been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I can't tell what you are saying is a lie. If you're going to make accusations like that, you need to be clear and say what the evidence is. I suggest you retract it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the comment by Johnuniq above. I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. (See also my vote comment here.) Deapitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. As for Dicklyon specifically, I first recall encountering him in this absurd AfD about 15 years ago. I was unimpressed by his hyper-rules-oriented approach then, and I see little evidence that it has changed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, way to carry a grudge, NYB! Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For goodness sake, over-lowercasing indeed. Can you imagine what the abbreviation would soon look like? "W-l", rather the "W-L". What's next to come? Infobox titles or maybe Article titles? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Initialism type abbreviations use caps. There has been no controversy about "W–L", which is used many times in all the articles in question. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And article titles already use Win–loss. Note that I have not touched that disambig page; it's longstanding consensus to follow our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case, but absent in all this is any principled justification for not changing the tennis articles to be internally consistent and like the other articles. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS isn't something we generally encourage, and for all that it doesn't seem to be the case that there is a local consensus within the tennis project in favor of the status quo. I'm also not sure what to make of the "W-l" strawman, given that no one appears to have suggested such a thing (and it would be ridiculous). These discussions are difficult enough without wasting people's time attacking things that no one has proposed doing. Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Johnuniq, I support a topic ban for Dicklyon (from MOS:CAPS and WP:TENNIS). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's at least a few of the times above where Dicklyon has claimed consensus where there isn't:

• but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)
• the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (not true. what Dicklyon wanted was not selected in the RfC. what I wanted was selected.)
• If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (same as above. still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)

My guess is this is only going to continue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, with Dicklyon's statement that:They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC), this isn't true. I got what I wanted (e.g. "Men's singles"). Dicklyon did not ("men's singles"). That's why I think Dicklyon is WP:HOUNDING the Tennis Project, and that's why I think a topic ban is warranted. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That RM discussion closed in support of exactly the moves I proposed. You did not participate; at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#More_discussion_about_dashes_in_sporting_event_titles you said the capitalized Men's Singles needed to be kept as a proper name: The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply. Why are you trying to rewrite history about that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I voted here (I voted for B or E. The winning option was Option B). Dicklyon's vote is clearly for A or D. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: You seem rather mixed up here. We were speaking about the RM discussion that I started on Jan. 8, and you're now referring back to the RFC that preceded it. I took the result of that RFC into account when proposed the moves in the RM. Rather than pushing my own preference, I proposed moves that looked like they would be more likely to get consensus, based on the rather mixed results in that RFC. So I chose one of the options that you had previously supported. In the RM, you didn't comment. I think I did the right thing here. Was there an issue? Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You changed your vote. I didn't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the Tennis Project makes no edits, it cannot be hounded. Your bad-faith assumptions and wild accusations are pretty tiresome. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean no edits? A project can absolutely be hounded. Dicklyon never edited tennis articles before. They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop. If that's not hounding, then what is? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A good faith-assuming version of that history is that he stumbled upon a capitalization issue in one set of tennis articles, fixed it, and then progressively found many more in other types of tennis articles (bios, draws, seasons) over time. I do agree though that he jumped the gun a bit in interpreting the consensus in the "Win–loss" discussion, and should revert himself if consensus ends up being for "Win–Loss". Letcord (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have said that I am prepared to put them back to "Win–Loss" quickly if there's a consensus to do so; but that won't happen, since it's against MOS:CAPS, which says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a non-zero chance that it will happen. I also think from the limited I've seen of your editing that you've not displayed "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as is required to post about someone here, so this public pillorying of you is undeserved. Letcord (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop.". "Nonstop" must mean something different than I think it does, then. Because his recent editing history is virtually all to NFL team articles and some MLB players. Does that mean he is hounding WP:SPORTS? You continue to be disingenuous in your lathered-up attempt to circumvent WP processes. Primergrey (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• If one reads the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, one thing is immediately apparent to me - the language being used. It is very strongly WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. The "apparent" trigger for this "incident" would appear to be DL concluding and acting upon a consensus from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. If it is simply their volume of edits, there is no incident. As SchreiberBike observes: ... there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. Firefangledfeathers observes: ... the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. While Firefangledfeathers observe (and DL acknowledges), more time might have been given, one should consider the pattern of engagement at WikiProject Tennis. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? petered out in the same timeframe as the current discussion (ie just under 3 days) and, by my count, received 4 comments from card-carrying members of the tennis project. DL has regularly engaged with the project and in notified discussions elsewhere. If one reads the discussion fully, arguments about "W/l" are a red herring and the most recent comments at WikiProject Tennis are (IMHO) at best, novel but are clearly contrary to guidance and clutching at straws. Not even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines were consistent in capitalising "win-loss" in tables (see this).

I would remark on these particular comments at WikiProject Tennis: even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization and We would change it to W–L if it came to that. These statements (to me) signal petulance, WP:GAMING (WP:POINTy) and unacceptable intractability. This "threat" has been acted upon with this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. If Fyunck(click) would ague that: Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do, who is now going to act to address this? If this "incident" is primarily that DL hasn't gained a consensus for their edits or hasn't waited sufficiently for the discussion to evolve, I am at a loss as to how this action (amending the guideline) isn't a case of WP:POT. This is an ill-considered change that doesn't serve our readers since it provides for no guidance (legend) that would now explain this abbreviation where previously it might have been deduced. If we weren't sailing close to WP:BOOMERANG before, I think it should now be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. The discussion linked was not an RfC and did not need to be formally closed to find consensus for a change. I'd advise Dicklyon to be less hasty but leaving this ANI thread open is not likely to improve things; nor has Dicklyon done anything worthy of any sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I concur with Elli. I'll add that what is going on here is that a handful of people (mostly along WP:SSF lines) don't like MOS:CAPS but know they are not likely to get any traction on changing its central message – that WP doesn't capitalize things that are not overwhelmingly capitalized in modern source material, and not just specialized source material but general-audience source material like news, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Instead they attempt to resist implementation of MOS:CAPS (and the derived WP:NCCAPS) at "their" articles (WP:OWN), and to use WP:POVRAILROAD techniques to hassle editors like Dicklyon who just are applying the guidelines correctly. What's especially irritating is that the most frequent "noise" of this sort is coming out of sports and games wikiprojects, after a clear RfC implemented MOS:GAMECAPS specifically to curtail overcapitalization in those topic areas. What we have here is a WP:CONLEVEL failure wherein a handful of wikiprojects refuse to recognize that a site-wide guideline overrules their topic-specific personal preferences. This ANI should close without action other than perhaps WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The attitude that the capitalization conventions in the MOS are a top-level priority, which must be aggressively enforced despite the strong preferences of the editors who actually create and maintain the articles in their fields of expertise, has over the years caused a great deal of damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish, the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. In most of these situations, even if Dicklyon is correct that it is a MOS:CAPS violation, there are usually multiple options about what to change it to. Dicklyon does not just get to decide which one to go with. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    If I've done something where the Tennis Project comes to a consensus that there's a better solution, let me know and I'll be glad to help get it done (assuming it doesn't go against guidelines). Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" so that is of concern as well. Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) and was told as much before this ANI was brought to bear. But I'll tell you one thing... that boomerang statement tells me all I need to know and is probably a good reason why you failed in your attempt to gain administration level. That is ridiculous bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that it is accurate to say that: There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. I am not seeing any such comment at the tennis project discussion. The objections being made appear to be based on personal preference without any reference to how MOS:CAPS may or may not apply to this case. Also, MOS:CAPS is quite explicit by virtue of a directly comparable analogy at MOS:ENBETWEEN. Also, I don't think that it is quite accurate to say: There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" .... If you are referring to this RM, then the close states: No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase. It was "no consensus". Also, while both cases use a dash, the grammatical contexts are quite different, as is how the dash is used (spaced or unspaced). When stated: Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) .... This clearly fails to acknowledge that P&G are a representation of broad community consensus. Making a statement: That is a lie. is an allegation. There is no significant difference between saying that and saying "you are lying" or "you are a lier". If one is going to make such assertions, one really needs to ensure that their own statements are scrupulously accurate or risk WP:POT. To the last of the post, we are getting into WP:NPA territory. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Pretty much agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above. It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. I'm not surprised to see this ANI report against Dicklyon, and I think an indefinite topic ban (from the MOS, or at least from MOS:CAPS) for the user is warranted. Also, Dicklyon's WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) as linked above is also very concerning, since those sockpuppets' edits involved MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc., and here we are in 2022 with complaints of disruptive editing by Dicklyon regarding those same types of issues. Some1 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Here we are in 2022, and you're digging up sockpuppet concerns from 2015? Calidum 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I didn't dig it up; it was mentioned earlier in this thread by Sportsfan77777 who said: Dicklyon has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS.[1] Some1 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• It's not a big secret that I oppose the lower-casing push on Wikipedia, that's been happening for roughly 2 years now. I believe that article titles & infobox titles are among the few areas left, that haven't been lower-cased (or at least not entirely). At some point, there's bound to be a push back, whether it's against one editor or a group of editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a lowercasing push so much as a push for congruence with the guidance of MOS:CAPS. Article titles and infobox titles are uniformly done in sentence case. Where there are exceptions, they should be fixed. But yes, it's no big secret that you oppose such fixing. And I've been doing it for over 15 years, so you're a relative newcomer to his area. Do you like to push your own style? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• The charges against Dicklyon are spurious. As others have said above, this is just another example of small groups of editors in particular topic areas attempting to assert control over what they perceive as their WP:OWN territory. I am sure their efforts are made in WP:GOODFAITH, but Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopaedia, not a specialist tennis chronicle, and avoids WP:JARGON wherever possible, no matter the field being described. Luckily for us, WP:CONLEVEL explains that our policies and guidelines cannot be overruled by small consensuses of editors in particular topic areas. If these editors have a problem with the guidelines on capitalisation, they should make an effort to change them, or seek some sort of broader community consensus for an exception in the particular case of tennis articles. There are no grounds, however, for 'shooting the messenger' of the MoS that is Dicklyon. Overall community support for MOS:CAPS has been demonstrated time after time. Mr Lyon may sometimes be 'too quick to pull the trigger' when making these kinds of changes, but that doesn't negate the value of his tireless work to ensure our encyclopaedia meets a professional standard of stylisation. A topic ban would be disastrous for Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I rarely opine on this board and am myself no expert as to misadventure, but I was active in the 2015? thread when Dicklyon got blocked for sockpuppetry and since this enforcement tool has been mentioned, I am going to narrate boldly for perspective. I don't even remember the specific disagreement (likely similar to this one--MOS vs. local consensus), but I remember User:RGloucester tried lots of ways to get folks to recognize Dicklyon's socking (a very new and unexpected development at the time). My recollection is that RGloucester got himself blocked saying something inexplicable to get folks to listen. I actually remember screaming "noooo!" at the screen, reading RGloucester's words. Later we found out RGloucester was right the whole time. Dicklyon took his punishment, tried very hard to not edit, and re-applied for editing sooner than he probably should have. But IMHO if any editor on Wikipedia has a reason to hold a grudge against Dicklyon, it's RGloucester. If HE says such current charges are spurious, I'm inclined to listen closely to him THIS time. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  RGloucester and I reconciled just fine (see his comments just above). My socking was designed to tweak him into accusing me, and it worked great. I'm very sorry I took that route, and I've done my time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the suggestion of a topic ban was made much too hastily. Despite the enthusiastic attempts by a few editors to personally discredit Dicklyon, he is at most guilty of overzealous enforcement of the Manual of Style. It would not be reasonable to impose sanctions here and this matter should have been handled with more AGF and less venom. While I don't think we are in boomerang territory just yet, cheap shots like this one are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I probably should not have written that to be sure. It stems from something in the past where he was reprimanded by administration for hammering on me at Wikipedia. I apologize for bringing it up but his statement about me and my motives is perceived as biased and unfair and I just boiled over in reading it. I'm still angry in reading his post again right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This should just be closed with no action needed. Wikiprojects exist to serve wikipedia, not the other way around. An editor enforcing the MOS (even in banal ways like this) is not an issue. Hell it should be appreciated by topic editors as something they don't have to do. If it is demoralising editors as suggested above, it probably says more about those editors than anything else. Aircorn (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If enough editors are reverting you on several articles, it's likely a good idea to stop making the changes that you're making. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you see editors reverting me, please do let me know. According to the records, I did get one revert today, and it's being discussed. In the last week I've also had 3 mistakes reverted, which I thanked those editors for. There was also a small batch of mistakes reverted by Letcord at my request 8 days ago; see User talk:Dicklyon#Main template updates. And I had a mistake reverted on March 14. And one related to the redlink cleanup on March 13. On March 11, two of my case fix edits stray out of article space and were reverted; I thanked those editors for noticing and fixing my mistake. I also got a revert with suggestion here (this was on work that I took on at the suggestion of wbm1058 in this very discussion). On March 8 (before this AN/I complaint started), there was a batch of reverts of some part of the changes being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, changes that I had already introduced into discussion after I saw that what Letcord asked for my help with might not be quite what the project wanted. So, if you're implying that when multiple editors are reverting me I don't stop doing what they're reverting, you really ought to provide evidence of what you mean. With a tiny handful of reverts during a time when I did many thousands of edits, I think my work is mostly pretty clean and correct, and where I have made mistakes I have either fixed them myself or thanked those who did. All these "he's still at it" type of remarks are just plain false, as should be clear since I challenge them to show us each time, and they never do. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

How absurd can this get?

Now Sportsfan7777 is saying that I'm at it again by fixing the over-capitalization of "Strike Rate". See this revert. What crazy theory is behind such picking on routine case fixing? See WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too for discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Strike rate refers to two different statistics in the sport of cricket. What does that have to do with tennis? wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know it means in cricket or even in tennis, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be capped. See n-grams. Or book search. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Really, Dicklyon? You've exhausted all higher-priority tasks for fixing incorrect visible text, and now you're going after tool-tips that are only visible when you hover over them? How do you set your priorities? There's a ton of stuff worse than this lingering around the project that somehow you've missed. wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is my hobby; I don't aim to be as productive or efficient as possible, just work on fixing things I find wrong. Thank you for your concern. But if there are things wrong that you'd like me to help with, let me know; I usually aim to please (which got me into a bit of pickle with Letcord's suggestion as you can see above). Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if editors were generally called upon to explain what they worked on and why the project would disintegrate. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I interest Dicklyon in working on clearing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations? This is something only I have ever worked on for any extended length of time, AFAIK. My time is too oversubscribed to keep it under control. There are over 400 links to Buzzfeed, that should link to BuzzFeed. Hundreds of links to Bachelor of arts that should link to Bachelor of Arts. Same for Bachelor of science and Bachelor of Science. A lot more where those came from, with more added most every day by drive-by biography writers. I don't follow how fixing some tool-tip in a table is higher priority than those. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't follow. No one needs to explain their priorities to you, let alone operate according to your priorities. Primergrey (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to remove the need for fixing Bachelor of science but Chris the speller refused to take it out of the queue. So I think it's reasonable to ask for help. He's not the only editor who keeps piling work on me. wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I'd be happy to work on more tasks that others think are more important (in addition to what I do organically). Tell me more on my talk page about the nature of the problem and how you go about fixing it. Do you use JWB to generate list of articles linking to wrongly-capitalized redirects to start, and then just do the appropriate replaces? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: so if you two disagree on whether "Bachelor of Science" needs caps or not, did either of you open a discussion on that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you both had a word in there, I see now. But nobody cited a relevant section of MOS:CAPS, nor linked it at WT:MOSCAPS#Current, so nothing is resolved except that the two of you have different priorities, which is not novel. If we agree it needs fixing, I can whip it out in a few minutes with JWB. So agree first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, it is categorically impossible for me to pile work on you. Please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:VOLUNTEER. You are painting me as stubborn for marking a redirect as a miscapitalization 10 months ago. Dictionaries show "Bachelor of Science" as capitalized, as it is a specific, formal distinction. A "bachelor of science" is an unmarried man who plays with test tubes. Your fight is not with me, but with a bunch of lexicographers. Chris the speller ^yack 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, we three agreed, and I went through and fixed all those links to capped Bachelor of Science. In the process, I accidentally didn't restrict to main space, and ended up editing this conversation as I clicked through too fast. Sorry about that. I also noticed that I need to go and fix Bachelor of Science in Xxx to lowercase xxx. Will work on that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This is complete BS. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. I said either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

True, your edit summary did say either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely as you restored title-case Strike Rate. Sorry if I didn't characterize your revert exactly correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

So, with clear reason to remove the tooltip template, and make the dispute redundant, Sportsfan77777 chose to revert the edit - an action that keeps the dispute alive. This strikes me as being rather WP:POINTy, since the actions required are rather trivial. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The point is not about MOS:CAPS at all. If you want to make a wide-scale change, you need to start a discussion first. This applies to everyone, but Dicklyon wants some kind of special privilege. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Why do we still, after all these years since National Football League draft (this discussion was SIX years ago!) need to keep driving (at Talk:Norwegian First Division#Over-capitalization) home that MOS:CAPS does not decide whether a thing is a Thing that has a proper name or just a generic thing that doesn't? wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why Dicklyon is allowed to keep carrying out these edits (changing "Strike Rate" to "Strike rate"). When I reverted one of his changes to the tooltip and told him what I wanted (either "strike rate" or the tooltip removed altogether), he stopped making the edits and opened the discussion pointed out above (WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too). Now, I was going to reply to the tooltip discussion again, but I see Dicklyon has gone back to making the edits he wants on the tooltips (for example, this one from today) even though it has only been two days since I last commented. There are so many active discussions on tennis related to Dicklyon that I don't have time to reply to all of them every single day. At this point, I don't see the point of replying to the tooltip discussion because Dicklyon has already made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers commented above "I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion" and Dicklyon replied "Advice received", but he is still doing it. There is no end to this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there is an end to fixing over-capitalization in tennis, and we're nearly there, thanks to help from Letcord especially at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Cleanup edits #2. And I'm allowed to keep changing "Strike Rate" to "Strike rate" because the title-case version violates guidelines at MOS:CAPS, and because the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_in_tooltips found no support for an exception in tooltips, and because nobody has seriously suggested that the title case version is preferred, and because the tennis project uses sentence-case tooltips widely in their templates that use tooltips. There's still the open question of whether all lowercase would be preferred; or weather the tooltips should just be removed; I would not object, but wouldn't do it just for "strike rate" and not for the others. Your re-instatement of title case in a few cases, just to keep the argument alive, was quite POINTy as pointed out already by Cinderella157. Re the issue that brought us here, fixing the title-case "Win–Loss" in table headings and tooltips, most were previously fixed and I'm holding off fixing the rest until this AN/I discussion ends. But it never ends, with vague accusations being re-posted from time to time. Can we stop now? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Some background

The great majority of my edits in the tennis space (about 20,000 edits) can be understood from the discussion at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Bot for renaming/moving tennis articles. The only comments I got there were about things that I failed to fix, so I kept at collecting over-capitalization patterns and fixing them. All was fine until Sportsfan reverted a change of "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss" in a table header. So we discussed that at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, and appeared to have strong support (only Sportsfan and Fyunck objecting) for following MOS:CAPS instead of Sportsfan's variant style, so I went back to it. This is not at all the picture that he and Fyunck paint above which somehow has me harassing him or the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Some other changes that ended up being partly reverted can be understood from User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task and WT:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task. Please read and you'll see I'm trying my best to be cooperative with the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't see how implementing a mass-change against consensus is in anyway being "cooperative with the project." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out when/where you think I did that? Maybe a diff or two, so I can see what you're accusing me of? As you told some above, That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: again, if you have evidence that I have been "implementing a mass-change against consensus", please link it here. Otherwise please retract this accusation, which is a wild extrapolation of what brought us here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a "wild extrapolation" and will not be withdrawing it. Please do not ping me again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd ask if you will be substantiating your accusation for the benefit of those of us who are trying to wrap their heads about this thread, but I doubt if you'll see my comment. If someone doesn't want to be pinged back to a discussion, they really shouldn't lob an accusation before leaving. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously he will not be substantiating his accusation, since I never did any "implementing a mass-change against consensus"; he just read too much into the complaint and extrapolated to that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Just the read the discussion above, Lepricavark. Dicklyon "implemented a mass-change against consensus" four times last week alone, including once after this ANI started. All but one of those changes are still being discussed, while the other one was reverted back to what it was before Dicklyon made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read the massive thread, thank you very much. What I saw was a tantrum by the OP, who acted as if a series of minor stylistic changes was somehow the end of life as we know it. For example: We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. Fyunck unironically stated that reverting stylistic edits had become a higher priority than dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Do I agree that Dicklyon carried things a little bit too far and acted a little bit too eagerly? Yes. Did it justify the character assassination perpetrated above? Absolutely not. Also, I see no evidence of Dicklyon violating an existing consensus. He may have been too eager to claim that a consensus existed, but given that he was merely trying to bring articles into compliance with the MOS as he understood it, I'm not sure it was reasonable to expect him to seek consensus in the first place. I really don't think it matters if the tables say 'Win-loss', 'Win-Loss', or 'W-L'. But what I do care about is the manner in which this dispute has been needlessly personalized against one individual. Cooler heads need to prevail. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no horses in this race whatsoever; if anything, I have viewed Dicklyon as a rather charitable editor who was kind to me when I first started editing.

That said, I think Dicklyon is wrong here, and I am wondering why he has forgotten that Wikipedia is this funky mundane miracle wherein everyone gets together to collate knowledge into an encyclopedia that most get to edit and everyone gets to use. Yes, there are rules in place to govern how we interact with each other, but the overriding unspoken truth is that without that collaborative effort to work together, it all falls apart.

And Dicklyon, your actions have repeatedly worked to sidestep that collaboration. Never mind why you have done it in the past, or why you continue to do it now. What matters is this single inexcusable truth: your actions - in not genuinely seeking to work with other contributors - have proven to be corrosive to the Project. I totally understand why you do it, but its an arrogance, Dick, and one that distances you from others in Wikipedia; it turns you into a Cabal of One. And that effing sucks, man, because you have a lot to offer the community, if you'd but listen to and work with others.

You need to cowboy up and change how you approach Wikipedia editing. You may not like some of the changes that new generations of editors have brought about, but you either adapt to those rules or walk away. The third option is you get kicked out, and that would be a shit legacy for you. YOU NEED TO RE-THINK THIS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that your very long comment is just a series of generalizations that fails to address any of the specifics of this dispute, you are at least the second person in this megathread to bring up the importance of collaborative work without acknowledging the very real problem of the OP putting their own personal preferences ahead of the MOS. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: You said he may have been "too eager to claim that a consensus existed to change tennis charts" and that he had no reason to realize there may be debate on the issue. Even if true, it looks like his eagerness never abates per all his edits in the last several hours, in spite of this discussion going on. Many of those edits are exactly what is being discussed currently elsewhere and why it was brought here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not ideal. Whether or not these edits should be controversial, they clearly are. It would be prudent for him to refrain from making mass edits related to the 'Win-Loss' display while this discussion is ongoing. This is not a matter that is so urgent that it cannot wait for discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

And this was my point above: there was no concensus for these mass edits, yet DI continues to make them. Even while this discussion is ongoing. This has become a repeat problem with him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

When you said I implemented mass changes against consensus, you wouldn't say which changes or what consensus you were referring to. You've softened it just a bit to "no concensus for these mass edits", but you still haven't pointed out what mass edits you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You're actively still doing it. People are watching you do it and taking note. Are you so dense, so mired in your own ego, that you cannot sit back and accept this is a problem? You're just going to doggedly demand I point out the obvious? I don't see the point, as you're clearly going to just deny there's any problem anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am still actively editing Wikipedia, fixing case errors and other things. Getting no complaints, comments, reverts, or other indication that anything I'm doing is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The short answer here is WP:FAIT, which sets expectations for exactly this type of situation. --Masem (t) 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think I've done something relevant to WP:FAIT, such as large numbers of edits not supported by broad consensus, please do say what you're referring to. I have even stated that I'm prepared to immediately change all Win–loss back to Win–Loss should there be a consensus that that would be better (hard to imagine). Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Getting no complaints, comments, reverts, or other indication that anything I'm doing is wrong.

What the fuck do you think this entire discussion has been about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to fuckin' know what the fuck you think it's been about. Primergrey (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell what it's about. I keep asking for links to edits that illustrate the complaints, and I keep not getting any. The original poster did have a couple of links about downcasing "Win–Loss". That's what it was about initially, and I stopped doing that. But people keep saying I'm "still at it" and making thousands of controversial edits, and editting against consensus, without so much as a single example. Go figure. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Dicklyon)

• This section is extremely "mucho texto", and I got about halfway through reading it before giving up. But I am going to say some shit anyway: Dicklyon is a smart guy and a great editor, and I've been at odds with him before but I am opposed to him being kicked out of the project over this. That said: @Dicklyon: I really wish you would lay back on the capitalization crusade. I have seen you write stuff that's brilliant and useful, and thousands of words of arguments over capitalization is not really brilliant and useful. Even if you are right, this seems really pointless to me. jp×g 08:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To be more specific in what I'm saying, you and I once had an argument about the capitalization of an article I created, which involved both of us typing out several paragraphs of text. Sure, you were probably right about that (and you are quite possibly right about this), but we spent at least a couple combined hours clacking out a bunch of inane dreck about capitalization on a talk page. Meanwhile, we appear to both be software engineers from Silicon Valley who've written multiple articles about landforms in San Francisco Bay -- in fact, one of your rivers (Miguelita Creek) touches one of my islands (Ogilvie Island). Both of these articles are kind of shitty. Surely, we would both be better off if we had spent this time collaborating on expanding them instead, or taking photos, or any damn thing in the world besides arguing about the capitalization of "extremely online". jp×g 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I do spend a lot of time fixing capitalization according to the guidelines at MOS:CAPS. Not nearly so much time arguing about it, since most of my edits are readily accepted by most editors (notice that my biggest mass change in tennis, about 17000 edits, took a ton of time and got no pushback or significant discussion, just a bit about what I missed). But when an editor wants to WP:IAR without good reason, yes, I do push back, and yes, it does waste a ridiculous amount of editor time, especially if it gets brought to noticeboards instead of just normal discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • As for Miguelita Creek, I did track down more info on that and other East San Jose creeks, and found a wonderful map created by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. I tracked down the author of the rerport it was in, and talked him into saying OK to use it on Wikipedia, but so far have not been able to get him to send the explicit license statement we need. I haven't given up, though that too has been a big time sink. The map shows the original and rerouted creeks, explaining some of the naming confusion around there. And yes I have spent a ton of time driving around taking pictures of creeks (see User:Dicklyon#Creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, bays); I can tell you who calls that a waste of time. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang time?

I suggest that the next user to post a vague accusation against me, without so much as a single diff of an edit that is in some way objectionable, be sanctioned by at least a short block. We keep seeing this behavior above. They say I'm "still at it" but won't post a single single diff to show what they're complaining about. Yes, I do a lot of editing, including a lot of case fixing in tennis recently, but none of it is controversial. Or if you think it is, show us which, and why. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It would have been wiser to just let the thread die. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

But every day someone lobs another vague accusation. When will this stop? Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This board is often like "running the gauntlet" but stray individuals keep turning up to take their whack. I'm not about boomeranging but do see a value in closing this discussion sooner than later. This drama has run its course. I advise Dicklyon to button up and let some uninvolved closer tackle this. We've got more important work to do, I'm certain. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no stakes in this argument, but here's what I think.

Dicklyon made some edits, which weren't inherently controversial, but his methods after the fact...

"Styling it [Win–loss] according to the guidance of our MOS doesn't make it an unusual outlier"- Dicklyon

I think that sentence pretty much sums up Dicklyon's point, and many people aren't fighting him on that. The real problem I have, and I think others have, with Dicklyon is not his logic or his claiming consensus maybe a bit too early. The problem is his blatant refusal to slow down and talk about the problem, and to stop editing while he does so. Honestly, if there is problem that needs to be addressed more on Wikipedia, it's this idea of no apology in any circumstance. Dicklyon is a tenured editor here, with many quality articles and pictures, but that doesn't give him the right to be a jerk.

"You're actively still doing it. People are watching you do it and taking note. Are you so dense, so mired in your own ego, that you cannot sit back and accept this is a problem?" - The Hand That Feeds You:, referring to Dicklyon's other mass changes without consensus.

First of all, I think MOS:CAPS is law. It's widely agreed on, but the thing that differentiates it from WP:CONSENSUS it the fact that it is much more specific. Agreeing that consensus is the way to go is inherently much less controversial than agreeing on a certain style. For something to be as specific as MOS:CAPS is, an yet still be widely agreed upon, gives it more power, I think, which is why I think it overrides consensus in this case. Keeping Wikipedia consistent with a stylistic guideline, at least in this case, isn't of utmost importance, but it's important, and to believe in MOS:CAPS and yet deny it when you think it 'looks weird', at least in this circustance, isn't fair, not to Dicklyon, not to Wikipedia, and not to the thousands of thousands of editors who agree with it.

The question is, does anyone actually object to his mass editing anymore? If no one objects now, why are we bringing up some of his other recent edits? If anything, that shows that the argument is no longer 'Win–Loss' vs 'Win–loss' vs 'W–l' (still makes me cringe looking at it) but an argument against Dicklyon's methods. And, overall, Tennis Project editors, is this really the hill you're going to die on?

All I'm saying is, coming into this ANI with no knowledge of any party, Fyunck and Sportsfan77777 made Dicklyon seem like some sort of scourge that plagued Wikipedia with his mass editing and his blatant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines, when in reality he is an editor following the rules (maybe a bit too vigilantly). Ten paragraphs in and I'm already rooting for Dicklyon's downfall, when in reality, a couple of disgruntled editors brought up a justified complaint and blew it up in such a way that it made Dicklyon look like a tyrant. Then the goalposts were slowly shifted away from the idea that 'Dicklyon's edits are unjustified' to 'Dicklyon is unjustified', and we're talking about indefinite topic bans because he's what? Why would we be banning him, exactly? Is it his personality? If we were to ban Dicklyon from anything, it would be a serious blow to Wikipedia as a whole. Dislike of a person is not grounds for an indefinite topic ban, in my highly unprofessional opinion.

Dicklyon should stop mass editing until this ANI is resolved.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument should explicitly state whether they are against the edits or indifferent.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument should explicitly state whether they are against the edits themselves, against Dicklyon's methods, or for Dicklyon's methods.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument, say you're sorry. Please.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument, admit any possible wrongdoings you may have commited pertaining to this discussion.

Move from there. This discussion won't close until A) people sit down and actually address the problem, or B) people get tired of arguing, which I don't think is the way to go. 2ple (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You're saying I refused to slow down. On what? I've stopped on the Win–Loss issue that brought us here. I stopped on the "Strike Rate" tooltip thing until after the discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips made it clear that there was nobody at all arguing that the title case way was in any way preferred to sentence case (not even Sportsfan who brought it up). Was there anything else that Fyunck or Sportsfan or anyone else complained about or asked me to slow down on? No – or show me. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't yet reviewed the details of this particular controversy, and so will only make three observations at this time. First, without regard to the details of the capitalization controversy, what stands out in looking at this lengthy interchange is simply the stubbornness and certainty of his rightness with which Dicklyon states his case, and his unwillingness to consider that it might be a good idea to accept that sometimes one has to accept what one did not want. After having been repeatedly sanctioned, he doesn't seem to have learned to be collaborative. Second, this is not the longest block log that I have seen. That doesn't mean that it isn't a long block log. A long block log usually is the sign of an editor who won't learn from his mistakes, because he doesn't recognize them as mistakes. That is, his argument here is demonstrating the same intransigence that has resulted in a history of blocks. Third, I may have somewhat different criteria than some other editors, but I have a very strongly negative conclusion about any history, even several years ago, of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is to Wikipedia what academic dishonest is to academic studies, and what falsification of data is to research. It undermines the integrity of the enterprise in which it takes place. I don't trust anyone who has a history of sockpuppetry, even if it wasn't recent, especially if there is evidence that they are otherwise still the same, and appears to be still the same. I will research the details of the controversy before further comments, but that is what I see at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, one block (for edit warring) in the last seven years; I'm sorry for that. But it does indicate that in recent years I've learned a lot compared to my old ways. I'm not asking for your trust, just for objectivity on what I've done, as opposed to reacting to this gauntlet thing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• And thanks for admitting that you have no idea what this is actually about; your drama amplification is no doubt in character. Go trout yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Dick, please strike that. Much as I find your frustration understandable, this thread has already seen too many uncharitable personal comments. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Robert, want to know why Dick sockpuppeted? I'd say don't hold it against him, because, at least how I experienced it, it was one of the funniest surrealistic things on Wikipedia. Dick's addicted to the site, as many of us are, students should be studying this effect, but he had to do some other life projects off-site. If I recall correctly he tried several ways of getting a long block, but couldn't get one. So he threw up some socks that were instantly recognized as him, and someone finally had to let out a sigh and block him. Dick, was that the time you wrote a book? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Robert, this is a complex dispute with various factors to consider. I've been observing/participating over the past several days, and it is still not entirely clear to me what is going on. You really do need to review the details before making observations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. There is wisdom in that counsel. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

BRD vs mass edits

So to start with, I don't care about the caps issue. Win-Loss / Win-loss? whatever.

My concern is that people are waving arounf BRD and I just see that this is a good example where WP:BRD fails us.

• Bold

• Revert

• Discuss.

Sounds awesome, right?

Well, when the bold editor is making a large amount of edits, mass edits, automated edits. etc. It is not trivial to enact the "revert" part of the cycle.

In the past we have typically asked those with automated tools to be accountable for their edits, knowing they may need to revert them.

But that seems to be failing here.

Fait accompli has been determined MANY times to not be the way we "should" do things here.

Yet, here we are again, with another example where it seems to be the de facto way.

I really don't care who's at fault for whatever.

But I do think we need to take a look at whatever policies we have regarding this and make them very very clear.

If we need a new policy page clearly stating that those with automated tools are flat out not allowed to use those tools to gain "advantage" in the brd cycle else face sanction. Then let's get that written - right now.

If someone would like to helpfully point me to whatever existing policy we have regarding this, I would appreciate it.- jc37 08:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know or care what the alphabet soup is, but mass edits are not ok and continuing to mass edit when you know it's controversial is very much not ok. Is the answer here some kind of topic ban from capitalization-related edits?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

By "alphabet soup" do you mean "the relevant policy or guideline"?Primergrey (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, not yet at least. I think this whole ANI has silently shifted off the topic of 'controversial edits' and onto the topic of 'controversial editing'. I don't think what Dicklyon is doing is the problem anymore, it's how he does it. 2ple (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems like WP:FAIT is the appropriate reference, as noted by Masem, and its content seems adequate. However, I haven't noticed anyone really successfully impeaching the nature of the edits, and there was a volunteering to help fix them if they proved to be against consensus. The edits seem to be helping Wikipedia follow its own guidelines more consistently, and I don't see a reason to complain if that's done quickly or affects a lot of articles. It seems a bit risky, and a bit unfriendly to a minority group of opponents, but not actionable as a clear problem. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the link.

And the thing is you express a valid point, one that concerns me.

BRD is: be bold, then revert, then discuss. What is being said here is that it's Be bold, discuss, and if concensus forces them to, then revert. Sounds a lot like fait accompli to me. And definitely does not match BRD at all. - jc37 19:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't pick on the quantity of my work; just the quality. Mass edits are OK when not controversial. If someone reverts one edit out of a mass, or complains or comments on it, we stop and discuss. We continue if there appears to be a clear consensus. What I've mostly been criticized for above is making that determination a bit quickly. Since then, nobody has shown any of my edits to be wrong or controversial. So why state things like "sounds like" and "seems to be failing here", without any indication of what you guys are complaining about. Go trout yourselves. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

And that is not why this report happened and not why people continue to pile on. You do not do proper BRD's when you put the cart in front of the horse. You did mass changes and multiple editors complained and told you to take it to talk. You pretty much refuse to do that and continue to make those same mass changes, right or wrong. Especially against long-standing consensus. And when we did have something at talk, there was discussion about doing it differently but after a few days you arbitrarily declared a consensus where none was forthcoming as of yet and start mass changes again. That is wrong and will always be wrong. If you make a change and someone reverts you, you do not add it back either. You have personally declared capitalization as your own "Pet Peeve" and it has blinded you to procedure around here. If it was one time then no big deal and people work things out in talk. But it is far from one time as the multitude of complainers here indicate. This is a long-term issue that needs to be addressed so it doesn't happen again where editor after editor feel bullied by your implementation style or that they have no voice and leave editing Wikipedia altogether. Wikipedia does not need to keep bleeding good editors because of your "Pet Peeve." You don't seem to listen and plow ahead like a bulldozer, and that can't be good for Wikipedian's moral. It simply can't be that hard to post on a WikiProject that you would like to change 10,000 article punctuations. And what happens is that people may stop complaining that your edits are wrong and controversial because they throw up their hands in disgust and weariness and simply give up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet you provide not a single example to illustrate what you mean by "You did mass changes and multiple editors complained and told you to take it to talk. You pretty much refuse to do that and continue to make those same mass changes..." It's bullshit. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All anyone needs to do is look at your 1000s of changes to tennis articles, see the complaints, read the talk page timeline, and see you declare consensus arbitrarily. You always make the changes assuming in your own mind that there will be no complaints instead of checking first. That is what is bullshit. You made a bunch of capitalization changes and got called on it until we had an RFC... only have of that got consent so you knew there was pushback from the project. Then you did it again with Win-Loss and bazillions of articles again. If you didn't think there would be pushback again then your insight to Wikipedia editors is broken. It is still not clear the Win–Loss is wrong but editors have thrown up their hands at your bulldozer editing style. Look at how many are complaining here... this is not a one time thing and I can see it will continue to happen unless someone finally stands up to you. We are not in a rush at Wikipedia. If it takes a couple weeks to sort out what is the best styling that's no big deal. You declaring some fictitious victory after 2+ days of discussion is downright nasty and wrong, and you should know it by now. Fix that bullshit behavior and these discussions go away. Work with a team-effort mentality and not a wrecking-ball. That is why we are here and that doesn't seem to be sinking in at all. I'm starting to think you are never going to change your ways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You can see at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Cleanup edits #2 that I've continued with a few thousand more case fixing edits, with help from User:Letcord mostly, all opening discussed at the project, with zero pushback. Fyunck and Sportsfan have found nothing to complain about, as far as I can tell, and nobody else has had any problem with these either (including from the fans of baseball, football, squash, badminton, archery, cricket, etc., whose articles had a lot of the kinds of over-capitalization I was working on). If it turns out I made any mistakes in there, I stand ready to fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

[2] - "I don't want to undo them without consensus" - That is the issue. Full stop.

I'm sorry that it may mean more work for you. But you chose to use an automated tool to make the edits.

If you refuse to adhere to BRD, are you surprised that people are expressing concerns?

As I said above, I really don't care about the current situation. So the "quality" of your edits is immaterial to me. This is purely a behavioural question. Which is, I presume, why it's being discussed at AN/I.

However, my concern is less with your actions in this particular instance, but rather, whether the current policies are clear enough to help you or anyone else making mass edits. If not, then we need to clean up the policy right now.

And from your comments throughout this discussion, apparently WP:BRD and WP:FAIT are not clear enough.

Am I misunderstanding you? - jc37 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently so. BRD doesn't say that I have to undo every edit that might be in question; it says that if others revert, we discuss. And as I said, I stand ready to return "Win–loss" to "Win–Loss" is there's a consensus that title-case works better there, or to "win–loss" if there's a consensus that that's preferred. I think the policies are pretty clear. You're saying there's a "behavioural question", but it's not clear what the question is. I'd question the behavior of Fyunck and Sportsfan for trying to win at ANI when they're clearly on the opposite side of consensus in the normal discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

BRD and FAIT say that you should not continue making the same series of these small mass edits while they are under dispute no matter how right you may believe you are. That is disruptive. Discuss to get consensus, and presuming you are right then continue to do those edits (though those seem to be something best suited for a bot). --Masem (t) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) - When you are making mass edits, it is not trivial for someone without those tools to revert your mass edits. Hence: Fait accompli.

I just went to look at WP:FAIT, WP:BOT, and even WP:Mass editing. And while it is implied, apparently it isn't clear enough. WP:BOTPOL states that all use of automated tools, not just bots, requires following all policy. As an aside it also notes special rules in particular about "cosmetic edits", of which capitalisation is an example, but you and others can look at that. As I said, my concernm is the fait accompli part of this. And unless I am misunderstanding you, you are clearly saying that when using mass editing, you feel that it is not your responsibility to revert when your edits are challenged.

So, it sounds like we need to clean up policy. - jc37 22:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It is my responsibility to revert or clean up after my mistakes, and to stop when challenged (which I did). The challenges we're talking about here were not about mistakes, just a couple of whiners who like more capital letters than Wikipedia style rules suggest (actually that was only for the "Win–Loss" thing; their complaints on "Strike Rate" made even less sense, as you can see if you read about that silliness). One of them asked me to revert all my edits (I'm guessing they just meant put all the "Win–loss" back to title case "Win–Loss") but that would be pretty lame lacking a consensus to make an exception to our usual style. I have continued to work with others on the tennis project page to bring tennis articles into compliance with Wikipedia style. None of that is getting any pushback. That that stupid "Win–Loss" thing that I'm holding off on. So complaints that I'm still actively editing Wikipedia are about what? Nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

BDR is not BRD. I don't think I know how to say it any more clearly than I have above. - jc37 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, please note that I have not kept making the same edits to things under dispute. Or if I have, say what edits you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion of course, but regardless if Dicklyon is right with the capitalization issue, is it really worth it to potentially clog peoples watchlists with edits that in essence don't change anything on the page? I stopped counting Dicklyon's edits today (March 21) in the 40's, and it looks like there were way more yesterday (March 20). I'd feel pretty annoyed that my watchlists were filled with edits that don't really do anything. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You can hide minor edits by checking the "Non-minor edits" filter. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone is doing many things out of control like Dicklyon, then the community must restrict him. I think we must reserve space for other contributors. Maybe Dicklyon is the best, but it does not mean there is no room for other worse contributors. Wiki is not a private house, it is a common hall. Leemyongpak (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"doing many things out of control" is yet one more unfounded accusation without support. Yes, I do a lot of edits. They are not out of control, and not controversial, which is why nobody is able to link anything that I did that's wrong, controversial, or out of control. If I'm wrong, show us. Or go trout yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You just don't care others feelings. Look a few lines up, you will see my nearest supporter User:JCW555. There are some more up and down, you don't care of them either. Leemyongpak (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of watching all this unfounded speculation about Dicklyon's mindset. Deal with the facts, please. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yah, I'm tired of watching this thread too. It is neither a Single Match nor a Double Match, it is a Quadro Match in fact. I think if a bulldozer is allowed to work on a tennis yard, then a bulldozer-style editor can work on tennis category's articles also. Otherwise ... Leemyongpak (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Say what? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Guess what. Just imagine, don't write down here because it will make more tiredness :). Leemyongpak (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right!! You should start a section called "Unpopular style editor clogs watchlists with edits I think are dumb". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primergrey (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's rich! But I'm not really that unpopular. This thread has certainly tarnished my reputation among those ANI regulars who would rather amplify a complaint than look into it, but I do still get lots of thanks for my style correction work across the board. The tennis project page has been not a bad place, usually, with a lot of constructive stuff going on there recently (in which Sportsfan and Fyunck pretty much just don't participate). We've got tennis articles in pretty good shape now, and the only changes they object to were on Win–loss and Strike rate, because apparently they like these word pairs to either both be capped or both be lowercase, unlike most of the other tooltips and two-word headings across the project. The absurdity of these little hangups blowing up into this big ANI thread is still mind-boggling. Probably we'll just leave Win–Loss in an inconsistent state so I don't risk upsetting them again. If they decide they want Strike rate done differently, as I said, I have no objection as long as we make it somewhat consistent across tooltips, not just a one-off weirdness like it was. I'm happy to implement if they say what's needed. There is no fait accompli in this, just a willingness to help make it right, and some shortage of patience for their bullshit, which started way back in November with Fyunck stating that "Men's Singles" is "a proper phrase in tennis". Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

And with the Men's Singles terminology (which is used in tennis publications) at least it was vetted instead of bulldozing editors out of the way as you did with your thousand edits. I don't care that consensus found "Men's singles" was the way we should do it on wikipedia. I'm ok with a consensus at Tennis Project. What I objected to was your making 10000 revisions without that consensus, even after telling you not to. Then claiming consensus after two days. That is why we are here... your own bullshit started all of this, and obviously it has happened many times in the past listening to folks "pile on." As far as helping change to Win–loss... talk about rich! I still think that is a frivolous change as was changing all "Men's Singles." It has caused many red links that I have better things to do than fix. It was your baby to make all these changes so it's your baby to fix all the messes created with that change. Goodness. You keep attempting to shift blame from a hole you dug yourself by being inflexible and rough-shodding over proper protocol. I was pretty much done here figuring the AN/i has run it's course with nothing really happening. That's ok and in fact I would say that is the most common outcome here. But then I read you are still posting this "whoa-is-me" stuff and pointing a finger at everyone but yourself. That's what's rich!. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As discussed on the project talk page, we're still working on a few lingering redlinks from the big renaming and cleanup (the one that went through extensive RM discussion and more). If you want to help, put a comment in support at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13B. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And if you want your way on tooltips, your support at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Caps in tooltips would be more productive than whining here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you make a single change and someone objects you either revert or the other person reverts and you bring it to talk before doing more. If you do 1000 edits because you can do it so fast, then you should revert those instead of leaving it to people that do it more slowly. When it's all worked out in talk, including perhaps alternate choices, after a week or so then it gets re-added or stays reverted or some alternative goes in. We are in no hurry. That's what I was taught here but you want to ignore the trial and go straight to a verdict. I tend to think it's best to get many involved to make an informed and complete decision. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's "woe is me", not "whoa-is-me". You say "it's [Dicklyon's] baby to fix all the messes created with that change", but Dicklyon has made all the necessary edits to update to the new title capitalization style. He has said repeatedly that he will revert to Win–Loss if that is the outcome of that discussion, so I really don't see what the problem is here. Letcord (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some misconceptions about WP:BRD. Boldly edit, if reverted, discuss. A revert to one article doesn't mean that all articles with the same edit should all be reverted while the discussion is occurring. But it does signal to stop making the particular edit that was reverted/objected to. There is no element of WP:FAIT to Dicklyon's edits. He undertakes to revert edits where it is found to be a consensus against his edits. There is no reason to question his integrity in this. There also appears to be some misconceptions about the levels of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Some of the comments here ignore that P&G represents broad community consensus. DL's edits are IAW P&G and therefore are made IAW that consensus. It is therefore a misstatement to say that DL can't make edits without first gaining a consensus if the consensus exists in P&G. There are also comments here about over-riding a long-standing consensus at the tennis project. Per WP:CONLEVEL: ... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. However, what we are seeing here is exactly that coupled with WP:OWNership behaviours. On the otherhand, we have a group of tennis editors finding new things for DL to fix and are working quite collaboratively with him. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing that just might be worth mentioning about WP:BRD is that it is neither a policy nor a guideline. Although the spirit of it may be very widely supported on Wikipedia, we probably shouldn't be overly scrutinizing its exact prescriptions, because it "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" (according to its headlining banner). (BTW, AFAIK it may be hard for some people to interpret unlinked abbreviations like IAW (International Alliance of Women?) and P&G (Procter & Gamble?), although I think I eventually figured them out.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The related content discussion will continue at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Case-fixup loose ends. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo

As every admin is probably aware, topics surrounding the former Communist bloc region are a subject of WP:ACDS, and Horse Eye's Back was made aware of this. Just in case any admin is unaware of the scenario: Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, which Serbia has not recognised, and international recognition is almost right down the middle. In summary, one has to be extremely careful how one writes about this topic because to tip the balance even slightly is a clear WP:NPOV violation. There are tools in place to help facilitate writing about the subject, and to my knowledge, the most prodigious example is the helpful Template:Kosovo-note. Back in 2015 (so before I created my account) the subject was discussed by multiple editors. It was decided that the best way to treat the awkward northern frontier of Kosovo was neither to satisfy the Serbian claim of an internal contour (i.e. Kosovo bordering Central Serbia) nor to satisfy the independent Kosovo claim (directly bordering Serbia), but to present "bordering the uncontested territory of Serbia" which allows readers to draw their own conclusions without coming down on either side. An early example of its attempted removal came here (see partisan summary), but save for the occasional short-lived reversal by some editors, it has more or less been stable in this condition since this revert fully seven years ago. On 8 March 2022, Horse Eye's Back dismissed the caption as "blatant POV pushing" although this was a clear compromise, and blasted the wording right down one of the extreme ends of the POV spectrum. User:Edin balgarin objected here, then got reverted with uncivil language. On 12 March, User:No such user advised Horse Eye's back of that discussion here whereby he drew Horse Eye's Back's attention to the 2015 discussion, but not before Horse Eye's Back had pushed again without a semblance of support from other editors. And finally, Horse Eye's Back has done it again here, and that is how the article stands as I make this complaint. I personally engaged in some discussion with Horse Eye's Back, and I particularly invited replies on how to handle the WP:WEIGHT problem and how it should be worded, to which the question was dodged several times behind an "WP:RS" smokescreen. My last post was a few hours ago advising that if Horse Eye's back keep going round in circles, then I am finished. A few hours later, and we have the latest restoration of the NPOV breach. I believe this entire chapter requires administrator attention and action. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not used to this. I don't think I have been on this page before. I thought it was a behavioural issue for two reasons, the relentlessness with abandon, and the ACDS factor. Are you sure it is definitely Dispute Resolution? --Coldtrack (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Remarkably bad behaviour by HEB who certainly knows there are proper channels to handle a content dispute rather than edit warring. Quite unbelievable to edit away from the status quo, have this questioned by three editors and then suggest other editors need to prove consensus. I also thought this edit was quite sneaky. It was made shortly after Edin balgarin, the main editor disputing HEB's edit, was indeffed (for unrelated disruptive editing) with a handwave to the talk page which in no way showed support for the edit. The attempt at a boomerang below is not a good sign either. On the heels of this incident, I think a good trouting and a topic ban might be in order. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

While I was aware of this discussion, I had little interest in getting involved in it, as I had the aforementioned negative interaction with HEB. I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address histheir unnecessarily confrontational behavior. The user sees dissent as a personal attack; and this retaliatory 'Request boomerang' subsection below is highly indicative of that. Note that HEB cherry-picks comments of others but in no way apologizes for their own, "suboptimal" comments and behavior (to quote @Floquenbeam:). One such instance is coincidence; twice is enemy action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to "cherry-pick" comments of mine from Talk:Kosovo which you feel are suboptimal you can do so, I would appreciate knowing what there you think I can improve on. Also please use the singular "they" when referring to me, my gender is undisclosed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, not playing your game of distraction, HEB. However, please feel free to point out where I have, in this conversation, applied a gender to you. Additionally, others have fully addressed your 'suboptimal' interactions with them. I've only pointed out where your comments in our previous interaction triggered an unconstructive interaction. Just like this completely different situation with an entirely different group of people. What's the common factor in the friction from both conversations?

The answer you might be struggling with is facing you in the mirror, pal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior." The common thread seems to be editors completely ignoring WP:RS in favor of their own opinions and then escalating to WP:ANI when they can't win a policy based argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You used "he" in the quoted sentence above when referring to Horse Eye's Back. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, so I did let an accidental 'his' slip into the post where, at every other point before and since, used their preferred pronoun. I could care less as to the user's gender; my complaint addressed their behavior, not which restroom they used. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI but I was the one reverting to the status quo, it had been steady from 2 February [3] to 8 March when it was changed by Edin balgarin [4] (who was indeffed for *related* disruptive editing BTW, the case is above this one) and I partially reverted Edin less than twenty minutes later[5]. Not really sure why Coldtrack is omitting that part of the narrative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Edin was blocked following a bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage (admins feel free to correct me). Unless I am completely misunderstanding the content dispute here, this is not related to Kosovo's borders. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage in a conversation discussing this exact issue at Kosovo, the conversation can be found at User talk:EvergreenFir#‎Kosovo and 1RR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone commits a murder in a post office it doesn't make them guilty of mail fraud. This is a good opportunity to show some contrition and self-reflection...just some friendly advice. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Their rant was a two-parter, half was posted on a personal talk page and half was posted on the article talk page[6], if they hadn't been indeffed for the one they probably would have been sanctioned for the other. If someone commits a murder in a post office but is killed by responding officers and were also committing mail fraud they will never be charged for mail fraud, but that doesn't make them innocent. You can either advocate for a topic ban (what topic exactly?) or you can offer friendly advice, its kind of hard to do both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Request boomerang

"Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society."[7]

"Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody that knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even known in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag."[8]

"You don't get to appropriate this policy to violate delicate NPOV matters. That would firstly be in breach of WP:PARITY and of WP:GAME."[9]

"The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate. Al Jazeera did not waste time here as within three days of the declaration of independence, they put out a report titled "Europe's Newest Country", filled with the usual vexed anti-Serbian rhetoric."[10]

"No. You have had this explained to you a gazillion times now. NPOV is about reflecting conflicting viewpoints. You need to know what RS is and is not. RS is about choosing which of two diametrically opposed claims to treat as factual (e.g. round earth, supported by science vs flat earth, supported by pseudo-science). RS is not a trump card to oust NPOV. If it were, then there would be no such policy as NPOV."[11]

"If you wish to dodge questions then this conversation is finished ... You are basically saying "RS says this so we should discard MNPOV". That is appropriating one policy to conceal the elephant in the room, which is not how this project works. Any more WEIGHT violations to the article and sidestepping of longstanding consensus, and you will be reported. Bye."[12]

"The conversation with Horse Eye's Back has gone as far as it can go. Three editors including you have now spoken to him and he clings onto the tassels of "Reliable Sources" out of sheer desperation to push a slanted viewpoint. So if he removes "uncontested territory" again, I will report him and in doing so, will alert you to the discussion."[13]

When someone is trying to dismiss all contemporary reliable sources as unreliable for a given space I think its pretty clear that they shouldn't be editing in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang for what? I haven't touched the article since God knows when. I can revert you right now and lock you out of restoring your partisan revision for almost 24 hours, except I haven't. So where does Boomerang come into play? You've argued with three editors. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I should specify, the request is either for a topic ban regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans or a general WP:NOTHERE ban given your complete dismissal of mainstream WP:RS as "Russophobic" and for "pre-existing advocacy." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll allow the admins to deal with it. Your singular point you raised after it was debunked time after time after time did not mean you had to play around with the article. I've kept off it, and nothing has prevented you from doing so while seeking a third opinion or making a request for comment inter alia. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the boomerang took a while to double back (see WP:ANI#Unusually_nasty_and_unfair_personal_attack). El_C 04:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: How are these two incidents related? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say they were, but the OP is indef blocked all the same. El_C 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I am being obtuse here but Coldtrack is the OP of this discussion. It appears you blocked a user called Caltraser5 as a result of the discussion you linked to. I just don't see the connection. It doesn't appear Coldtrack has been blocked? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh shit. I can't read. Sorry! El_C 04:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is indeed a content dispute, but I am concerned by edits like this one which basically state that Kosovo (a state recognised by over half the UN) has the same position as Somaliland or Transnistria (states recognised by precisely zero other countries). That's obviously a POV issue, but I'd say it's even more a competence one (and I agree that someone whose worldview is that skewed should probably keep away from editing in that area). Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite. Wait. You have just taken a position of advocacy here by making a representation for Kosovo. Yes I have compared Kosovo with Somaliland, though why should this concern you? Your cultivation of "majority of UN states recognising" is a distinction and not a difference. Internationally, every polity has the choice to extending recognitions and denying them to others. The UN is not a yardstick for determining legitimacy. In fact, "majority of the UN" is a mere selling point, because it ignores that fact that nobody is obliged to be a member. You may know that 21 years ago, the UN was noted for its absence of Switzerland. There are countries outside of the UN, but some of them have limited recognition. Kosovo's current majority in the UN is by one. Add the Vatican City, and that is the the two equal. Then add the State of Palestine and that puts Serbia in the lead. The Republic of China, if classed as a separate entity as it is a different polity evens the scoreboard, and then you can add Cook Islands and Niue which have the same relationship to New Zealand as Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands have with the US. That's three more in Kosovo's favour, before Serbia runs away without looking back when you add the final ten self-controlling states. As I said, you are arguing a selective distinction to raise Kosovo's profile whereas when I say Kosovo is the same as Somaliland et al, I refer to a territory to have unilaterally declared independence from its host nation, and the host not recognising (and that is what sets Kosovo apart from every single member of the UN with the obvious exception of North and South Korea regarding one another, but Kosovo/Serbia is not of the same nature as integral Korean state). Every one of about 200 or so polities play at international diplomacy, and form ties with one another where possible. Nobody asks to be treated like a pariah, and none of the self-ruling entities choose isolation. Afghanistan for example recognises Kosovo, but also chooses to recognise Abkhazia, and Abkhazia recognises Afghanistan, while Kosovo and Abkhazia do not recognise one another. Furthermore, I have not touched the Kosovo article this recent period. I have been editing the talk page looking at finding a solution to the NPOV violations disguised as "following reliable sources". --Coldtrack (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Update request

"looks good to because it fits your narrative. But the change was without consensus and this does not conform to other articles such as Serbia and Outline of Serbia"[14]

"I have never in my life seen such a one-sided and flagrantly loaded misrepresentation of the matter at hand anywhere ... If there is to be a credible RfC, it needs to be written by someone like me who objects to the current wording, and in doing so, I would have built a dam stronger case that the loaded overture ... The fact of the matter is that the above "choice" is a false dilemma fallacy since a true RfC should be open-ended ... It is flat out mendacious to pretend that dealing with "confusing wording" is remedied by satisfying one of two POVs ... I suggest scrap this section and allow me to rewrite the overture more comprehensively and without such restricted options."[15]

"partial undo. I have rewritten the first sentence to explain what this article is actually about. Information such as the capital city and the partially recognised status of the "Republic of Kosovo" should not be removed."[16]

"I argued for months about the diametrically opposed appraisals on the White Helmets. Al Qaeda linked terrorists posing as rescuers? Or benign and benevolent cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics? The so-called "reliable sources" claim the latter, while the rest of the world's media, state-owned and private, point to the former. I argued with scores of anti-Syrian government apologists for possibly more than a year on and off, and had to leave because it was like pissing in the wind. The discussion ultimately came down to what is and is not reliable, and I was a one-man gang representing radical changes to the whole of en.wiki. That was never to be on the cards. I don't know if we are dealing with the same category of mainstream gatekeepers here. There is a certain symmetry about the two: one version permanently on display, 1RR per day, and an army of editors on hand to "revert the reverting editor" so their preferred version stays for the best part of 24/7."

"It is all good and well saying "reliable sources call it the Serbian border" but that has two problems: A) it rides roughshod over the disputed status and moreover breaches the neutrality of the source in question since its editors have fostered a position of advocacy, and B) Saying "Kosovo's border with Serbia" - which is half right due to it being Kosovo's border however you dice it - is being erected as a wooden dummy to create the illusion that the community has chased the gigantic elephant out of the room. Tomorrow, "we'll, we've agreed Kosovo borders Serbia, therefore we operate on the basis that Kosovo isn't a part of Serbia, and if it isn't a part of Serbia then what it is? It must be independent. So let's start calling it a country of the same standard as India and South Africa, and move "disputed territory" to line three, etc. when ElderZamzam has already explained Kosovo here is being singled out for special treatment as other comparable examples are all worded differently."

"The fact that it is state elsewhere on the article that Kosovo is disputed does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources."[17]

"RS is a tired argument and if it the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read WP:ONUS. In other words, you don't get to foreclose suggestions that frustrate your unrelenting standpoint by yammering the same old policy over and over."[18]

"No, you agree that. Many others share the position that Kosovo is occupied by local rebels and their western handlers such as those based at Bondsteel ... The reality in the case of Abkhazia is the same as Kosovo's."[19]

"There is not one scintilla of "nationalism" behind suggestions that Kosovo is in Serbia (which incidentally is not implied by A, C, D and all other alternatives mentioned). Apart from more than half of the globe recognising Serbia's territorial integrity, this is the position of the entire Serbian society, from left-wing to right-wing, from moderate to extreme, from sectarian to secular, and from native to diaspora. There is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo's recognition in some fringe corner of Serbian society."[20]

The POV pushing/competence issues continue. Really looks like they can't be relied upon to edit Kosovo related articles dispassionately however they appear to be suggesting that their disregard for our reliable sources policy extends beyond that topic area. The most disturbing to me is the characterization of the portion of Serbian society which supports the recognition of Kosovo's independence as a Fifth Column. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"So in other words, no the other options do not violate NPOV while you can do no more that parrot the "RS" mantra ... The fact that it is state elsewhere on the article that Kosovo is disputed does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources."[21]

"RS is a tired argument and if it the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read WP:ONUS. In other words, you don't get to foreclose suggestions that frustrate your unrelenting standpoint by yammering the same old policy over and over."[22]

"We all know that "Kosovo borders Serbia" is an Aunt Sally to give certain people a handle on raising Kosovo's profile. "[23]

"None of us can go onto that talk page on the back of a bold change by Red Slash and expect to still be editing after an ANI report is filed against someone doing what Horse Eye's Back has done. Do you get what I am saying here?"[24]

"Cut the histrionics. I never called anybody a fifth columnist. I said that there is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo independence. Do you need someone to help you here? Your survey did not reveal that there is a single non-Albanian from Serbia, let alone section of the population, who has in the last 14 years canvassed the Serbian government to recognise the Republic of Kosovo. There has been no demonstration in Belgrade led by Serbs that demand this from the president. All the survey shows is that there are some who are openly not bothered, or are happy enough to recognise it if it means Serbia joins the EU. If it happened that Serbia was locked into the EU and able to do so without having to recognise Kosovo, the chances of there being some Serbs/non-Albanians objecting to the non-recognition of Kosovo is less than nil. Meanwhile, it is not "nationalistic" (and whose anyway? I am Ukrainian) to deem a fifth columnist as a fifth columnist. One either is or is not. Zaev and his regime in Macedonia are a case in point. If you don't believe me, go consult your "reliable" sources on the events surrounding the 2018 referendum and how all the changes were forced through."[25]

"" Wikipedia is about summarizing RS, so yeah, the RS kind of is the be-all-and-end-all-of-content disputes." No it's not Levivich. In the first place, there is WP:ONUS. In the second place, it begs the question (fallacy of circular reasoning), and in the third place, this is a wording matter rather than a debate over "I know what's right", so no opponent of Option B advocates a choice of words that is "unsourced"."[26]

Some earlier edits have been modified[27][28] after Levivich had a talk with them, this is a positive step but the overall battleground approach does not appear to have changed nor do they really seem to have understood what the issues were. Competence issues regarding WP:RS have not been addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC time

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

---

• I'll mandate an RfC as an WP:ACDS action, with the burden being on the side of inclusion. I don't care if it's longstanding, it reads awkwardly because of its irredentism. So, if you can gain the consensus to include: It is bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia to the north [etc.], well, I'd be surprised, but okay. Will Log. To clarify: until an RfC is closed with consensus to include, that passage is prohibited. El_C 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• El_C The wording was introduced after a long informal discussion by several editors with a variety of viewpoints in 2015, Talk:Kosovo/Archive_30#Northern border, and has been continuously present in the article ever since. It's as solid consensus as one can get. I was initially opposed to it as well since it reads awkwardly, but unqualified "borders Serbia" is unacceptable from NPOV standpoint. Quoting Future Perfect at Sunrise from that discussion: Whether you like it or not, and whether it reflects the facts on the ground or not, Kosovo is still considered as de jure part of Serbia by a significant number of international actors, so there's no way around the fact that Wikipedia will have to remain neutral about this in its wording, as a matter of principle., and your accusations of irredentism are out of line. Nobody is edit-warring to include that wording; it is Horse Eyes' Back edit-warring to remove it. You're seriously overreaching here. No such user (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why we're tying ourselves in knots trying to find the least convoluted wording for a sentence that probably doesn't need to be there at all. Why not simply replace the sentence with a map? Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I will just reuse Fut. Perf's answer from the same discussion: I don't think that would be a good idea. "X borders on Y" sentences are pretty standard in our country articles, for good reason – they provide an easily understandable geographic reference frame for readers unfamiliar with the region (and speaking of maps, the one we are currently showing at the top of the infobox is so small you can hardly see Kosovo anyway, let alone what other countries it borders on). I dislike the idea of sacrificing a piece of plain, uncontroversially useful factual information for our readers just because some entrenched Wikipedia editors keep reading non-existing and quite unrelated POV issues into one bit of wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC). No such user (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, run the RfC nonetheless. The preceding sentence already reads: Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008,[14] and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 97 member states of the United Nations. It is bordered by Serbia [etc.] Again, get affirmative consensus if you wish to reiterate that distinction in the next sentence, too. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough. As for the map: Abkhazia is about the same size as Kosovo (i.e. half an Israel), and it resolves its tininess on the continental map well enough (like Israel), I think, so have a look-see at those examples. El_C 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No such user, it is not out of line for me to view that addition as irredentism, because it tells the reader the same thing the previous sentence just did. And it reads awkwardly. Edit warring is edit warring, be it on the side of inclusion or exclusion. A major part of WP:ACDS is that it allows uninvolved admins to, sometime, skirt the line between content and conduct (i.e. normally indeed an over-reach). Now, whether that action crosses that line would be subject to appeal in the usual venues. Hope that clears things up. El_C 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not skirting the line, that's a blatant involvement in favor of one side of a content dispute. WP:ACDS#Role of administrators: To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom. While indeed Any uninvolved administrator may impose... prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), your interpretation of "except when consensus exists" amounts to "but I do not like it". What do you consider "usual venue"? AN? Anyway, consider it appealed. No such user (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The venues for appeals are: yes, WP:AN by the community, or WP:AE by a quorum of uninvovled admins, or WP:ARCA by the Committee itself. El_C 13:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I dislike that passage not because I have a content preference. I dislike it because it reads awkwardly and, arguably, restates the sentence that precedes it. I have no opinion on any changes that qualify (or not)... whatever in relation to describing the borders, in text or visually, with a better map. El_C 13:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? Since when are admins supposed to make content choices in their administrative capacity? You're being helpful like a bull in a china shop. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough – since when we need a RfC for every wording, and every single discussion needs to be closed? In that discussion, nobody (except the last poster, Let's keep it neutral supported unqualified "borders Serbia" wording that you're trying to impose now; I announced I'll change it to "uncontested territory" wording, nobody objected, and it was in the article ever since HEB's incursion. I'm not in love with that wording either, but the onus to open a RfC is on the one(s) advocating the change. No such user (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just like the ACDS WP:RMfC I mandated for Kiev→Kyiv name change, I will not be closing this RfC. If you want to see that consensus for inclusion realized per WP:ONUS, argue your case on the RfC, not here. El_C 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Content issues aside

Putting the content issues (on which I’m agnostic) aside, there is still to my mind an issue with HEB’s recent conduct and edit warring on this article in particular. This was an uncivil and unhelpful way to go about something that clearly had pushback at the local level. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic, I looked at that and had found subpar conduct from multiple parties, but opted against sanctions in the end in favour of the RfC. I suppose you could try to seek admin intervention just against HEB alone, to be carried by a different admin, here, in a new subsection (for some reason). El_C 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was following the discussion on the Kosovo talk page and it brought me here. For transparency, I haven't had any interaction with the users involved and I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the content dispute. However, I do think it's striking that several experienced editors (No such user, JuicyOranges, Coldtrack and Jack Sebastian) have expressed concerns regarding HEB's conduct. To me HB's comments + edit-warring show an uncompromising attitude and arrogance which might be the reason why it rubs other editors the wrong way. This is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia which is cooperation, civility and respecting consensus. A warning would be well-deserved here. --Griboski (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7 and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Can someone please pry this user out of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page, or at least issue a stern warning? Post after post after post is just dripping with piss & vinegar making an already-contentious discussion even worse.

• It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try.
• The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia.
• Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are.
• I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism".

The latter is a tacit admission that they're here to argue the topic, not contribute meaningfully to the project. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This comment also confirms we're dealing with a fringe editor (defined as one who believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources). They create problems as they constantly oppose reliably-sourced content, denigrate RS, vandalize articles, and waste the time of mainstream editors. Also, they don't know how to vet sources, a primary requirement for all editors. -- Valjean (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference being excluding someone for espousing wrongthink and banning someone for using talkpages to WP:SOAPBOX. Arguing that this person needs to be "removed" because they're an editor who "believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources" and decides to "waste the time of mainstream editors" pretty much turns them into a martyr and proves their point. If an admin takes action they should make it clear it's not because of this editor's opinions but because of their habit of going onto talk pages for the sole purpose of debating them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's literally what a talk page is for, bringing up or questioning something about the entry.

I "argued" because like in the cases of the other talk pages I "argued" on, it was full of original research and bias and editors who aren't even remotely adult enough to be objective and make sure the article is accurate. There's literally only one talk page you could claim I committed original research in, and that was on local basketball. I've made compelling points in every single Talk page I've commented on that not only challenged the asinine groupthink present in each talk page or article but also referenced credible things that completely refuted or called into question the assertions I was responding to.

Calling me argumentative rather than admitting that I was responding to baseless speculation and childish nonsense that I saw a grand total of one person even bothering to address or question is exactly what I expect from Wikipedia editors these days though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE, an editor absolutely can and should be removed if their edits seem devoted to promoting a fringe theory. Of course, any edits devoted to promoting anything are inappropriate, but per PROFRINGE, promotion of fringe theories is taken more seriously because it has the potential to do more harm to the encyclopedia. It isn't just a matter of being wrong; but holding fringe views is part of the problem when coupled with edits that seem intended to advance those views by eg. disputing clearly-reliable sources (one of the basic examples on WP:TEND.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  That Talk page is literally full of anti-Trump conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You have literally done nothing but post baseless conspiracy theories and denigrate any story that doesn't fit the narrative you choose to believe. It's unbelievably hilarious to me that you have not only the nerve but the complete lack of self-awareness to accuse me of believing conspiracy theories. Comment after comment of yours on that page is literally baseless speculation about it being Trump or the Russians, and the people you all accuse me of being disrespectful towards projected being a Fox News viewer onto me as well as a MAGA type. I'm neither, and you all want to play victim because somebody dared to direct that same vitriol back at you while pointing out how NOT ONE claim you posted or source you linked has turned out to be reliable in the end.

If you had any integrity whatsoever, you'd edit the Wikipedia entry to reflect the fact that sources you consider reliable have now verified the "conspiracy" claims and directly contradict basically the entire first paragraph of that entry.

Instead you want to sling mud and point fingers like a child then play martyr when some gets slung back at you.

I've edited plenty of articles thanks and have kept the same consistent values my entire time here, unlike you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've lost count of the amount of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories you posted in that Talk section. It's at least five if not more.

And you weren't alone in doing that. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha that page is literally full of lies and baselessly conspiracy theories pushed from clearly biased editors who were disrespectful before I ever was but yeah absolutely blame me. So predictable.

I really don't care in the slightest. That page is a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia but par for the course these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is we? You're one person, and I have seen this exact same behavior from you in every single Trump related entry. You have done nothing but baselessly speculate, and your "reliable sources" include blogs written by people who are connected to left-wing extremists and constantly lie and attack others on social media and opinion pieces from people who have been wrong time and time again without so much as an apology or promise to do better? You want receipts? Try basically every single story they've covered over the past five years.

Steele Dossier. Russian interference. The 2016 election being stolen. Every single hate hoax and story they spun or video they selectively edited to misrepresent an event. The "good people on both sides" lie. The lie about calling soldiers losers. The lie about Trump doing literally anything for Putin. The pro Antifa propaganda and encouraging doxxing and glorifying violence. Calling everything under the sun misinformation. The Brian Sicknick cause of death lie. The "Hands up, don't shoot" lie. The blaming white supremacists for the violence and destruction during the George Floyd protests and subsequent riots. The claim people on January 6 planned to kidnap or murder politicians. The actively calling for Trudeau to send in the military over the trucker protest after calling Trump a fascist for protecting DC during the riots of 2020. The refusal to cover what happened to Antonio Mays Jr despite the evidence being out there for almost two years and the acting as a mouthpiece for the people involved with CHAZ/CHOP. Do you want more? It'd literally been five years of lies and the complete opposite of journalistic integrity. Your sources stopped being reliable almost five years ago, and that has been made abundantly clear with each retraction they're forced to make and updated article they're forced to write.

Who are you to question anybody's sources or accuse anybody of believing in conspiracy theories? And who are you to label anybody argumentative when I've yet to do anything other than point out inconvenient truths and challenge the ridiculous assertions you and others have made with zero proof?

You're literally the ones who started with all the behavior you're accusing me of. Grow up. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would pick out isolated bits of content to which you object, and then discuss them in the context of what RS you can cite say about the matter, THEN we'd all be able to have a constructive discussion with you.

In fact, you might even convince us to change our minds because, as it so happens, we hold our opinions because they are based on the RS used in our articles.

But you have not chosen to use such constructive dialogue. Instead you have accused, complained, impugned our intelligence, insulted us, and otherwise violated WP:NOTFORUM in a manner that shows a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. You'll have to do better than that. -- Valjean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a serious comment?

You've called me a conspiracy theorist and implied I'm a Fox News viewer and MAGA type more times than once and thrown disrespect my way, all unprovoked.

You've literally done every single thing you're accusing me of multiple times, and have done so completely unprovoked. You're the one who turned it into a Battlefield, and you did it way before I made a single comment. I'm just the only one who responded in kind. This is all there for anybody to see. You gonna blame your behavior in those other topics on me as well? Or hey how about when you started an edit war with Mr. Ernie but accused him on his talk page of being the one to do it and threatened to have him disciplined? You seriously think I don't make sure to get receipts before I make a claim?. I'm sure I can find plenty of other examples of similar behavior from you considering I've only looked at a handful of Talk pages you've participated in.

The only time I've ever had a problem on this site is dealing with dismissive and disrespectful people like you yet you have displayed this exact behavior over and over in multiple Talk pages of topics at all regarding Trump. It's all there for anybody to see. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've combed this entire wall of text and literally the the only factual statement is the the January 6 protesters did not mean to kidnap or murder politicians. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Literally not true but way to show your maturity level. Every single thing I said was factual and backed up by evidence. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to list some of that evidence? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As one can see in the rambling tirade above about Trump, Russia, CHAZ/CHOP, and the like, this person is just here to argue the topic, it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia. Also the Biden-Ukraine article has seen a 4 different editors in the last 12 hours, with similarly unproductive rants. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rambling tirade? Rant? And you have the nerve to accuse me of argumentative behavior? You're literally acting like a dismissive bully. Point blank period.

You have the nerve to accuse me of being argumentative while you're disrespectful towards me completely unprovoked and rather than actually carefully reading what I write, react like some high schooler. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhh no. I was calling out the obvious bias and inability to be objective of the people who were basically running the Talk page like it was an anti-Trump club meeting. I guess you missed the countless number of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories, the completely unprovoked disrespect and dismissiveness towards anybody who questioned the prevailing narrative being pushed in that Talk section, and the overall complete lack of professionalism from people who are supposed to be objective.

And maybe I'm being "argumentative" because I don't appreciate being ganged up on having my name dragged through the mud by people who can't even own up to their own behavior or see a situation objectively.

I won't be returning to this page so don't bother responding to me or trying to get my attention on my Talk page. I've had just about enough of this kangaroo court you put me through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that articles like the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory are so hopelessly filled with bad content and muddled topics that it is thoroughly impossible to go back and correct everything. This dispute was kicked off with a new NYT piece. I am issuing an open call to uninvolved editors to read that NYT piece, read the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory page, and help make the relevant improvements. I can understand 24rhhtr7's frustration, even if I wouldn't phrase it the same way as they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This stuff is exactly why I've stuck largely to editing mainly uncontroversial historical pages and municipalities. It's amazing the behavior the very people trying to lecture me engage in regularly completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of this case but there is a problem with that article and what it displaces, and extra questioning there is needed. The article should confine itself to "conspiracy theory" items but instead it is Wikipedia's main coverage of all of the real factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material from that era, thus having Wikipedia brand the latter as "conspiracy theory". And "groupthink" could be a part of the cause. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I share your concern. The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in that article. It only belongs on his biography. If any of that material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used there. Currently it just confuses people. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for unacceptable comments like this one, but there are more, including "insanity and childish behavior displayed on that Talk page and in that entry" on their own talk page. I have not looked far enough into their history yet (it took me a while to clean up their posts here, which were done in installments that messed up chronology and indenting), but this already seems one of these cases between CIR and NOTHERE. North8000, Mr Ernie, poor article quality is not a justification for blatant name calling and violations of AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On your latter points, I agree and did not imply otherwise. What's needed "there" is for somebody to start an article on the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine matters, fight off the people who will accuse it of being a fork, and than bring the two articles in line with their titles. But that's not my dance.North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally didn't say one bad thing to anybody unprovoked but yeah no you're totally objective.

Here's what I was responding to on my own talk page, by the way.

"They are personal attacks that only rebound upon yourself as you are obviously partisan. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. We're just people here."

The second time Valjean has called me partisan or a conspiracy theorist completely unprovoked. And I was more than civil in responding. If I were gonna insult any of you, you'd know it.

This is blatant hypocrisy and proof that some of you clearly aren't fit for your positions.

But whatever. You got your scalp. Congrats. I'm really impressed.

Thanks for reminding me exactly why I stay away from articles where people can't constructively work towards an accurate and factual entry, which sadly is many these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted a discretionary sanctions notification at your talk. You will be topic banned unless future comments focus on actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're literally dragging my name through the mud and putting me through a trial, and I can't defend myself? I can't point out how certain editors have engaged in exactly the kind of behavior they're accusing me of and worse or point out when somebody is very clearly not being objective about a situation where the evidence is there for everybody to see and/or says completely uncalled for and disrespectful things like "rambling tirade, unhinged, rant, conspiracy theorist" or accusing me of being partisan or argumentative while engaging in uncivil behavior towards me when I haven't ever said a single word to them? Really?

So basically everybody commenting here but me can be as disrespectful and biased and uncalled for as they like towards me and I should just take it and not defend myself or present a counter-argument or pick apart theirs with facts to back my claims up?

Do you literally ever hold these people accountable for their behavior? What they've said on that Talk page, on my own Talk page, and here is ten times worse than anything I did, and they did so completely unprovoked.

There's been multiple disrespectful comments and at least five Trump-Russia conspiracy theories added to that Talk page in the time I've been temp banned alone. Plan on doing literally anything about that? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried whining about it yet? Evoke Heir (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so impressed by how hardcore you are. I mean I totally haven't been around that energy you're sending at me completely unprovoked my whole life or anything. It's totally new and tough and hilarious in a completely original way.

Note how I've been civil while you're trying to grandstand on me and showing exactly your maturity level.

You know what's funny though? Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody. I've never had to talk that stuff a day in my life. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You think Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody is a WP:CIVIL comment? Paging Drmies... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, while I agree with you in substance, it's such a feckless comment that I am not sure it's worth continuing the tsuris. Just an outside thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With one feckless comment, I'd agree. But with a wall of them, it's a chronic issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Have you tried whining about it?" is?

Don't direct that tough guy energy at somebody unprovoked like this person did if you aren't ready to have it directed back at you.

Thank you so much for jumping in and giving me an opening to post all my evidence of your behavior on that Talk page. That was very helpful of you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you responding, again, to a troll account that was blocked several days ago? --JBL (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been on this page or edited Wikipedia and was not aware this person was banned. My mistake. I was responding to Muboshgu in my most recent comment though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention soibangla broke a rule against reverting edits three times and was merely warned, this on top of the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect they have directed at other editors who don't agree or point that out or make a general and largely civil comment this particular editor doesn't like.

or how the person warning him has been engaging in the exact same conspiracy theorizing and completely unprovoked disrespect towards the same people as soibangla and Valjean. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You've made your points and I can understand your frustration, but it would be more helpful to link to diffs where you believe other editors have been uncivil so it is easier for uninvolved passersby to verify. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I copied and pasted at the bottom of this section because I don't know how to link to talk page contributions. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, I encourage you to demonstrate the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect and that I have referenced nothing but opinion pieces[29]. If you cannot, I encourage you to retract. I am prepared to demonstrate many instances of your persistently disruptive and uncivil behavior that includes false or misleading assertions. soibangla (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

I always have receipts. I'll have my proof copied and pasted in here by end of day EST. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There are other behavioral issues by other editors that need to be examined, as it is unfair to put singular focus on 24rhhtr7. At 24's talk page, Valjean writes "Don't make accusations of partisanship" directly before saying "you are obviously partisan." A few days ago on my talk page Valjean also writes that I am "extremist right-wing partisan warrior" and says my edits are vandalism, without bothering to include any diffs. There is also an edit warring complaint regarding Soibangla which no admin has bothered to respond to. I can understand why 24 feels singled out and unfairly targeted. Our policies and guidelines apply to all editors, so I would appreciate an even handed response by admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, if I mentioned an editor in a contentious ANI discussion, I'd ping them. But that's just me. soibangla (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I should have pinged you. Sorry for that. My thinking was that you were already aware of the edit warring noticeboard discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7's comments here literally suggest they are having a very hard time working in a collaborative atmosphere. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree and they need to take a step back. But we have very experienced editors who are also misbehaving in smarter and less obvious ways. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring those users up on the board, Mr Ernie--let's deal with em one at a time, and not fall for WHATABOUTISM. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla was reported here, but there are no admin responses yet. They all seem much more eager to upbraid the less experienced editor. I had hoped there could be appetite here to look at the simple diffs I provided here, as I dread AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ernie you have been around long enough to skip the Whataboutism aspersions. Any concerns, and you can gather your diffs and file a complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ernie. Where is the same condemnation for these edits? It's certainly within the scope of this discussion. We shouldn't need to restart this process and frequently condemn multiple people when both sides are out of line. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's whataboutism. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Explain how it's whataboutisn when these people dragged my name through the mud for behavior they engage in towards multiple different people completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to worry about that. I'm done playing in the sandbox that is political entries on Wikipedia. This behavior is junior high level.

I appreciate you pointing out the problem behavior I've been referring to this whole time though. Vi respect your objectivity and level-headedness. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That talk page is the furthest thing from a collaborative environment. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: 24rhhtr7 seems to have vanished into the ether after I asked him for evidence to back up his claims. I suspect his claims may actually be unfounded. Drmies, could you please block this user as WP:NOTHERE? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose A break for ~2 days is hardly "vanished" and certainly doesn't meet the intent of WP:NOTHERE/warrant a block. I do not support his conclusions, but it's important for due process so we are consistent in our application of policy. That said, his editing history is sporadic. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I was suspecting that I was a little hasty. I'm not a fan of waiting one month for a response, though. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 11:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone right now for, essentially, not editing. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's called wanting to get away from a toxic environment for a bit and reboot.

And yes, my editing history has always been sporadic. I mostly only edit or contribute when I feel no one else will. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's actually more than enough evidence to back up my claims but I find the behavior and conspiracy theorizing completely disgusting and wanted to take a break before having to read entire walls of text again and copy them. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll list my proof of the behavior of certain editors on that Talk page and the conspiracy theory pushing under this new section here. Be patient with me because it's a lot of text to go through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing to make clear comments are pasted from various other pages as evidence by 24rhhtr7 and are not comments made by other editors in this discussion

Conspiracy theory one, going from top to bottom. 1. Hunter Biden was involved in business in Ukraine (this part is true!) 2. Trump tried to manufacture a scandal out of it by threatening to withhold Congressionally approved funding to the Ukraine (so close to what he's accusing Biden of doing, which sounds like psychological projection to me) 3. Trump is impeached for his crimes (also true) 4. Biden wins the election and then Putin escalates the war rhetoric, likely hoping that Trump's influence would have split us off from Europe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC) 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Conspiracy theory two. This one might simply be more of an unproven claim though. This was explained and debunked before the election. He was bragging about getting Viktor Shokin fired because Viktor Shokin was corrupt and not conducting investigations. He had the support of the European community to do so. Doing this put Burisma in more danger, not less. Don't trust memes you see on Facebook. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC) First example of completely unnecessary disrespectful and hostile behavior, again going too to bottom. We are not lying, this page contains nothing but facts. You are swallowing fake news talking points which we have rebutted over and over again on this talk page. Search the archives at the top of the page and read the FAQs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Second example of completely unnecessary disrespectful and hostile behavior. In fact, this is practically the only place where transparent and rigorous analysis is applied to achieve the best possible understanding of these matters. Those who think it's all so unfair have only themselves to blame for not participating in the article but rather incessantly whinging on Talk pages without accountability. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Third example of completely unnecessary hostile behavior. I have no idea what any of that means. But hey, maybe login and prove the errors of my ways in the article. Go on...do it. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Fourth example of completely unnecessary disrespectful and hostile behavior. Provide verification for "factual information". If it's that NY Post article from October 2020, just don't bother. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Here's my disgusted response to the unnecessary dismissiveness. Note how unlike some I'm fully willing to own my behavior. You say while using opinion pieces as "reliable sources". 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my admittedly not mature response to MrErnie's well-written and levelheaded comment pointing out the actual facts of the infamous Politico story quoting "former intelligence experts" and the fact that the Guardian made the claim that virtually no one doubts the authenticity of the laptop while also quoting Adam Schiff's claim that it's Russian disinfo. Immature and incredulous for sure but my claim was backed up by evidence. The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia. [1] 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here's the resulting exchange between myself and soibangla, in which I admit I was responding to the editor and their unnecessary behavior and beyond obvious partisanship and bias in edits that preceded my comment above rather than what the editor said. The donor was an American who did not disclose he was a lobbyist. soibangla (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Lol no. He's a lobbyist for Russian oil that you all tried to use as proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket. Now he's no longer connected to Putin because he gave EXCLUSIVELY to Democrats? Please. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Here's where soibangla brings up a completely unrelated thing in response to MrErnie's levelheaded comment I referenced above. Do any sources flatly state the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's? And let's not confuse the laptop with its contents. And what are the chances there was a second real laptop? Material similar to the alleged hard-drive contents was reportedly circulating in Ukraine during 2019. One individual interviewed by Time magazine stated that he had been approached in late May 2019, and a second person stated that he had been approached in mid-September. The seller, according to the second individual, wished to sell compromising information about Hunter Biden to Republican allies of Donald Trump for $5 million. "I walked away from it, because it smelled awful", he told Time. Igor Novikov, a former advisor to the Ukrainian president and a disinformation researcher, said that the market for kompromat (damaging material) had been very active in the past year in reaction to political events in the United States, with political operatives rushing to respond to Giuliani's call for damaging information on the Bidens. Novikov characterized the materials available on the market as "extremely hard to verify, yet very easy to fake". On October 19, Derkach posted on social media that he had a second Hunter Biden laptop, stating, "The facts confirming international corruption are stored on a second laptop. These are not the last witnesses or the last laptop." soibangla (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Here's another example of MrErnie behaving as the only adult in the room in response. This is yet another exchange that make's the behavior of certain vehemently anti-Trump editors beyond clear. From the sources above, CNN says A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, POLITICO writes about new evidence that at least some of the alleged laptop material is genuine, and the Guardian says Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. The Guardian piece is pretty straightforward. Almost no one disputes its authenticity, except perhaps for Wikipedia editors. If I read that piece in The Guardian and came to Wikipedia for more context I would be very confused, especially with this evidence free editorializing in a talk page FAQ point we somehow still cling to. I can find no sources who present any actual evidence, aside from speculation from retired IC officers, that the laptop is not Hunter's or that the contents are fake. I suspect it gained such traction because of the possible influence it had on the 2020 election, despite the actual contents being a nothing burger that wouldn't have had an impact anyways. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Here's soibangla's yet again evidence free response. No need to repeat your sources, I already saw they don't report the laptop is proven fake genuine. What we've always had and continue to have is a physical slab of hardware that may have once belonged to Hunter, so that much might be true, though even that has still not been reported proven. But many continue to conflate that slab of hardware with its contents as though they are synonymous, but they are not. It is standard operating procedure for Russian intel (and presumably others) to mix-in fake documents with real documents, hoping the FBI and CIA will fall for that old trick and conclude that everything is real. And this has been explained here ad nauseam. Nothing has changed, but if it does you can bet the farm I'll be among the first to include it here. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Ok so we agree you don't have any sources that say with evidence that is the case here, and that it is all speculation, despite the sources I've provided saying otherwise? Do you have a rebuttal to the Guardian (the article was published yesterday so I understand if you hadn't seen it before) saying "almost no one disputes its authenticity?" If no, should we build that up in the article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You're not hearing what I'm saying. The Guardian reports almost no one disputes the authenticity of the laptop. Not publicly, that we know of, anyway. Let's stipulate that the laptop has been proven to have been once owned by Hunter, but he lost it or it was stolen. Beyond that point, can there be any assurance that the contents on the laptop are real? Of course not. And that's what matters here. The contents, not the slab. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I hear what you are saying. Should we update the FAQ above which says "The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified," which seems to run contrary to the Guardian piece? Regarding the contents, we have the POLITICO piece confirming some of the material is genuine. I can find no sources confirming any of the material is questionable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You haven't bothered to link to any RS that back up any of this speculation. We should at least be able to find agreement to update the FAQ. What do you think? Is The Guardian's take one we can use here? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I have not speculated here, inasmuch as I have illustrated that there are unknowns, and having exhaustively elaborated on the facts of this article over and over since prior to its creation I am well aware of eager efforts by some to assert these unknowns are now established facts. Moreover, even if the laptop is proven to be Hunter's and its contents are proven authentic, it would still not constitute any smoking gun, as any purported offer of an introduction and any purported "meeting" between Joe and Pozharskyi at a DC banquet attended by many is not in itself indicative of corruption. Even if such an encounter occurred, we have no idea what may have been discussed, and we certainly shouldn't presume anything nefarious. Just because Pozharskyi worked at the same firm as Hunter did and some baselessly allege Hunter was up to no-good doesn't mean we should presume Pozharskyi had nefarious intent, either. We haven't even reached the point that it's been proven it's Hunter's laptop, let alone that its contents actually mean anything. I think the FAQ is fine as it is. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC) If you think having an inaccurate FAQ (which is entirely unsourced) is fine then we just have to agree to disagree. You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources. There is no actual evidence anything you said is true, contrary to the things that are confirmed in the sources I've provided. Muboshgu you asked above for any verification, so what do you think about the new Guardian piece? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here's Muboshgu's childish and dismissive response to MrErnie's request for comment. I was asked what I think about the new Guardian piece. I say it seems like the same bullshit from October 2020 slightly repackaged. Hunter Biden does drugs? Has some questionable relationships? Okay. We'll see what the grand jury produces re: his taxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my incredulous and slightly amused response to the above childishness that you all so kindly posted above our of context. It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here's MrErnie again behaving like the only adult in the room in response to Muboshgu. When you say 'bullshit' are you saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate? It's listed as a reliable source. Are you proposing to remove The Guardian as a reliable source? If not, what are you actually saying? 2001:4450:8138:BF00:0:0:0:6F1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC) And here's the reply he got. I am not saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate in any way. But, I am saying that there's nothing new here. The Guardian piece is rehashing the same nonsense from 2020 about the laptop with some updates on his court proceedings that haven't concluded. A grand jury investigation into whether or not he paid taxes is one thing. Allegations about influence trading involving his father are as bullshit as they were 18-24 months ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my again incredulous and amused response to this editor's repeatedly dismissive attitude. Lol it wasn't nonsense in 2020 but nice try yet again. Oh, and the New York Times just completely contradicted their story and verified some of the "conspiracy" claims earlier this month. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC) You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources Look, listen. Since before this article's existence I have provided countless sources that quite obviously many have chosen to ignore and come here to make the same bogus arguments and insist on believing what they want and refuse to listen. It just never stops. Why should I jump through hoops like a poodle for this? Prove the laptop is Hunter's. Prove the emails are authentic. Prove that any of that indicates corruption. Get some solid sourcing like the article contains or drop this. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) The onus is on you to back up what you say. I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above. Prove the laptop is Hunter's What sources have evidence it is not? Otherwise accept what CNN and The Guardian say. Prove the emails are authentic What sources provide evidence they are not? Otherwise accept what Politico says. Or here's the NYT, writing "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation." The FBI even wrote a letter to Senator Ron Johnson "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop." Prove that any of that indicates corruption I am not claiming anything indicates corruption, just trying to clear up the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation. If there was any shred of Russian disinformation in that laptop it would have been reported high and low by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC) I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above. Check the archives. Run who wrote that on this article. Please show how I speculated as opposed to illustrated that there are unknowns. It is unknown if the laptop is Hunter's, it is unknown if the contents are authentic, and consequently there is no evidence, let alone proof, of corruption by Joe (and there still wouldn't be even if everything is authenticated). None of what you just wrote proves anything. Tantalizing for social media discussions, maybe, but it does not clear the higher bar for this encyclopedia. Note carefully that the FBI "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation" doesn't say anything about pro-Russia Ukrainians, such as Derkach whom the Treasury sanctioned for his activities. Read about Derkach in this article and his BLP. Then, just for fun, read more about Shokin's "affidavit" and Firtash, and diGenova's and Toensing's work with them. Note also that we show in the lead that the IC said it found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration." Also, last we heard, the EDNY is investigating Ukrainians, not Russians. We must not conflate the 2016 Russian collusion narrative with this incident that may not have directly involved Russians, but rather their proxies. This article does not contain "the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation," rather it shows that there are many unknowns from "a series of unevidenced claims." No one anywhere has decisively found a smoking gun, and consequently the article reflects that. And the Guardian article provides nothing new to show otherwise. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here's where Valjean starts interjecting their own brand of completely evidence-free conspiracy theorizing. There's plenty more where this came from. IIRC, the more important question is not whether the first laptop originally belonged to Hunter, but the fact that its recent provenance is dubious, just like the second one being offered by sources related to Russian intelligence. How did those laptops get into Russian hands and then to Trump loyalists, all without Hunter Biden's involvement? It all smells like a Trump/Russia disinformation operation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Since this stolen info was first shopped around in Ukraine, I wonder if the laptops were stolen there while Hunter worked there, then given to Trump’s people? -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) MrErnie yet again being the only adult in the room in response to Valjean's blatant conspiracy theorizing. These questions sound like conspiracy theorizing. Here are 4 very short and straightforward sentences from RS: NYT "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation," CNN "A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop," POLITICO "...a purported leak of Hunter Biden’s computer files contains genuine material," and The Guardian "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here is Valjean's defensive response where they not only defend their blatant evidence-free conspiracy theorizing but also accuse MrErnie of behavior he did not actually engage in. Which doesn't address anything I wrote, which is about other aspects of the subject related to the danger of planted disinformation and how the whole thing stinks of a Trump/Giuliani/Russian operation. Note that I wasn't denying your points. They can all be true and yet part of a disinformation operation used to imply unproven wrongdoing by Joe Biden. You need to stop making such implications. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is my response calling out Valjean for their consistent behavioral pattern of posting baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theory while accusing everybody else of being partisan or brainwashed or fringe or extremist or a conspiracy theorist. You're literally just baselessly speculating while accusing anybody who doesn't blindly agree of being a conspiracy theorist. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is MrErnie's much more mature response calling out Valjean for making false accusations and challenging him to take them back or reword them. Note how it has been more than 20 days yet Valjean has done neither of these things despite being active on that Talk page the entire time. This is a very clear pattern of behavior in this editor's interactions with others. I have never made any such implication, so I hope you'll strike or refactor that. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is Muboshgu displaying blatant hypocrisy and bias given the way this editor has displayed much lower standards or burden of proof for the anti-Trump speculating and the claims of the laptop being Russian disinfo. No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation does not mean "it's not Russian disinformation". Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity does not mean "it's authentic". The Guardian article, it seems to me, hinges on this: But should the Delaware panel recommend criminal charges, it could ricochet around the second half of his father’s administration. Well sure, if Hunter gets arrested or indicted, that would be bad for Hunter Biden, and the press will write a ton of articles about it, but there's no guarantee it would have any impact on the administration beyond that. Wait for the future to see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC) My own admittedly incredulous response to soibangla where I admittedly unintentionally include gossip/rumor regarding Hunter's business dealings being floated by Hilary's campaign in 2015 in with the indisputable fact that Hunter was involved with the people the emails connected him to and possibly get mixed up about the Moscow widow. Again I fully own my behavior. I merely seek to put it into context. You absolutely have speculated. This entire Wikipedia page is nothing but anti-Trump speculation. Hunter's business dealings were mentioned in 2015 by the New York Times, and it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign. There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with. There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow. All of these things have been proven yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be. Then you make these ridiculous speculations about it somehow being Trump because you want it to be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, there was a 2015 NYT article about Hunter.[1] Did it conclude wrongdoing? No. it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign Proof? There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with Such as, and for what reasons? There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow Actually, there is. All of these things have been proven no they haven't yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be Nope. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Yup. It's literally what you've been doing this whole time. You've never had any proof to back up any of your claims about it being Trump or the Russians and have referenced nothing but opinion pieces. It's common knowledge that Clinton's campaign put the Hunter info out there to discourage Biden from running against her in 2016. Such as the people he was involved in. All of that is documented fact. His business partner at Burisma just went to jail for fraud, by the way. Why? Because they hired him to positions he wasn't qualified for entirely to lobby his father. It's not exactly uncommon in politics. You just want to believe it isn't true and refuse to accept that it could be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is soibangla's childish and dismissive response. It's common knowledge among Hannity viewers, perhaps. Hunter had nothing to do with Devon Archer's fraud case, and Hunter was qualified to provide management consulting seevices to Burisma that didn't require energy expertise. soibangla (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my again admittedly incredulous and not mature response to this completely unnecessary disrespect and dismissiveness, after soibangla reverted my initial response where I basically said they wished I were a Fox News viewer and called them out while responding in kind to their attitude and behavior. Note how I challenged soibangla to explain how Hunter was qualified and how he had no connection to Archer despite Archer's business dealings with both Hunter and his uncle and their being childhood friends. This editor has yet to explain either claim. Sorry but not everybody who doesn't blindly believe left-wing conspiracy theories or blindly trust the mainstream media is a Fox viewer. Nice try though. Explain how Hunter was the least bit qualified for the position he held, and explain how Archer's ties to Hunter and business dealings with both Hunter and his uncle mean Hunter has nothing to do with Archer's fraud case since you want to revert my previous response to you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC) I will give soibangla credit for being the one who posited that the NYT article could be a smoking gun at this point in the Talk page scroll and admit that my responses from then on out were incredulous and eventually more general statements than ones regarding just this particular entry. I have clearly demonstrated that I am far from alone in that behavior though and stand by what I said. I am providing plenty of evidence here to back up my claims about the behavior of others and the very clear bias and partisanship and battleground behavior of these particular editors.

I will start a new section for the conspiracy theories and disrespectful and dismissive behavior that occurred after my exchanges after posting this edit here.24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's still a full half a Talk page of this just as of last night. I am taking a break before tackling the rest. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever collapsed my evidence and put the disclaimer on it that it was copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'm really out of my depth doing this kind of editing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've just dropped formal sanctions alerts on 24rhhtr7's talk page. I've found that AE is usually a better place to deal with people who're only here to fight battles in ethno-political areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions for what? Love to hear your justification for this. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@24rhhtr7: Discretionary sanctions alerts for editors working in the American politics and Eastern Europe and the Balkans topic-areas, which your edits fall under. (And before you complain about Eastern Europe not being in play, edits about those topic-areas are part of the area as well.) Now that you have been formally alerted to the existence of those sanctions, any uninvolved administrator may ban you from the topic-areas, in whole or in part, with breaches of and attempts to evade or game those bans being met with escalating blocks, going up to a year in length. While these sorts of sanctions are generally levied at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, nothing stops those admins from issuing sanctions based on reports to this board. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about anything but thanks for using that weasel word. I was under the impression that a sanction alert meant it was about my behavior rather than just a notice on the general topic. Again, I am new to these controversial topics. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, as I advised at your talkpage. Walk away from any article related to Biden or Trump. That means stop posting about it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice but my name was dragged through the mud here, and I was shown nothing but disrespect and childish behavior from people claiming to be objective and adult editors. I have every right to present my case and argue it, and I will continue to until I feel satisfied. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal

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

---

Discussion

First of all, I apologise for the length of this entry. This case has already been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm and it was found that I had barked up the wrong tree, which is fair enough, as far as Störm is concerned (I have apologised to Störm). Even so, both Shibbolethink and Lugnuts stated that BilledMammal may indeed be a sock, but probably not a sock of Störm. The sysops involved, RoySmith and Blablubbs, commented separately that behavioural evidence needs evaluation and suggest taking it to ANI. The purpose of this ANI is to request that BilledMammal is blocked indefinitely for WP:DE, WP:HARRASS, WP:CIR, WP:GAMING, WP:WL and, although the sockmaster is unknown, WP:SOCK.

The BilledMammal account was opened on 24 April 2019 and the first edit was published same day. This was a new article, created in one edit and displaying instant knowledge of drafting, image parms, linkage, ref name, cite news, cite web, citation parameters, article structure, heading formats, and reflist. He even knew not to include categories in a draft. Only 31 edits were done until 6 December 2019 when the account became a sleeper for nearly 18 months until it was resurrected on 18 May 2021. In the ten months since then, over 7,500 edits have been done but only a mere 29% of them are mainspace because this editor spends so much time in forums and the like where, despite his apparent lack of experience, he has such a lot to say about policies, guidelines, procedures and so on.

In those first 31 edits, he twice opened AfD cases and knew exactly how to go about it. I find that surprising, to say the least. In the first one, he displayed familiarity with WP:CORP, WP:BEFORE, WP:SIGCOV and WP:PRIMARY. He even knew how to include the case in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. In the second one, just before he left us for 18 months, he cites WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, writing with confidence about whether the subject qualifies for the latter. Again, he apparently performed a BEFORE and knew which deletion discussions would be interested.

BilledMammal returned on 18 May 2021 and, editing fairly regularly, made about 100 contribs to 27 May and then disappeared again. He was back on 19 June and immediately returned to AfD. Apart from short breaks, he has been a regular editor for the last nine months during which he has been using AfD and other forums as a deletionist.

In July, BilledMammal opened this ANI discussion and began by saying: I was regrettably unaware of this forum. Fortunately, one of the editors at AFD was kind enough to point me in the right direction. I find it strange that someone who was so obviously comfortable with AfD and other WP concepts had never heard of ANI. He seems to have been at home in ANI as he proceeded to outline his case. Soon afterwards, some of his edits there had to be permanently deleted because he made alterations to change message context and invalidate another editor's responses. He was full of apologies, of course, and finished by asserting: I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, and am only here after being directed by an editor at the AFD that I was in the wrong forum. Are there guides in regards to submissions on these pages that I can read? I searched for them before posting, but unfortunately could not find any. Again, it is very strange that someone so well-versed in AfD and other site concepts should have such difficulty with ANI and finding useful guides.

BilledMammal appears to have stayed clear of sport until posting this revert on 22 January this year. He then began an argument about canvassing with Cbl62 and, despite his supposed inexperience, was talking throughout as if it was anything but new to him: for example, this, and so on. As a follow up, he goes to the VP and raises a fuss about canvassing there. This becomes something of an obsession with him – it seems he cannot bear to have other people knowing about something he wants to change or challenge in case they oppose him.

Two days later, having made several edits at the NSPORTS rfc and related pages, he arrives at Lugnuts' talk page for the first time with an AfD and this becomes a flood. Eventually, Lugnuts had to issue this complaint about hounding and stalking. Even so, BilledMammal has continued to post unwanted messages at Lugnuts' page. It seems very strange to me that someone with only 7,500 edits can claim to be so much more competent than someone with well over 1 million edits.

An example of BilledMammal's animosity towards Lugnuts is this proposal at ANI on 3 February. Remember that this is someone with relatively few edits and, of those, only 29% are in mainspace (so, WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE?), running the rule over one of the main builders of the encyclopaedia. It seems incongruous that BilledMammal is referring to something in 2020, a year in which he did not make one single edit. I would suggest that his sock master almost certainly did, of course. How can an "inexperienced editor" know so much that they could even consider making such a proposal? I opened my account only a couple of months before BilledMammal and have done over 50,000 edits, which means I am considerably more experienced than he is through the same timespan, but I'm not sure if I would be confident about making a proposal like that even now – I doubt if I would even think about "wikicode that doesn't impact the rendered page". If I see something that needs correcting, I just do it, page rendering or not. It's quite bizarre and it's definitely harrassment to try and sanction someone for performing WP:GNOME activity.

On 9 February, BilledMammal created this AfD involving some 31 sportspeople and the result was a procedural keep. It is just one example of his activity in recent weeks and it was a complete waste of everyone's time. In the past, other users have been sanctioned for doing precisely this same thing – creating a flood of entries at AfD, wasting people's time, and annoying many editors. Actions like these give rise to concerns of WP:CIR and, since Lugnuts was obviously being targeted here, WP:HARRASS.

Another CIR issue has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi where BilledMammal has used WP:NOTDATABASE as his primary reason to delete the article. This amounts to WP:GAMING as an abuse of process. NOTDATABASE is a component of WP:NOT and it concerns the context, structure and usage of the article, not the sourcing. He has already been blocked by Bishonen for abuse of process in October 2021. He was warned about his attitude by GoodDay in this discussion and, in this message to the project concerned, GoodDay summarises BilledMammal's attitude very well.

During the last seven days, at WP:RSN, BilledMammal was accused by other parties of harassment towards Ebergerz following this unwarranted accusation on the 17th. This again arose from the obsession with canvassing and it is not the only problem he has caused in that discussion. As a result, he was warned about disruptive editing and harassment by Guy Macon.

At the SPI, Shibbolethink rightly commented: they are certainly very disruptive, and did come into several spaces already with a huge amount of wiki-lawyering knowledge and then that My inclination is to suspect that BilledMammal may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm. I would be in favor of a CU. In response, Lugnuts said: "...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. RoySmith stated that: Behavioural evidence needs evaluation and Blablubbs suggested that the case should be taken to ANI.

BilledMammal, whether he is a WP:SOCK or not, is unquestionably a WP:DE who indulges in WP:HARRASS. He is WP:NOTHERE and adds no value to the project, especially as there are additional concerns about WP:CIR, WP:GAMING and WP:WL. Whatever limited pros there might be are completely wiped out by the overwhelming avalanche of cons and I contend that the account must be blocked indefinitely.

Again, I apologise for the length of this entry. If you have any questions, please ping me. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My brief encounters with BM, gave me the impression that he argues for the enjoyment of arguing. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support block - This editor has been a huge headache in a few different places.

1. First, on WP:NCNZ [30], this editor campaigned to remove a paragraph from the page regarding dual names (successfully, I must admit) but now is also interested in removing any such mention from the infoboxes of any pages. When several editors informed them that there was consensus against this, they stated repeatedly that they will advance it to an RFC despite any such consensus. @Turnagra noted "As mentioned on that page, that RFC leaves a poor taste in my mouth. It seems in very poor form to wait until a consensus is emerging against your view to open an RFC in another location without any prior discussion of such an idea." BilledMammal replied, in part: "from the start I had believed an RFC would be required."
2. BilledMammal has been blocked previously (48h) for filing vexatious complaints against editors they disagreed with. [31]
3. Other editors (notably, @Nableezy) are suspicious the editor is a sock [32]
4. Adding last reply and closing a discussion in one stroke is never a good look [33] (and this is another editor accusing BilledMammal of harassment and failure to AGF)
5. A long history of calling others "involved" "canvassed" when they disagree with the user. [34]

Overall, I actually think BilledMammal has been uniquely disruptive in a number of different areas of the wiki (sex/gender, sports, new zealand naming, skepticism/pseudoscience). I think they actually are a generally nice demeanor editor (perhaps rising to even WP:CPUSH - See what @GoodDay has said above). My impression is that they are, in general, a nice enough person, but that they are arguing quite a lot in a WP:BATTLE-like fashion. I think a temporary block would be ideal to prevent future disruption and show that this behavior needs to be heavily reconsidered if they are to remain a productive editor moving forward. I am suspicious that they are a SOCK, but I don't have more than the circumstantial evidence presented here to go off of, and I don't personally think that's enough for an indef SOCK block. But it shows the editor should tread carefully, regardless. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to clarify two things. First, for #1, on NCNZ the current proposal that some editors believe there is a consensus for is to use only the dual name in the infobox and the lede, excluding both individual names even when one is the article title. My position is that we should use the dual names and individual names similar to how they are used at Uluru. Second, for #5, my concern there wasn't WP:INVOLVED but WP:CANVASS, and I wasn't the only editor to have that concern.

Beyond that, though it is not my intent, and I believe most of the specific concerns raised are inaccurate, it is clear that in general how I engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action I will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust my behaviour to address it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted wrt INVOLVED vs CANVAS, and I have corrected my comment to reflect that! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Too long and not well organized, but I did read. Just want to address one point in this post. The "evidence" you've posted is useless for the purpose of blocking him as a sockpuppet. There are legitimate reasons why people have more experience than they should for a new account. Lost account. WP:FRESHSTART, etc. Socking is about abusive use of the two+ accounts and I'm not seeing clear evidence in what you are presenting. They aren't as new as their edit count indicates, but that isn't proof of violating policy by itself. And also, this is NOT WP:SPI. Yes, we will block obvious socks here from time to time, but for cases that require deep analysis, you have to go to SPI. I clerked SPI for some time, blocking many hundreds of socks (300 in one case, which is still the record), and I couldn't block based on this. The rest of this needs looking at, just not now by me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Dennis, but it has been to SPI and the suspected master was not guilty (see above). I doubt if we will now prove WP:SOCK so I'd rather prioritise the other concerns. If you should be right about lost account, etc., I must ask why BM hasn't declared that on his user page as required. He does say in his first ANI, as quoted above, that he is a new editor. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Many freshstarts may say they are new editors, meaning their account is new. That isn't so uncommon. It's how you use the language and doesn't always imply deceit. If this has been to SPI, rehashing the evidence is pretty useless because we are always going to say "take it to SPI", so it muddies up the report is all, and actually hurts your chances of getting enough eyes. Reports need to be concise, with diffs, clearly (and briefly) explaining the problem, and preferably, suggesting a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of this just seems to be complaining about an editor who has played a part in discussions with outcomes you disagree with, rather than actual disruptive behavior. The two+ whole paragraphs devoted to his "hounding Lugnuts" just boil down to Lugnuts objecting to the automatic AfD notices generated by Twinkle--which he should honestly be expecting given he created an enormous proportion of the microstubs on non-notable athletes--and BilledMammal not having the "builder status" you think is necessary to propose a (unanimously supported and enacted) sanction against Lugnuts.

Plenty more experienced editors have bundled sportspeople in AfDs that are procedurally kept with "no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages".

And then there's the active AfD you link where "the CIR problem" seems to be his invoking NOTDATABASE...for a microstub on a GNG-failing, NSPORT-failing subject that is exclusively sourced to databases. That argument doesn't seem incongruent with To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

The CANVAS issue highlighted was regarding one oppose editor leaving non-neutral RfC notices at projects where members were absolutely expected to !vote oppose in large numbers, and then repeating this. That is totally in the realm of WP:CANVAS.

And I find it pretty ironic to on the one hand label a question I am curious how you discovered this RFC; I notice you have very few edits on this Wikipedia (most are on the Spanish Wikipedia) and you have never participated in formal discussions here, nor have you participated in Wikipedia-space here as an "unwarranted accusation" while on the other make very similar accusations here toward BilledMammal.

I have no input on whether they're a sock, but if the only evidence is that they had precocious familiarity with wiki mechanics then I think CUs would be orders of magnitude busier processing all the accounts fitting that description. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Joelle summed it up nicely and said most of what I was going to say. No Great Shaker seems to be the one with a battleground mentality here, viewing normal disagreements and interactions as personal attacks and even stalking. The complaints are all over the place but most of these diffs seem pretty normal; they're only objectionable if you believe that mass stub creation is productive and stub deletion is disruptive, a position that has been rejected by the community. One exception would be this which seems to be a personal attack/preemptive canvassing by GoodDay. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  There is no policy against stubs. In fact, we have a guideline which describes stubs and implicitly approves their existence. Seeking to have a stub deleted solely because it is a stub is disruptive, and you're spreading misinformation by claiming that the community has taken a contrary position. Mlb96 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, there is no policy against stubs. But as dlthewave references, the community has sanctioned an editor participating in this discussion from creating sub-stubs, because the community not only felt it obnoxious that the editor was creating many thousands of them without showing any interest in improving them, but kept on doing so after being warned against the practice and promising not to do it any more. Me giving you a light punch in the arm might or might not be a problem. Long before I'd delivered more than nine thousand of them, you'd rightfully have me up on assault charges. Ravenswing 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I thought there were a few oddities in the account, so asked if it was their first account, and have accepted their answer and not been inclined to look into it further. I remain disinclined. nableezy - 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'll add my full thoughts later, but I thought it important to point out that newbies aren't always clueless, nor should we expect them to. Expecting newbies to be socks if they do what we expect them to (read and understand our PAGs before contributing) seems counter-intuitive to me. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz I think you're in general right, and your logic is sound here. But the added part is the rest of the behavior of a new editor. As I said, it's not enough in this case. But just for other situations in the future, if a new user is doing precocious things, yes that is on its own not enough to declare a SOCK. But it certainly is a contributing feature in an overall sock-like picture. See: WP:PREC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Shibbolethink, I agree with you, I just thought I'd point it out since some of Macon's phrasing made it seem like BM possibly being a sock (I'm assuming they're not until proven otherwise) directly followed the axiom that they are a new editor.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note that BilledMammal specifically challenged me to take them to ANI[35] but I declined to do so.

Re: "He was warned about disruptive editing and harassment by Guy Macon", it seems self-evident that the accuser needs to actually provide evidence that [A] someone is a member of a particular group, and [B] that that group has been canvassing. BilledMammal provided no evidence for either claim other than that they are a new editor, that they found an RfC that was widely publicized,[36] and in essence that BilledMammal somehow just knows that GSoW members have been stealth canvassing. No evidence required. [37]

Even if we ignore the many reasons why someone might legitimately start using a new username, Ebergerz has been editing in skeptical areas since 12 Aug 2019, mostly on commons, wikidata, and en.wikipedia.org.

Likewise, all of the evidence in the recent Arbcom case points to GSoW carefully avoiding behavior such as canvassing and Arbcom chose to not place any special restrictions of GSoW members. It is likely that GSoW members are also interested in Wikipedia pages related to skepticism and would watch such pages. Skeptical Inquirer is listed in the following templates:

Templates

Also strange: changing "The editor BilledMammal has expressed a concern that Ebergerz has been canvassed to this discussion" to "An editor has expressed a concern that Ebergerz has been canvassed to this discussion"[38] Why try to hide who "expressed a concern"?

So what is to be done? IMO BilledMammal's harassment of Ebergerz justifies no more than a 30 day block, and I would be fine with 3 days. I will leave it to others to evaluate the other areas discussed in this case and decide what the response to all of the reported behavior should be. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk)

Guy Macon Alternate Account, the fact that Skeptical Inquirer's article is linked in templates does not mean that the RSN thread is being widely publicized. Additionally, I see no link from the SI article to the RSN thread. Although fluent in Spanish I am unable to find an es-wiki equivalent to RSN, and Ebergerz's Wikipedia space contributions in es wiki do not show them participating actively in such source discussions. Their only contributions to RSN here are to the SI discussion, and the only other edit in Wikipedia space here is related to this thread ([39] xtools ec]). I don't see the canvassing concern as unrealistic nor do I see expressing that concern as disruptive. The discussion following the concern, which really should've happened on a user page or in the discussion section of the RfC, probably did more to railroad the discussion than just placing the template, in my opinion. In any case, I don't see anything as sanctionable here and I think it's probably best if we can all get back to the RSN thread as soon as possible rather than litigating this whole issue without having a user talk page discussion beforehand. As always, reasonable minds may differ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz Is there a specific reason for which you are omitting to mention the fact that I explicitly explained that I followed the ArbCom case and that as I've used SI as a source dozens of times I keep an eye on this discussions precisely because SP WP does not have a list of reliable sources as such, so we tend to use the english one, and this time I decided to finally participate? [40] After which BM continued to demand evidence and an explanation from my side, instead of providing any themselves. [41]. As I've mentioned elsewhere, By this reasoning any user who is new to the formal discussions and is judged to be part of GSoW (or any other group) has to be by default canvassed and would seem that there is no chance that said user could have a legitimate interest in the discussion. So, if a user is new to this discussions (myself in this case) is not judged to be part of GSoW, then there is no reason to believe they are canvassed by GSoW, but if they are judged to be part of GSoW (or any other group), then immediately the conclusion is that they have been canvassed. And it would seem no evidence is needed to back that claim. Such logic seems a bit circular to me. With this shifted burden of proof and circular logic, what defense would remain for me or any other such user? What sort of evidence could possibly be be exculpatory? Should I remain forever excluded from any such discussion because I never participated in one before?Ebergerz (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ebergerz the short answer is that due to multiple SI articles [42][43] talking about how GSoW purposefully repeatedly inserts citations of SI with a promotional agenda (This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well.), there are understandable concerns from many editors (myself included) that GSoW would try to coordinate in order to affect discussions on the reliability of SI towards a consensus of higher reliability on the source than would have been reached otherwise. In my opinion you saying that you use SI as a source dozens of times and followed the Arbcom case only adds to the concern that you were canvassed as a possible member of GSoW. Notwithstanding, that wouldn't have mattered if you and Macon hadn't continued to demand discussion on the issue in public noticeboards rather than discuss it in a user's page or in the discussion area of the RfC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, so that is why, in your opinion, no evidence was needed to back up the accusation of me being canvassed: If I give no answer, I'm canvassed, and if I explain exactly why I know about the RFC, and why it is of interest for me, then I'm under even more suspicion of being canvassed. Also if I'm reading your reply correctly, if only I had stay put, and not argued with an accusation with no evidence to back it up, then somehow "that wouldn't have mattered". Again, you seem to also subscribe to the faulty logic I described before: If you are judged to be a member of GSoW then you are canvased, no evidence needed (and no defense is possible either). You seem to forget that the ArbCom case evaluated such claims of coordination to affect discussions, and found no evidence of such practice (and as has been mentioned by Guy before, they found plenty evidence of the opposite). Ebergerz (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ebergerz I personally have been convinced by the arguments raised and so do not see the point in more evidence being shared that there is a possibility you were canvassed. You as the target of the accusation obviously will seek court-proof evidence you actually have been. It's not that I think no evidence was needed to back up the accusation, is that we differ in how we are interpreting BM's template and thus have different reactions. You could have literally just commented "I am not a GSoW member nor have I been canvassed here" and we'd all have to take that at face value (WP:AGF) and so the closer would have just noted that and moved on. RfCs are not a vote and the panel of closers will judge the merits of arguments in favor or against SI's reliability. Your comment was not even about SI! You [didn't] have much to add to the discussion above except your own vague opinion on others' arguments, which really won't affect the closers' judgement as it is their opinion and not yours that counts. This whole ANI case and the RSN discussion are all just a group of editors making a big shadow out of a small figure that is much less serious than you and Macon are making it out to be. That's what I mean by it wouldn't have mattered. Y'all could've just taken a less public, less aggressive path to discussing this whole affair and it would've stayed as a minute subthread to the RfC, but as y'all have insisted on going to the dramaboard there are now dozens of editors analyzing your contributions and asking themselves if they think GSoW editors have been canvassed (which really hadn't been much of a publicly discussed concern at the RfC before). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz I find quite ironic the reference to the "dramaboard" and to discussions that "are all just a group of editors making a big shadow out of a small figure that is much less serious than you... are making it out to be." coming from you. Regarding the analyzing of my contributions, I have nothing to hide, not had ever had anything to hide. And of course, I don't take well to being aggressively accused of false things with no evidence ("more"? there was not any presented). In other matters I tend to very much avoid aggressive discussions and favor respectful argumentations to seek agreement. As you seem to be fluent in spanish, you could check it is so in the talk pages for some articles I've been involved in. But I'll stop here, as this thread is getting out of topic. Ebergerz (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: "You could have literally just commented 'I am not a GSoW member nor have I been canvassed here' ", they did declare that they were not canvassed. Repeatedly. As for declaring non-membership, WP:OUTING is clear: do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information.

And yes, being asked to reveal personal details like where you work or what organization you have joined is definitely covered by our outing policy. Refusing to answer when you are not a member helps shield those who refuse to answer when they are members.

Also, there are good reasons why one would not want their GSoW membership revealed. See the case of Narendra Dabholkar. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I can see a clear commitment from BM to change their communication style, earlier in this thread. The rest belongs at SPI.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

BM - sock or no sock. Whatever you're doing, if it's annoying an increasing number of editors? then it's best to stop. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Lodge the complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Place you complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Dates fit. Targeting Nableezy is shared with Icewhiz. Just look at BilledMammal's top edited talk pages: Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes and Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis are Palestine. Talk:Łódź is Poland.219.89.87.76 (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that I'm not the only person whose mind this had crossed. Being anti-NSPORTS was another Icewhiz trait, but doing a load of mass edits, then editing an IP article shortly after passing the 500 edit mark is often a giveaway. Number 57 11:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If BM is a sock, we will need to re-visit the recent NSPORTS RfC given they were a significant contributor. GiantSnowman 11:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be a completely undue action due to the wide participation and length of discussion. Stop trying to re-litigate the RfC, GiantSnowman. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not, and your assertion that I am is incredibly ABF. Clearly, when discounting BM's arguments and contributions at the RfC, the consensus will not remain the same, even if the overall eventual outcome does. GiantSnowman 11:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is, like, the Platonic ideal of looking for reasons to relitigate a discussion whose outcome you didn't like. --JBL (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the topic overlap is significant enough to indicate being the same editor (unless Icewhiz is South African, which is something I don't know), and there are so many "anti-NSPORTS" editors that I don't see that as a particularly significant smoking gun. What do you mean by "IP article" Number 57? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That’ll be Israel/Palestine, I expect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense, Malcolmxl5. In any case, perhaps this is best discussed at SPI? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, also the WP:CPUSH demeanor fits Icewhiz, as someone who has had a very long time to fit their comments to the "nice guy", even enough to become an admin as a sock! Totally support an WP:SPI. But it needs to be carefully examined. Any witch-hunt like process which prematurely blocks BM would only further serve Icewhiz's intent to disrupt the wiki. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Never expected anything like this. I'm struggling for time right now but I'll certainly take this forward when I can. Thank you very much to 219.89.87.76. Also to Number 57, GiantSnowman, Malcolmxl5 and A._C._Santacruz. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Closed [44] - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (BilledMammal)

• Oppose The above is acting like Lugnuts is a net postive to the encyclopedia and needs to be protected. He is a net negative. He has been banned from creating small articles because he flooded Wikipedia with literally thoudsands. Billed is one of the few editors who has shown a willingness to run the gamut of harrassment and road blocking Lugnuts puts in the way of those who seek to remove his huge excessive number of permstub articles that do not in any way approach being biographies. If we find it surprising that new editors do AfD right, we really need to consider making AfD a simpler process, because its pure difficulty is one reason we have articles that have existed for over 15 years with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"He is a net negative." - Lambert please retract your egregious personal attack. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert are you opposing the block proposed above or taking the complaint to SPI? Because the latter is not something you can actually oppose. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I was trying to oppose the proposed block. I figured if I reached the bottom of the section that was connected with the complaint, it would be a good place to place it. Which made sense because there was so much wall of text here, and I did not realize there were sub-sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Johnpacklambert, it's not at all clear to me what it is you think that you're opposing above, but you have added your statement to a thread suggesting that BM is a sock of Icewhiz, an editor who has been globally banned by the foundation for, amongst other things, doxxing and off-wiki harassment. I have no comment to make on this particular case at present, but I can assure you with my CU hat on that Lugnuts is the regular target of at least two LTAs with a penchant for harassment; I hope that you and I can agree that all users need to be protected from people like that, whether or not we like them or their editing style. I'll go further than that though: I think that your assertion that Lugnuts is a net negative to the project is unnecessary and distasteful; you are under two separate editing restrictions yourself, does that make you a net negative? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Girth Summit: Whatever situation Lugnuts might be in (including the one of being sanctioned by the community for some of their bad habits), that doesn't give anyone the right to people to make exaggerated claims at the Dramaboard in an attempt to get rid of philosophical opponents (and the fact that Icewhiz also had an "anti-NSPORTS" view is borderline an ad Hitlerum - guilt by association) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    That's an egregious accusation of bad faith editing, RandomCanadian. I'm not sure who it's aimed at, but it surely can't be Lugnuts, whose only comment to this thread is to complain (reasonably, in my view) about being insulted. Sniping at one another at ANI will not hope resolve this. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Girth Summit: WTF? I was just pointing out the obvious fact that this is just a continuation of a previous dispute (one which you are probably aware of), which has been exaggerated out of proportion at the Dramaboard (something which doesn't require any bad-faith, and happens far too often in any case - often time just as a natural consequence of what the Dramaboard is), and that being on opposing sides of a dispute does not give anyone (read "no exceptions") the right to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    No, I am not aware of any previous dispute. However, if one were to accuse someone of being the sock of a globally banned LTA because you were in dispute with them, and not because you genuinely believed that they were such a sock, I would most consider that to be bad faith editing of the worst kind. That seems to be what you are saying is happening here - have I misunderstood you? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Oh, well, in that case, without the context, the confusion might be understandable. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#NSPORTS_closure_review and related threads. I still find it an uncannily convenient coincidence that this thread was opened at this time in light of that context... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not sure whether or not I am confused (is that meta-confusion?). Are you, or are you not, suggesting that the person who started this thread has accused BM of being Icewhiz not because they had a good-faith concern that they were the same person, but because they wanted to win a dispute about NSPORTS? I'm not calling on you to agree that the suspicions are well-founded - you're welcome to reject them as a load of old rubbish in your assessment - but you should be clear about what, if anything, you are accusing people of. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    I might be confused myself, but wasn't it just yesterday that the OP was convinced that BM was a sockpuppet of Störm, instead? At least enough to file a SPI complaint to that effect. While we're talking about clarity of accusations. Ravenswing 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'll just note that the CIR stuff about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi is patent nonsense (and, on top of that, the article was indeed deleted for failing WP:NOT, so...). That obviously puts this into perspective. I guess BM might have been a bit abrasive in their recent actions, but looks like they have accepted some of it needs to change. Disagreeing over the technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not CIR; and taking the literal wording of something and ignoring the spirit of it is not recommended either (much less so when used to argue somebody else is incompetent), but that's another issue.
• As to the "deletionist" issue with Lugnuts, BM wouldn't be the first person to have a fundamental disagreement over this with Lugnuts and some other editors. The inclusionist vs deletionist debate is not something that's going to be resolved by dumping bad epithets on others at the Dramaboard, anyways. Unless there's any substance to the SPI complaints (and, frankly, given the whole context of what preceded, and the fact the one which has gone ahead so far did not find any evidence to support this, I wouldn't have much confidence in that), this should probably be closed with no action, and, along with the existing notice to BM to be less irritating about what they have been doing so far (since being right does not give one the right to be annoying about it), a reminder to the OP what CIR is and isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oh good grief. Listen. I've had a clash or two with BilledMammal myself. But this is absurd. There's not only nothing sinister with getting into it with Lugnuts, enough editors have had enough issues with Lugnuts for him to be brought up before ANI on multiple occasions, leading ultimately to him being community sanctioned. (What, is the OP going to go after every other editor involved in that as well?) There's not only nothing sinister about being knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works 7500 edits in, I rather wish all newbies studied their brief. Nor is there anything sinister about the majority of an editor's edits being elsewhere than mainspace -- that can be said of quite a few productive editors.

  And shall we turn this interesting line of scrutiny onto the OP? No Great Shaker's third edit had the edit summary of " modified this section to remove unsourced material." Is he seriously claiming to have mastered the need for sourcing, three edits and 34 minutes into editing Wikipedia for the first time? On his first edit, he added a citation, and used the proper template to do that! He spent his whole first day on Wikipedia updating citations, fixing broken links ... and the next day he was correcting an edit filter and chatting up other users! How did he know how to do those things, that early, if he wasn't a sock himself? And if BM Knows Too Much for having only been on Wikipedia since April of 2019, then surely No Great Shaker Knows Too Much as well, for having created his account a mere two months before BM. Is that how the OP wants to play it?

  Honestly, this is utter bullshit. That complaint is a heap of "isn't that strange?" on a repeating loop that just supports the contention of the editors above who feel this is more vendetta against a philosophic opponent than the presentation of a policy-violating complaint, and my feeling isn't assuaged by No Great Shaker launching yet another SPI complaint on top of the failed attempt he filed yesterday. Until and unless the OP comes up with solid evidence that BM has violated policy, backed by solid diffs and not innuendo (either from him or any other editor), I oppose any sanctions against BM. Ravenswing 15:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I'm quite at ease with scrutiny and it's only fair that I should be investigated too, if I'm prepared to open SPIs about others. Not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Would you be happy about it, yourself?

Anyway, I've never made any secret of the fact that I edited WP as an IP for about 14/15 years before I finally opened an account. Information about my earliest edits used to be a fun piece on my userpage (I'll restore if you like). I opened the account soon after I retired from full-time employment – until then, I'd been too busy and could only edit occasionally. I knew HTML/XML through work because I had a phase of web development and wiki-markup was never a problem. I'm afraid your three edits and 34 minutes is well short of the actual figures. I remember inline citations being introduced (ages ago) and I decided that I would use them so I read WP:CITE and learned how. I don't recall the edit filter thing but I obviously followed a link and filled out the form. I see my edit was accepted, so all good. As for "chatting up other users", it looks as if two guys had helped me and I thanked them. Everything else I did in the first few days seems to be mainspace editing, with which I was already familiar. I do remember I decided to improve Bury F.C. as a starter project, as I had much more time for the site, and I was interested in the 10th millennium BC then too.

I think, though, that you'll find it was a long time before I became bold enough to venture into AfD and ANI and suchlike because I didn't have the confidence. I remember going to the WP:TH about that peer review I requested and, again, I have professional experience of reviewing so why should I worry about that?

The point about BM, by contrast, is that he plunged straight into AfD twice in his first 30 edits and I think that takes some doing even if you have been an IP for a long time, so I think an SPI for him is fair enough and others evidently agree. If BM isn't a SOCK, I will apologise to him – as I did to another editor last week who was not guilty. Okay?

If you want to ask me anything about my early WP career, please go ahead. Not a problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of unrelated fact, I edited Wikipedia as an IP for a while, and even participated in some AfDs. That some editor might have been seemingly experienced from their "first" few edits does not make them a sock. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not unrelated and it's a fair comment. In fact, I just looked at your first edit and you mention it there: you were an IP for four years. Unlike you, though, I never took part in any discussions except occasional questions on article talk pages and user talk pages, so I wasn't familiar with AfD and whatnot when I opened the account. As I said above, if BM isn't a sock, I will apologise as I did with the other person last week.

Anyway, I think this ANI should be postponed while the SPI goes ahead. What do you think? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

In similar fashion, I edited as an IP for several months before I created an account. But that being said, I think you should worry less about apologizing yet again for a false socking accusation (if that's how it spins out), and more about whether you ought to enjoy the privilege of filing SPI complaints at all. Filing one in the first place is serious business, and editors who are trying to run other editors out of Wikipedia altogether damn well better have some strong evidence to do so. What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints. Ravenswing 17:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I jumped into AfDs very soon after starting to edit regularly, and this probably would've raised some flags if my account wasn't so old. However I also spent ~3 days reading all the relevant guidelines as well as hundreds of the most recent contentious (10kb+) AfDs on academics and athletes before participating myself. It's pretty insulting to assume every new editor who appears familiar with AfD is a sock. JoelleJay (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to copy a part of a comment made by Ravenswing at the second SPI filing. I'm not alone in feeling that this complaint involves a great deal of innuendo, largely without merit or evidence. Especially given the prior failed investigation and the ANI complaint, it seems that the OP and his cadre are looking for some excuse, any excuse, to run BilledMammal out of town. I agree with what Ravenswing has said here. At the moment this feels like a witchhunt to remove BM. This case has now involved two sock puppet investigations, this thread at ANI, as well as some spill over into this thread at AN. If this SPI fails, what will happen next? I realise I may be jumping the gun here, and I'll be happy to retract this if the second SPI is actioned and it is found that BilledMammal is a sock, but given all of what I've just said, I strongly suggest some sort of WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against No Great Shaker. At a minimum in some form of an IBAN between BilledMammal and Shaker is warranted due to the disruption being caused both here and at SPI, as well as a warning or probation for vexatious SPI and ANI filings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see any clear evidence for sock puppetry here, and the attack seems to largely be built around objecting to behaviors that are clearly not sanction worthy. There is a less confrontational way to address people using wording in AfD nominations that people do not like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment So there have been two failed attempts to prove this editor is a sock pupper of someone else. That looks to me like behavior that borders on harassment. Going around and falsely accusing an editor of being other editors who are banned. That seems to me to be one of the cases of truly problematic behavior occuring here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• My quote above to No Great Shaker: "What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints." I trust that the apology he has indicated he is prepared to make will immediately be forthcoming. I also trust that he will withdraw this ANI immediately, and that he backs off of any further action against BilledMammal, and I trust that he realizes the likelihood of such BOOMERANG sanctions as Sideswipe9th if there's any hesitation or backsliding here. Enough is bloody well enough. Ravenswing 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  No Great Shaker apologized to BilledMammal hours ago.[45] Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  ... and a pretty damn wishy-washy "apology" it was. "The SPI has closed in your favour so, as promised at ANI, I apologise for the inconvenience you were caused by it. I felt justified because of the circumstances of your evident AFD knowledge, which strongly suggested prior experience. I suggest you put something on your user page to explain past IP editing, etc." After an ANI complaint long on innuendo and two SPI filings, self-justifications and suggestions on how BM should shape up were in no wise called for, never mind it being one of those "I'm sorry if anything happened that may have etc" non-apologies. Given that, I'd support Sideswipe9th's recommendation of No Great Shaker being put under an interaction ban with BM, as well as a tban against filing any more SPIs. Ravenswing 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just to make it clearer/easier to navigate, should the boomerang suggestion be put into its own subsection? At the moment it's somewhat hidden in this arbitrary break. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I think that would be a good idea, but keep in mind it also gives more opportunity for editors to disagree with this suggestion, as I will. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've got no issue with editors agreeing or disagreeing. From my perspective, I just want there to be less ongoing disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints I don't think this is particularly fair... The evidence that BM may have been a sock of Störm was, at first, circumstantially interesting if not plausible. But the IP differences, deeper analysis, etc. that were all triggered by the SPI, showed it was clearly not the case. I would posit to you that this was a case of SPI working correctly, and the original investigation was worth considering and gathering broader input on. In the contrapositive, do you think that the only SPIs that are filed should be absolutely incontrovertible 100% obvious slam dunks? This would cause us to miss an awful lot of sock masters. And, besides, these cases actually bolster BM's position on the wiki since they've failed. It makes it less likely that any subsequent SPI against BM would succeed. Is this not a good thing for BM? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I think it is entirely fair. What a good thing for BM would be is not to be subject to vendettas because people don't like his activism in NSPORTS criteria. I am quite comfortable with characterizing filing an ANI complaint and two SPI complaints (naming two different sockmasters) within two days as a vendetta. Should SPI complaints always be slam dunks? Obviously not. But they shouldn't be fishing expeditions either, and it's troubling that you neither see that, nor hesitate to defend the practice. Do you get that the only action of the anti-BM editors consonant with good faith, at this stage, is to humbly apologize and drop the damn stick? Ravenswing 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  But they shouldn't be fishing expeditions either, and it's troubling that you neither see that, nor hesitate to defend the practice
  What do you call this statement I made above, if not precisely this?
  Totally support an WP:SPI. But it needs to be carefully examined. Any witch-hunt like process which prematurely blocks BM would only further serve Icewhiz's intent to disrupt the wiki
  Please refrain from assuming my position on things, and particularly assuming I am a rabid anti-BM editor, as I am not. I was supportive of considering the SPI, but ultimately if given the chance to add to it before it closed, I would have said the evidence was too thin for any action, which is also exactly what I said when given the chance to add my comments in the Storm SPI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  ... in which case, I presume you're about to retract your call for BM to be temporarily blocked, as you advocated uptopic? Ravenswing 04:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am, as far as I know, allowed to support a temp block for disruptive behavior but oppose a sock block. Please advise if you know of a policy which forbids this. I am not in the business of changing my position just because it is not popular. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose regarding the sockpuppet claims, for now, unless there is some actual non-circumstantial evidence. I think there are some nuggets that there may be some involvement, such as what the IP editor posted way above regarding the editing of Israel-Palestine articles right after getting 500, but this is all circumstantial. It is definitely something to keep an eye on; however, obviously don't Wiki-stalk BM. Neutral regarding the claims of disruptive editing; I have no opinion on this, but it is simple in that if administrators feel that BM has partaken in DE, he should be blocked, with that period ranging from no less than 1 week to no mroe than 1 month. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions for BilledMammal. I have looked at the evidence presented and there just isn't anything there that justifies sanctions. Maybe a reminder in the closing comments about certain behaviors (a reminder, not a warning), but no more than that. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose- if you're against filling the encyclopedia with microstub "biographies" based on spreadsheet data you can expect the defenders of such gunk to try to purge you from the encyclopedia eventually. It's just one of those things. Here's what it looked like when they tried it with me. It never works, and it cannot be taken seriously. Reyk _YO! 21:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang sanctions for No Great Shaker

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

---

Proposals: Interaction ban between No Great Shaker and BilledMammal. Topic ban for No Great Shaker from filing Sock Puppet Investigations.

• Support IBAN as proposer. Undecided on TBAN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Note. I'm undecided on the TBAN proposal. I've included it here as it was proposed above by Ravenswing, and I'm open to being convinced on it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral on IBAN, as I think a two-way might actually be good for the wiki, but also onerous. Opposed on any SPI TBAN. While I agree that filing repeated SPIs is a bad thing, we have no indication that these SPIs were made in bad faith. The second one was spurned on by multiple multiple other editors, several of whom are admins and more familiar with IceWhiz than most, and more cautious than most. However, when it became clear evidence-wise that these SPIs were likely going to fail, No Great Shaker did not pursue them to the ends of the earth, did not fight any closes, did not dispute that the evidence was circumstantial. Rather, they apologized and moved on. As we all should as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral on IBAN, Opposed to SPI TBAN. I agree, it's not a good look, but NGS has been warned, and if there's another insufficiently sourced accusation, the remedy would be clear to all, I think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both SPI TBAN per above; RE: the IBAN, there doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment that an IBAN would solve; these two users aren't disputing content and there is no indication that they are going to murder each other if they interact. As an alternative, it would be in order to require NGS to state that he will not WP:WIKIHOUND BM, in exchange for no IBAN. Secondly, a reprimand against NGS would be in order, for bringing allegations with little merit against an editor in-(relatively)-good-standing. Curbon7 (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comments. This a complete over-reaction by Sideswipe9th and I'm grateful to Shibbolethink for applying some perspective and to Dumuzid and Curbon7 for their sensible assessments of the matter. I had good reason to believe BM was a SOCK based on the reasonings I've given above and the flooding of AfD, apparently aimed at articles created by Lugnuts, seemed to be a repeat of Störm's activity. I probably should have stepped aside from the IceWhiz issue but, as Shibbolethink says, others were involved and I thought it was incumbent upon me, as OP, to take it forward. I think, looking at the whole ANI case, that someone should be asking questions about all the bad faith accusations levelled at me and the continuing (and off-topic) attacks on Lugnuts.

Anyway, I will happily agree to any IBAN which is required because I do not like having to communicate with people I don't respect. Further, I will self-impose a TBAN upon myself with regard to SPI and ANI, unless someone pings me with an invitation to take part.

As for BM, I suggest a TBAN from AfD and, as User:Guy Macon suggested above, a temporary block for DE at the GSoW issue.

I'm now moving on. Ping me if you want me for anything. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral on IBAN, Opposed to SPI ban. I'd be in favor of a formal warning to NGS about filing vexatious SPI reports, but I think there's very little benefit to any sanctions based on how both NGS and BM have conducted themselves. It's best if we let this fizzle out and just chalk it up to wikistress. The above response isn't super encouraging to be honest but I think it's best to go with a warning first and then a ban if the issue continues. Also, not everyone that is a deletionist is a sock of Storm. There is wide community consensus that Lugnuts has engaged in creating an extraordinary number of non-notable permastubs. That doesn't excuse any PAs against them, but it also means that someone nominating a series of Lugnuts articles for deletion is about what you'd expect from a deletionist. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just to correct your mistake - they were all notable at the time of creation, with some of the notability requirements being changed at a later point in time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  That may be the case, Lugnuts, and I hope my message did not read passive-aggressively towards you. My point is that now, and from what I can tell at time of nomination by BM, those articles are/were not notable. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's definitely not true that they were all notable beforehand; they met sport-specific guideline criteria which presume GNG notability but failed to actually meet GNG as required by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  For the intents and purposes of article creation, passing an SNG is good enough a claim to notability. It may not hold at AFD's, but it's definitely enough to justify article creations, even if they're made in mass (see for example the geo permastub issue). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - to TP, IB or any sanction to be set on the account with a clean block record unless prior serious warnings (I'm not aware of) are revealed. Warn first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions on NGS and BM at this time. The latter SPI case was filed when multiple other editors also raised comments about the possibilty of BM's account/edits mirroring that of another. The result of that case is/was inconclusive. I suggest this whole thing gets closed down before it becomes yet another time-sink for everyone. Maybe someone who has greater experience in making SPI reports could share their knowledge with NGS? As someone who gets picked up on personal attacks, it's a shame to see others going down that route. I wonder if I would have gotten off lightly if I had gone for the "net negative" or "ad Hitlerum" ad hominems. Anyway, we've all got better things to do than waste more volunteer time, right? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, Lugnuts for you usual common sense approach.

Thank you to you too, GizzyCatBella. By the way, I just popped into our bedroom and, guess what, our cat is fast asleep in the middle of the bed!! No Great Shaker (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose both The community needs to impose measures to protect the project from recalcitrant editors, those who refuse to acknowledge concerns about their editing behavior and refuse to modify their behavior. That is not the case here. Schazjmd (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support strong warning - I was on the fence but after seeing this posted on Ravenswing's talk page this morning, it's clear that NGS just doesn't get it and is persisting in labelling anyone who disagrees with them as overreacting, unproductive, disruptive, etc. There seems to be a WP:BATTLE mentality here, along with a tendency to view everything as a personal vendetta. Some self-reflection is certainly in order; practically everything that NGS has accused others of, applies equally to themselves. The best advice I can offer them would be their own words: "I could place any number of interpretations upon it but I'll simply suggest you calm down, get things into perspective and do something useful instead. Having looked at some of your work, I can see you are a good editor. So, stop ranting and get on with your work."

I'd like to hear BilledMammal's opinion, but an iban seems unnecessary and would complicate matters between editors who are active in the same area.

I would, however, oppose any SPI-related sanctions since they were encouraged by others to open the second one. A simple reminder that familiarity with Wikipedia's inner workings does not indicate sockpuppetry is sufficient here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously there's no traction for action against NGS, but I'd like this much on record: I don't give props for "they were encouraged by others to open the second one." The immaturity of some of NGS' comments/actions notwithstanding, NGS is ostensibly an adult responsible for his own actions. Over the years, I've taken some actions prompted by other editors. Sometimes that hasn't come out well. But at all times, I've been responsible for my own edits. No one has forced or compelled me to take any action or stance, and if I screw up or fail to do my due diligence, that's on me: no excuses. No one should be filing a sockpuppet investigation as the meatpuppet of another editor/s, suggested or otherwise. Ravenswing 16:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  No one is saying here that NGS isn't responsible for their own actions. I believe the point in bringing up the fact that others spurned on their SPI is that it was, at the time, not all that inadvisable. It was made in good faith and from a perspective that was a reasonable time to investigate. It just didn't end up holding water. This is the system working as it should. We should not call an SPI a bad SPI just because it failed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tell you that basically all of us should WP:DROPTHESTICK and follow that advice, as nothing here is actionable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that an IBAN seems unnecessary; the issue doesn't seem to be chronic or intractable yet. Like A. C. Santacruz some of No Great Shakers recent actions do not convince me that this won't become a larger issue - in particular, the implication that they have no intention to drop the stick with the edit summary "if at first..... [you don't succeed, try, try again"] in reference to the opening of the ANI report after the failure of the first SPI and before the opening of the second SPI, as well as failing to drop the stick with their proposal in this section for a TBAN from AfD for me, and their recent spree of responding to every AFD that I had opened that were not yet closed. However, that doesn't mean they won't drop the stick in the future, or that there will be an issue with hounding, and as I would also prefer to not be under an IBAN I am willing to take that risk. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note my concerns about a lack of consensus and impending time sink remain, but per request on my Talk, undoing my close to let this run longer. Star Mississippi 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate Star promptly agreeing to my request to re-open this, and I will post some diffs tomorrow (well, later today UTC time). Levivich 03:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose SPI ban. The SPI team can and will instruct users to improve their conduct at SPI or to stop filing SPIs altogether, if needed. No need for AN/I to decide on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both as premature. Sometimes we get a little too ban-happy around here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support strong warning I think it needs to be emphasised that this was a really bad pair of SPIs. NGS concluded BM was Storm because they weren't clueless about WP procedure and were critical of NSPORTS, and after being rebuffed on that concluded BM was Icewhiz because ... they weren't clueless about WP procedure, were critical of NSPORTS, and edited in the I/P area. Not only that, but they thought the Icewhiz case was a clear case of WP:DUCK here and, given the WP:DE and WP:HARRASS reported at ANI, I strongly recommend an indefinite block to settle this matter. NGS' only real defence is that they haven't done this before, and were egged on by some other editors who should have known better. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support warning. TLDR: I do not think the SPIs or this ANIs were brought in good faith, nor that NGS has "taken on board" what they should, based on what happened before, during, and after, the filing of the SPIs and this ANI (diff'd in detail below). I don't support a tban or iban only because I think everyone should get a warning first. But I think the community should issue that warning now. There's a lot of background:

Diffs, quotes, commentary

In February 2022, BM proposed a sanction against Lugnuts that gained consensus, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Proposal to restrict cosmetic edits (Special:Diff/1069762788). NGS opposed, vociferously, referring to the whole thread as a "witch hunt", etc. Several editors (including myself) commented that NGS's participation in that thread was uncivil and that they should absent themselves from the discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#User:NoGreatShaker and personal attacks/aspersions casting). At the NSPORTS RFC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, NGS, GiantSnowman, and Lugnuts (and others) have a number of arguments with BilledMammal. They are so many that I'm not sure what to diff, and there are no easy subsections to link to, but I trust no one will disagree with this characterization of the interaction between BM and others during that RFC. Let me know if someone wants diffs. In the beginning of March, WikiProject Football had this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Operating without WP:NFOOTBALL, where the OP, (Govvy), writes, "Go and have a look at WP:NSPORT, BilledMammal is systematically destroying it if you ask me! ". (Special:Diff/1075722640) In that discussion, GiantSnowman writes, "From what I can see, BilledMammal's edits - and they are heavily INVOLVED anyway - have been reverted? NFOOTBALL still exists. Also, a side note - if you didn't participate and try and make the case for NFOOTBALL, then don't f***ing moan about it." (Special:Diff/1076180634) GiantSnowman writes that he reverted BM's edits at WP:NSPORTS (Special:Diff/1076180967, Special:Diff/1076181780) Number 57 writes: "Unfortunately this whole exercise has been carried out because a small group of editors are very unhappy that there are far more people who want to write about sportspeople than there are who are interested in others, and rather than encouraging more articles on politicians etc, they've decided to try and reduce the amount of sportspeople biographies." (Special:Diff/1075784144) N57 argues the recent RFC didn't have consensus and should be reviewed (Special:Diff/1076175323) Lugnuts writes, "Not to mention that the main two editors re-writing and trimming WP:NSPORT were both big supporters of ditching most of it at the RfC. Still, we've got plenty of articles about moths that someone made a single note of in 1831 to pass WP:GNG, so everyone is a winner, right?" (Special:Diff/1075787185) and, about post-RFC AFDs, "Jesus wept. Talk about not wanting to WP:DROPTHESTICK." On March 19, NGS conferred with Lugnuts about the possiblity of filing an SPI against BM, based on Storm or someone else as the master: Special:Diff/1078109546. March 20, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm An SPI that results in "unrelated" or "no action", etc., is not necessarily a "bad" SPI that shouldn't have been filed, but this one was a bad SPI that shouldn't have been filed. Each of these is a terrible reason to accuse someone of socking: Competence in early editing: First edit "was a new article, created in one edit and displaying instant knowledge of drafting, image parms, linkage, ref name, cite news, cite web, citation parameters, article structure, heading formats, and reflist" "In those first 31 edits, he twice opened AfD cases and knew exactly how to go about it." "He even knew how to include the case in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions" "he apparently performed a BEFORE and knew which deletion discussions would be interested" Mainspace %: "over 7,500 edits have been done but only a mere 29% of them are mainspace" Hanging out in the back room: "this editor spends so much time in forums and the like where, despite his apparent lack of experience, he has such a lot to say about policies, guidelines, procedures and so on" Policy knowledge: "displayed familiarity with WP:CORP, WP:BEFORE, WP:SIGCOV and WP:PRIMARY" "he cites WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, writing with confidence about whether the subject qualifies for the latter" Being a deletionist: "he has been using AfD and other forums in the same way as Störm did – i.e., as a deletionist" Referring to edits/events prior to account creation: "It seems incongruous that BilledMammal is referring to something in 2020, a year in which he did not make one single edit. Störm did, of course." In the SPI filing, NGS specifically mentioned Störm's and BM's disputes with Lugnuts: "it's clear that [Storm] was an extremely disruptive editor as can be seen from the various comments made by ... Lugnuts" "It seems very strange to me that someone with only 7,500 edits can claim to be so much more competent than someone with well over 1 million edits." "An example of BilledMammal's animosity towards Lugnuts is this proposal at ANI on 3 February. Remember that this is someone with relatively few edits and, of those, only 29% are in mainspace (WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE?) running the rule over someone who is one of the main builders of the encyclopaedia." Then there are the contradictory reasons: "I find it strange that someone who was so obviously comfortable with AfD and other WP concepts had never heard of ANI" "it is very strange that someone so well-versed in AfD and other site concepts should have such difficulty with ANI and finding useful guides." "BilledMammal appears to have stayed clear of sport until posting this revert on 22 January this year..." "...despite his supposed inexperience, was talking throughout as if it was anything but new to him..." "How can an inexperienced editor know so much that they could even consider making such a proposal?" (The "inexperience" is 3 years, 7,500 edits.) "I opened my account only a couple of months before BilledMammal and have done over 50,000 edits, which means I am considerably more experienced than he is through the same timespan..." The next few paragraphs of the SPI report are accusing BM of various types of disruption: harassment, CIR, GAMING, etc. "Another CIR issue has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi where BilledMammal has used WP:NOTDATABASE as his primary reason to delete the article." (That AFD resulted in "delete". The only two editors to !vote "keep" were Lugnuts, who created the article, and NGS.) In that AFD, NGS says "If the nominator does not understand the purpose of the site's policies and guidelines, how can their flood of nominations be justified?" (so BM does, or does not, have knowledge of policy?) "If the checkuser should be negative, then I contend that BilledMammal should be blocked indefinitely for persistent WP:DE and especially for WP:HARRASS." Lugnuts says, ""...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. Thank you for doing the extra analysis here too." (Special:Diff/1078266789) This SPI was processed very quickly, even NGS noted "I broke off to have tea and watch the Forest v Liverpool cup tie and it's all done!" That's a sign it wasn't a tough call. The end result: CU came back "unrelated", behavior analysis came back "I'm confident BM is not them", and Masz "draws a blank on this pair of accounts." NGS posts on BM's page (Special:Diff/1078296182): "The SPI was negative and I've apologised to Störm for barking up the wrong tree ..." but no apology to BM. Instead: "Just letting you know that I will be taking the case to ANI, per advice given at the SPI, and I will present you with a formal notification when that is done." Later on March 20, this ANI is posted (#BilledMammal), which is essentially the same report as the SPI, and it's bad for all the same reasons. About 12 hours after the ANI is posted, on March 21 10:30, an IP, in its one and only edit, suggests "Lodge the complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz" (Special:Diff/1078394270). Within an hour, N57 posts that it's a good idea (Special:Diff/1078399138) and GS suggests re-visiting the NSPORTS RFC if BM is a sock (Special:Diff/1078399384, Special:Diff/1078400047). The second SPI is opened at 15:31: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#21 March 2022 This SPI was even worse than the first, but thankfully it was shorter. "Earlier today, [513] a new sub-section was opened at the ANI which advised us to name Icewhiz as the sock master." "It would seem that we have a clear case of WP:DUCK here and, given the WP:DE and WP:HARRASS reported at ANI, I strongly recommend an indefinite block to settle this matter." N57 says "Personally I have suspected this for a while. When this editor first came onto my radar, I checked their early contributions, and like many Icewhiz socks, they make a load of minor edits (in this case, 244 edits/moves of Ethiopian districts on 3 July 2021[514][515]) to cross the 500 edit threshold and then jump into editing an Israel/Palestine-related article (559th edit)." (a complete article in their first edit is apparently not part of a "load of minor edits") "The relentlessness in various discussions is also reminiscent of Icewhiz, an editor who would never drop the stick..." (like opening two SPIs and an ANI?) The second SPI was closed even faster than the first SPI, with the comment "Timecard doesn't match. Editor interaction is unconvincing. This whole SPI was triggered by an IP who has made exactly one edit (to ANI) and their range has zero edits to projectspace before that, which I file under "generally suspicious". Not everyone in this damned topic area is Icewhiz, folks." Then there is NGS's blame-shifting non-apology to BM, still suggesting that BM did something wrong by not making some kind of disclosure (Special:Diff/1078473167): The SPI has closed in your favour so, as promised at ANI, I apologise for the inconvenience you were caused by it. I felt justified because of the circumstances of your evident AFD knowledge, which strongly suggested prior experience. I suggest you put something on your user page to explain past IP editing, etc. On March 22 (yesterday), NGS posts in a bunch of AFDs started by BM: Special:Diff/1078404721, Special:Diff/1078602087, Special:Diff/1078602472, Special:Diff/1078602731, Special:Diff/1078619474, Special:Diff/1078619873 These two SPIs aren't NGS's only bad SPIs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/256Drg. Here is another blame-shifting non-apology from NGS to the editor they accused, Success think: Special:Diff/1078001415. NGS goes so far as to try and claim that the SPI was a good thing for Success think: "Apologies again for the SPI but it is always as well to be sure about such things and it does mean you have a clean slate if anyone else should suspect you of anything." In the Success think "apology", NGS writes "I've seen the outcome of the SPI and I'm satisfied that the investigation found no wrongdoing on your part." So why isn't NGS satisfied that the investigation into BM found no wrongdoing on BM's part? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#03 March 2022 - No bill against Flybd5. NGS writes, (Special:Diff/1075219921). "LOL! Oh, dearie me. I'll wait for completion of the SPI and then off we go to ANI." The ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Flybd5, went nowhere. Flybd5 apparently quit Wikipedia thereafter (Special:Diff/1075489374) and hasn't edited since. NGS has posted a lot of SPIs: some resulted in blocks, but most did not. Looking through NGS's last 1,000 projectspace contribs, I found, in addition to the ones I've already discussed here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. In this thread, NGS's writes, "I had good reason to believe BM was a SOCK ... As for BM, I suggest a TBAN from AfD and ... a temporary block for DE at the GSoW issue ... I'm now moving on." Then they posted a message at Ravenswing's talk page, which speaks for itself: Special:Diff/1078579634.

I believe the above supports a warning against NGS, for reasons explained by other editors supporting a warning above. I also think N57, GS, and Lugnuts should be "reminded" about, as others said above, not "egging" NGS on, about what makes a good SPI, and about battleground behaviors (like not using a conduct accusation against an editor as a reason to try and reopen an RFC). Levivich 18:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping with apologies to @Lugnuts and @GiantSnowman, who I neglected to ping in my post. Levivich 18:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've not "egged" anyone to make an SPI report. Maybe you should be "reminded" to supply evidence of making a conduct accusation... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. "...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. Thank you for doing the extra analysis here too. Special:Diff/1078266789. Sorry, I misquoted it in my initial post (but the diff was correct). This is what I refer to as "egging" NGS on. YMMV. Levivich 19:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, those are more thoughts AFTER an SPI case was raised (infact during said SPI). Quite different to "egg" someone on to make an SPI case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Levivich - at what point have I 'egged' anybody on? I always spoke about ifs', never made any accusations, never encouraged any form of behaviour. I believe I made a whole TWO comments on this subject, both here at ANI (one saying "If BM is a sock" and one following that up), and ignored the SPI... GiantSnowman 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think that would be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Boomerang sanctions applied to people is just another way to wiki-bully. I have no respect for admin that do that. I am only here because my name was ping'ed at ANI. All this talk at ANI which I just read through is taxing, I don't see how this ANI is going to accomplish the deeper issues at play. Nothing was helpful, not one core issue resolved. If anything this whole conversation is just muddying the waters. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both - NGS gave reasonable grounds for his actions and, unlike many editors, has not hesitated to drop the stick when appropriate. Despite the whingeing from BM stans, no-one benefits from a environment where editors are afraid to raise legitimate questions in case they're sanctioned themselves. Ingratis (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "whingeing from BM stans" is a very inappropriate way to address other people. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Noted.Ingratis (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral on the interaction ban, Support topic ban on SPI and calling or implying that people are sockpuppets, broadly construed. People may not have quite realised just how often No Great Shaker yells "SOCK!!1!" at people just for saying things he doesn't like. Aside from the previous "I'm sure BilledMammal must be a sock of Storm! No wait, he must be a sock of Icewhiz" fishing expedition we also have
  • SOCK!!
  • SOOOOCCCKKKK!!!!
• Reyk _YO! 04:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support temporary interaction ban, for the benefit of both parties as well as the rest of the community. I believe User:No Great Shaker is genuinely doing his best, and I don't see this as a boomerang at all. I would prefer him to lay off the SPI accusations voluntarily. After many years as an admin, I remain reluctant to raise them myself. Deb (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Deb, what would be the purpose of an iban imposed on BilledMammal? None of the supposed harassment etc was directed toward No Great Shaker, and there doesn't seem to be an ongoing conflict between the two aside from NGS bringing this to ANI. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any punishment / restriction related to the SPI. It was a bad SPI, but it's important to recognize that SPI is not like AE or ANI (where issues are subjective enough that someone can hope to get some result even with a weak case.) It's a very binary question, so if someone isn't a sock, nothing will be accomplished by taking them to SPI. Because of that, there's less risk of it being misused; and it's important that people not be afraid to bring suspicions to SPI so more experienced people can look into them. At the same time, experienced sockpuppetiers are going to take extensive efforts to hide themselves. Punishing people for SPIs should therefore only be even open to consideration when there is unequivocal bad faith (ie. it is completely clear that someone has brought something to SPI that they, themselves, do not believe - simply letting their distaste for an editor cloud their judgment isn't enough), or when someone is so repeatedly and consistently bad at determining when to bring something to SPI that it forms an obvious pattern and raises WP:COMPETENCE issues that need to be dealt with to avoid clogging the system. Even the suggestion of punishing someone for something like has a potential for a chilling effect where people would be unwilling to bring serious suspicions to SPI in the future, and needs to be shot down hard. --Aquillion (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on ANI, or anywhere on WP for that matter. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm supposed to have moved on (again), but I too must compliment Aquillion on a brilliant assessment of this issue which, because of those editors who are lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, has been allowed to go straight through the bottom of the barrel. Thanks also to ScottishFinnishRadish for closing. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I had dropped this and moved on but I think I'm entitled to address some of the prevarication I'm seeing above. If certain people are so assiduous in digging up my past visits to SPI, they might also mention User:SallyWho, User:256Drg, User:Proudhindu256 and one or two more whose names I forget. Even if they are justified in talking about failed cases only, they should include User:Success think only a week or so ago – as you see, I've nothing to hide. I'll hold my hand up if I make a mistake because, unlike some, I admit I'm not perfect. They should also READ the cases they have found and present the full story instead of behaving like an "investigative reporter" for some tabloid and presenting only one small part of it.

As Deb kindly said just above: I believe (he) is genuinely doing his best and I would prefer him to lay off the SPI accusations voluntarily. In my last post here on the 22nd, I said: I will self-impose a TBAN upon myself with regard to SPI and ANI, unless someone pings me with an invitation to take part. As Dlthewave rightly points out, there is no ongoing conflict other than this ANI.

I don't give two hoots about the stuff which Levivich has said above about me (water off the duck's back because it's nearly all bullshit), but I am annoyed that he has made bad faith insinuations against GiantSnowman, Lugnuts and Number 57. Is he going to apologise to them in the same way that I have already apologised to BM, Storm and Successthink? No, I don't suppose he will.

As for BM, I explained my case at the Storm SPI and others obviously thought he should be investigated, even if I was out by the width of the Indian Ocean. My case had nothing at all to do with NSPORTS and I don't think I mentioned that once (correct me if I'm wrong). My concerns were rightly based on excessive AfDs, especially of articles created by Lugnuts. SPI is an investigation and, if the accused is not guilty, then they've got a clean slate and we can all move on. But, there are people here who wish to make a WP:POINT and drag the thing on and on and on. To read some of their statements above, they appear to think we should close ANI and SPI down because it's apparently WRONG to raise the sort of concerns that these forums were designed for.

I will just say one thing to BilledMammal in answer to your post yesterday evening. You claim that I have carried out a recent spree of responding to every AFD that (you) had opened that were not yet closed. Perhaps all of yours were among them, but I think you'll find that the majority of the AfDs I've visited in recent days were raised by JohnPackLambert and many by other editors. Also, I'm by no means new to AfD and I've even recommended deletion of some articles this week.

So, having said that, I'm now moving on as I tried to do before. Thank you again to the people I've already sent notifications to. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Further discussion of No Great Shaker's behavior

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

---

• I think it's fair to note that soon after reopening the discussion to make this comment posting this comment stating that there's no ongoing conflict with BM, volunteering a SPI TBAN and telling us that he's moving on, No Great Shaker posted a reply on their talk page that personally attacked two editors who had commented here and solicited an invitation to help with Lugnuts' investigation into whom BilledMammal's "sockmaster" may be. The personal attack speaks for itself and the SPI offer violates NGS' self-imposed SPI TBAN as well as their professed intent to move on. –dlthewave ☎ 01:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)correction, NGS did not reopen the discussion –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You need to check the timestamps again. That giant comment was written before ScottishFinnishRadish started closing. The only edit No Great Shaker made after the close was this compliment to Aquillion. No Great Shaker didn't "reopen" anything. I suggest you put the comment back where it came from and make a new sub-section heading to discuss new behavior. Modulus12 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, thank you for pointing that out. I've corrected the error. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Modulus12, for your help with this.

Looks as if dlthewave might have a WP:CIR issue if they can't read timestamps properly. They also need to learn something about talk page etiquette. If anyone wants me to add, amend or remove anything in my own talk page, I expect to receive a polite request – not wanton interference. 99% of the time, I do comply with polite requests. The comment on my page was an expression of frustration with what I see as block-headed stupidity on the part of certain people who cannot accept that ANI and SPI are here for a purpose and I used them as I saw fit in accordance with those purposes. Investigations can be negative or positive (nature of the beast) but when someone initiates an investigation, they generally do so for a good reason. My detractors seem to believe I was motivated by the outcome of the discussion about NSPORTS earlier this year but I never mentioned that at all and made clear that my concern was with excessive raising of AfD cases. As far as a handful of certain people are concerned, I might as well talk to a brick wall.

As regards Lugnuts' information (NOT invitation), I will offer help to anyone I respect who needs help. The wording of my "self-imposed TBAN" is I will self-impose a TBAN upon myself with regard to SPI and ANI, unless someone pings me with an invitation to take part. Funny, isn't it, how that last part has been blithely ignored. Let me spell it out. I will NOT raise any SPIs myself but, if someone wants me to help them, I will provide help if I can. If I should spot a blatantly obvious SOCK, I will contact a sysop and ask them to raise the SPI. If they disagree, I will accept their opinion. Is that clear?

I suppose the next accusation will be violation of self-imposed TBAN on ANI.

If there is a sysop somewhere who wants to impose a block on me, then please do it. If there is a sysop somewhere who wants to impose a TBAN or an IBAN or an XBAN on me, then please do it. If there is a sysop somewhere who wants to take me to SPI or the Arbcom or CFD or the Teahouse or wherever, please do it. Whatever any sysop might want to do, I fully accept their right to investigate me.

Just get on with it and get these shit-stirrers off my back. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling others "shit-stirrers" in an ANI thread you opened, after two SPIs you opened failed to get any traction -- wow. --JBL (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring

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

Just a little over a month ago, I had started a discussion regarding the same user, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc. While I had hoped that this could possibly lead to a change in behavior from the editor in question, it appears to be quite the opposite occurring.

Since that previous ANI discussion, there have been many more edit wars/content disputes involving the editor, another ANI discussion involving the editor, and continued assumption of bad faith, the latest time here, right after the warning about casting aspersions about other editors.

All the latest warnings/issues can be found following this thread onwards. Quite frankly, the amount of disputes/issues involving the user in the past month alone is a bit troubling. It appears even when suggested to cool off/take a break from editing, even more issues start to arise. Hoping something can be done at this point, as I have a hunch even more will happen in the future, given the continuing behavior here. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because they involve me doesn’t mean I am the perpetrator. @C.Fred: can attest that I have been directly attacked and antagonized by multiple users. I am sick of the undue antagonism. It doesn’t matter how hard I try to mind my own business or follow the rules, I’m still being put up on the noticeboard. With my luck, I’ll be told my frustrations are invalid. If you’re troubled by my behavior when I’m not the one randomly throwing homophobia accusations, I don’t know what to tell you because then I’ll be accused of being uncivil. The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

While you may not be the primary(?) perpetrator in every case, this continuing behavior is still a problem. Putting aside any personal attacks sent from other users towards you, there are still issues continuing that was brought up in the previous ANI thread, including edit warring. Your comments (including the above, such as, "The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.") is yourself continuing to attempt to remove any blame from yourself whatsoever, and say that every person is against you, which again, is just more bad faith assumption (and possibly assuming good faith onto yourself?...) Not every single issue is to blame on one person alone, but at this point, it's starting to look like you're just trying to cause new issues/disputes. This needs to stop. Magitroopa (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally have two people who have openly stated they’re working against me, and somehow I’m still the problem because I acknowledge that it happened? You are only taking into consideration piecesof the disputes into your reports, continuing to frame me as the problem, and accusing me of trying to cause new disputes? Without any evidence? My comments are 100% factual. You just stated that you’re putting aside the evidence that I’m not the issue in order to insist I’m the issue. How is this in any way a fair assessment? You created another dispute about me to claim that I seek them out. I didn’t ask for this to happen, let alone at 2AM CreecregofLife (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

However, whether you want to believe it or not, you seem to downplaying your involvement with all of this. Even if you didn't start every single issue, you tend to continue them, and then (as you are here) claim to be entirely innocent and accuse bad faith of others, whether they were actually acting in bad faith or not.

And yes, I have seen some attacks against yourself, but I do wish to know if everything you believe to be an attack against you actually is or not. For example, where do you see the personal attack against yourself in this (as you have previously claimed)? Do you mean just the, "...weird stance to take"?... Magitroopa (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Open the collapse. You claim I’m downplaying when I’m describing exactly what goes on. If you didn’t exacerbate my wrongdoing you wouldn’t be accusing me of “downplaying”. You harp on the negative, reframe my involvement as seeking it out, while disregarding every behavioral improvement. Again, you’re not playing fair.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see the collapse, yes, that is clearly put into a collapsible due to the personal attacking. However, you seem to be confusing the two. I am referring to this specific edit from Historyday01, which you claimed to contain a personal attack. Everything in the collapsible happened later on and didn't exist at this point (check the timestamps of the comments). Magitroopa (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Where they accused me of being a corporate shill, basically out of nowhere--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the first thread, I share Magitroopa's concerns. It's clear this editor just doesn't get it, with their continued edit warring and disruptive editing and behavior. They are right on the border of WP:NOTHERE, but, quite frankly, they are probably past it. I would support a block at this point. Amaury • 07:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

How is any of that “clear”? If you only see me for what you perceive to be my disruptions, of course you’re going to see it that way, but your perceptions are wrong, and a block shouldn’t even be in the question--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree that this editor seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, which does not seem to be improving. Though I have doubts that ANI will do anything about it, as that's the usual pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

So what am I to do when multiple users throw personal attacks at me, while several other users disregard it to portray me as the bad guy because I spoke out against them? Sit there and take it? You'd rather put me on the admin noticeboard than actually work with me and try to see things my way. It's very apparent that the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem is not mine. Because you didn't hear my efforts at being a better user, you came in here with old and outdated perceptions to say it's okay for me to be punished for the abuse I've taken, otherwise it's I'm too "combative"--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

When multiple, multiple editors are reporting problems with you, doubling down on "[I am] not the problem, they are" is usually the wrong direction to go in. The fact that you can admit absolutely no fault here really makes me wonder if editing Wikipedia is right for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've only had limited interactions with this editor, but in addition to the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, there's a real WP:CIR issue here as well. Their discussions on sourcing is problematic because of this. This personal attack is just another example as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that this is also partially a WP:CIR issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Define competence if it's such a "real" competence issue. I can't control who has a problem with me. It doesn't make me the problem. Why should I take responsibility for others' perceptions? You keep making judgments about me, tripling down on arguing my character rather than my edits, and I'm not supposed to defend myself? You are making it sound as if it is impossible for you to be wrong and me to be right. On anything. Multiple people can say the same thing and still be wrong. I cannot believe you are blaming me for defending myself, while giving me reason to defend myself, but yet I'm the only one doing anything wrong? If you really had a problem with it, you could've tried to talk to me, with any compassion or understanding, but you refused--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even admit to your edit warring/disruptive behavior means you're still not getting it or are intentionally refusing to. Amaury • 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you won’t even bother listening to any of my concerns or objections means you’re still not getting it or are intentionally refusing to. CreecregofLife (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a hint... the response above is exactly why editors are saying IDHT, BATTLEGROUND and now CIR. Not once in this thread have you made a policy based or really any defense other than they don't like me. I encourage your next response to directly address other editor's concerns without using it's the other editor's fault as a defense.Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, especially when they couldn't even think of something original and basically plagiarized, for lack of a better word, my message, only changing a few of the words. It was most definitely intentional, though, which isn't surprising, since all they've been doing, to piggyback off what you said, is crying, "Poor me! I'm being picked on!" without realizing or refusing to realize that they're the problem, especially when it's clear it's now multiple editors with virtually the same concerns. Amaury • 02:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because you literally just admitted you’re doing it to pick on me, but it’s okay because I didn’t cite what you specifically violated. For that matter, name dropping policies you think I violated isn’t a citation. I specifically asked how my competency could be brought into question, and it was never answered. You also have no evidence that I was being disruptive at the time of the report, because an admin explicitly stated on the talk page that I wasn’t being disruptive. You still have yet to actually explain how I’m the problem. I have done everything you have asked of me, but you won’t acknowledg it. You won’t address any of my concerns, just continue to mock me for acknowledging what’s going on exactly for what it is. And notice, you didn’t say my beliefs were wrong I already pointed out that the incidents being pointed to were taken out of context, such was admitted to, and then the admission was completely ignored. You haven’t proven I’m a disruptive editor, just that you perceive me to be. You are telling me I’m wrong for asking you to listen to me.CreecregofLife (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admitted nothing. All you're doing now is grasping for straws and doubling down on our WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and other concerns. You couldn't even form a proper response in your previous response and just used a copy and paste of what I responded with, changing only a few words. If there was any "mocking" going on, it was that response of yours. There are at least five editors here, including myself, saying your edits are disruptive, or, at the very least, problematic. That is more than just perception. It's reality. If you can't see that, that's on you. Furthermore, all I'm seeing here is that you are still not getting it, and continuing like this means your time on Wikipedia will be limited. This is your second or third time here within the last two months. Amaury • 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Nanedroppig policy isn’t a citation. If you can’t explicitly say how I violated the policy then you don’t have an argument
2. That wasa proper response you chose to dismiss, and you just proved you don’t listen to my concerns, you just treat them as invalid so you can keep up an incompetency narrative
3. It doesn’t matter how many people call me disruptive, they have to have evidence. You can claim something about me but that doesn’t make it true. You calling it reality doesn’t make it reality.
4. I don’t bring myself to the noticeboard, other people do. I have no control over that, and once again, that doesn’t automatically make me the problem.
5. I asked you how the “competency” problem was “clear” and you refused to answer. You are constantly attacking me, and not my argument. Have a little self reflection. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Copying and pasting another editor's response and then changing a few words to use it as your response is not a proper response. Under any other circumstances, that would be copyright infringement. You have yet to address any of our concerns here. And before you provide your crap statement that we haven't addressed yours, the behavior of myself and the other editors here is not what is under scrutiny. It is your behavior. We are not the focus here and are under no obligation to answer your concerns in a thread reporting your disruptive behavior. You, on the other hand, are the "star" of this thread and are required to address concerns raised by other editors. Continuing to play the victim and claim you are perfect and everyone else is the problem because they are "picking on you" is not a valid defense. You have failed and continue to fail to address any of the concerns raised here about your disruptive behavior. Continuing down this route can or will potentially result in disciplinary measures against yourself, and by keeping this up, your time here will again be limited. Consider this my final response here, at least for now. It's obvious you have no plans on changing your behavior and would rather just keep being reported, at least until enough is enough and you end up blocked. Amaury • 07:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, now this. Apparently multiple editors saying there is an issue is now being considered 'mistreated'. Also, "They’ll try to get me for edit warring they haven’t proven"- yet it's already been proven from the multiple times it's happened. You've had multiple talk page warnings regarding this, and the history at articles like Spider-Man: No Way Home, Betty White, Asher Angel, The Fungies!, 2022 in animation, and Pokémon Legends: Arceus clearly shows your edit warring.

Also worth pointing out these two past comments:

• "I see a couple participants are already annoyed." - due to edit warring & talk page of Pokémon Legends: Arceus
• "The phrase 'needlessly combative' seems to apply to both of you." - literally coming from an administrator saying that while warning two users, one of which being Creecreg. How true it was, and still is. And yet, plenty of edit warring/issues occurred afterwards in the past 3 months alone.

So yes, it is clear there is an issue, with the above examples, this entire discussion, a multitude of issues within the past months, and multiple editors saying there is an ongoing problem here. As much as you try to deny it, there still very clearly is an issue here. Magitroopa (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Add this to that list of yours where they've edit warred, which is where I first encountered them myself and about when they first appeared. And even putting my original concerns mentioned in your previous thread on this aside, again, there is clearly an issue here. It simply amazes me that they cannot see that their problematic, at the very least, behavior is the issue here and continue to play the victim and claim that they're just being picked on. Then again. at the same time, it also doesn't amaze me, given all the disruptive users I've come across here. Or, rather, it doesn't surprise me. Like I've said a couple times now, they won't be here for long if they keep this up. Amaury • 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Propose 1 month Siteban for CreecregofLife

User is unable to see that the community has real concerns with their combative tone. They have failed to address any concerns in this thread. Given the extensive WP:IDHT clearly evident in this thread, a timeout is necessary for the sake of the community and to give the editor a chance to reflect. If, when they return, the behavior continues then a longer ban can be implemented

• Support as proposer. I suspect many involved would prefer longer but they are a newish editor and giving them a definitive second chance to return per WP:ROPE seems appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose My actual recent edit history isn’t being considered at all. Proposing blocks and site bans on an actual good user is going to make them defensive. The user defending themselves is not a reason to impose such a ban. To use learning incidents like the Pokémon one against me (how was I supposed to know it was an MOS violation beforehand when the usage was unclear? Spider-Man No Way Home shows what happens when there’s actually good-faith conflict resolution. The Fungies and Gabby Duran are examples where users involved with this post colored their perceptions and are holding grudges. It is not fair to hold a small percentage of my edits against me for minor offenses. I never wanted any conflict, but several of the users here seemed unable to move on from the times they encountered me. I am a good user, but the users claiming IDHT are completely disregarding all the good I’ve done here just so that I have to be forced away from it. Understand that I had not been in an active conflict at the time that I was reported here by Magitroopa. Apparently it doesn’t matter if you walk away and try to do the right thing, it will always be held against me, and that’s not fair at all. Incidents are being lumped together without context, as if I didn't learn anything from them. I don't want any ban, I shouldn't have any ban. My second chance should come right now, without harsh discipline. Just let me edit like I actually have, and not what's been colored by users from isolated incidents--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I would personally support an indefinite block/site ban, but this is better than nothing. Slywriter is correct that this user is simply not getting it, as they continue to make clear by their response above. This has nothing to do with so-called grudges, but rather their history of disruptive, combative, and edit warring behavior, which is all still fairly recent. Amaury • 18:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support – I too would prefer an indef block, with a WP:Standard offer (which would force them to explain that they've learned their lesson), but I'll support this as the next best option. This editor clearly has demonstrated that they have no plans to change their current behavior. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, but... Creecreg mentioned their recent edits. When they just edit, they seem to do a good job. However, it's all the layers of interactions, like here, where the problems come out. Unfortunately, one can't edit in a vacuum, so they have to learn to interact if they're going to be a constructive participant in the project. The thought had crossed my mind: if edit warring is the behaviour that the community is worried about, what about a 0RR sanction? The problem is, this sanction is designed to encourage people to discuss at the talk page, and I'm not sure that civil, on-topic discussion would be the result of such a sanction.
  On the flip side, some kind of break does create a line in the sand, a clean divide where they can separate conduct before and conduct after—and in the event of a further noticeboard report, they could ask us to focus on conduct after that date. I'd rather have the sanction in the form of a siteblock than a siteban, and I'm thinking two weeks, maybe only one, rather than a full month. It would still be enough time for the user to review policy, to reflect on their behaviour, and hopefully to see what they do need to change on their return. I'm also thinking that even though I'd rather it be structured as a block, it might be good to protect their talk page to avoid potential trolling/baiting messages by other users during their absence. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support a lesser term and indifferent block vs ban. The clear line and a little reflection was intent of my proposal. Plus while Indef can mean 5 minutes, unblock requests can get heated and not sure it would be doing an editor any favors in this circumstance.Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's true, one can't edit in a vacuum, but this entire posting seemed to exist in the vacuum that I've only ever edited disruptively, that I never talk it out, that I've never been civil. What would blocking me do for "chilling out", as was the supposed intent? What would banning me teach me about my behavior, with every concern I expressed over the course of the discussion? What actual harm have I done here that long-term sanctions were even being considered?--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support/Oppose - I don't know what exactly, whether it be C.Fred's suggestion, the originally proposed one month block, an indef block, or something else entirely, but the above response clearly shows that something is needed here. If the editor still either doesn't actually understand or doesn't want (refusing) to understand why this entire discussion is even happening in the first place, then I doubt any change is happening anytime soon. "What actual harm have I done here that long-term sanctions were even being considered?" - any other editor here can easily look at this ANI discussion, as well as the previous, and I'm sure would fully understand why it's being considered/discussed.

I won't deny that the editor is making good edits, but Wikipedia is a collaborative site. If nothing is done here, I won't be surprised if we see the same problematic behavior continue on with another ANI thread(s?) here. Magitroopa (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Aren't edits collaborative though? I don't understand the repeated insistence on discarding my positive aspects if editing doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have repeatedly put aside context and circumstances for my behavior and why I may react the way I do, positive or negative, removing those things puts the behavior in a vacuum. Your response is making it seem as if me asking questions for better understanding is also a bad thing. That my willingness to learn, the very thing you want me to do, is a bad thing. If every response I make is bad, no matter the tone, what am I supposed to learn? I'm trying to work with you, but you seem to be brushing me off CreecregofLife (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of your 'questions' here are littered with denial/blames on others. Even in your above question, you yet again blame others despite what has been repeatedly said throughout this discussion: "If every response I make is bad, no matter the tone, what am I supposed to learn? I'm trying to work with you, but you seem to be brushing me off" Continuing to deny what others here are saying and failing/refusing to take accountability for your own actions/behavior will get you nowhere.

And no, just making any edits here does not mean you are collaborating- collaborating with others would be actually discussing any issue/problem with other editors (without just blaming it on them) and not trying to start feuds/edit wars, like you seem to actively be doing. Most of this entire discussion here is us saying what issues/problematic behavior there is, with you just going, "How is it possible that I'm doing that? It must be your fault!". I highly urge you to start taking accountability for your actions/behavior. Magitroopa (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. You are making a lot of claims and assumptions that you can't prove. Lots of seeming, nothing definitive. You aren't addressing my words, just the words you think I'm saying. I give you an inch and you immediately jump on me accusing me of not being genuine. If this was just an airing of grievances, you would have come to my page and talked it out with me instead of going to the noticeboard. You took the easy way out and are surprised when I find your arguments for doing so to be suspect. I will not have you raise your voice at me just because you don't believe I'm trying to take accountability. I gave you an inch and you spat in my face, putting me at a higher standard than anyone else. How am I supposed to learn accountability from someone who said everything I was ever involved in was my fault and everything I do is wrong? That's not holding someone accountable, that's guilt tripping. I never tried to start feuds or edit wars, and to claim such is irresponsible. I'm sorry for edit warring. I try to stay out of it, but you lie to my face by telling me that staying out of it is not what I'm actively doing. The only thing that has counted in my behavior in your eyes are my "problematic" edits. Editing does not exist in a vacuum. You can't isolate and invalidate my good behaviors just because they don't suit your narrative. You continue to deny what I'm saying, because you are not listening, or entertaining the idea that maybe you were wrong. I shouldn't be banned because I spoke out against the measures taken against me. You wouldn't even let me talk to a third party without telling me I'm wrong for doing so or holding it against me. If taking accountability conceding I've done wrong things doesn't meet your arbitrary threshold, how am I supposed to come out of this? It doesn't matter what I do or how genuine I am, it's somehow not enough CreecregofLife (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you continue to play the victim. If it were just one editor in dispute with you, I could maybe see that point, but there are multiple editors here, including an administrator, that can see you cannot work collaboratively. Nothing really has to be proven when there are multiple editors with shared concerns. This thread is about your behavior, not everyone else's, meaning you need to prove why you aren't being disruptive, which you continue failing to do so. And a few of the editors who have commented here aren't even involved parties and can still see how problematic you're being. If you weren't trying to edit war, then why has it happened multiple times? I do somewhat applaud you for finally admitting you've edit warred, even though I don't necessarily believe the apology is genuine. All you're doing is continuing to prove our points that you cannot work collaboratively here, among other things. Amaury • 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking me wouldn’t prove that I don’t possess the ability to work collaboratively, it just means you won’t allow me to. This thread is not a proper venue to prove how collaboratively I work, and to claim that it should is disingenuous. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you said that you should get a second chance- you've had ample chances, and the problems that have been discussed in this thread, as well most of your responses within this thread shows that you don't seem capable to work collaboratively at this point. The previous/first ANI discussion should've been your first indication that your behavior should change. Continuing with the same behavior following that discussion and now bringing it to here as well, downplaying the problems/concerns of other editors and continuing your blame game on others, isn't helping you in any way whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is ignoring your constructive edits, but this ANI thread clearly isn't about your constructive edits, it is about your disruptive behavior. Your constructive edits are the main reason you aren't already blocked. If there weren't constructive edits, there would be no discussion here, you'd just be a completely disruptive editor with nothing to offer. Since you're not simply that, we have this thread, where people can express their opinion and disagree about whether you should be blocked or not. It seems you have at least made some progress, from this talk page thread where you consistently refused to see that you had acted in any way incorrectly, even after I repeatedly listed you in detail how you had acted incorrectly, to now admitting you have actually edit-warred. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Realme233

Realme233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Hello, This user has been posting the same or similar content on random users talkpages, which appears to be spam, or (stretching it severely here) potentially advertising. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm seeing what I can do for 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, I left them a message to visit Teahouse with clear queation, feel free to revert me if the double-messaging is confusing.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

anks okra, good to see you again by the way.h PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG inbound Evoke Heir (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Evoke Heir: What are you talking about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh. They cannot answer. They are so blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is in relation to me, Being a good wikipedian and reporting things that dont seem right is not WP:BOOMERANG worthy. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This user has now showed up on my talk for some reason, they sound very distressed, but I cannot figure out what they are talking about. Moneytrees^{Talk🏝️CCI guide} 02:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue at all if this is related - I'm only thinking this based off of the strikingly similar username, but there is a user blocked name 'Pleasureme23'. For all I know, it could be entirely unrelated, but thought it would at least be worth mentioning. Magitroopa (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think(?) I know why they were mentioning XTools in some of their edits- but I still don't fully understand it... See here. Two things to point out:

• User is already at several other Wiki sites and posted the same/similar messages there, see here.
• Could MusikAnimal be who is being referred to here (referred to as 'Muskit')?...

Hope this helps... Magitroopa (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• They appear to be talking about XTools, the suite of tools that produces statistics for Wikimedia wikis, e.g. edit counter. There’s nothing untoward about these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Surge Of Reason and Moderna

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

---

Surge Of Reason (talk · contribs) appears to have a particularly negative view of Moderna, where they seem to be especially focused on adding sharply critical content. SOR has been adding and expanding controversy sections on a number of articles about corporations, but, while perhaps a little undue, those changes are comparatively neutrally framed. At Moderna, they had been adding discussions of tax avoidance [46] and secretiveness of research, which has been disputed by Zefr (talk · contribs) and Aoi (talk · contribs), and which resulted in SOR initiating this ANI thread a month ago [47], accusing Zefr of "abuse." I closed that discussion and cautioned SOR to examine their own POV before accusing others of POV. In the meantime, an RfC was initiated by Tigraan at Talk:Moderna over the tax item.

With the RfC still running, SOR added a section headed "tax dodging" [48], which I reverted as plainly POV, and cautioned SOR [49], and Zefr reverted another portion getting this congenial edit summary [50] from SOR. They then went to NPOVN with this [51], and replied to Aoi and M.Bitton like this [52] [53]. I warned them again [54], and today we have another attack against Zefr [55].

Since then, they've posted this odd statement on the Moderna talkpage [56], which seems to reveal a particular animus toward pharmaceutical companies. Since Moderna is to a large degree Covid-related, I left a DS/Covid notice, which got their usual talkpage revert.

SOR does not seem to be is not able to maintain NPOV with respect to corporations in general, and pharmaceutical companies in particular, and their treatment of other editors is unacceptable. This is aside from issues with copyright and overall sourcing. Since I reverted them at Moderna I will not be taking administrative action, but I don't think they learned anything from their last trip to ANI. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern about SOR is two-fold: 1) they seem to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and 2) they feel the need to have everything their way and while they may occasionally engage on a talk page, it doesn't seem as if they are open to any opinions other than their own. If you look at their 750 or so edits, the entirety of their mainspace contributions has been to add or expand "Controversy" sections in articles on businesses. While some of these additions are probably merited, I am concerned about their heavily anti-corporate POV and their repeated actions to edit war their preferred version of text into articles.

For example, SOR added text to the article "Criticism of Netflix", under the heading "DVD spinoff disaster." I reverted the addition with a note that the the discussion was probably better presented elsewhere, but SOR shortly thereafter added the text back in, changing the word "disaster to "tragedy". They also duplicated a lot of the material from Criticism of Netflix on the main Netflix article as well[57], which was reverted by another editor[58]. In the resulting talk page discussion, three editors disagreed with their addition. Their response was to accuse others of "obsessive ranting," and said I was "removing their comments" to make myself "look better." (For the record, I did not remove any of their comments anywhere except from my own user talk page, where they copied and pasted the entire text they wanted to add to the article without attribution.) Not to be deterred (and despite opposition from three other editors), they waited a couple of weeks and re-added the material to the article when no one was watching a little more than a week ago.

Similarly, at the Moderna article, they've been trying to add this tax avoidance stuff to the article six times over the last month and a half: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] (plus one more diff that I can't add because it was revdeled as a copyvio), even as an RFC on the issue was ongoing.

This user's habit of casting aspersions also needs to be addressed, whether it's accusing other users of "protecting a personal stake" in a company or accusing an administrator who made a single edit to an article of "hounding".

I don't know what needs to be done to address this. I am concerned that the user's sole purpose here on Wikipedia is to add or expand controversy sections for businesses. Further, while I do believe they are editing in good faith, their inability to accept others' opinions (and their apparent need to have articles worded their way) is concerning. Perhaps topic banning them from editing about business controversies would give them a chance to show that they can edit other topics in a constructive fashion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Good heavens. Possibly that vicious edit summary aimed at Zefr should've drawn a vacation of a day or two, but in any event, this bloke seems to be unable to assume good faith in anyone disagreeing with him. I'd certainly support a tban from editing business articles until they prove they can be not only a productive editor, but one who can collaborate with others. Ravenswing 04:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion and Zefr are clearly interested in nothing other than removing negative information about Moderna from the page. My suspicion is they're economically motivated. The bias they exhibit in favor of Moderna is outrageous, they've done nothing other than defend this one company from objective criticism. I'm certainly not treating Moderna any different from how I would other companies. Aoi also appears biased, showing excessive favor for the companies Moderna, Netflix, and Broadcom. I know I'm casting aspersions, please don't point that out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Came here due to a PA at WP:NPOVN, the user clearly has cooperation issues and no real interest in obeying policy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

And they are still at it [[64]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong diff or wrong user? Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong user. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural note: Acroterion made me aware of that discussion via a mention on my talk page, the same as Zefr and Aoi, though those two got pinged too so it’s more obvious they were mentioned.

Without having made any investigative effort, I think Aoi’s first sentence summarizes the problem well - RIGHTGREATWRONGs mentality with a "compromise means compromission" mentality. Based only on the behavior at Moderna and the talk page, I think a stern warning is needed, but I think it is worth trying that before the more coercitive means. But then, I might be uninformed (I have not looked at other pages, I am not an ANI regular) and/or unduly lenient (I am a Teahouse regular where patience regularly pays off, and I am in the same "camp" regarding the content - see RfC - so I might be tempted to minimize the gravity of their actions). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think a TBAN is the right approach... would go with an SBAN instead. Surge of Reason is clearly NOTHERE and is as far from AGF as I've seen in a long time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if a mainspace block is more appropriate. We can insist they prove they can contribute on talk pages in a collegial and good faith manner, building consensus etc, before giving them mainspace privileges back. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I quite like that idea. Not sure if it will work, but it's creative. Plus one from me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Put me down as another in favor of this. Frankly, I have little faith it will work as intended, but I think it's worth a shot befre abandoning all hope (with apologies to Dante). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Instead of retracting the unwarranted personal attacks, they decided to double down on them. This is an indication that all the TBAN will achieve is displacing the problem to another topic. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal TBAN Surge Of Reason from Moderna

• Support as proposer Given the single-mindedness of Surge Of Reason that leads to the vitriolic lack of cooperation discussed in this thread, and the lack of WP:AGF, seeing all who disagree with them as evilly motivated, I believe they need time away from the subject to gain some sort of editorial perspective. I mean, they know they are casting aspersions. Wikipedia is not a debating society where one exercises their capacity for rhetoric in outrageous attacks on opponents. Perhaps three months. indef per Jayron, et al. (and per Surge Of Reason's comment below) Broadly construed to mean editing about Moderna at all anywhere on Wikipedia except to appeal the TBAN itself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN from Moderna, broadly construed, as described above. Setting an arbitrary end-date seems unwise; the release of the ban should be contingent on proper behavior, not on waiting it out to resume bad behavior at that date. --Jayron32 15:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Of course Moderna, in common with just about every corporation of its size, has made some mistakes, and has probably done some bad things. Wikipedia's job is to cover those in proportion to how much coverage there is of them in independent reliable sources, not to campaign against the company. I think that Surge of Reason has admitted that he is not here to collaboratively produce neutral content with the statements above. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from Moderna, with a stern warning that if the same stubborn Right great wrongs muckraking behavior continues on other articles, additional sanctions will be imposed. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ya wow, you know you're right, no investigative effort and you pick the easiest option of saying that I'm the problem. I'm embarassed you people even appear on this page. Surge Of Reason (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  When one is already skating on thin ice, it is best not to Axel --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban with the above comment (this time it was them) it is clear they can't be civil in this topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban with recommendation that this is extended to indefinite site ban mainspace ban as per discussion above. User is not here to collaboratively contribute to an encyclopedia. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite tban as I indicated above, and indef ban. Sorry, but when a new editor with no record of productive edits meets with disapproval by swinging fists and levying insults, since when upon being whacked by the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice do they miraculously become mindful and courteous? Ravenswing 04:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Also support main space ban Casting aspersions at other editors; no efforts at collaboration. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - this user simply refuses to engage with concerns expressed in good faith, while accusing people expressing such concerns of being paid shills. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You people are a gang of children, you belong on the playground where you can torment people of you're own fucking mental age.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And I've just completely indeffed them for that one. Not entirely sure how they thought that would play out any differently. Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would have indeffed them for using a contraction in place of a possessive noun (or is it adjective?)... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that, but I'm not that much of a grammar policeman. Canterbury Tail talk 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Just here to say that "your" is the adjective while "yours" would be the possessive pronoun. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I did warn them about jumping on thin ice. UR often works for "your" and "you're". Perhaps they can be unblocked when they grow to be as wise as we. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Conscious I just f'd up the thread formatting) you are a diamond... thanks for the grammar confirmation... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting. It's really the over-use of {{Outdent}} that screws everything up and makes it impossible to reply to comments. That template should be banned on extremely busy pages like this one where clarity in who is replying to who is paramount. Modulus12 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

IP User:2409:4072:6000::/36

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

---

User:2409:4072:6C84:E0CE:2C15:F3B0:BC4B:389B Already blocked in many places. Have a look at this range it needs a strong range block. Spamming my Userpage. @@@XyX _talk 10:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Harassment

I have been targeted for harassment by the user Unbh Special:Contributions/Unbh, who is following my account and has reversed almost every edit that I've made Special:Contributions/Baronet13. This editor also threatened to suspend my account (which I'm pretty sure they don't actually have the authority to do) as seen here: User talk:Baronet13 . This is a clear example of WP:HOUND and WP:HUSH.Baronet13 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a standard, garden variety edit war at Will Self, both of you could be sanctioned for that. Also, any user may warn any other user who is engaged in improper behavior at Wikipedia. The warning is a bit aggressive, but you were edit warring (they were too), and so the warning is not invalid. While they may not be able to block you, any admin could. The warning is a reminder that you can be blocked for edit warring. --Jayron32 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What Jayron said. You need to stop reverting and discuss your preferred version on the article talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." If discussion is fruitless, see some form of dispute resolution. The important thing now is to stop reverting and seek WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

While I think a consensus can be reached, that doesn't solve the problem of this user reverting every edit I make. Most of these are minor, non-controversial edits that don't really warrant a discussion. Baronet13 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is only one incident. Based on the fact that nearly every edit I've made has been reversed by this user, the issue is bigger than this one article and the warning. The aggressive tone of the warning and the wider context shows this is meant to be seen as a threat. Baronet13 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted, the warning is bog standard. While perhaps not the friendliest way to go about putting you on notice, it's well within the bounds of normal Wikipedia conduct. Feel free to remove it from your talk page should you care to do so, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems everyone is fixating a bit too much on the warning. The main issue is this user reverting nearly edit it make. Wikipedia is essentially unusable to me because of this. Baronet13 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not just them, is it? You have had similar edits reverted by other editors. I don't think Unbh has exactly covered themselves in glory here, but I would urge you to consider some of the sourcing issues brought up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the only user to revert an edit I've made, but they are the only one who follows and indiscriminately reverts edits I make, usually with either no explanation or baseless explanations. One example is their claim that redirects can't be categorized, despite the fact that many redirects do have categories. Unless this editor is scouring Wikipedia for redirects and removing categories, which doesn't seem to be the case, they're specifically targeting ones to which I've added categories (most of which, by the way, had already had been categorized for years). Baronet13 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The categories stuff is a bit outside my wheelhouse, and El_C is dealing with it below better than I could. My interest veers more toward the substantive edits--and while I have no doubt that your edits were made in good faith, I also think the reverts were reasonable. I'd encourage you to make more use of talk pages and see if you can't get some collaboration going. As ever, just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Unbh: after you removed categories added by the OP to the Susan Karolewski redirect with the edit summary that read don't need categories on a redirect (diff), they then reverted with an edit summary that read: Categories are allowed on redirects if the categories are incompatible with the main article (diff). However, you reverted again but this time unresponsively, with a blank (automated) edit summary (diff). Please explain. El_C 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

They're adding WP:NONDEF "people with" categories to bio pages that don't exist and are redirects. It's ridiculous. The category itself has already been deleted once. I'm clearly not reverting all their edits, despite what is being claimed. The Will Self edit does not accurately match the source and is not RS anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unbh: but how can that reasoning on your part be inferred when you don't leave an edit summary that mentions it? Or mentions anything, for that matter (i.e. blank/automated es). El_C 17:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll leave clearer edit summaries in future. This whole category would be treading really close to BLP violations if these redirects were actually bios. It's pretty problematic to have people listed in a category that states they have a personality disorder when they don't even have their own article.Unbh (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The edits I made to the redirects were valid, as they are in compliance with WP:INCOMPATIBLE. How would this editor even know about these without viewing my contributions? It's apparent I'm being targeted, unless this editor is removing categories from all redirects, which doesn't seem to be the case. Baronet13 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Baronet13: For an account that was created 4 days ago, you cite policy as if it were an old friend.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI: some similar editing behaviour (i.e. edit warring) has also been involved by Unbh and GustavoCza on some Coldplay articles on 8 March and I think it is ongoing today judging by what I see myself. Jonny Buckland is now a 3RR page for today as I've now noticed three reverts there. I haven't seen any harassment on either talk page of the two said users in my response here but edit summaries might. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So it looks like there is a pattern of behaviour exhibited by Unbh of at least being overly aggressive towards those whose edits they disagree with and often reverting edits with little to no explanation. Baronet13 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, including the contributions dated 14 January 2021 when the user got blocked for edit warring. That was the only block so far. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy isn't difficult to look up. Baronet13 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly possible to remain an IP editor while you familiarise yourself with the website, isn't it? Let's not go making baseless insinuations. — Jthistle38 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well ... where I got concerned was at actually looking at the reverted edits. Superficially, since they came from several different articles, one might jump to the hounding conclusion. But when one examines the diffs, they are also all attempts by Baronet13 to insert allegations of mental disorders into BLPs. I hope and trust Baronet13 understands not only that we need iron-clad sources for such provocative accusations, and that furthermore they ought not run afoul of WP:UNDUE nor of the standard of care necessary for BLP articles. So as long as he is accusing Unbh of hounding him, I'd like to ask @Baronet13: something in return: why are you so fixated on claiming that these people have mental disorders, to the exclusion of pretty much any other edit? Ravenswing 04:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  All of the information I added is reliably sourced. Baronet13 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  First off, that's not true. The first diff I looked at was [65], an interview on a website starting out by calling the subject "Germany’s most notorious confidence trickster" -- that's reliable?

  The second [66] cites "360tv.ru," which judging by its headlines is yet another Russian propaganda organ.

  The third, the Will Self edit you've been edit warring over, doesn't say what you claim it does. [67] The subject doesn't claim that he has psychological disorders; the interviewer does.

  In five other articles, you've added categories referencing various personality disorders, without any attribution or explanation. So once again, I ask you the question you failed to answer the first time: why are you so fixated on claiming that these people have mental disorders, to the exclusion of pretty much any other edit? Ravenswing 08:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quote from the Will Self interview:

  CH: On the South Bank Show a few years back you said that a psychologist had put “schizoid personality” on your case notes. Now, this might sound like a conceit from your own fiction, but I got the impression that you might have interpreted this as meaning that you were schizophrenic, but diagnostically it means a personality disorder characterised by “extreme shyness and oversensitivity to others”.

  WS: I did know that, but the same diagnosis had borderline personality written down as well which would be another form of that.

  The interviewer brings it up (mentioning that Will Self had said it on the South Bank Show) and Self confirms it. Your interpretation of the interviewer claiming Self has mental disorders is completely incorrect. Baronet13 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to read that interview more closely. The interviewer states that a psychologist wrote that down in his case notes. Short does not claim that it's accurate, just that yes, that's what was written down. It is not a confirmation that he has the disorder, just acknowledgement that it was written down.

Further, you failed to answer Ravenswing's question, which is the more relevant part: why are your fixated on adding mental disorders to BLP articles? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

He describes it as a "diagnosis". I think this is good reason to believe he does have these disorders unless you have evidence proving otherwise. Also stated in this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=jRVfQI82hx8C&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22will+self%22+%22borderline+personality%22&source=bl&ots=U3w3cqSVry&sig=ACfU3U3gLg3dk3uVLtWLEHePEuzbU0YB7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFr_TY6Nz2AhUqIzQIHUGsAa84ChDoAXoECCMQAw#v=onepage&q=%22will%20self%22%20%22borderline%20personality%22&f=false Baronet13 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No. This is a BLP article; we need iron clad sources for these, not your interpretations of the same. (You've also failed to justify adding those mental disorder categories to several BLP articles, OR your creation of a category just for that purpose!) And stop ducking the question of your fixation on adding mental disorders to BLP articles, if you want to avoid a followup proposal to tban you from making further such additions. Further stonewalling or attempting to deflect the question will not work out well for you. Ravenswing 18:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your "interpretation" of the interview doesn't match what was actually said, but this had gotten far off topic. I think I've at least proven that the edit merits a discussion and that reverting it without explanation is not an acceptable response. The pertinent issue is harassment. Disagreeing with an edit I made doesn't justify harassment. Baronet13 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not see a pattern of behaviour that rises to the level of harassment. There is overlap in articles edited. It's not 100%, but it's reasonable for an editor who sees problematic edits from a new editor, particularly in an area related to BLPs, and checks further into their edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor has a history of edit warring (and has apparently been blocked for this before) and has been accused of harassment by others. Baronet13 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keeping a careful eye on your edit history, given your persistent efforts to tag BLP subjects with having mental disorders, based on questionable sourcing when you bother at all, isn't harassment. Rather, it's the sort of duty a conscientious editor undertakes. Given your stonewalling from defending your tagging, it's a duty I'm minded to take on myself. Ravenswing 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a single edit I've made where I didn't cite a source; that claim is wholly false. I don't know what your problem is, but it's obvious from your first comment that, for whatever reason, you've been excessively and unnecessarily antagonistic. From your "creative" interpretation of the source I cited, to your describing somebody who stalks my account and indiscriminately reverts every edit as a "conscientious editor", to your outright lie about my not citing sources, to what can only be described as a thinly veiled threat, you clearly have some bizarre bias against me. Baronet13 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I myself have had a mental condition. If I was notable and there was an article about me my diagnosis would be no more relevant than the fact that I had tonsillitis as a child or that I now get the odd day when my arthritis is painful, unless confirmed by impeccable reliable sources that don't need this sort of "reading between the lines" interpretation. The same goes for Will Self. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I should point out that Will Self also has Polycythemia vera, which is stated in the article. I don't see how this is more relevant than what I added. Baronet13 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's sourced in an extensive piece in an RS that is sigcov of the polycythemia, not a passing mention by someone else in an interview to something that is not explicitly a diagnosis.

For all you aspersions of harassment my reversions are not hounding. I've solely addressed your edits (obviously by looking at your edit history) adding this problematic category and BLP additions of this disease that are without sufficient sourcing, or justification for why the category should be added to redirect pages.Unbh (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I could have found another source or clarified the relevance had you addressed that issue instead of reverting my edits without explanation. You've reverted almost every edit I've made (admittedly by viewing my edit history), usually without explanation or with a explanation that doesn't make sense, such as the claim that redirects can't be categorized, despite the fact that Wikipedia has an entire page dedicated to categorizing redirects. Baronet13 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Outside of this page you've edited 10 pages. I made reversions of a specific type of edit on four of them that I, and others here seem to agree, think is a BLP problem. I made edit summaries on those edits, except this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_Laut&diff=1078388275&oldid=1078298498, which I should have done. This is not harassment. This is not reverting almost every edit you've ever made.

Additionally I I've not stated that redirects can't be categorised, but that the categories you have added are not needed ( a category which has now been deleted twice). These are different things. Unbh (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:REDIRECT, these types of pages are not usually categorized unless it's " more appropriate to the context of that category, e.g. Honey Lantree". I'm not sure if the removal of these categories is sensible or not given some of those do fit in with that person's actions. I agree that red link categories should not be in there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comment was "don't need categories on a redirect" and you removed all categories from these redirects, not just the ones I added. Baronet13 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, glad you agree. "Don't need" is not the same as "can't". As it happens I don't think the other categories were necessary either which is why I removed them - and further evidence, despite your claims, that this has nothing to do with targeting your edits. Unbh (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How did you arrive at the conclusion they were unnnecessary? What categories are necessary on a redirect? Do you remove all categories on every redirect or only the ones I edit? The category deletion seems arbitrary. Baronet13 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because having things like a redirect that is categorised as living people redirecting to a case about dead babies is patently ridiculous. Unbh (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's only one category, which was referring to the mother, who is indeed a living person. Even you did want to remove that category, which wouldn't make sense, it still doesn't explain why you removed all of them. Baronet13 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The other categories are equally pointless in aredirect. If someone's not notable enough for their own blp page they shouldn't be in categories. This is not what WP:INCOMPATIBLE is about. Unbh (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note the more than 2/3rds (!) of your total edits have now been dedicated to keeping this rather tendentious ANI report going. There might be harassment going on here, but it's not by me. Unbh (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So you ARE saying redirects shouldn't have categories. Baronet13 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No. I'm saying these redirects don't need categories. Unbh (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost every redirect (except alternate names for things) is someone or something that isn't notable enough for their own article. If those redirects don't need categories, or shouldn't have them, or however you want to say it, then which ones do? Baronet13 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't. Which is why there's WP:INCOMPATIBLE which explains which ones, like alternative names, should have them. Regardless, this is a talk page argument, not one for ANI. Let's finish this discussion here and you can apply your WP:PRECOCIOUS talents on something more productive. Unbh (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems that alternative names should NOT be categorized, or else you'd have both the main article and redirect in the category. So your saying you don't think the redirects I edited need categories, but acknowledge that they can be categorized, yet took the time to remove all the categories and are committed to keeping it that way. You also tried to argue against particular categories in the redirect, seemingly without understanding it. Your argument doesn't track. Baronet13 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kevo327

User Kevo327 knowingly vandalize and do disruptive edits to the Azerbaijan related articles and disguise edits as a good faith edit.

Kevo327 removes content from the article noting that content "unsourced" without taking any attempts to discuss or find the source. At first I reverted his edits and provided sources, however I find more and more cases where he did the same, which means that it is chronic behavior. Here examples of the cases: Sevinj Stories; Nar (company); Baku Crystal Hall Case1; Baku Crystal Hall Case2; Khojaly massacre in popular culture Case1; Khojaly massacre in popular culture Case2; Khojaly massacre in popular culture Case3; Victory Day (Azerbaijan); Araz Selimov; Ilham Aliyev;

Previously (Here) Kevo327 was warned by Bbb23 for speedy tagging Azerbaijan related articles for deletion. Where Bbb23 stated that Kevo327 need to stop because it appears that Kevo327 have an anti-Azerbaijani bias that is leeching into edits. However, Kevo327 continues nominating Azerbaijan related articles for deletion. Recently he proposed for deletion number of articles, one of them The house with angels. Overall looking thru recent part of the Kevo327 contribution history, I found over 50 cases where he nominated articles for deletion, and all of them are Azerbaijan related articles.

Moreover, to hide disruptive edits and push his POV Kevo327 hide edits under general comments. For example in the Sevinj Stories, he made a change which he not mentioned in the edit summary. What he hided is that he changed title of the reference from the original(as stated in the source) "Xocalı soyqırımında həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl killed in the Khojaly massacre) " to the "Xocalıda həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl who died in Khojaly)".

Another example showing that Kevo has anti-Azerbaijani bias and doing POV editing while hiding it under good faith edits: Here, Kevo edited the lead, however, although there many examples of populat culture outside of the Azerbaijan in the article, Kevo for no reason added "mostly appearing in Azerbaijan." to the lead.

Considering all above I would like to ask Admins to take measures that would prevent user Kevo327 from disruptive, tendentious and biased editing of the Azerbaijan related articles.

--Abrvagl (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Without addressing the other issues noted, your first comment says "Kevo327 removes content from the article noting that content "unsourced" without taking any attempts to discuss or find the source." Kevo327 is under no obligation to find such sources, WP:BURDEN states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", it is only the responsibility of the person who restores the information to provide the source; I appreciate that you state you did that; which is good, but Kevo327 did nothing wrong with removing it. I take no stance on the rest of the complaint, which may have merit, but on that one issue, there is nothing to stand on by policy. People are allowed (even encouraged) to remove contentious material that lacks a clear source. --Jayron32 16:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32 I believe the issue here is that sources are consistently being removed and reverted by this user with 0 explaination as to why, Can you truely assume good faith if this is on a constant basis? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I picked one out at random from your list, here, this is entirely within policy. The information has no source. It should be removed. If you have a source for that information, cite it when you return the information. It does not appear that they are removing sourced information. --Jayron32 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets look in the same article but different case Baku Crystal Hall: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Here Kevo again just removed information, not stated his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source. If fact even if he just open 42nd Chess Olympiad, which stated in the statement he removed, he will find that it is well sourced. He's just abusing wikipedia's rules to remove information does it primarily to the articles related to Azerbaijan. In order to see destructive behavior, you need to look at his behavior as a whole. Abrvagl (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not obliged to open anything, they only have to look out for sources. The diff you provided didn't have a source, as simple as that, so it was removed. That's not a reason to report an editor to this venue, in fact, basing that as one of the reasons for your report shows bad faith and insufficient reasoning. And btw, I don't see any 'good sources' provided in the article, still. These are the latest edits by you [68]. Nevertheless, Kevo327 didn't revert you or anything (see Revision history), which shows good faith and standard removal of unsourced content in the initial edits, which many editors do. Your dislike of an editor still doesn't allow you to see this, though, even after comments from multiple editors. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32 beat me to it. I'm not seeing any prima facie evidence vandalism or bad faith editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to look wider to see it. Kevo nominates for deletion only Azerbaijan related articled, he removes information under souse of "unsourced" only from Azerbaijan related articles. He obviously abusing WP:BURDEN. Not a single time he considered adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Not a single time he state his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source. He just find anything without inline citation and removes it without any comment. Armenian user who does that only to Azerbaijan related articles. How do you call that? Abrvagl (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not just show an actual diff of it rather than leaving us to find it ourselves and failing to? The burden of proof is on you to show any wrongdoing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes he has no obligations, however, edits should be done with good faith. But does not Wikipedia:BURDEN state following "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." ? Kevo going thru primarily Azerbaijan related articles and removing information, which was not previously challenged, he never stated his concern. Abrvagl (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to include the information, find a source. --Jayron32 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not about me wanting to include information. It is about that user continuously removes information from Azerbaijan related articles and abuses BURDEN. Burden gives several options, but user just deletes it in every case. Abrvagl (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abrvagl: Again, you really need to show evidence of this. It isn't our job to look for it just because you say so. Just as you have a burden of proof to show sources for your edits, so too do you have one for showing any evidence that is worthy of sanctioning Jayron32. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed they have prodded or redirected some Azerbaijani film articles yesterday (prod, redirect). I'm assuming both were done in good faith. Maybe someone could take a closer look at the redirect here? I did create it as a redirect (some 14 years ago!) but has been since turned into an article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an WP:ANEW thread related to this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Abrvagl reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: ). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also for those curious about recent disputes with both the article and Abrvagl, there is currently a DRN case I am moderating at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan. I have placed it on hold due to this thread and the ANEW thread, but it seems that in general Abrvagl is in strong disagreement with a number of other editors about the quality of sourcing on the article. Their arguments hold some weight (at least in the DRN thread) so I don't think it is in general a case of WP:IDHT as much as reasonable disagreements by editors that are unwilling to pursue dispute resolution processes on their own initiative. I think the edit warring issue is best discussed at the ANEW thread and this should probably be closed with a strong warning to both parties to disengage or open a DRN case. I had recommended Abrvagl not to open another DRN case while the previous one was ongoing but if the community and the parties in this dispute and ZaniGiovanni believe it necessary I would be willing to moderate a wider DRN case on the state of sourcing in the Anti-Armenian sentiment article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I want to say that this ANI not related to edit warning or any other discussions. This ANI is about the behavior of Kevo327 in general. This one is about that Kevo’s disruptive behavior. He abuses WP:BURDEN and on constant basis removes information primarily from Azerbaijan related articles and pushes his POV while masking it as good faith edits. If it was one-two off cases, it would be completely acceptable and not suspicious, but Kevo does that constantly and PRIMARILY to Azerbaijan related articles and this is clearly biased and disruptive behavior. Abrvagl (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that the ANEW thread was closed with a formal warning towards both editors. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• comment have you tried to discuss with me before dragging me to ANI? No. And you have breached 3RR on Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, on a sourcing dispute that could be discussed. Yes, I primarily edit in the AA2 area, so do you, and a couple of dozens of other editors, this isn't a sin. And no, I'm under no burden to add sources on paragraphs that were left unsourced for years. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TheDragonFire300, Jayron32, Okay, I'll go through one of the examples in more detail. But before doing so, I want to emphasize the following points/facts which will help to understand the reason of ANI:

1. AS per WP:BURDEN if any material lacking an inline citation it may be removed if editor believes that it may not be possible to find a source. If editor not sure or believe that it is possible to find a source, then it is recommended adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Moreover if editor think the material is verifiable, he is encouraged to provide an inline citation himself. This is how good faith utilization of WP:BURDEN looks like. However in all cases of Azerbaijan related article edits Kevo immediately removed material from article withour even stating his concern, even if it was obvious that materials are easily verifiable. 2. User Kevo327 primarily edit in the AA2 area. This is fact and Kevo admits that. The AA2 area is sensitive area where editors shall be very cautious in their edits.

3. Edits, where Kevo327 removed material from articles with comments as "unsourced" and "unrelated", are primarily Azerbaijan related articles. (More detailed in ANI text)

4. Nominations for speedy deletion raised by Kevo are primarily consist of Azerbaijan related articles. (More detailed in ANI text)

5. Kevo was recently warned for looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion, even if the articles have existed for a long time, and was asked to stop because it appears that he has an anti-Azerbaijani bias.

Now lets closer look to one of the cases of disruptive edits on Azerbaijan related article: In Khojaly massacre in popular culture Kevo did in total 10 edits where under different reasons he removed almost half of the materials from the article. How article looks like before Kevo edits and after Kevo edits.

1. In his first edit Kevo removed mention of 3 films from the article with "Unsourced" comment. Although no inline citation was provided to the films, they are obviously verifiable. Sources for the films just pops out as soon as you google them.

2. in his second edit Kevo again removed materials from Music section, all of them are obviously verifiable.

3. in his other edit Kevo without any talks just removes Black January and March Days, just because he believes that they are unrelated. It is [WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]. After 3 edits Kevo completely removes See Also section of the article.

4. Here, Kevo removes material from the lead without any talks or valid reasons, and says that it can go to the See also section, but never puts it into see also section.

5. Here, Kevo removes from the article mention of additional 2 films, which are obviously verifiable.

Conclusion: This is one of the many examples of bad faith edits and abuse of the WP:BURDEN. In above example Kevo removed half of the obviously verifiable materials from the article, removed other materials from article without discussion and deleted whole section See Also. The user sneakily removes information from articles related to Azerbaijan and tries to disguise it with good intentions, but his ultimate goal is not to improve articles, but to remove materials from articles and delete articles related to Azerbaijan, and pushing POV. The fact that Kevo327 does such edits and speedy deletions primarily to Azerbaijan related articles shows that he has Anti-Azerbaijan bias. I think this user should be banned from editing AA2 area.--Abrvagl (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Literally zero of those show bad faith, and even in total, it doesn't show he has anything against Azerbaijan. It shows he has an interest in improving articles about Azerbaijan, and removing poorly sourced contentious material is improvement. You've imagined a slight, and are simply creating a narrative to fit your perceived notions. I have no particular dog in this fight, but looking at the edits you cite, I do not agree that any of them show bad faith, and none of it shows any kind of prejudice against Azerbaijan in any way. --Jayron32 13:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So constantly abusing WP:BURDEN policy to remove materials primarily from Azerbaijan related articles and nominating primarily Azerbaijan related articles for the speedy deletion by the user who was previously warned on Anti-Azerbaijani bias editing apparently is good faith editing? I really just do not get it. Abrvagl (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You have not shown any evidence of any abuse of WP:BURDEN. You've just asserted it out of the blue. You have also not shown any "Anti-Azerbaijani bias". You just asserted it because he edits a lot of articles in the topic area. Look, I'm growing weary of your refusal to abide by WP:AGF. I am extracting myself from this, because you obviously have a personal vendetta against this one user, and are not looking for anything except justification from others for your vendetta. I, as an uninvolved person, have given my opinion regarding the diffs you have shown me. If you're just looking for someone else to confirm your own dislike of this other person, find someone else. I'm out. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 14:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont have personal vendetta against Kevo327. I will give a last try to explain reason of the DNI Abrvagl (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32, EvergreenFir, TheDragonFire300, Kevo327, Abrvagl, For someone having a grand total of 3 edits prior to January 26th of 2022, Abrvagl continues to demonstrate extensive knowledge about Wikipedia and its policies, unmatched by no other new account I've seen on this website. They cite all kinds of guidelines in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan, like WP:QS, WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:RS. They demand the best sources for any quote, or it should be removed according to them. Their extreme 'care' for sources doesn't follow in other articles, though.

• Not every letter of the article should be provided with sources. However, just simple google search would give you source. I will add it. Do not agree that there was over-sourcing either. [69]
• Unsourced does not mean that you need to delete it, if you google, then you will find the source in very first search result. I will add source to article as you believe that this bit of information should be sourced. [70]

They then proceed to add these supposed "google sources", apparently forgetting all the guidelines and policies they cited in their DRN analysis. [71], [72].

They're also edit-warring in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, claiming BLP in this example. Simple check would reveal that the primary source for those statements by Ilham Aliev is directly from Az president's website [73]. Abrvagl justifies his reverts, claiming the source:

• 1) "...reveals that this words were said about Armenia leadership, not Armenians as nation."
• 2) "..reveals that this words were addressed not to Armenians as nation, but about the Armenia army which was occupying Azerbaijan territories at that time."

However, in the first instance, Azeri president's source directly says “...manifestation of Armenian fascism and a witness to Armenian fascism”. So clearly it is not just talking about leadership. The "dogs" part is also about Armenians, not leadership as Abrvagl claims. It doesn’t mention leadership, it mentions all Armenians. From the same source: "I said that if they do not leave our lands of their own free will, we will chase them away like dogs and we are doing that.". The second point by Abrvagl is a personal interpretation it seems like.

As a conclusion, I would say that this editor is engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and reverts others with highly insufficient and misleading arguments, which is an edit-war. I would support a WP:BOOMERANG here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a bad-faith ANI report to win a content dispute and disrupt dispute resolution. We are editors, which includes tidying up articles and removing content that lacks sourcing. In the voluminous reporting above, I see zero policy violations and lots of I don't like that they remove unsourced content that I want in the article. Suggest OP disengage and return to dispute resolution before the community has no choice to involve themselves. Also calling it vandalism is a personal attack and OP should never use that term except when dealing with actual vandalsSlywriter (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not about "I do not like that they remove unsourced content". It is about abusing WP:BURDEN policy to remove materials primarily from Azerbaijan related articles and nominating primarily Azerbaijan related articles for the speedy deletion by the user who was previously warned on Anti-Azerbaijani bias editing.

AS per WP:BURDEN if any material lacking an inline citation it may be removed if editor believes that it may not be possible to find a source. If editor not sure or believe that it is possible to find a source, then it is recommended adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Moreover if editor think the material is verifiable, he is encouraged to provide an inline citation himself. This is how good faith utilization of WP:BURDEN looks like. However in all cases of Azerbaijan related article edits Kevo immediately removed material from article without even stating his concern, even if it was obvious that materials are easily verifiable. Abrvagl (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

COMMENT: Not going to reply to that absolutely unrelated comment made by Zani. But if anyone interested - I never justified my reverts by that. If anyone interested to read and even join discussion - it is available on the talk page Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan#The Mixed Messaging of Ilham Aliyev. Abrvagl (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That was not done, so it is proper to remove the material. When the content was introduced, sources were not there. The editor removing is under no obligation to do the work to keep the content.Slywriter (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing with that. You correct in that, I am not saying that Kevo shall provide sources. The point is that as per burden, editor can remove material if believes that it may not be possible to find a source or he can add "citation needed" tag as an interim step. Also when tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, editor should state his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. HOWEVER, Kevo constantly choses to remove material immediately(even if it is obvious that material is easily verifiable), never uses interim step and never states his concern, and he does that primarily to Azerbaijan related articles. Abrvagl (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Given "obvious" is not found in policy and is a subjective term, that is your opinion of the issue and does not negate BURDENs opening statement.Slywriter (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:BURDEN does not replace what it actually says. The policy does not make any exception for material that is subjectively obvious (you can prove that by Ctrl-F'ing "obvious" to get zero hits). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Haha good one. I just want to ask which part of this, this or this is reliable that you felt the need to revert and add back? Did you suddenly forget all the guidelines you cite constantly in talks and DRNs, or is it exactly the case of "I do not like that they remove unsourced content"?

Also, you still haven't answered how you edit-warring in another article removing Aliev quotes and misinterpreting them in talk page isn't WP:TENDENTIOUS? [74], [75], [76], [77].

The official Az president's website has all the quotes available, and I'm highly unimpressed with your 'arguments' in Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#The_Mixed_Messaging_of_Ilham_Aliyev, specifically the 2 points you provided, misinterpreting the source. This all is just basic WP:TENDENTIOUS. And being an OP of an ANI report doesn't bar you from consequences, see WP:BOOMERANG. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in any conversations with you apart from those which are related to article edits. Have nice day Zani. Abrvagl (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG Abrvagl

Insufficient ANI report, which seems to be filed on grounds of WP:JDLI. Continual refusal to engage questions about OP's own tendentious edits, edit-wars and misinterpretation of sources in talk: [78], [79], WP:CIR issues.

• Support as proposer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni what exactly are you even proposing? A boomerang is not a sanction in and of itself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to add, a topic-ban would be sufficient imo, mainly per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:CIR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar to something the 'Zilla once told me, ZaniGiovanni, it's not very dignified to ask for someone you're currently in a DRN case to be kicked out entirely from the topic area. It's also confusing to me how one would advocate for that justifying it with an "insufficient ANI report" as that would be closer to seeking an ANI tban. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Insufficient ANI report refers to Abrvagl's report itself and battleground comments in it, which aren't convincing and were noted as such by an admin and other editors. I have no problems waiting for DRN to finish before any hypothetical sanctions are applied (I think the DRN is close to an end anyways). That being said, an unfinished DRN case doesn't justify Abrvagl's tendentious edits and this battleground report, and my proposal is done in good faith. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Hope they read the room and return to Dispute Resolution and refrain from further misuse of ANI (and related pages).Slywriter (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This ANI has no relation to my discussions or disputes with Kevo327 on other topics. Allegations that this report was allegedly written out of personal dislike are unsubstantiated assumptions. If anyone interested to "edit-warning" here is the closed case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Abrvagl reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: Both warned). Not sure if Zani knows what he does, looks like he just spamming and cherry-pickking everything he possible can in order to make visibility that his accusations of me have valid ground. Abrvagl (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support warning for Abrvagl re bludgeoning. Neutral on other proposals. While I'm not privy to all the details in the case, it's troubling how much Abrvagl is willing to misrepresent the contents of WP:BURDEN to their own benefit and just how persistent they are in bludgeoning their point even in the face of calls to drop the stick. Thus, I propose that they should at least be warned for such behaviour, though I'm not going to recommend other sanctions at this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reason for ANI: More detailed explanation

Jayron32, EvergreenFir, TheDragonFire300, Slywriter I am taking last try to explain the reason of the ANI. Kevo327 makes a lot of edits in the AA2 area, both Armenia and Azerbaijan related articles, that it true. Let us take sample of his last 500 edits.

In his last 500 edits he did 18 edits where he removed the material from the article with "unsourced" comment. All of these 18 edits were done either on Azerbaijan related article or he removed material related to Azerbaijan from the not Azerbaijan related article. Despite of the fact that user does a lot of edits in the AA2, there not a single material removed under "unsourced" souse from other articles, only from Azerbaijan related ones. He looking precisely for Azerbaijan related articles, where he abuses WP:BURDEN. As per burden, editor can remove material if believes that it may not be possible to find a source or he can add "citation needed" tag as an interim step. Also when tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, editor should state his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. HOWEVER, Kevo constantly choses to remove material immediately(even if it is obvious that material is easily verifiable), never uses interim step and never states his concern.

More on this 500 edits sample Kevo327 did 8 proposals for deletion and speedy deletion. All of the articles proposed for deletion again Azerbaijani related.. Kevo was recently warned for looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion, even if the articles have existed for a long time, and was asked to stop because it appears that he has an anti-Azerbaijani bias.

I hope I could explain reason for ANI. While Kevo327 editing a lot of articles in AA2 area, such behavior of looking articles to remove materials and delete articles he shows only against the Azerbaijan related articles. So tell me please is it good faith edits and behavior? I personally do not think so, I think that Kevo has Anti-azerbaijani bias and he edits Azerbaijani related articles not with good faith. Basically all he does is tries to remove as much as possible material from the Azerbaijan related articles(or Azerbaijan related material from the not Azerbaijan related articles). --Abrvagl (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So let's see, they PROD articles with NO sources that fail GNG. Still failing to see the issue here with them. Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information dumps. That's what the rest of the internet is for.Slywriter (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, 1. Here Kevo327 on his own decides that inauguration the Guba Genocide Memorial Complex is unrelated to the Quba mass graves and removes without any discussions or talk.

2. Here he removes sourced material without any discussion because it is "Highly dubious"

3. Here he removes sourced material without discussion stating that "Not if ref", while in reality it was supported with valid source(and was in ref)

4. Here Kevo on his own, with out any discussion removes sourced information related to Azerbaijan, because he on his own decides that it is "Undue, diplomatic formality".

5. Here Kevo without any discussions removes the provided fit for purpose source. I checked the source and it was valid.. Previously Kevo tried to delete this article with speedy deletion, but failed. This time, after sources were deleted from the article, it was nominated for deletion by ZaniGovanni (who magically appears every time when Kevo needs help) and reverted to other article.

6. In the Sevinj Stories, he made a change which he not mentioned in the edit summary. What he hided is that he changed title of the reference from the original(as stated in the source) "Xocalı soyqırımında həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl killed in the Khojaly massacre) " to the "Xocalıda həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl who died in Khojaly)". Which completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

I can continue more and more. Gooing though Kevo327 contribution history it is clearly that what he does to Azerbaijan related articles is looks for any material which can be deleted or for any article which can be deleted. This is not good faith edits. This is disruptive and biased editing. --Abrvagl (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please continue, you just show more evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior towards this editor. Virtually every edit you linked was cited with a partisan source and was undue: [80], [81], [82]. It's funny to see your double standards here considering the DRN discussion of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan and your surgical analysis of every source citing dozens of guidelines like an established wikilawyer. Once again, it's absent here for some reason (guess doesn't support a certain POV) and you continue this unfounded battleground pursuit even when others tell you to stop. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Zani, Not sure what is your point. There can not be a single evidence of battleground, for one simple reason: There is no battle between me and Kevo327. Yes we disagree in some points, but so far all our discussions were in civil manner and there was no insulting or harassments. I think you understood WP:BATTLEGROUND completely wrong. About the links you called partisan, non of the are actually partisan for the context they are used. Two just stating the facts related to the article, one about historical drama mini-series, second about Otorbaev visit to Azerbaijan. Third one I accept that can be deemed as partisan, but was used to support not partisan material. I find the way you communicate overwhelming. That's is why I do not want to interact with you outside of the formal article edit discussions. I am happily will answer to any of your further questions but only thru moderation of A. C. Santacruz, if she does not mind. Abrvagl (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Diff 1 - In 2020, on the occasion of the Azerbaijani victory in the Battle of Shusha, Otorbaev congratulated Azeri President Ilham Aliyev in his position as a member of the Baku-based Nizami Ganjavi International Center, calling the victory "a crucial step, which will lead to full liberation of Karabakh".

There isn't a context to include this partisan and NPOV text with non-neutral "liberation" in it, the source for it is far from suitable in this context, WP:UNDUE.

• Diff 2 - "It has been established that along with Azerbaijanis the mass grave contains the remains of brutally murdered Lezgins, Jews, Tats and other ethnic groups living in Quba." ... "The names of 81 massacred Jewish civilians were found and confirmed."

Highly controversial statements cited only by an archive to Az president's website and an archive to this visions.az website. WP:UNDUE and partisan for such claims. I'm amazed again how someone so knowledge about guidelines and policies doesn't consider this when looking at the sources, is there a particular reason that your behavior is changed now compared to the DRN discussion? Why are you so unbelievably soft on partisan and undue Az sources and claims cited by them?

• Diff 3 - sources used are partisan and unreliable, I don't see a problem with removing those.

To your last point, honestly, I couldn't care less whether you want to interact with me or not. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Ottayev wrote what he wrote. It is statement of fact.
2. This one used for not partisan context
3. This one was removed by Kevo with “Over-sourced” comment :) And I linked this case not for the sources he removed, but for other reason. So I dont get what u speaking about…looks like you not reading carefully:) This was my last reply to you.

Abrvagl (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I really encourage you to stop digging. At least one of your sources is a Presidential website for a VERY contentious statement of fact. That is by definition not a secondary source. Whatever content dispute there is can be resolved elsewhere but all I see here is a far too determined attempt to remove another editor from the topic area so that unsourced, poorly sourced and otherwise inappropriate material is allowed. WP:DROPTHESTICK before this really does become about your own conduct which is starting to look quite poor.Slywriter (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IBAN

• @Slywriter: can I ask that this editor gets a one-way IBAN from me? At this point he is basically stalking me, evidently searching through my edits all the way back to January (from the links above) and has even started voting the opposite of my votes in discussions out of spite without reseaching anything about the articles discussed [83][84]. This editor has a clear battleground mentality and I don't want to get dragged into a ABF fuelled Wiki-crusade everytime I edit. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Groundless. I have better things to do than stalking. What I was looking thru the Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan - Wikipedia clean up list and providing comments. It is not my fault that Kevo327 name signed almost under every article nominated for deletion/merge. Abrvagl (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  By better things to do you mean doing exactly what Kevo327 says, going through his contributions way back to January, trying to find 'dirt' (after your failed ANI attempt) and crafting a 6000bytes+ essay based on a nothing burger? Did you also find this, this or this in WikiProject Azerbaijan? Are you saying you weren't WP:HOUNDING Kevo327? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I did find them in the WikiProject Azerbaijan. No, I am not hounding anyone. Abrvagl (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate how did you find random articles like Nar (company) and Baku Crystal Hall in "Wikiproject Azerbaijan"? I don't see them being nominated for anything, yet you're in both articles undoing Kevo's edits and in other articles as well. Also, could you explain how in your irrelevant 6000bytes+ essay where you linked Kevo's edits even from January, you somehow didn't hound them? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  You can certainly propose it, Kevo327. In any case, I don't think an indefinite IBAN is justified. In my eyes if there is concern about hounding it's more of a very recent episode somewhat related to this ANI thread. If an IBAN is warranted for hounding concerns, a one month ban should suffice. WP:COOLDOWN are rarely useful, but as this is a new editor that may be a more effective warning that could help them improve their conduct and prevent further escalation in the future. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  A. C. Santacruz I'm afraid it's quite justifiable, they have a clear battleground mindset, repeatedly try to do anything to "win" by making aspersions that I'm a vandal or edit disruptively, even hounding me and going as far as vandalising a PROD that i made [85], they didn't also didn't stop after being told to drop it, all of their sourcing disputes are based on their repeated and unresolvable misinterpretation of WP:BURDEN, their personal POV and CIR issues. I can't forsee them to ever be an editor who's here to build an encyclopedia. The AA2 area always has problematic editors like this who see themselves in a virtual battleground. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Kevo327 the fact that they took up recent disputes to DRN when neither you nor Zani have makes the argument that they're not here to build an encyclopedia less convincing than you think and shows in my mind they could learn how to be a better editor with some guidance. In my mind this has all start as a minor sourcing dispute, got out of hand due to Abrvagl's inexperience and your own unwillingness to start a discussion in talk (I won't be arguing for arguments sake), and y'all are asking for everyone to get sanctioned like 2 days after this whole things started. I strongly recommend you, ZaniGiovanni, and Abrvagl leave the ANI thread for at least a day so that experienced editors can actually assess the situation without a new sanction proposal happening every 6 hours. If you think the AA2 area is filled with problematic editors, actually following WP:BRD as you failed to do in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan and trying to establish consensus rather than impose your view (however correct) through edit warring will certainly improve the virtual battleground experience you seem to come across often. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks A. C. Santacruz for acting as example and leading us. I will follow your recommendation and will leave ANI. I will not write anything here unless specifically asked for. Abrvagl (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, This is a preconceived notion that arose in the light of the report I raised ANI. I was going thru the WikiProject Azerbaijan and reviewing the articles and categories nominated for deletion/merge. I provided comments on number of them. In some cases I Agreed, in others Opposed or proposed other option [[86]];[[87]];[[88]];[[89]];[[90]];[[91]];[[92]]. I was not looking for Kevo327. It is just that Kevo327's name is almost under every WP:AZERBAIJAN related articles nominated for deletion/speedy deletion/merge.

Actually the reason I decided to raise ANI was that while reviewing WikiProject Azerbaijan, I found Kevo327 name almost under every article nominated for deletion. Then I checked Kevo327 talk page, and found that he was warned for looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion and anti-Azerbaijani bias. Then I decided to check his contributions and found that Kevo327 removing materials from, and nominates/votes for deletion primarily Azerbaijan related articles. I identified that Kevo almost never added material or source to the Azerbaijan related articles and always voted for deletion of the articles. Kevo327 does not show same approach to other non-Azerbaijani related articles in the AA2 area. I found such behavior not good faith and raised ANI for admins to check. That is all story. Here I declare that I have no personal grudge or vendetta against Kevo327. We all grown humans and this is not kindergarten. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl I suggest you leave the community to decide now if the evidence you have provided is enough to justify sanctions against Kevo327 or if there is not enough evidence of disruptive behaviour. More diffs won't do anything expect reduce the likelihood of people actually reading through them, and more text will only reduce the likelihood people will actually hear your arguments out. You've said all you can really say about Kevo's conduct at this point, and I recommend you leave it at that and drop the stick. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you repeating the same unfounded accusations which you were asked to stop by 3rd party users and an admin? After so much talk and replies to you, I'm struggling to believe you don't understand what PRODing articles means, or removing unsourced / poorly sourced content. This just seems to be unfounded accusations again which qualify as personal attacks, and continual bludgeon of your point. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni you need to realize that Abrvagl is highly unlikely to listen to the comments or recommendations you make to them. You are preaching to deaf ears. You have been involved in numerous content disputes and disagreements recently with them so I think it's best if you let other editors give Abrvagl guidance at this time. I hope this doesn't sound passive aggressive but your rhetorical question and comment above won't move this issue forward at all. It's not disruptive, but it's not helpful either. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, it does sound like you're giving too much benefit of the doubt to this editor, considering I'm not the only one with the view of their battleground unfounded accusations and refusal to drop the stick. It seems like even editors who never interacted with them and an admin aren't capable of changing their mind. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni that's certainly a fair accusation. And yes, I am giving them too much benefit of the doubt and much more than I'm giving the rest of you. That's because they are a new editor that is not only having to learn the ropes of Wikipedia but also having to do so in one of the most contentious topic areas on the wiki. I myself was a new editor once and was so disruptive at first that I got a 3 month ban from ANI (entirely deserved) at about the same edit count as Abrvagl. That temporary ban is the best gift and soundest advice I've been given on-wiki. I learned a lot since then and greatly improved the quality of my contributions and value to the wiki since then. I think what Abrvagl needs more than anything is a very patient editor like myself that can help them be less disruptive. I think what you and Kevo need is to assume more good faith in newbies and stick to BRD more closely. You yourself have been at AE multiple times so it's not like you can claim to be entirely constructive in this topic area. As I've said multiple times above, this was a sourcing dispute that got out of hand. Let's dial down the heat, take a week long break, and then go back to making content and reaching consensus. WP:CANDOR is a rare skill and one we would all benefit from training in. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's because they are a new editor

Again with respect, I'm not sure how you can say this considering they cited more guidelines and policies in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan than any other 'new' account would ever do on this website, and considering you're a mediator in that dispute you should be aware of this. And they have been in enough disputes and ANI discussions already to know better. At this point, newcomer's defense reads more like a WP:CIR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni they didn't cite the PAGs correctly, though. I've had to correct them twice that WP:CIRCULAR refers to sources that mirror Wikipedia and not non-wiki sources that refer to each other. The other PAGs they cited are ones we expect editors to be familiar with even as newbies (e.g. WP:WEIGHT) or ones that could come up repeatedly in contentious topic areas like AA2 (e.g. WP:EXTRAORDINARY). Their use of PAGs in their arguments didn't raise any flags to me and newbie editors should be encouraged to try and base their arguments off PAGs rather than opinions. Point is they have about 300 edits and have only edited for 3 months so yes, to me they are a new editor. Their conduct in this ANI thread definitely fits the mold of "new editor just found out about ANI, proceeds to inundate it with 100 diffs". I don't consider editors to stop being new until they reach 1000 edits and don't consider them to be experienced until 5000 or so. Your criteria may differ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Is hounding Kevo327 again and reverting what seems to be a legitimate PROD, then objecting to it even after you yourself warned them also a 'newcomer's mistake', or something else? To me, there is a certain pattern here. I'll say this much. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, as I said above, I would support a temporary one-way IBAN but I don't see Abrvagl's actions disruptive over a long enough period to warrant an indefinite IBAN or the extreme suggestion of a topic ban. The pattern that I see is a new editor getting flustered and irrational for a few days after being faced with experienced editors unwilling to engage in good-faith discussion with them. If they continue their actions after such an IBAN, or otherwise after this ANI is closed and they are warned, then I would agree that their disruption would not be explainable under the newbie benefit of the doubt and would support an indefinite IBAN at that time (which should probably be filled to AE and not here, by the way). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

...with experienced editors unwilling to engage in good-faith discussion with them.

Please don't make such accusations without any proof, you should know better. They were engaged in the talk pages:

• Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#The_Mixed_Messaging_of_Ilham_Aliyev
• Talk:The_house_with_angels#Objection.

Also, this report was filed on baseless and acccusatioral grounds, which isn't true and was noted as such by multiple editors, in reality being standard PROD of failed WP:GNG articles and removing unsourced or poorly sourced content by an editor. All of which to me and others was done in good faith and absolutely didn't warrant an ANI report. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• ZaniGiovanni Honestly, I think you have been unnecessarily involved and opinionated in this thread. Rather than allowing uninvolved editors resolve this, you have been pouring gasoline near the fire. Consider stepping back as there is ZERO benefit to the community by your continued responses and I give it an better than 50% chance of going unresolved as others are less and less inclined to read or join the discussion. Slywriter (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I prefer talk page discussions. Just wanted to clarify things, as I thought I was being accused of things without proof. All of this should've been discussed/resolved in talk page(s) regardless, and not brought up here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni the phrase wasn't an accusation towards you, but a comment on Kevo [93] [94] refusing multiple times to initiate discussion themselves. The house with angels discussion started after this ANI so I did not take it into account. The plural was not meant to include you but rather make it a general statement applicable to other situations (to fit the definition of a pattern) and I apologize if you felt included in that. I agree no ANI report was necessary, but it is also true that the ANEW report was unnecessary as well. In any case, I will recuse myself from this ANI discussion lest parties start thinking I am involved or biased (similar to what happened with Robert McClenon), thus leaving no volunteer at DRN eligible to moderate disputes in this topic area. There's no point in discussing this matter any further as you seem to want me to comment on specifics and agree with you rather than letting me keep my comments as vague as I intend to make them and disengage from the discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

IP user adding unsourced content to BLP football articles

I've been bumping into this IP user 142.165.195.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is adding unsourced, large additions to BLP football articles. A few warnings on their talk page last month did not seem to stop them. I see this as good faith but am unsure of what to do now. wizzito | say hello! 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it is largely trivia about coaching trees. Trees are notable for the "head", e.g. Bill Walsh, Parcells, etc... but this IP is going down the rabbit-hole and adding tree data sections to the next person down, and then all the people THEY spawned, and also the upriver details to the "head" again. Exponentially-growing trivia. ValarianB (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can source the content, do so, and then warn the user. If you cannot source it then remove it and warn the user. If they persist then report them - personally I'd be inclined to block now, but will see what others think. GiantSnowman 11:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There are definitely a lot of edits from them that need to be reverted/rollbacked. Sorry, but I'm not too interested in football to really add any content or verify any sources (I just watch some football/sports articles for vandalism). I do agree with a block as the unsourced coaching trivia does not seem to have stopped after those talk page comments. wizzito | say hello! 00:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman he is continuing after the level 3 warning and ANI notice I gave him. Evidently he isn't listening... also see my comment about how mass rollback is needed on the unsourced content. wizzito | say hello! 21:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours for repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs despite warnings. If they repeat when return then we will have to review. I agree with C.Fred, however, that some edits are good. GiantSnowman 22:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• There's wheat and chaff. They've made good copyedits at Eric Studesville, so I wouldn't do a blanket rollback of all their edits. It's going to take a bit of topic-area experience, or just a good eye for unsourced adds, to go through each edit. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick review of the edits. I picked up some major problems, but I don't see anything else glaring. Obviously, more eyes are welcome. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated promotion of Karna on articles

Ashneer‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repeated promotion of a Hindu epic protagonist—Karna. This is a sock farm, see User:DaxServer/Karna disruption/Users.
Involved disruption diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4.
(Courtesy ping of previously involved editor @DaxServer:). WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is an ongoing nuisance. I’ve already asked for locks for this user and a couple of others on meta — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 07:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there some PoG that discourages compiling lists of editors? If I, as an unblocked editor, saw my username on such a list then I would edit war the fuck out of it. – ².O.^Boxing 07:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing That's a good point. What are the guidelines around this, perhaps an admin could clarify? What about this one: User:DaxServer/Karna disruption/Users blocked then? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Looks like this warrants a listing on WP:LTA? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, @Padgriffin. It seems to be a better venue. @Rin, @FlightTime: Since you two enrolled as helpers, would any of you be willing to help me file a report? I could explain this better in one of our user talk pages or on the LTA talk page. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DaxServer. I'd be glad to help out with that -- feel free to leave a message on my talk page or anywhere else you'd like to (your talk, LTA talk page) with information about it. I'll look into it as well myself when I have some free time; as a start, the brief filing instructions can be found here. Rin (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Vinrpm.p6054 and persistent copyright violations, edit warring etc

Vinrpm.p6054 (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding copyrighted images of the team logo of Red Bull Racing, ripping the image straight from their website. After first adding it, the image was shortly after deleted on basis of being a copyright violation, the editor then added the image once again, with the same result demanding people to ″not remove it″. They were warned on 5 March about violating copyright, only to add the same image the very next day claiming it is free use when it is ripped from their website (the file has not been deleted yet, but is very likely also a copyright violation) here at which point they were again warned. They last restored the image with this edit made on 18 March here. Aside from this blatant disregard of copyright, Vinrpm also engages in edit warring on the Delhi article as can be seen with these edits: 1 2 3 and 4. In addition to this their response to being told on the talk page of Red Bull Racing by multiple editors that the image is not ″needed″ as they had claimed was the rather snide ″Another one of those typical admins on wikipedia″ (I am not an admin) here.

Overall surely some kind of sanctions are due here, I would say at least a temporary block. Pinging @Fowler&fowler: as well in case you have anything to add since you've also had plenty of experience with the editor in question and their disruptive editing. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Oracle Red Bull Racing logo.png - see WP:Non-free content. That should solve any problem with the Red Bull logo. I haven't examined any other issues you mention. Begoon 10:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not seeing much of a case for administrator action here, now that the non-free image has been uploaded locally. Vinrpm.p6054 has been mostly arguing with CommonsDelinker, which is a 'bot. What has been happening is that xe has been uploading the image to Commons (3 times at this point); it has been speedily deleted from Commons; CommonsDelinker has come along and removed the link here {e.g. Special:Diff/1071436474); and Vinrpm.p6054 writes edit summaries at a robot. Rinse and repeat (e.g. Special:Diff/1075406029). The problem to solve is to get Vinrpm.p6054 to stop uploading non-free stuff to Commons, which a block here does not prevent. That's the actual locus of the problem, and it's not just this image according to the Commons logs, either. A case needs to be made at Commons for doing something as every single upload by this account there has been a copyright violation. There's a very slow motion edit war over images at Delhi, but there's also talk page discussion. It had a minor flare up two days ago. I'm inclined to protect The Wrong Version to force use of the talk page, but only if there's another flare up. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think a temporary block would at least be a strong way to communicate that the behaviour is not ok, since the editor seems to completely ignore warnings. Since Begoon was kind enough to sort out the image, that should no longer be an issue. However while Vinrpm does make some limited use of talk pages I feel like they are just going to keep doing what they are doing unless there's some kind of punishment here. TylerBurden (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That is against blocking policy. The project with the need to prevent something is Commons, where there's a need to prevent further uploads of non-free images. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, but persistently inserting copyright violations into articles is a block worthy offense though right? I am not active on Commons (other than obtaining images from it for use) so I am not familiar at all with that process. TylerBurden (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
      • This is not a court of law and we are not policemen. It's not about "offences". It's about preventing things from continuing to happen. Commons needs something to stop happening, and the people to stop it are at Commons, probably at commons:Project:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. If the editor uploads these things locally, with a proper and valid fair use rationale, then as you can see (because it's been done) there's nothing problematic here, so stopping xem from doing things here is entirely the opposite of what's needed. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Lapado vandalism

Once again vandals are editing articles to put forward less than the truth on Joseph Ladapo BLP. Ladapo issued guidance recommending against healthy children receiving a covid vaccine. User:Snooganssnoogans had previously done that last week and is now again editing the article removing sourced information as cited by the source. I posted on his talk page asking him to stop and have not rereverted his edits vandalizing the article. Do not want to edit war though someone needs to have him stop vandalistic actions and maintain NPOV policies regardless of personal bias.2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Left message of this report though not sure if he will see/notice it. Thank you2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, the removal is not vandalism. The comments you added didn't have a reliable source. Even if the claim is true, Wikipedia needs sources to back such a claim. If I understand correctly, your concern is the article says he is opposed to vaccinating children and you are saying he is opposed only to vaccinating healthy (non-risk group?) children? If true that is a significant distinction and probably should be in the article. Do you have a source for the claim so editor scan assess it? Springee (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yo should slow down and go to the same source that is referenced and read it. t says healthy children shouldnt be vaxxed...Not all children and then the other edits same source where it staes four doctors disagree...in that source it says 17,000 mds signed a letter saying they agreed with Laado advisement. That is the other edit u removed with poor edits. When editing an article and reverting others good faith edits it would be wise to check the source and do due diligence to ascertain what the correct edit is. Please revert your incorrect edits to Ladapo and stop vandalizing the BLP 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what the source states. It is the same source that editors keep changing to remove the word healthy. The source is "The Palm Beach Post" That is the very source and only source in that portion of the paragraph. It is the source for the 17,000 doctors letter agreeing with SG Joseph Lapado of Florida. The edits by snoggins need to be self reverted maybe that will stop his vandalism. Thank you 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) SORRY DONT KNOW HOW TO SHRINK THIS DOWN...

That is exactly vandalistic behavior...editing an article to put forward an untruth. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation that healthy children in Florida not be vaccinated against COVID-19. In doing so, Florida became the first state in the US to issue such a recommendation. The recommendation was contrary to that of the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics

Now there is the aragraph in question...gee looks like it is a cited source though must admit if i had no NPOV Ii "might" say it isnt sourced or its not what the sourcesays. Check it out and the article needs to be reverted back back snoggins...2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not call this vandalism again. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations of vandalism can result in you being blocked from editing. Vandalism does not mean "edits I disagree with." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats really funny... that is exactly what vandalism is editing an article in opposition to what a reliable source says. That is also bias and a violation of NPOV on Wikipedia. The source's article is titled "Florida to be first state to recommend healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC". the source is "The Palm Beach Post". published 7 March 2022. The source actually says "healthy children" (believe it or not)

When an editor redacts the word healthy and allows the BLP to say just "children" that is misleading the reading public and dishonest. Whenever I see something I don't believe, I don't just edit the article to make it say what I believe the source says...I read the source and act and edit appropriately. Don't you? Otherwise Wikipedia would become a mishmash of people's bias and lack a neutral point of view which Wikipedia desires to avoid. The article needs to be reverted to correct the vandalism. Have a nice day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep insisting on using inaccurate words. The removal of the "healthy" thing clearly was not vandalism as other editors have told you. It was a BLP violation which frankly is far more serious than vandalism so it's particularly silly that you insist on calling it something that it isn't. However this time around, AFAICT, it was fixed in ~15 hours [95] and has not been removed since. So while not ideal it's a meh situation. In the mean time you've been trying to add nonsense to the article, and have sometimes removed important information both before and after the recent flareup over the "healthy" thing so it's not like you've been helping the situation. I'd note that despite your apparent desire to add this nonsense to the article, you made no attempt to discuss it while the page was protected. And you've still made no effort to really discuss anything on the talk page beyond the healthy thing (for which there is no disagreement it belongs) and some generic rants. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Non-Admin comment Added reflist so references are contained in this section, rather than being appended at the bottom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Childish vandalism from New Zealand: Summer Rogers name added

• MISS CALIFORNIA 3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

2406:5A00:6CFF:3200:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using a wide range of New Zealand IPs, and the registered username MISS CALIFORNIA 3, has been vandalizing various articles by changing names to Summer Rogers.[96][97][98] Quite often, their edit summary includes "true and correct". I saw nothing constructive from this person. Can we get a block? Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked. Although only one edit was recent, none of their edits are helpful and they are engaging in a childlike manner when asked about it. Not here to build an encyclopaedia. Secretlondon (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that does it. I'll check the IP range every so often to see if they continue the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam

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

---

(moved from WT:AN --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC))

Hi

Im new so pardon if I dont post this correctly. I had a discussion at Ponyos talk page where I argued that Wikis deletion rules and Ponyo's application of them where counterproductive (my point along with other editors being that the normally well functioning proces of deletion tags can in some instances be misused in the interest of censorship regimes such as Putin's Russia as in this case of the article of Marina Ovsyannikova). However Floquenbeam deleted my comment and wrote:

>>hello "new" editor. stop being a jerk. you were asked to stop posting here. if you do it again, you'll be blocked from editing with no further warning".<<

And this is what I wrote that Floquenbeam deleted:

>>Yeah, you keep refering to those wikiproceses as if they came down from the sky written in stone. In stead of getting offended by me critising the holy policies and you fighting for their rigourous application, could you not consider - as many others had in the discussions page - that in this case the "correct processes" were counter productive and that they actually benefit a real life dictator? Especially after you realised, that I was in fact right that the article shouldnt be deleted. That could have lead to a discussion about improving the "correctable processes" instead of a religious trench defense. HansClumsy (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)<<

I cant see that my argument merits deletion, getting blocked, or the Admin calling me a "jerk". By deleting my comment and threatening me with being blocked I believe that he is misusing his Admin-privileges. I have reinserted my comment to get the full picture here: [99], and I've tried to reason with Floquenbeam at his talk page.

Also, I want to reiterate my - and other peoples - point, that 40.000 people around the world saw Russian editor and Putin critic Marina Ovsyannikova's article with a red flag saying "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." After a few hours 95% of editors asked for a keep and deletion of the tag. But only the folowing day did the Admin remove the tag. This is clearly in the interests of Russian censorship that the article of her has a red deletion flag questioning her and the article. Im not blaming the original Admin, but this is in my opinion a weakness in wiki policy. These flags should not be placed instantly however they should be removed quickly when a consesus has formed. Remember it is in these first hours that the article is being wieved intensively by people that want to know who she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansClumsy (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What you propose is not going to happen. If you do not believe, the venue to discuss this is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But I give exactly zero chances of success to such proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thxh. Are you talking about my proposal about deletion tags, or Floquenbeams threat of blocking me? The venue you link to doesnt work. HansClumsy (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeams threat of blocking you was because you persisted in posting on a user's talk page after that user had stated that they were done discussing the subject with you. Generally once someone tells you to stop talking about something on their talk page, you should stop talking about it on their talk page. And continuing to do so would be considered harassment. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt know that. So that means if I have done something wrong - for instance misused my Admin privileges and blocked someone that I shouldnt have - if they write an notify me this on my talk page, then I can delete it? So the talk page on my profile is really just what I want people to see, not what people say. HansClumsy (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't have any admin privileges. You can delete whatever you want from your talk page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not 100% true. You have broad control over your own talk page, but there are things you are not allowed to remove from it. See WP: OWNTALK, and WP:REMOVED. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Well ackchyually..." Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

When people are having trouble with policy, we do them no favors by giving them inaccurate policy guidance. It's better to just point them to the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thx, for clearing it up for me and directing me to the guidelines. Also the history is there, so people can always back and see what me and my pals dont want you to read about me ;-) HansClumsy (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've just blocked HanClumsy from Ponyo's talk page since they reinstated the comment again, after a clear warning not to. I realize I'm not supposed to call people jerks, but it is difficult sometimes when they are so clearly being a jerk to another editor. If this thread gets moved off this talk page and onto a noticeboard, and people want me to respond further, please ping me (not you, Hans, I mean other editors). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think again Floquenbeam is bordering on misusing his privileges here. Blocking a newbie for not knowing the rules, that doesnt make sense. As you can see from above I didnt know that I could not write on Ponyos page. Seeing I have no intention on breaking the rules and writing on ponyos talk page again, this blocking is rather symbolic. HansClumsy (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you're not going to post on the page again, then there's no harm here. De minimis non curat Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  The blocking was because they didn't think you would stop posting at their talk page about the subject. That is a subjective judgement they are allowed to make. Now, that you state you have no intention of continuing the behavior that Floquenbeam blocked you for, you can file an appeal. It is best to do so on your own talk page, and I would recommend reading WP: GAB. It is best to focus on what you did, and why you won't do it again as opposed to trying to claim that what someone did was un-justified. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, "I didnt know that I could not write on Ponyos page" is demonstrably not true. They objected, on my talk page, to my very clear message that they couldn't reinstate that post. This is not a misunderstanding, it is a lie. Misunderstanding = newbie who needs advice/guidance. Lying = troll who needs to be shown the door. I'll leave it to someone uninvolved to see how long we tolerate a troll here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  ! Involved block alert! Involved block alert! ! /hj Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would block the user indefinitely as some combination of WP:NOTHERE and disruptive editing, but I reverted an edit the user made to Peter Schmeichel, and although he reverted me right back and I didn't pursue it, I think it makes me WP:INVOLVED. That said, I recommend an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have increased the block to site-wide, and dropped an explanation on HansClumsy's talk page explaining why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Panda619

Panda619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Panda619 has been engaging in disruptive editing ignoring the concerns of other Wikipedia editors in the article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. On 2nd March 2022, User:Panda619 added [100] content to the article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. As I did not agree with his edit, I undid his edit [101] by providing the reason in the edit summary. Soon after, user User:Panda619 left a message[102] on my talk page warning me on disruptive editing. As I have only reverted his edit only once at that time, I questioned him[103] how my editing is disruptive as I have reverted his edit only once and also I have given a proper explanation in the edit summary. He didn't reply to my question and went on to add the reverted content to the article again [104]. As I disagree with his addition, I reverted[105] his addition and I invited him to the article talk page to discuss and achieve consensus[106]. User:Panda619 never came to discuss in the talk page and kept adding the same content to the article. As he was clearly engaging in disruptive editing, I decided to go to his talk page and post a message warning him on disruptive editing hoping at least then he would come to discuss[107]. However today, User:Panda619 removed my message from his talk page[108] and left another warning on my talk page[109] telling me that I may be blocked from editing as I haven't given a valid reason for the removal of his edits in War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War in the edit summary. However, I have given edit summaries in my edits explaining the reasons for reverting. As previously mentioned, I have even invited him to discuss in the article talk page. He seems to ignore them all. Without discussing, he keeps putting warning messages in my talk page.JohnWiki159 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I see going on:

• The image was added to the article by Panda619, JohnWiki159 objected and reverted, and started a discussion on the talk page. So far, all good.
• Panda619 continued a slow-motion edit war by reverting several more times over the course of a few weeks. An anonymous editor also reverted once.
• In the talk page discussion, no one agreed that the image was controversial or that it violated NPOV. While it wasn't widely attended, JohnWiki159 remains the only editor who believes this image is inappropriate, and there are at least 3 other editors who don't think it is inappropriate.
• The image was speedy deleted from Commons a few hours ago for being a derivative work based on non-free content.

My takeaways from all of this: big trout to Panda619 for the slow-motion revert war, and for not engaging on the talk page. Small trout to JohnWiki159 for not relenting once it became clear that no one agreed with him. Now that the image has been deleted, this is all a moot point. I don't see any sanctions resulting from this, so I'd recommend the trouts and then close this up and move on to something more productive. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scottywong:Thanks for the reply. I just noticed the image has been speedy deleted from Commons a few hours ago. Thanks for pointing that out. I understand there is no point in continuing this discussion further. However, I would like to highlight some few points. User:Panda619 left a message on my user talk page warning me on disruptive editing soon after I undid his first edit on War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. He warned me on disruptive editing after I undid his edit only once. I am pretty sure my revert does not fall under disruptive editing as per the guidelines as I have reverted his edits only once at that point in time by giving a proper edit summary. As I have only reverted his edit only once at that point in time, I questioned him how my editing is disruptive as I have reverted his edit only once and also I have given a proper explanation in the edit summary. He didn't reply to my question. He also never engaged in the article talk page. Today, he left another warning on my user talk page telling me that I may be blocked from editing as I haven't given a valid reason for the removal of his edits in War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War in the edit summary. However, I have given edit summaries in my edits explaining the reasons for reverting and even invited him for the discussion in the article talk page. He ignored them all and kept putting warning messages in my user talk page. Do Wikipedia policies allow Wikipedia users to put random warning messages in other user talk pages when it is evident that other users have not violated any of the concerns pointed out in the warnings? I am pretty new to Wikipedia as I joined Wikipedia about 7 months ago and I am still learning the Wikipedia policies. I think it is rude of User:Panda619 to leave random warning messages on my user talk page when I have not violated any of the concerns highlighted in the warnings. It is he who never replied to my concerns. JohnWiki159 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@JohnWiki159: I agree with everything you said; in this case, a templated warning message seems inappropriate after one revert, and User:Panda619 absolutely should have engaged on the talk page of the article instead of putting warnings on your talk page. Please understand that anyone can put a warning on anyone's talk page, and I don't think there are any particular policies or guidelines that put rules around placing those warnings. Additionally, admins understand that anyone can place these warnings and they're often overused, so you won't actually be blocked unless you're doing something particularly wrong. No admin will block you based on the presence of a warning template alone, they'd always look into the details of the situation to see what's really going on. So, while Panda's use of warning templates isn't great, there isn't much that anyone is going to do about it unless it really rises to the level of persistent harassment or something like that. You always have the option of asking Panda to not post on your user talk page at all, if you feel the need. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scottywong:Thank you very much for the explanation. JohnWiki159 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring of two IP user and probably vandalism?

I'm not quite sure why this two IP users (seemed socks of each other or someone) , came to my user page asking for help from sysops saying they are engaged in edit war of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes with another editor user:Dora the Axe-plorer.

2603:6011:7501:7862:FCD1:EA01:D1E8:AB2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2603:6011:7501:7862:CC60:70EB:F3B2:4361 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

by the way, in my opinion, these two IP users were kept harassing me and user:Dora the Axe-plorer, and since I'm not a sysop at all, so I also had no choice but to come here for help. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP came to my talk page accusing me of not assuming good faith and engaging in and edit war 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes. Why would I? IP failed to explain what the changes were and add a citation to support their claim. Basically, IP changed the magnitude values in the infobox and body. User:Dawnseeker2000 reverted those changes on the basis that they were "unexplained". The revert was undone by IP who said they were "making these changes per the USGS website".

I assumed this was in reference to the USGS catalog of earthquakes (1 234). However, the new figured added by IP didn't reflect the USGS catalog, and again there uncited. IP also made changes in the body text, and the cited sources don't support their changes. I assumed these changes were WP:HIJACK and reverted them. Ultimately, it's not good practice to make scattered (but significant) changes and worse still, not add a citation.

There is no edit war; I reverted IP's edits and they didn't come back to fight. Though I was spammed with probably 20 alerts from my talk page by IP 5. IP dropped the first message and there were a bunch of alerts about smaller edits. Another message dropped but IP self-reverted them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I also got a bunch of alerts from my talk page. Even don't knowing why... Pavlov2 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm They're the same user on the same /64... wizzito | say hello! 04:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

user:Dora the Axe-plorer I was in the process of citing the necessary references, when you reverted my edits without giving me a chance to finish typing them and post them to the Wikipedia page. I didn't "come back to fight" because I did not want to be blocked for edit warring per WP:Edit war. 2603:6011:7501:7862:1D0D:E473:BED3:671C (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I wouldn't have reverted them if you had adequately explained your edits and your intentions in the edit summary. How can I take them as constructive and allow the changes to stay? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly this case solved. Closed? Pavlov2 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User Btspurplegalaxy

Btspurplegalaxy repeatedly broke the rules and ignored talks. The rule was Wikipedia:No personal attacks. First, they suspected my bad intentions without proof on this edit on the page of Jimin (singer, born 1995), on which I started the talk. I stated this is problematic there, but in the talk Btspurplegalaxy called my edits “babbling”. I thought this is not acceptable, so I created a new discussion to discuss this, but they archived that 30 minutes after that. They soon deleted “archive” on the archive page. So I pointed out this fact on the talk page, but they deleted that soon, which they claimed is archived but actually is not archived at this point.小出-小坂井 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What they called “babbling” was my comments. I wrote this to avoid misunderstanding. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK editors are fully entitled to deleted comments posted to their talk page. There is zero requirement to archive them. Please do not edit war to keep a comment on another editor's talk page or to archive it. While their description of your comment as "babbling" was not particularly polite, it's the sort of comment that is pointless to worry about. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I wrote that is this page demands me to use talk page. Guideline says “Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.” Don’t conclude this is “edit war” so soon, please. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You are indeed required to use an article talk page to discuss proposed changes to article content when there is dispute. If you are unhappy with an editor's behaviour it's fine to approach them about it, but if they're not receptive then just leave it. There's zero point forcing an editor to acknowledge what you said, let alone trying to force them to archive your messages. As OWNTALK says, if they delete you comment you take it that they've read it and hopefully taken on board any essential messages. If they haven't and they continue with problematic behaviour then they will have to take responsibility for that when it gets serious enough to bring to a noticeboard. But an editor deleting your comments from their talk page is not noticeboard worthy. I'd note that while you were able to complain about Btspurplegalaxy archiving your messages, you've failed to notify them of this discussion as the big boxes say you are required to do. Also where did Btspurplegalaxy actually say you were babbling? I AGFed that your comment was accurate but now that I've looked more carefully at the diffs, I don't see where Btspurplegalaxy said you were "babbling" Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I found the babbling thing, was confused by the mobile diffs. Anyway I've notified Btspurplegalaxy of this ANI for you. Please do so yourself in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically you made mistakes about understanding behaviors of editors. If they behave unacceptably you have to discuss that to change them. In some cases they can be blocked. Sorry, your misunderstanding is not directly relevant to the topic, but I understand your “opinion”. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@小出-小坂井: you're mistaken. We talk to editors when they behaviour is a problem. if they're receptive and ask questions or seek further feedback great, we can keep talking hoping this will help make them a better editor. If they're not particularly receptive we can hope they got the basics and will change their behaviour if necessary. We do not demand editors respond in a certain way unless their behaviour is already enough to justify a block and that only comes from an admin or the community. If it is not, then we just let them be. We especially do not violate WP:OWNTALK by demanding an editor keep messages or archive them. All editors needs to take responsibility for their behaviour and while we can try to help them if they don't accept that help we cannot force them. Trying to force them has been found from long experience to be unproductive. Especially when you're trying to force an editor to accept help from an editor they are in disagreement with and there's no party judging whether the concerns are even fair. Again you've already informed the editor of your concerns. What they do with that is up to them. Assuming your concerns is legitimate, if they don't change that's on them. Continuing to bug an edit when they are clearly non receptive to your messages is not a solution. While Btspurplegalaxy has not (I believe) specifically asked you to leave them alone, if you keep bugging them on the same issue when they clearly don't welcome your messages, it risks falling into WP:harassment territory and you will be blocked. Also your complaint was that someone called your comments 'babbling' but then you refer to my opinion as an '“opinion”' with the scare quotes? Pot, kettle, black much? Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your whataboutism does not work this time. The reason why I made this section is to notify other editors of problematic behavior of the editor, and making talk page and talk page deletion is the dysfunction of the first step of the discussion. This is part of their problematic behavior. This is the reason why I wrote the deletion of talk page and your opinion is “opinion”. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

小出-小坂井, you started this report with, "Btspurplegalaxy repeatedly broke the rules". If you're going to make claims like that then make damn sure that you are not breaking "the rules", such as WP:OWNTALK, which was linked in the very first reply you received and says, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". Not an opinion, but a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you ignore guideline of “Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively”? This page also demands me to use talk page and pointing out deletion of that is to show “discussion” failed. In the first place I asserted the editor broke Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@小出-小坂井 Drop the stick and move back. Nowhere did Btspurplegalaxy broken WP:NPA which various others have pointed out on, you may have interpreted the word "babbling" in the wrong way/context, when all Btspurplegalaxy asked for is to gain consensus on the article's talkpage instead of moving away from the topic like stating other participating editors is doing vote when none of the participating editors in that article's talkpage are doing such with pretty obvious missing of Support and/or Oppose. Furthermore, editors are allowed to blank and/or archive and/or ignore discussion on their personal talkpage per WP:OWNTALK, of which Nil Einne has pointed out above. Continuously doing so, when the other party has blank and/or archive and/or ignore the discussion on their personal talkpage can be considered as WP:HARASS of which Nil Einne also pointed out above. Lastly, Btspurplegalaxy didn't violate WP:CIR either as they have clearly communicated on the article's talkpage whether or not, they blank and/or archive and/or ignore the discussion on their talkpage is perfectly up to them to decide on, if it's worth discussing then they would have done so, if they deemed it as not worth discussing then so be it, there's nothing you can do about it as Btspurplegalaxy did communicate on Jimin's article talkpage instead of completely ignoring any form of communication. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We have to make it clear that only one editor was “third party” and that all participants of the talk but them were editors who deleted my edits without validity (which I tried to prove) or you who were called by them. Main purpose of the talk is to tell whether deletion was valid or not. I talked about this but they ignored that and called my comments “babbling”. Who did not discuss was not me, but them. That’s my point. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell they didn't ignore what you said but read it and concluded it wasn't reason enough to warrant the edits you were trying to include. I babble all the time. That doesn't mean I'm doing anything in bad faith. Most of the time it has purpose in my opinion but in others it may not. Could they have left that out? Sure. It wasn't the most kind response but I don't see it as violating WP:NPA. The issue with their user talk page and your insistence on continuing your conversation with them after they removed it could border on WP:Harassment or WP:Hounding so just be careful and my suggestion is a lot like others here, let things go if it seems you are getting too invested or irritated. --ARoseWolf 17:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we consider a WP:BOOMERANG? Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 20:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No. We have far too many calls for a WP:BOOMERANG. Just that an editor was mistaken doesn't mean that any sanctions are needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Meh. A warning, for sure. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Don’t take me wrong, but if someone just read something and start writing other things, it means they ignore that. They did not give any rational explanations of deletion and start claiming other reasonings which was not mentioned in the deletion. It’s like they already knew they would decline the content. Maybe this is “babbling”, but this method is right? --小出-小坂井 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

小出-小坂井, I haven't taken you wrong, in fact, I can see where you are coming from but it's the incorrect interpretation of policy and talk page etiquette. I believe everything you have done is in good faith and I will not offer support for the calls for a WP:Boomerang. It's easy for us to get stuck in this narrow understanding where everything else melts away and all we have is our own viewpoints and thoughts but my suggestion is to let this go and move on to something else. When we get like that, self included, we typically see everything not lining up with our viewpoints as being against us when that's not the case at all. It's okay to seek further clarification but we need to know when to drop the stick rather than dig in further. I'm not an admin but I do think its that time because I don't see where anyone was wrong or lacked good faith but some were incorrect in words and understanding. --ARoseWolf 17:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

LambdofGod's personal attacks

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

---

Following the discussion above, which resulted in LambdofGod being temporarily blocked from editing Arabs in Germany, they have engaged in discussion at Talk:Arabs in Germany#Updated population figure, but unfortunately don't seem to be able to refrain from personal attacks. This started a few days ago with this edit summary, then we've had this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This is the 3rd report about them at ANI in the past week, and their talk page is just screen after screen of warnings since they starting editing at Wikipedia. LambdofGod does not seem to be a positive contributor to the project. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, although for balance I should note that all three reports are by me, and are really about the same issue - if the first hadn't been archived and the second closed, I would have stuck to one report. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but their behavior does speak for itself. And Floquenbeam has dealt with it (appropriately, IMO). Lamb needs to acknowledge the need to edit in a collegial and civil manner. Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well that's enough of that. Blocked indef. If they make what another admin considers an acceptable unblock request that includes an agreement to stop making personal attacks, the admin doesn't need to feel the need to discuss with me first (I may or may not be available). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by 5.197.232.50

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

---

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

[110] 10 September 2021 - Changed sourced "puppet state" to "Autonomous state", no edit summary

[111] 26 September 2021 - Replaced "Persian" with "Azerbaijani Turkic", no edit summary

[112] 13 November 2021 - Replaced sourced "Persian" with "Turkic", no edit summary

[113] 30 November 2021 - Changed sourced "of Iranian descent, born in Russia" to "of Azerbaijani descent, born in Azerbaijan,Baku", no edit summary

[114] 10 January 2022 - Replaced "Iranian" with "Mesopotamian", no edit summary

[115] 28 January 2022 - Replaced "Iranian" with "Safavi Qizilbash", no edit summary

[116] 21 March 2022 - Removed several sourced mentions of "Persian", replacing it with "Turkic", no edit summary

Attempted thrice to replace anything "Persian" with "Azerbaijani" in a well sourced article [117] [118] [119]. Again, no edit summary

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and on a nationalistic mission. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and not a NOTHERE issue. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

How is altering sourced information in several articles a content dispute? Could you kindly explain where those sources actually mention the stuff he is attempting to add? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a content dispute, it's nationalist disruption. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Master Vampire Shihab

Master Vampire Shihab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.147.140.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sylhet Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylhet region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Greater Sylhet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The User:Master Vampire Shihab has had multiple warnings on his talk page regarding his troublesome edits by multiple users, and has now resorted to editing with his IP. I would request that both are blocked. Cheers. UserNumber (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reckless personal attacks by 99.209.7.250

See his talk page history. He started being crazy on his talk page after his vandalism was reverted. Now he's been blocked, now he is telling us to burn in hell. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This look like the ISP has to be contacted. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

They're blocked with no access to talk page. An ISP is unlikely to do anything. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuous article hijacking by BIG FM COMEDIAN

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

---

Sorry if this is not article hijacking, but BIG FM COMEDIAN won't stop hijacking articles. The first article he tried to hijack was Moses Storm. He then give up and tried to hijack the article Archita Sahu. He's been warned numerous time and won't even listen. Now his edits are being stopped by the edit filter due to rapid disruption which of course he is now repeatedly triggering the edit filter. Kaseng55 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The user has already been reported at WP:AIV. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. firefly ( t · c ) 21:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a zero tolerance spam vandal thing. I'd have blocked for the first offense. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Milošević

It appears I got WP:INVOLVED in a bit of a WP:3RR violation at [120] [121] [122] so I'd appreciate another opinion whether the claims made by Neveselbert are actually sound, despite my repetitive appeals to use the relevant Talk:Milošević talk page (like I did 4 years ago). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Joy: That is not an Violation of WP:3RR, Techinally you only made 2 edits today to Milošević, In order for a Violation to WP:3RR to occure there would have to three Reverts in an 24 hour period. I looked at your edits for today and You did not Violate WP:3RR Chip3004 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Chip3004, that is also incorrect. The magic number is 4 (i.e. "more than three reverts"). Joy, best to take it to WP:RFD to figure out the desired target, though honestly, your position looks rather untenable, so personally I'd advise you to let this one go. HTH. El_C 04:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make any sort of a point about any specific number, rather to indicate how this pattern of reverting is approaching inappropriate levels. In the meantime I've reached out to another user mentioned, and started Talk:Milošević (surname)#Requested move 25 March 2022. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In any case, the editor who is insisting that Milosevic redirects to Slobodan Milosovic rather than Milosovic (surname) is clearly attempting to game the system, claiming that similar edits made four years apart constitute some sort of consensus. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at John Tyler

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

---

Users are vandalizing the John Tyler page. Please block them. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The page may also have to be protected again because after it expired, users begin to vandalize the page again. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits have been rev-del'd and Alexf has protected the article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Continued original research by Heesxiisolehh

User:Heesxiisolehh is continuing to add original research despite an earlier report where he had agreed to stop (in essence an admission) ([123]). I have already mentioned this to the involved admin twice ([124], [125]) where he advised me to go back to ANI ([126]) so here we are again.

After Heesxiisolehh agreed to stop adding original research/analysis he proceeded to add original research a mere four days after the agreement ([127], [128]), going against the WP:Mainstream view (for a more in-depth analysis see here).

Since then he has added even more original research and/or original analysis not supported by the cited sources, including:

• [129] (Not supported by cited source)
• [130] (Not supported by cited source)
• [131] (Nugaal not mentioned on pages 199-200 of Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism: The Case of Sayid Mahammad 'Abdille Hasan (African Studies) see link)
• Not supported by cited source, source only mentions a raid
• [132] (This is an unattributed war dispatch from 1903 in the Cardiff Evening Express, a terrible source for claims like these, and it doesn't support the content Heesxiisolehh has cited it for)
• [133] (Translation is wrong, also doesn't support his claim of Nugaal being the Dervishes' "main objective")
• [134] (Original analysis on primary source)

I highly doubt that Heesxiisolehh is here to build an encyclopedia, instead desiring to add his own original research and rewriting history to suit him. Gebagebo (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo I would suggest taking this to WP:OR/N. Theknightwho (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Lrlrpukosran

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

---

I stumbled upon this user while patrolling recent chages. Lrlrpukosran created an article about what seems a non-notable actor (Mia Vlajković), so before adding a CSD I did a quick search on Google. To my surprise I found that there was a Wikipedia article about a diferent person (Ivana (actress)), but showing Mia Vlajković as their name. Checking the history I noticed the article had been highjacked by Lrlrpukosran. Checking their contributions, I noticed a pattern of highjacking articles (which have sometimes gone unnoticed for over a month), see: Siniša, Ivana (actress) and Sana. Isabelle ^🔔 23:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

They also created Klara_Hrvanović, which I moved to draftspace. I've checked their recent contributions and it appears they are WP:NOTHERE, having made many vandalism edits. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Aggressive retaliation from 92.29.96.111

Resolved

 – User blocked Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This anonymous user retaliated with an aggressive harassment after reverting his gibberish vandalism. on Piracy in the Caribbean. See this revision difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaseng55&diff=1079094772&oldid=1062462150

The user will have to be blocked and the revision has to be deleted. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Also, for any reviewing admins, please note the filter log. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, highly disruptive IPs on TalkTalk can be blocked for two weeks or maybe a month without collateral. I wouldn't go longer than a month because I've never seen them stay allocated to someone longer than that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer Is sharing personal information and cyberstalking

User talk:RicardoCasanova91 User @Rocknrollmancer Is shasring personal information and cyberstalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicardoCasanova91 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• No diffs, no personal information on the linked page, no evidence of anything else. If there was actual suppresion-eligible information, the instructions on WP:OS would be relevant, but there isn't. Looks like just another troll post to add to the pile. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The diffs are commons:Special:Diff/643825273 and Special:Diff/1079001318 where Rocknrollmancer has identified an account here named "RicardoCasanova91" that is uploading images to Commons (commons:Special:Diff/643632161) from a Flickr account in the name of "Ricardo Casanova", a person that the editor has claimed to be at Special:Diff/1079141342. Rocknrollmancer has connected "Ricardo Casanova" to WP Suspension using off-wiki information (possibly the "Ricardo Casanova, autor en WP Suspension" page on the company's own WWW site), the images in and content of which RicardoCasanova91 has been changing. Uncle G (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Just a thought here. If you edit Wikipedia under your real name, upload photos taken from a Flickr account in the same name, tell us that they're your photos, insert promotion into a company article copied from the company's web site, make it clear that you are an employee of the company ("my company"), and there's an employee with the same name easily discoverable via a web search... well, you've outed yourself, haven't you? The only thing that has been revealed on wiki that you have not revealed yourself is your job title, so maybe that should be removed and hidden. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. After all, the best way to prevent outing is to out yourself. And if you end up regretting yourself down the line... perhaps convincing the oversight team is the best way to undo that. In any case, if you posted it yourself, I don't see how it would be shasring personal information to repost what you've said. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, and when someone abuses Wikipedia as a platform for blatant promotional puffery about their company, doing a cursory search to verify what they have already revealed (that they're an employee of the company) their connection with the company is not cyberstalking. Especially not when the discovered information has been put there by you on a site whose purpose is to help people find out about you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• And one other thing... when you report someone here, you must notify them (as it says in the big notice you get when you make an edit here). I have done that for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

New user accusing editors of defamation, contracting with a third party

User H2H3fanbase2TP, who apparently claims to be either Ethan Klein or H3 Podcast, has accused me and Popoki35 of malice, defamation, and contracting with "him" here. These accusations have previsously been made by other users who have since been blocked. The accusations are, of course, entirely baseless. The user has further made several disruptive edits to the Ryan Kavanaugh article.

The following threads provide some context to the situation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Legal threats by Ryan Kavanaugh, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Ryan Kavanaugh appears to have filed a lawsuit implying Wikipedia editors [unarchived]]], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Ryan Kavanaugh continues to publicly attack Wikipedia editors. Throast (talk | contribs) 11:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed. This is growing wearisome. I have every reason to believe this is the same person as at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive. The style and manner of writing and the general MO of using vague legal threats against the same specific editors of the Ryan Kavanaugh article makes it pretty clear in my mind. --Jayron32 12:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we just semi-protect the article permanently at this point? Canterbury Tail talk 13:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have given it another 6 months of time-out. Lectonar (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Elinruby

• Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Azov Special Purpose Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment

(I've done my best to have diffs where I can. As far as I know no post has been deleted here, so people can look at any mentioned page and see conversations in full if they feel I may have misrepresented anything or that they need further context than what I have provided. In addition, I have notified all users mentioned by name below, and all who received a D/s notification from Elinruby, which seemed the fastest way to get the interested parties.)

Recently, User:Elinruby and I have been involved in a content dispute regarding multiple issues surrounding the article Azov Battalion. During this time they have demonstrated multiple policy violate and generally belligerent behaviors, most egregiously I would say is their most recent misuse of D/s notifications to tell editors not to vote wrong on an RfD I created.

Our initial interaction came after the creation of this RfC (made unilaterally without prior discussion I might add), in which they expressed unfamiliarity with the source material, but nonetheless had skepticism regarding the article's sourcing for certain claims, specifically regarding the far-right, neo-Nazi character of the unit in question. Later, they would post this source "rebuttal", too which I offered mine own here. The editor would continue to call into question the validity of sources used in the article for ideological claims, alternatively insisting they didn't exist, or that they were unusable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that editors needed to "READ THE RS POLICY" (this one gets repeated a lot).

Not long after, I received this notification for an RSN discussion, technically involving one of the sources above, all though seemingly presenting it as the only source, instead of one of two for a particular claim, and five in that particular sentence. This is also the first time of two that I encountered WP:INAPPNOTE behavior. After I received my notification, I decided to check Elinruby's contribs to see who else they notified, and saw this (it continues on the next older page). Apparently, Elinruby took it upon themself to notify everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page since the last RfC, including several editors (and multiple IPs, SPAs, and blocked accounts) who had not posted on a single unarchived thing on the page and who had absolutely no involvement with the current dispute. This post ultimately went nowhere, as myself and several other editors were unconvinced by his arguments (and several others dropped in rather confused as to why they had been pinged).

The following day, I saw this post by User:Ymblanter regarding the article Azov Special Purpose Regiment. After reviewing the article, I concluded it was a woefully inadequate article, and an obvious WP:POVFORK and so took it to AfD (here). Now, I will admit the article has improved somewhat in the intervening days, however that does not change the fact that it is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK that never should have seen mainspace. It seems fairly obvious to me that Elinruby, dissatisfied with the reception at Talk:Azov Battalion, decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage (at the time of creation of the AfD quotes had not been properly attributed, and seemed to be Elinruby's own voice in the article, I'll likely go back and strike that part of my AfD once I'm done here). Normally, I would expect an editor of their tenure to be more than aware that this is not OK, however they have expressed multiple times to thinking it's just fine to go and make your own article on the same topic if you don't like the coverage at any particular article (including encouraging the proposer of the split to just do it unilaterally during the split discussion, in the case of User:Mhawk10). They seem very fond of unilateral action, having unilaterally moved Russian-Ukrainian information war to Russian information war against Ukraine, causing the conflagration on that talk page (I'm uninvolved in that dispute, and am only commenting on it as a further example of the user's bizarre ideas of acceptable behavior). Finally, during this AfD, Elinruby admitted to WP:CANVASSING Ukrainian Wikipedia for editors to fight my AfD (and seemingly wanting Azov members to escape Mariupol and... set the record straight on Wikipedia?), also calling me a "sneak" in the process.

Now, all of this would have been... fine. Frustrating and annoying yes, but not something to get upset over. There are some serious policy misconceptions and some bizarre personal attacks, but IMO that's not something I really feel the need to come here with. Then however, I received this D/s notification. Now I have already received one of these, in this topic area, but User:Elinruby later apologized for the doubel warning and offered to self-RV, so it's no big deal, if annoying. Of course, after I had recieved this warning I decided to check his contribs once again, seeing if I was a part of another wave of talk page edits, and surprise surprise I was. As can be seen right now, Elinruby apparently took it upon themselves to warn recent participants in the disputes they are involved in of EE D/s, including some rather experienced editors in the area such as User:Mhawk10 and User:Mhorg. Even this, though a fairly obvious attempt at intimidation IMO, wasn't enough to push me here. No, the final straw was this edit, repeated at each talk page (excepting my own) that a D/s notification was placed on. Placing D/s notifications on editors pages and then telling them it was because they voted in an AfD you disagree with (apparently RfC and RfD were meant to be AfD, per this, though they also take umbrage with the existence and voting in of every process in which they are involved in a dispute, and seem to think they are dealing with the same "group" of editors in each case) should absolutely not be acceptable under any circumstances.

Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. The pattern of behavior is consistent and has only been getting worse. I have no idea how an editor with a tenure like this could act like this. Hopefully an administrator can provide some assistance here. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest condensing this? You're going to be hardpressed to find anyone to read such a lengthy complaint. Maybe bullet point the issues...CUPIDICAE💕 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to break it up chronologically by paragraphs, but if you want a TLDR the issues are as follows:

Multiple kinds of WP:INAPPNOTE

Repeated and inappropriate spamming of user talk pages

General belligerence and personal attacks, as well as a habit of projecting behavior and accusations between users, or inventing it altogether (he seems to think I've called him a brainwashed Nazi, when as far as I am aware I've never done such a thing, nor could I find anyone who has in the past few days)

I figured it would be best to be thorough due to how this has crossed multiple pages and covers multiple issues, hence the paragraphs and diffs, but that's the quickest summary I can give. BSMRD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This [[135]] contains some PA's "All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC", telling another user how they should have voted in an AFD (not to be a fair major issue, but I see they may have done to same to everyone who did not vote they way they wanted). I think all these need is a mild warning, but they are trying to bludgeon an AFD on multiple talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support sanctions against Elinruby. They posted this discretionary sanctions notice on my UP: [136] and then, an hour and a half after I deleted that, posted this canvassing: [137] Mztourist (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I also would support sanctions. There behavior on Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine has been sub-par, to say the least, move-warring over the article ([138]) with multiple allegations of personal attacks against another editor ([139], [140], [141]), combined with a general BATTLEGROUND approach ([142], [143]: It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever, you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have) to the topic and whose sole technique seems to be to BLUDGEON the discussion (they have 173 edits to that talk page compared to the next highest at 35; they are also responsible for two thirds of its text). SN54129 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for compiling some diffs regarding Russian information war against Ukraine. I knew there had been drama over there, but my post was already long enough and I wasn't a participant to begin with, so I decided to leave it at a passing mention. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that your diff 145 diplays quite an attitude, but I have never seen that text before and definitely didn’t write it. I assume it was something that was in your editor buffer from some other discussion. I don’t dispute that I changed the article title. The one that was there did not reflect the contents of the article. When it was unilaterally changed back, based on some erroneous notion of the topic, the article-title mismatch again required either a retitling or the move or deletion of a massive amount of cited material. See comment to Buidhe below. As for the amount of work I have put into the article—-in what way is this against policy? It was bad machine translation when I came to it, or at least broken English, with many diatribes about Russian oppressors and Goebbels and at least one BLP violations. But well sourced! So I fixed a lot of language and removed a lot of diatribes and documented what I was doing, shrug. Then I worked to improve it from there, in particular as to what I too initially saw as a point of view problem. This is what we do with WP:PNT articles ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read through the entire text above. There are a few things that I'd like to note:

• Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. It isn't a novel POVFORK; Elinruby decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage is true only inasmuch as the coverage comes directly from a sister project.
• I was surprised to discover this because I have participated in discussions on the Azov Battalion page before, but I can't actually find an EE topic area notification in my talk page archives. I'm certainly aware of the general EE restrictions (I've given the template out to people), but I didn't find it particularly intimidating.
• People should not boldly make moves that they know are going to be contested, especially after people have explicitly written that the move was not supported. I've recently learned that there is a way to request that these be undone at the RM noticeboard without having to open a full move discussion. The way that this actually appears to have played out was that there was a Bold move by Elinruby on March 6, followed by a reversion of the undiscussed move by Buidhe on March 22, followed by Elinruby moving the article to their preferred title for the second time on March 23. I can excuse a bold move, but the second page move is clearly disruptive and out-of-process; gaining consensus to move a page name when it is contested is not optional. Unlike the fork of Azov Battalion, this doesn't appear to be a case where the user is simply importing the title of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article to English Wikipedia.
• Technically you don't need consensus for an article split along the lines of the one I proposed (leaving the source page unchanged but making a second page to cover a subtopic in more depth), since it's more or less the same procedurally as just writing a new article. I also think it's unwise to spend a lot of time on doing so if consensus is against a split, since any such split-off article is going to wind up at AfD and likely be redirected back to the article covering the top. Giving unwise advice isn't exactly disruptive.
• The diff BSMRD links to as evidence of a canvassing confession contains the line If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway. Elinruby understands their actions as being opposed to censorship, but also says that Everything I am doing against sneaks is in the open, which suggests that the user is intentionally POVPUSHING against people they consider to be sneaks. This attitude is not consistent with the collaboration that is necessary to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.

I propose that Elinruby receive a three-month WP:TBAN from making edits that pertain to the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed. All of the disruption appears to be in this topic area, so I think a TBAN is going to be better here than a WP:CBAN. If disruption continues in other areas, then we could expand it, but I don't see evidence of that yet. If disruption resumes following the TBAN's expiration, a longer and more permanent one could be imposed at WP:AE. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to read everything above (I know it was a lot), and taking the time to formulate a well reasoned response. WRT the POV nature Azov Special Purpose Regiment, it's not that I think Elin came up with that article on their own (they obviously didn't), but rather that after being largely rejected at Azov Battalion they decided to simply import the Ukrainian version (which they clearly see as superior) to it's own space, rather than attempting to bring Azov Battalion more in line with its Ukrainian version. This is obviously a fork of Azov Battalion (they cover exactly the same subject, though in different ways), and is clearly done to promote Elinruby's POV, hence my calling it a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps that is not strictly accurate, but I feel it fits the spirit of a WP:POVFORK. BSMRD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Much less here than meets the eye. Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a prolific contributor in numerous topic areas with no blocks in sixteen years. I don't always agree with him, but we have cooperated on major topics in the past and he is tireless in improving topics and cooperating with other editors. Elinruby always has NPOV in mind, and he can get impatient when he runs into a situation where concerted POV-pushing goes on at an article, and he tries to combat it, sometimes feeling alone at protecting the encyclopedia and causing frustration which can come out as crabbiness sometimes. We've probably all been there, and it's disconcerting to say the least; maintaining one's equanimity (not to mention AGF) is hard in situations like that. Unfortunately, that can spill over into other situations, when one sees what superficially looks like similar behavior to what just got one's hackles up in some other topic, but in this case is actually GF editors who disagree on points of policy or content.

I think that's where we are now. When Elinruby feels that others are acting contrary to NPOV or the best interest of the article, he is vociferous in protecting it. In fact, the whole reason that Eastern Europe/Balkans have an AC/DS alert in the first place, is because there is a long history of bad behavior going on in this area; Elinruby both knows this is the case, and has experienced it, and he may have come into it with his guard up and too ready to see a battleground where there was only (mostly) civil opposition. The initial unilateral page move deserves an eyebrow-raise, the second is clearly against policy and should not have been made. I've commented at his Talk page, trying to calm the waters, and I think we're basically done with the problem.

Calling for a three-month TBAN is ridiculous; what's needed here is a TROUT for some uncivil behavior under pressure, and a reminder about WP:RM#CM requiring controversial moves to be put to other editors for comment first. Perhaps an admin clarification may be needed on his UTP about when and to whom one may give AC/DS alerts; WP:AC/DS is actually unclear about frequency, and I see nothing on that page that says an editor may not place several or a hundred {{Ds/alert}} templates if several or a hundred editors starting editing at an affected topic (as long as they meet aware.aware and aware.alert, which in one case, they did not; Elinruby has since apologized in that case). Bottom line, other than a reminder and a TROUT, and perhaps a friendly tip to cool off or disengage temporarily when he feels the temperature rising at an article under AC/DS, I see nothing actionable here. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in your position if it weren't for the comment that broadly referred to their actions as being against sneaks. I'm not really bound to 3 months as being the perfect length (I'd prefer the minimum amount of time that allows for the user to cool down), but I think the editor needs some time to cool off before returning to this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am involved in the discussion around Russian–Ukrainian information war and unfortunately, I don't think that their editing in this area is entirely constructive. It's understandable that strong emotions are going to come out over an ongoing war, but we cannot tolerate advocacy favoring one side or disruptive editing. I think Elinruby would benefit from taking a break from the Russia–Ukraine conflict, either voluntarily or by a topic ban as suggested by Mhawk. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, you’ve repeatedly been invited to add anything into the article that you think is missing, or to join the ongoing discussion about is reorganization. The problem is that the original title caused a huge false balance problem, which would be even worse if restored now as none of the sources *I* have found say anything about Ukrainians hacking Russians, as you seem to think is happening. The ones you put at the top of the request for merge don’t say that either, and one of them is already cited in the article. I have no objection to the other sources or any other reliable sources being added to the article. Alternatively if you want an article about what the Ukrainians are doing, or about what the Ukrainians are doing vs what the Russian doing, please do write it. I’ll even point you to some recent material for it that only came out this week afaik and so far is only on the talk page of the Russian disinformation page. But look. A title is supposed to reflect the contents of the article and if we name this one “Russian-Ukrainian information war” then a lot of information will need to be removed about the Russians because with the exception of the material mentioned above, the Ukrainian information war so far has consisted of Zelenskyy making speeches Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that Ukraine hacked Russians. Misrepresenting other editors and constant bludgeoning is not cool. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree! Not cool at all! So great! Now, buidhe, can you please explain why you think there should be a Russian-Ukrainian information article? I might possibly even agree with you about that also. But more to the point, what I don't understand why it has to be this one, which is currently on a different topic. Alternately, if sources support whatever it is you think is happening let's add them in, by all means let's use them, and maybe it even *could* be this article. But if not Ukrainians hacking, then what is it you think I am not including that should be in the article? I ask in all humility. Again. Btw the new materials I was talking about involved speculation that Ukrainians had disabled the Russians' secure communications system, but industry experts say it's more likely that the Russians did it to themselves by blowing up cell towers not realizing that their Era cryptophones required 3/4G 02:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

• After reading this comment I think an indefinite ban for all Eastern European topics is correct. The user is too involved in a political defence of Ukraine, his\her work risks being manipulative. The user also left me a DS on my talkpage (which honestly I still don't understand what it is for), perhaps to intimidate me?--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  An indef ban on all Eastern European topics is way too broad. I don't see how that comment (or any others) reasonably shows that the editor cannot edit on topics involving the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, or even for that matter relatively mundane topics (such as rapid transit systems) involving Russia or Ukraine. The limits of the disruption are very clearly related solely to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, so I don't think that a ban on all of Eastern Europe would be anywhere closes to narrowly tailored towards prevention. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhorg: Re: the DS alert, no, I don't think they were trying to intimdate you; it was probably because the vast majority of your editing is in Eastern European topics... SN54129 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Mhawk10, you are right, perhaps limiting the ban to the Russian-Ukrainian question is right, my proposal was excessive.

  Ok SN54129, thanks for the explanation. Anyway maybe I have problem with the translation from English, I can't understand well the functionality of the DS. I have to read it better. Mhorg (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhorg: DS allows administrators to block users for less severe conduct violations than they would normally be able to if the violations pertain to specific topics. The notice Elinruby posted on your talk page is simply informing you need to be more careful how you edit within that topic than you normally would. Although people sometimes take it as a personal attack, it is merely intended as a courtesy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I forgot to add one thing: the accusations of INAPPNOTE by the OP is belied by the OP's own statement at WP:RSN: "As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants)." (diff). That is the very definition of WP:APPNOTE. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but pinging everyone who has posted on a talk page in the past six months (most of whom had nothing to do with the dispute in question) is textbook 'spamming' per WP:INAPPNOTE BSMRD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  APPNOTE bullet 5.2: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'd still consider what Elin did spamming, but I suppose it could technically be considered an appropriate, if particularly excessive, notification. BSMRD (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi there. I have been seeking help with BSMRD’s uncivil and retaliatory behavior from Drmies on his talk page for a couple of days now. The editor’s utter refusal to actually read the Reliable Sources policy figured prominently, although I did not mention a name.

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

In fact there had been an RFC on whether neo-Nazi should appear in the lede. The prior RFC the editor refers to: I went through it rather carefully when I was sending out notices, and I did not see a conclusion that neo-Nazi should be in the lede. I am not prepared to say it isn’t there, and I can’t research this right now as I am overdue in dealing with urgent RL matters, but if it seems important I will look again later. What I did see was somebody trying to close it with a conclusion that it should not. I thank the editor for finally realizing that the article is not an editorial in my personal voice and but meanwhile a dozen people have voted to delete the article based on the editor’s false statement. I am not particularly injured that the editor did not read the article closely enough to notice the translation tag and the discussion of a translation issue on the talk page, but I would think that this might have seemed an important thing to do when trying to delete an article, you know? Read the talk page?

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

Mhawk10 probably sincerely believes that I have done something wrong at that article, since a couple of editors who were also in the Reliable Sources “discussion” at Azov Battalion are saying so over and over again. The requested move would require the deletion of almost all of the article’s material and 299 references, so I have objected to it fairly strenuously. The editors from Azov Battalion who are trying to do this have not discussed any of the matters raised elsewhere on the talk page, including a proposed reorganization, which is on hold lest the editor doing it also be dragged over here. AGF, I question whether either editor has read the full article, although on March 21 one of them did fix two typos in one section.

I really need to go do some paid work where they won’t call me names, but before I do I’d like to mention that the comments about the light of day were not about the creation of the regiment article but were instead a reply to the suggestion that I should not for some reason have notified editors at the Ukrainian Wikipedia of an effort to delete a translation of their work.

I hope I have answered enough to demonstrate that there is a lot more to this than has been presented to you, and will be happy to answer questions or discuss anything when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Repinging Drmies for you; your attempted fix of a typo in a previous ping will not work, per WP:NOTIF. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERs this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

What I actually said. You still have yet to present a convincing reason why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS disqualifies the sources in question. You can't just say "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS go read the RS policy" and expect that to be enough.

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

All I said was that you unilaterally moved the article title (twice apparently, which I neither realized nor incuded in my original post), thereby inciting the current drama, which is by all accounts factually accurate. BSMRD (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Based on my communication with user Elinruby, I would oppose to sanctions beyond a warning. She/he is agitated and probably behaves like a new and very inexperienced user, but I do not see them sufficiently disruptive to warrant sanctions, at least based on my interactions with them. Other users might have a different opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Elinruby has 65,446 edits, and has been editing since 2006. They know better. BSMRD (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @My very best wishes: Elinruby has >65,000 edits. I also think you may be missing a "not" in the second sentence of your rationale. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) was coming in to say that. I don’t usually get involved in wikilawyering though, so apparently I had some misconceptions about procedures. I erred on the side of notifying people I disagreed with as well as those I didn’t, when apparently I should not have notified at all.Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Since I was notified of this discussion and I've been one of the most active editors regarding the invasion, I feel like I have to throw my 2 cents in. That said, from my limited interaction by being on the periphery, my view is simply that Elinruby didn't get the consensus they wanted at Talk:Azov Battalion and got upset by it, created a new mirror page, and then that mirror page got shit on at AfD (rightfully in my opinion, as it was pretty clear that it was made to circumvent the consensus from the main Azov page in order to push Elinruby's preferred objectives; additionally, it was a bad translation and still a work-in-progress that would have benefitted more from being in draftspace). Now, that's not necessarily inherently disruptive, and it's been handled easily. Considering that Elinruby is an editor-in-good-standing and has been a longtime contributor without incident, they should be sternly warned not to pull that shit again (i.e. trying to circumvent consensus without further discussion), but a TBAN is just an overreaction at this point, in my opinion, especially if it is a full EE TBAN. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a mild problem of a POV-pushing OWNership with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Turning to Russian-Ukrainian information war, recently renamed "Russian information war against Ukraine" by Elinruby after his editing had turned it into a one-sided indictment of Russia:

• Elinruby chose WP:Move war, and then attacked both Buidhe and me (as first commenter I guess) saying e.g. "If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there."[144]
• Elinruby comments on Buidhe's RfM (to the article's original name): "sigh. Another canvass of people who haven’t read the article they are commenting on." [145]
• Elinruby edit wars to strikeout parts of Buidhe's RfM statement that he considers personally attacked him [146][147][148]
• Elinruby removes from Buidhe's RfM her statement " In the event of no consensus, it should revert to the original title." [149]
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby added 2 new sections to my talk page, "Edit warring and vandalism" and "You believe some strange things"
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby changed article talk page section header from "Discussion" to "Editor tantrum"[150]

WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. The project suffers when bullies are left to thrive. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support sanctions against Elinruby: I disagree with Mhawk10's argument that Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. Editors are expected to follow WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for an already existing article. They are expected to gain consensus and expand existing article and not start a povfork. A neutral reader of wikipedia would get a different picture of, say, Narendra Modi's article on english wikipedia or the 2002 Gujarat riots vis-à-vis the Gujarati-languange wikipedia articles on the same subject. What if I or someone else decides to misuse the policy to start a fork article to suit my narrative. Elinruby's comments like this and this show that this user is more than happy to muddy the waters with emotional appeals and ramblings and use the talk page as a forum for chitter chatter. Combined with their forumshopping on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion and canvassing and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment, I strongly believe that this user cannot be neutral on this subject and deserves long/indef sanctions on this area. - hako9 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Request Is there any way we can break this up to address one page at a time? Because all these accusations are moving targets. First I wrote an editorial opinion, then I translated an article with bad sources, then I unilaterally renamed an article that nobody seems to realize began life as bad machine translation, and now I am being lectured on the proper procedure for contacting a translator.

I am a translator. Almost all of my edits involve translation and/or remediation of machine translation. Russian information war against Ukraine had been languishing for a very long time at WP:PNT, which is where I wikignome. I contacted everyone listed as a Ukrainian or Russian translator before beginning, and have contacted editors with Russian skills about the reliability of specific sources and specific translation problems.

This and more can be found in the “chit-chat” on the talk page that Hako9 so dismissively refers to. I documented questions that arose, discussed things undone that should be done, and occasionally got an answer. I would like to start there, since this request for merge is preventing work on that article from proceeding. I am still on deadline for paid work, but was able to take a moment to make this procedural request. If this sounds ok to everyone will come back with some diffs and links about this article when I get done with the paid work. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is reflective of the problem a lot of users are talking about, it's not one page or one issue. Rather it is multiple issues, over multiple articles. What you need to do is take on board the idea that you can't just create POV forks because you cannot get your way. That you should not tell people how to vote in an AFD, or RFC. That you should not actively canvas users to vote (or change their vote) the way you want. That you should not attack other users, either by calling them names or questioning their neutrality if they disagree with you. Nor should you wp:bludgeon a discussion either directly on a talk page or indirectly by WP:FORUMSHOP or over multiple talk user talk pages. That (in essence) you will agree to not do any of the things users have complained about here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that I do those things and urge editors not to rely on the erroneous statements made in these complaints. In particular, while I am here, let me mention that I haven’t told anyone how to vote. I did as a parenthesis to another statement tell a handful of people that I thought their vote was mistaken and offer to explain why. Nobody said please do, so I have not. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question BSMRD, having refused to hear this all the way to ANI, has finally registered that the regiment article is a translation and not in my voice, and has struck that out of the AfD request, which is progress, but editors have still voted on the basis of the statement. Also, the editor has now substituted another inaccurate statement, that its sources are not reliable. The most often-cited source is Ukrainian Pravda, which has a stellar reputation per the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in particular my recent query there about it. I have recently been educated to realize that an AfD statement does not have to be neutral, since the requestor doesn’t get a vote, but shouldn’t it at least reflect some version of reality? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to make clear that I did not say that the article as a whole was in you voice, but that it was peppered with comments in your voice. What lead me too that conclusion was lines like Yes, most of the guys present in the Azov Battalion have their own perception of the world. But who told you that you can judge them? Don't forget what the Azov Battalion has done for the country. I spent many hours talking to Azov fighters. There is no Nazism or swastika there. which in your initial copy had no attribution or indication at all that it was a quote. Such indication has since been added, and I have retracted my statement in the AfD. I did not say the sources are not reliable, I said that they do not support the idea that "Azov Battalion" and "Azov Special Purpose Regiment" are separate topics. While Ukrainian Pravda may be reliable, that does not mean all the sources are. Indeed, a fair few of the cites are directly too Azov themselves. Additionally, I did not "replace" my struck comment with anything about sourcing. I added this: I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied. For someone who complains so much about editors misrepresenting the truth and not reading, the least you could do is bother to do it yourself. BSMRD (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan POV

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

---

according to user Toghrul R and Nicat49, Azerbaijani name is more important than Armenian name for a carpet: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karabakh_carpet&oldid=1079229164 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karabakh_carpet&oldid=1078940472.

Then, Azerbaijan terrorize Armenian residents of Karabakh and occupy a village. Toghrul R calls it seizure: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farukh&oldid=1079227278. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farukh&oldid=1079228426.

Greetings from Iran, please do something

Navruz azeri (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

[151] I think WP:BOOMERANG sanctions would be appropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• OP has been CU blocked as a sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

an attack from a group

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• 116.87.181.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.206.172.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.52.201.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have recently become a target of a hostile trio of IP addresses. Their attacks are so heavy that warnings do not seem to be necessary.

Firstly, '116.87.181.45', which is likely to be from Singapore, removed a paragraph co-written by me and 'Justanothersgwikieditor', such that the article 'Resorts World Sentosa' described the business as all-singing-all-dancing and flawless. Of course, I brought it back.

Secondly, '114.206.172.109' which is likely to be from South Korea, repeated the above-mentioned procedure.

Thirdly, '218.52.201.69', which should be from South Korea, just like the second one on the list, reverted another edit by me. They also put a notice on my talk page that shows some information of my IP address.

Just click on the links below to see how obvious their bad will is. Each of them have only edited once or twice, and are all against me. They are in the know of the rules here, and definitely do not look like newcomers. Their mission seems to be abusing Wikipedia as a free advertising platform.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.87.181.45

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.206.172.109

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.52.201.69

I am a normal person who believe gambling has pros and cons. When I see articles written totally in the interest of the casino companies, I add things to make them less biased. There are only two casinos in Singapore. I have done the same to improve both of their articles, to roughly the same extent. 110.174.132.162 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the {{advert}} template to Resorts World Sentosa, for blindingly obvious reasons. I'm afraid I can't do any more at the moment because I am cooking dinner. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Pending Changes Protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.228.138.135

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

A new IP address seemingly from Thailand who had never edited before has just joined the team. Take a look at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_French_phonology&type=revision&diff=1079347086&oldid=1079303161'. Why would so many 'new' IP users coincidently have so much interest on a topic as specialized as this all of a sudden? They are apparently commercial writers. Please notice that they do not have knowledge of that subject such that they could only roll back and leave a general excuse. Are there more advanced tools that could be used to find out whether they belong to a certain blacklisted advertising company?--110.174.132.162 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Page Protected by El C. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• 114.206.172.109, 218.52.201.69 and 49.228.138.135 are VPNs; I have blocked these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Spekkios and Nemov WP:STONEWALLING on Flag of Alabama

Nemov and Spekkios keep WP:STONEWALLING on Flag of Alabama while misrepresenting sources.

I added cited information here [152] and here [153]

IP address reverted without discussion here. User also misrepresents sources and says they are "improper". [154]

This was reverted by Dystopos here [155] because it was well cited information.

Spekkios then reverts here [156] and falsely claims that the Washington Post link is dead. Also misrepresents the other source and fails to mention the "youtube video" is from the Huffington Post, a reputable publication.

It looks like there's just small miscommunication so Dystopos reverts again and correctly says the link is not dead and that the sources are reputable. [157]

Nemov then reverts again and incorrectly claims that the information is already in the article and doesn't need to be in the MOS:LEAD. [158]

I then revert again because the sources are accurate and reliable and ask for users to explain their issues with the sources on the talk page. [159]

Spekkios again reverts and misrepresents the sources by dismissing the Huffington Post video as a "youtube video". They then change their claim and say that the Washington Post cites a dead link and that's why it can't be used. Spekkios also falsely claims that the Denver Post link is dead. They again revert to the supposed "status quo" (clear example of WP:SQS)

I then revert again and make no more reverts after this because I am aware of the WP:3RR. I said the links are not dead and I made sure to verify that they were in fact not dead links. [160]

Spekkios then reverts again and says that the Washington Post "cites a dead link, even on webarchive". They say that it doesn't matter if the youtube video is from the Huffington Post because it do not "cite its sources". They also falsely claim that the Denver Post source "links to an opinion derived from the study from one person" which is not true. [161]

Toddy1 then reverts after making sure the links are not dead and improves the citation with a webarchive link. [162]

Finally, Nemov reverts Toddy1 and claims, without consensus, that the information is already in the article and doesn't belong in the lead. [163]

Toddy1 then starts a discussion on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Alabama#The_Washington_Post_article) and correctly states that the links are not dead. Spekkios and Nemov move the goalposts and change their argument so they don't have to address the false claims that the links were dead. Desertambition (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Expanded reasoning - This also seems to be a clear example of WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:BADFAITHNEG, WP:FIXFIRST, and WP:GASLIGHTING. Desertambition (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I had gotten involved just by noticing that the cited AG's opinion was verifiable and accessible despite the claim made in the edit summary of improper sourcing. I had not read the entire article and didn't realize at the time that the same source was cited elsewhere. I think that Siegelman's attribution of the design to a Confederate flag is relevant and could be more clearly stated, but perhaps going beyond that fact to offer interpretation of its significance merits better citations. --Dystopos (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The attorney general of Alabama, the Denver Post, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post (none of which were opinion articles) all seem like legitimate sources to me. I am curious as to what would potentially satisfy you. Desertambition (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I support making it more clear that the flag is derived from a Confederate flag and I support citing the AG's statement for that. I don't know if it needs to be in the lede paragraph or not. And if we're going to say what significance that fact carries, then other sources are needed. If the ones you mention support such a claim, then I don't have a problem. I'm just explaining why I intervened when I did and why I bowed out. --Dystopos (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

    Ok thank you for elaborating. Desertambition (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is simply preposterous. There were four people involved in the Flag of Alabama discussion and this is the only person who has an issue. This bigger issue here is Desertambition. This is a problem user who was blocked indefinitely and only received a pardon if they proved to be a better editor in the future. That hasn't happened and the user was blocked again for edit warring. I wasn't involved in those issues, but my limited interaction with the user fits a normal pattern. User makes changes, doesn't follow guidance, ignores the full context of the article, and then attacks anyone who happens to disagree. At first I was in favor of topic banning this user, but now I believe they need to be banned indefinitely. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would appreciate if you would address the content of what I am saying rather than engaging in whataboutism. Desertambition (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  This isn’t an ANI issue folks. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:9813:D677:242D:CEFA (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Only place I could think to go to. Where else should I report this? Also strange that this is the only edit you have ever made. Desertambition (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because this is a non-static IP, lol? Grow up and stop throwing baseless accusations around. You are unduly aggressive and need to learn more about what "consensus" is, instead of running off to the admins everytime someone gets your back up. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:B4CA:9A67:2D2A:EFDC (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  This would be more impactful if you were logged into your account. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to say. Desertambition (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• A lot of this report seems to turn on the allegation that an editor falsely claimed a Wapo link was dead. The edit summary of the diff used to substantiate this refers to "a Washington Post article that cites a dead link". When this issue was raised on the talk page days ago, Spekkios reiterated: "The claim wasn't that the Washington Post article is a dead link, but that it cites a dead link." Desertambition characterizes this as them "changing their story", but that seems like an extremely uncharitable reading of the situation. This just seems like a big misunderstanding that's been blown up to an unreasonable scale. Regarding the content question, I would suggest continuing to discuss this on the talk page. If you think the discussion would benefit from more voices, maybe start an RfC? Colin M (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  That seems to be an uncharitable reading of my post and misses a lot of what I said. They misrepresented the "youtube" link and claimed the Denver Post article was dead as well. I didn't know that secondary sources had to provide sources themselves, is that commonplace on Wikipedia? Is it also appropriate to delete well cited information? I am a bit puzzled by your response and would appreciate some elaboration. Desertambition (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This has to be a joke. Nowhere have I stated that the Washington Post link is dead. Here I very clearly state that [the] Washington Post article cites a dead link and another article on a Confederate Battle Flag without any mention of the state flag or it's design. Here I state that The Washington post article cites a dead link, even on Webarchive. Also see here, and here. Anyway, if you follow the link that was cited you can very clearly see that there are no active sources for the Alabama flag. I placed the article URL into the Web Archive and the article cites this which doesn't mention the current flag and this which is nothing useful. Eventually I found that the article originally cited this which is already included in the article. Currently it's citation 5. The Huffington Post youtube video mentions the Alabama flag once at about 1:40 and just mentions that they are both saltire flags. The Denver Post article cites this which mentions a study conducted by one person. Desertambition is accusing me of things which are verifiably not true.

I also note that DesertAmbition has previously edited the Tennessee flag and the Florida flag page in a similar manner, and went to the talk page in the case of the Tennessee flag, so they obviously know what the proper procedure is when their edit is reverted. Instead they have continued to revert to their edit and gone on to accuse me of stonewalling and hounding.

On a slightly different note, since the user has brought this up on ANI I would like to make everyone aware that this user has constantly been making unfounded accusations against me starting with this, accusing me of hounding and stonewalling. Despite my effort to engage with the user about their concerns I received no response, so I still have no idea what they were referring to. The next time I heard from them was when they accused me of closing a merge proposal because I "personally disagreed with it" which is blatantly false as I very clearly stated my rational for closing the discussion in the edit summary. They then go on to again accuse me of stonewalling and hounding again, and for reverting edits for "not really liking it" despite my afformentioned reasons for reverting their edit on the Alabama article. This is not good-faith discussion.

Essentially, this user has a history of not engaging in discussion and being overtly hostile. These allegations are a waste of time to read and respond to. This user has also previously been blocked for leveling unfounded accusations against other editors and now they are doing the same to me. --Spekkios (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You ignored what I said about the Denver Post article while claiming it was a dead link. It's strange to me that you would delete these things while saying they are dead links and then claim that you just disagree with the reputable sources. I understand you want me banned but that is not relevant to the conversation. The Denver Post, Washington Post, and the Huffington Post are reliable sources, I do not understand why a source would need to provide further sources. I have also recently linked newspaper articles on the talk page of the article. You reverted/changed my edits without discussion and it's frustrating. You are saying that the Denver Post, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and the attorney general of Alabama are wrong. There is no debate or speculation on the origins of the flag and the article currently misrepresents the history by prominently displaying the colonial Spanish flag. Nemov also is trying to turn the discussion back to me and get me WP:BOOMERANG banned but all I am saying is what actually happened. If an article not providing further sources was disqualifying, 90% of articles would not be allowed. The reputable publications are sources in-and-of themselves. What sources would satisfy you? It seems like nothing will. Desertambition (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Read my comment again and read the edit summaries. I have never claimed that the Wapo or DP article are dead links. I am not arguing that they are wrong, but that the information they present is not authoritative enough for the lead of the article to make such an authoritative statement on the issue. That information is better presented later in the article just like it is on the Tennessee and Florida pages. When someone reverts your edit take it to the talk page like you did with the Tennessee article and stop causing drama by accusing people of doing things they clearly aren't doing. Take the discussion of the sources back to the talk page and stop wasting everyone's time. --Spekkios (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You did claim that the Denver Post link was dead here [164]. You also claimed that the Washington Post cited a dead link and then said that the Washington Post was not authoritative enough when you finally got the link to work. You decided by yourself what was authoritative and what was not. What you are saying here is false and the diffs back me up. The links I cited are from reliable sources, and you are missing the newspaper articles I recently posted in the talk page. Please Spekkios, I am just asking you what sources would satisfy you? It's not a gotcha question, I am asking so I can provide those sources. You just keep saying my sources are bad after I provide more and more sources. Desertambition (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I got mixed up with the DP article. That link only works in Webarchive and the current doesn't work. The Washington post article cited a dead link as I explained above, and a small note about the Alabama flag on the Wapo article is not authoritative enough for the lead statement. That is what I said, not that Wapo isn't an authoritative source entirely. Regardless, this is not the place to discuss article-related matters. Take it back to the talk page. --Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The complaint is about your obvious WP:STONEWALLING, WP:FIXFIRST and WP:BADFAITHNEG, not the content of the article. Just a second ago you were claiming you never said what I claimed and now you're saying you just got mixed up. I have literally checked that link every single time you have claimed it doesn't work and it works perfectly for me. I don't know why you couldn't check that originally. You still have not said what sources would satisfy you and I strongly suspect it's due to stonewalling more than a real objection to the sources. If your complaint was so minor, why delete the entire section and repeat false claims of dead links/bad sources? You could have just asked for more sources and I hope it's obvious I would have been happy to provide them. You don't think the sources I have provided are authoritative enough so I have linked two newspaper articles and you have not engaged with them either. Desertambition (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I got mixed up with the DP article. Everything else stands. I'm not engaging in a discussion about sources because that isn't relevant to ANI and should be discussed on the talk page. I have repeatedly stated my issue with your edit's in the edit summaries and on my talk page. If you still don't get the picture then that isn't my fault. I'm not stonewalling because you have made no attempt to reach consensus before editing the page. This is not fix first because your edit isn't the status quo. This isn't bad faith negotiating because there has been no good-faith negotiation regarding your edits on your part. You made an edit, it got reverted, and instead of launching a discussion on the talk page you threw a fit and accused me of hounding and stonewalling before taking it to ANI. Your actions are utterly ridiculous. --Spekkios (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about sources are absolutely relevant when we are talking about WP:STONEWALLING, WP:FIXFIRST, and WP:BADFAITHNEG.

Reminder of WP:BADFAITHNEG:

"Example: An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the core content policies."

Reminder of WP:FIXFIRST:

"Example: An editor adds a paragraph of verifiable information, but it is removed entirely because of a typographical error that could easily be fixed."

You keep personally attacking me but you are not engaging with what I am saying. You have repeatedly made false claims and continue to revert after being corrected. There is a discussion on the talk page and I have provided more sources but they are still not enough for you. Desertambition (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The citation does not clearly fulfill the core content policies as I have already discussed many times. The changes you were implementing were not discussed beforehand or after the first reversion. Fix it first is not applicable here because the edit you made was to the lead when the information is within the article itself and not required in the lead, which is what I have said and continue to have said all this time. Had you bothered to discuss this on the talk page first I would've said the same thing. You fundamentally misunderstand the policies you are citing as they simply aren't applicable here. --Spekkios (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If we go back to Desertambition's complaint (at the top of this section), he/she got the order of some events wrong: "Toddy1 then starts a discussion on the talk page" happened immediately after "Toddy1 then reverts after making sure the links are not dead", and before "Nemov reverts Toddy1". What happened next was that Nemov explained why he/she reverted, and entered into a discussion that Spekkios later joined. This is the complete opposite of "stonewalling".

The situation was confusing because the version of the Washington Post article that was on their website did not have the information needed for it to be a valid citation for the information it was being cited for in the article. Spekkios produced an archive-URL that had an older version of the same article, which did. Without the talk page discussion, it was very easy to misunderstand what Spekkios had meant in his/her edit summaries. What Desertambition calls move the goalposts and change their argument, the rest of us call being helpful, discussing the issues, and explaining themselves more clearly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, this is primarily a content dispute that should be resolved through talk page conversation with the goal of creating genuine consensus among all the editors interested in this matter. Not endless bickering. I will not express any opinion about the core content issue but I will say that a reference to coverage in the Washington Post does not become invalid in any way because a link within that article has gone dead. That's an absurd argument. On the other hand, a Washington Post article that is a listicle that pretty much says, "These several state flags of former Confederate states still contain some Confederate imagery" with minimal discussion of this specific flag is a pretty weak source, in my opinion. Certainly, there must exist reliable sources of a much higher quality that offer a detailed scholarly analysis of the history of this specific state flag. All involved editors should strive to find and cite and accurately and neutrally summarize such sources. So, I will conclude with a warning that I intend to to page block any editor who engages in any tendentious editing at Flag of Alabama or any related article. All of you, abandon your POV pushing entirely, and work this out collaboratively at Talk: Flag of Alabama. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Your opinion appears to be the consensus position. As I mentioned in the subsection below, the other editors involved were discussing this in good faith. The real issue is Desertambition's behavior (outlined further by CaptainEek here[165]) that needs to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Nemov, you are incorrect if you think that my comments are in support of what you see as the "consensus position". Nothing could be further from the truth. How to best describe two diagonal red bars on a white background of the flag of a state that I have spent three days visiting in my entire long life is of zero interest to me personally. All I care about as an administrator is that good faith editors stop arguing and start collaborating. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the core content issues. I mean about the Washington Post article in general. There was confusion about a "dead link." The editors had worked through that before this "issue" was raised. The only reason this is being discussed here is because one user (with a bad track record) is arguing in bad faith. Nemov (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Desertambition

I apologize in advance if I'm going about this the wrong way. I was hesitant to bring this up here because I'd rather sort this out in a reasonable manner, but it's clear after my interaction with Desertambition that there's no hope going forward. This user has shown to be consistently hostile and unable to work with others in good faith. My interactions have been on the Flag of Alabama. After a disagreement the user ignored discussion in TALK and went straight to the noticeboard. This seems to be a pattern. Instead of building consensus the user accuses other users of breaking rules. The user had just come off a block for edit warring and immediately started reverting my good faith edits[166][167]. A quick review of the user's talk [[168]] is full of examples of incivility[169] and open hostility[[170]] for anyone who with whom the user has a disagreement. Given the second chance after the indefinite block, the additional block for edit warring, this user isn't learning how to work with others in a productive manner. If the admins are going to continue to tolerate this user's antics it might be wise to move towards a topic ban. I'm not sure the user is able to edit some pages in good faith. Nemov (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You should move this into a subheading of the section above, rather than splitting the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This better? Nemov (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Easier for uninvolved people to see the whole discussion. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

user:202.176.13.24

This user's revision history shows a strong line of unconstructive edits and potential vandalism, all edits on this i.p have been reverted and I do not believe that this user is here to build an Encyclopedia, I apologize if my judgement is false here. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This should have been reported to WP:AIV. Such vandals are reported there, it is okay if you have not noticed. Severestorm28 20:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I did that, and it got removed for "Non-actionable report, empty" PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s rather stale, the last edit was 00:58, 25 March 2022. Probably they have long ago moved on but if they return, do report again. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Triasemmy6,472,301

This user Special:Contributions/Triasemmy6,472,301 keeps changing years on Wikipedia pages albums, novels etc without any sources. It's annoying to have to keep going and reverting every page he vandalizes. Please help. --Aaron106 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

according to the User Accounts page, this user has been blocked indefinitely with 0 appeal on the French Wikipedia for "Account created to vandalize". PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You should definitely block him on the English wiki --Aaron106 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Threat of trial

Hello. User Mileniumik is threatening me with legal action on this page (diff for this). It's clear that this is a violation of WP:NLT. Please take the appropriate steps. Thanks, --Mehman 97 21:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have issued a warning; it isn't a direct threat, but an "if I were them" statement. Certainly using the threat to suppress discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe a NOTHERE block, very nationalist and argumentative. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This is just the usual not even grasping what encyclopaedia inclusion criteria are, and failure to argue the case on its merits. It's a regular occurrence at AFD when people come here from other Wikipedias where they've hit resistance and find that we have standards to be met as well. Phil Bridger has attempted to get things on track, which is the best approach. I've pushed for sources, too.

    At the moment this and az:Davit Osepaşvili are both up for deletion, with people across at least two Wikipedias pointing (e.g. ka:Special:Diff/4331515) the single-purpose multi-project article creator to various kinds of notability and sourcing policies. (I suspect that it's only a matter of time for fr:David Osepachvili, sq:Davit Osepashvili, simple:David Osepashvili, and tr:Davit Osepaşvili to be noticed and questioned.)

    All that said, if the single-purpose account starts doing here what xe did at ka:Special:Diff/4345411, which is both personal attacks and direct legal threats, a swift ejection from the English Wikipedia will be necessary.

    Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:71 by multiple ISP accounts

The initial edit at Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), prior to being blocked, was here: Diff1‎

Which was again reverted three times:

• 2603:301b:98:f000:61a0:6cfe:1d46:bbb4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff2

• 2603:301b:98:f000:740e:6c52:d935:a04e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff3

• 2601:80:4500:43b2:fcd3:e457:3d85:5bf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff4

It looks like the same editor is using a VPN to evade their block. Is temporary page protection the more logical way to go? Blue Riband► 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be moot for the time being as there have been no further edits by any of the above ISPs as of the writing. Blue Riband► 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at Isaac Rochell

Resolved

 – Page protected Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous users are vandalizing the page Issac Rochell, adding unreferenced BLP stuff, and adding slurs to the page. The page may have to be protected. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Page has been protected. For future references Kaseng55, take page protection requests to WP:RFPP unless there is something that specifically needs to be handled here. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's block of Evoke Heir

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

---

The story here is straightforward. New user Evoke Heir makes seven edits: five to ANI [171][172][173][174][175], one to mainspace [176], one to userspace [177]. The only warning on Evoke Heir's talk page is from the mainspace edit, and it wasn't followed by any more misbehavior. An hour later, HJ Mitchell blocks Evoke Heir indefinitely, with talk-page and email access disabled, and does not explain the block on the user talk page. The block log entry is Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Discussion with admin is at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Block of Evoke Heir.

So, good block or bad block? My argument is below. Modulus12 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe this block complies with the blocking policy. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. Were the edits nonconstructive? Yes. Were they so egregious as to be treated the same as our worst vandals and LTA sockpuppets? No. HJ Mitchell says this is "obviously a troll account". That's definitely possible, maybe even more likely than not. But the possibility of it being someone with WP:NOCLUE, under the lens of assuming good faith, is large enough to not be able to ignore here. The first three comments at ANI could be nonsense mimicry of other users (shouts of "BOOMERANG" at ANI are frequent). The last edit to ANI was clearly snark, but it's not outside the realm of snark that ANI regulars make from time to time, and they don't get indeffed for it. The mainspace edit was an extremely mild form of "vandalism" and could just be a test edit. This is not indef territory. Let's look at the policy: WP:BEFOREBLOCK: Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK: Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. ... Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. In my opinion, the edits we see and HJ Mitchell's suspicions are insufficient to justify skipping these steps. The blocking policy also says editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged on serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring. Disabling talk-page access was clearly outside the bounds of policy. This editor should be allowed to appeal.

I also dislike how the block log entry says one thing (WP:NOTHERE, the vaguest of all block reasons), and when queried, HJ Mitchell's actual reasons for blocking are not any of the items listed at that link sitting on solid evidence. Instead it's a sprawling bunch of vague suspicions ("clearly not a new user", "trolling", "vandalism", "sockpuppet"). That discrepancy is unfair to the blocked individual, the block reason is not clear and specific, and it forces the rest of us to ask the admin for clarification. In this case, that comes bundled with patronizing statements like I'm astonished that we're even debating this, I'm dumbfounded that I'm having to explain such an obvious cut and dried block, we're wasting so many words. Maybe me and JBW are naive for questioning this block, but explaining how your admin actions comply with policy is not a waste of your time. It is part of the job you signed up for. Modulus12 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, I looked at every one of this editor's contributions, and every one of them looked like minor, moderate or major trolling. In other words, a sophisticated troll here to make trouble for as long as possible. I consider the odds that this person would have gone on to become a productive Wikipedia editor to be a tiny fraction of 1%. Newbies who really want to help out do not come here in full blown troll mode. I endorse the block. As for the NOTHERE block reasoning, it is entirely appropriate when a disruptive new editor has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As for failure to leave warnings, warnings are only of value to editors who truly want to contribute constructively and are amenable to constructive criticism. Trolls take such warnings as badges of honor and redouble their trolling. WP:DENY should be the standard practice with trolls. Briefly and neutrally describe the misconduct in the edit summary of the block notice. Move on and forget them. Deny them the twisted glory that they crave. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Good block. This is not a newbie, this is obviously a returning troll. You don't warn obvious trolls, you just stop the trolling promptly and without fuss. Oh, and Modulus12, I really think you could spend your time more constructively by working on the encyclopedia rather than escalating pointless drama and feeding the trolls. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the block. Without going into specifics Evoke Heir's behaviour isn't that of a genuinely new user; it's that of a user who already has some experience and is well aware AN/I is the best crowded theatre to yell "Fire!" in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Obvious block of obvious troll. Modulus, see WP:DUCK, WP:RBI, Occam's razor, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:COMMONSENSE for the principles we operate under when we issue NOTHERE blocks. Thanks for giving me a chuckle though. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• An obvious throwaway troll account. Their very first edit is to ANI and references WP:BOOMERANG. The chances that this is a new or potentially productive editor are virtually zero. Pawnkingthree (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, this is more of the same from Modulus12, namely, a lack of clue leading to a timesink and a drain on admin resources, and a strain on the individual admin/s targeted. Can we please ban them from the dharma boards until they figure things out in a more well-rounded way? And JBW, it's disappointing (and surprising) to see you emboldening this kind of conduct (even with just one comment), as you, yourself, may well end up on the receiving end of clueless reports such as this (and probably do). While I wouldn't have disabled TPA, it isn't a great loss to have this user go through UTRS if they're serious about contributing positively. If this wasn't a WP:PACT matter, at least, which it almost certainly is. El_C 08:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• And adding to El_C's point, Modulus12 was partial-blocked from ANI in 2021 for persistently messing about with other people's edits, at which point they promised to not do it any more; however, they're still doing it - not only pointless tweaking but also taking it upon themselves to remove humourous posts because they "don't belong". Possibly any new block needs to be a lot longer, since they clearly can't stop themselves doing it. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Modulus12

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

---

• For the record, I disagree, no offence, with Ritchie333's close; further discussion does not yet seem to have run its course. SN54129 13:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  On that note, I have left a message on Modulus12's talk page telling them to stay away from ANI. Hopefully that will do the trick, and somewhat pacify those calling for stronger sanctions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Let them call for stronger sanctions all they want. I'm not a new editor. If this admin or that admin thinks I'm being disruptive or "a timesink" and a "drain on admin resources" because the only interaction I've ever had with them here was asking a simple question about their close (really User:El C?), then they should put up some proper evidence and try to reach a consensus for blocking me. Also, it looks like El C partially agrees with me (talk-page access should be restored).

  Black Kite has dredged up the previous ill-fated attempt to kick me off ANI. I had forgotten about that proposal to unblock, Black Kite, but 331dot did not accept the unblock on those terms. Ivanvector eventually realized he had messed up badly in blocking me (full discussion here) and undid the whole thing. I took a long break because the admin misbehavior in that mess pissed me off from contributing, and the way it resolved does not seem to require me to hold to that promise. As for pointless tweaking I refer you to WP:TPO where fixing format and layout errors is explicitly allowed, and to WP:INDENT which explains why I moved the comments. That's just an essay, but properly locating and indenting your posts is a requirement of the talk page guidelines. I'm certainly not the only one who fixes these things around here when they spot them. taking it upon themselves to remove humourous posts because they "don't belong". Yes, that's how editing works. WP:BRD. EEng boldly added a joke, I reverted, and then EEng opened discussion just reverted again, so I went to discuss at User talk:EEng#Yellow card. You're welcome to join the discussion there.

  Finally, here we go again rushing to close discussion sections after only 10 hours. Why? I don't see HJ Mitchell claiming my nonsense is staining his reputation by being left open. I'm OK with 50 editors telling me the block was good, I'm OK with this section being ignored by everyone because all the points have been made. So why can't you just leave it open for three or four days so everyone has a chance to see and comment? Why is it that every time an admin action is questioned, it is rushed to close and swept under the rug as quickly as possible? Modulus12 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't actually happen every time; it's much more likely when the claim is particularly dumb, and the discussion is a particularly deep timesink. You might be OK with 50 editors telling you you're being thick, but after the first 10, it's kind of a waste of everyone's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Modulus12: Your attitude stinks, and I don't think things will work out well for you if you don't change it. You need to drop your obvious animosity towards admins and start being a cooperative contributor. Just stop trying to be the admin police. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Now I'm the admin police? For what, two posts about admin actions? One of which was entirely successful (Bbb23 was abusing rollback). I think I'm allowed one misfire, and if the community thinks this was a good indef-no-appeals-block, I think we need to tweak the blocking policy text to make that more clear. My misunderstanding was reasonable. It's not my mission to go searching for admin misbehavior; these two instances were stumbled upon via reading the diffs on this page right here. As for your attitude stinks, from what I have seen at ANI, awful attitudes and even occasional incivility are not blockable offenses for anybody but brand-new users. If I appear hostile, it might be because polite questions result in hostile attitudes from admins. And admins, to a certain extent, should welcome policing of their actions, not belittle editors for making a mistake in questioning their authority. Modulus12 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  You were agitating for an indef block on another admin recently. Yes, most admins welcome good faith feedback, but your clueless animosity is not that. Anyway, you don't seem to be in the mood for listening, so just carry on with the attitude and see what happens, if that's what you want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agitating? Politely brainstorming, more like. Mostly a procedural indef block in that case, only requiring the bare minimum of acknowledging their failure as a requirement for unblock. It seems everyone else is fine with letting policy-violators continue editing and receive a free ticket to restart the drama at a later date. Oh well, I stood alone on that one, nobody liked the idea, I've moved on. Modulus12 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you move on from this one too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion at WT:ACN has been freely open for anyone to comment at. I'm satisfied with it. The discussion here quickly brought on the scary purple box that effectively says "Nothing to see here, move along, obviously a silly editor who's obviously wrong because the five admins who showed up first must obviously speak for everyone." Big difference. Modulus12 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Another way to see it is that, at the time of closing, eight experienced editors (not all of whom are admins) thought your complaint was without merit, and nobody supported you. You are the one trying to make it an "us vs them" conflict with admins. And that is the attitude of which I speak. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Modulus12: Maybe I have powers of observation that aren't limited just to my own experiences. Also, I didn't ask for a "block," I asked for a ban. FYI: WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 16:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  " taking it upon themselves to remove humourous posts because they "don't belong". Yes, that's how editing works. WP:BRD. EEng boldly added a joke, I reverted, and then EEng opened discussion just reverted again, so I went to discuss at User talk:EEng#Yellow card. You're welcome to join the discussion there." Who gave you the right to unilaterally remove someone's comment? Stop trying to be the WP:FUNPOLICE. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I dunno, WP:TALK#TOPIC? WP:COMMONSENSE? WP:IAR? If you look at User talk:EEng#Yellow card, after EEng's restoration, Newyorkbrad was planning to remove it, and Primefac has now removed it. Maybe ask them. I think most of the pure humor comments on this already overly long and busy page can be done without, but I don't remove those. Adding a butt joke into someone's closing statement that is trying to explain acceptable behavior crosses a line. Modulus12 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, and have a healthy disrespect for any form of authority, but what causes this page to be overly long and busy is leaving discussions open for too long after the outcome is obvious. That has a much greater effect than occasional attempts at humour. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's moreso the article-related disputes between two editors that quickly generate endless back-and-forth walls of text. Those should be quickly controlled by admins; discussions of admin actions should be left open until everyone is happy that consensus is achieved, or some reasonable amount of days. Too many admins have forgotten that WP:SNOW also says An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. ... Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness. WP:SNOW#A cautionary note has more good advice. There was an admin agreeing with me at User talk:HJ Mitchell. I don't know if they've changed their mind or what, but they have not had a chance to comment here. I myself didn't have a chance to respond to any of the counterpoints raised before it was closed. A little reasoned discourse isn't going to hurt anyone. Modulus12 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, JCW555, an interesting thought experiment is to ask what if it was Evoke Heir cracking butt jokes in closing statements instead of EEng. It seems entirely incompatible with WP:AGF and principles of fairness to say that inappropriate behavior from an unwarned new editor should catch an indef, while inappropriate behavior from an experienced editor (who knows better) should be tolerated. Modulus12 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you love hearing yourself? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not gonna comment on a scenario that didn't happen (and engage in whataboutism). Again, who made you the judge and jury of what humor is acceptable? ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUDGEON needs a serious read right now, as well as WP:DROPIT, before the ban hammer is weilded. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Srsly. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as it seems to be this is being dragged out by a user who is very close (I suspect, I may be wrong) to losing any and all sympathy. Precisely because they will not drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

^^^ SN54129 19:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see how it looks that way. I think I've said everything I want to say in this meta-discussion on the close, and if the original discussion is not re-opened, I can't really elaborate on my arguments there. Also, I should have courtesy-pinged Ivanvector above when I commented on his behavior. I'll shut up now unless anyone has a question for me or the discussion above is re-opened. Modulus12 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have no intention of getting involved in the discussion on Modulus12's conduct, which is what this has become. However, I see that El_C had criticised me, including accusing me of "emboldening this kind of conduct", and I should like to comment on that. I did not endorse or condone the activity of the blocked editor, and I certainly did not do anything which I saw, or see, as "emboldening" their conduct. I didn't even criticise HJ Mitchell for blocking. The main thing which I did do was criticise him for blocking without access to any means of appeal. I may have made a serious error of judgement in making that criticism, but I don't see "emboldening this kind of conduct" as a fair description of doing so. I am also surprised that El_C, in the same post as saying that they would not have disabled talk page access and that it was reasonable to "have this user go through UTRS", is so heavily critical of me for a post the essential points were (1) likewise suggesting that talk page access might not have been removed, and (2) suggesting that if that access was removed then the option of going through UTRS should have been made available. As far as I can see, on both those points the view I expressed was merely a more strongly held version of the view that El_C has expressed, and while obviously there is room for expressing disagreement with my more strongly held version, I don't understand how they can condemn me in such strong terms for opinions which, while much more strongly expressed, are essentially in the same direction as their own opinions. JBW (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• RE: I didn't even criticise HJ Mitchell for blocking. JBW, what you actually said was: It seems to me that immediately blocking rather than warning was questionable, but removing talk page access makes no sense at all [...] That's "criticism for blocking" in my book. The edit summary even read: Questionable, to say the least (diff). Which ordinarily would be okay'ish (even if WP:PACT naïve), but you had made this fire-and-forget comment in response to Modulus12, specifically. That's the issue here. And Modulus12 was, in my view, emboldened by it. You even began your comment with: Prompted by that message from Modulus12, I have checked Evoke Heir's editing [...] Anyway, I realize it displeases you to hear me express that criticism, but it is what it is. I don't think it was a grave condemnation on my part because I don't think it was a grave mistake on yours. But I challenge that this carelessness on your part was a mistake, nonetheless. El_C 23:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

El_C (1) OK, "questionable" was an unfortunate word to use, as it was likely to be taken as criticism. I am some distance along the autism spectrum, and tend to use words in more literal ways than they are likely to be taken, and I meant that literally that it could be questioned, not that I criticised it. (2) From what you now say, it is evident that you meant that I was "emboldening" the action by Modulus12, not the original activity by the blocked editor. That being so I now understand your point, though I'm not sure I can reasonably have been expected to know that Modulus12 was likely to produce the nonsense that is now on this page. (3) There's probably no point in going deeply into the semantics of the word "displeases", but "surprises" comes closer to what I intended to convey, perhaps with a faint colouring of "puzzles". (4) OK, it's good to read that you "don't think it was a grave condemnation", but it did come across to me as one. JBW (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't. What I said was disappointing (and surprising). And, no, you weren't expected to necessarily be aware of Modulus12's seemingly indiscriminate admin RGW impulses, but I still felt that your analysis of the blocked account inadvertently emboldened them to make this CIR report (which I tend to doubt they'd have gone for otherwise). Maybe it stemmed from your note to HJ Mitchell a few days prior about another indef, I dunno. So that is what I tried to get across. Next time, get telepathic. Anyway, I'm good with both of us moving on from this, hopefully, with no bad blood. Personally I've none, I was just trying to point out, perhaps too strongly, some of the key mechanics that led us all here. Regards, El_C 08:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: OK. JBW (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Clerking this page while this discussion is happening is pretty giant red flag that you are looking for conflict.Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm still unclear why El C gets to add a BBC joke to a close [178] but I can't add a footy joke. I think all fetishes should be equally acceptable in closes. EEng 06:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ricky, is that you? It's your uncle Randal. I'm the leader of a gang now. El_C 08:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Egorku56

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

---

Egorku56 (talk · contribs) obtrusive cross-wiki spammer, see Emir Marlo, deletes the speedy deletion tag all the time. See also e.g. de:Emir Marlo, tr:Emir Marlo, pl:Emir Marlo (have all been deleted). --Icodense (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Fan content of 173.162.220.17

173.162.220.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)This user kept adding a lot of Fan content to wrestling and some stuff like that and making the articles full of over detailed tables. I wouldn't sure it is constructive or not?Pavlov2 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

FelicityWiki reported by Comedymod

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• FelicityWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedymod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Gordillo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a request to restore Special:Diff/1068022507 to the last edit on 26th January 2022.

User FelicityWiki has made edits that subtly defames John Gordillo as you can tell by

unlinking his website removing links to his "Podcast for Kel" podcast editing the main content to make it seem less favourable about his achievements and editing to seem he's generally an unfavorable character I know John Gordillo personally and have given my attention to this so I created an account to appeal to administrators to have the page restored to the last version before FelicityWiki edited the page who we both believe it's someone who has continually engaged in online harassment against John on every social media platform and now seeks to defame him further.

John and I have decided to directly appeal to administrators instead of engaging FelicityWiki as, historically she has been hostile and we both believe this would be a waste of time. We are appealing for swift action on these defamatory edits which can clearly be differentiated by reading the current Vs previous versions.

This page also has had a history of malicious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedymod (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comedymod,

• If clearly problematic content is currently present in the article, please go ahead and remove it. If WP:PAID applies to you, please provide the required disclosure in your edit summary when doing so.
• If there is currently no problematic content present in the article, and your concern is purely about the lack of content you'd like to see included, please do not edit the article directly. Instead, click "Talk" above the article, then "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange box at the top of the talk page.

That's pretty much it. Remove factually incorrect statements if there are factually incorrect statements. Discuss any other kinds of desired changes on the article's talk page. See WP:FAQ/Article subjects for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing defamatory at all, but simply the removal of clear advertising. The only defamatory content I see is your post above, which defames User:FelicityWiki. Are we really supposed to find someone with such a pompous friend funny? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed some content in revision 1079425700, which may have been the main concern (undue weight; potential verifiability / source reliability issues). I can't read minds, though, and if there is truly problematic content currently in the article, we do allow its removal even by closely connected editors as described in WP:BLP, even before discussing the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits FelicityWiki made as well; they did not remove any podcast link that I could see, nor did they touch the website (which appears to be dead anyhow; it's a Wix parking page). Other edits certainly looked to be reasonable and aimed at making the article neutral and factual. There's a distinct lack of WP:AGF in the claims made. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made a full rebuttal on the talk page. I use the citations already in the article to demonstrate why the edits seem biased. The page has been under attack before. Perhaps I should not have gone all guns blazing, but anyone who is supposed to check the information could read the citations in their entirety to see that the edits walk a line.

I do however thank you all for correcting my approach, of course I don't expect you to read minds but I hope you give my reasonings the same weight as you did these other edits. Comedymod (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

More activity from banned HarveyCarter

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter
• 86.149.119.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 31.53.205.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Inveterate troll User:HarveyCarter was banned 15 years ago, but he has evaded his ban thousands of times. The latest activity is at the IP range Special:Contributions/86.149.119.0/24, as seen by this edit today, harping on the same thing he's been hammering for years—that Darlan assured Churchill the fleet would be scuttled.[179][180][181]

HarveyCarter was also active at Special:Contributions/31.53.205.0/24 as recently as two weeks ago. The range Special:Contributions/86.150.120.0/21 was blocked for a year starting 11 days ago. Can we get another lengthy rangeblock or two? Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As they keep coming back, unsure what can be done, maybe a page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of pages are involved, ranging from film actors to political and military history. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, well as it seems so easy for them to block evade I am unsure what else can be down. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Closure mess involving off-wiki discussion

I need some advice from editors experienced with messes. A few days ago, an anonymous editor requested the closure of a five-month old merge proposal here, which I did. My closure was quickly reverted by participant MarioProtIV (talk · contribs), who claimed that the discussion wasn't thorough enough for a consensus to have emerged. Then, the entire proposal was quickly "withdrawn" by the editor who started the discussion; when I questioned him about it, he explained that he and other participants don't have the time and/or desire to deal with it right now. I then explained to MarioProtIV that reverting closures without consulting the person who made it is inappropriate and that his general conduct could be interpreted as stonewalling. He replied that the discussion's participants had discussed the issue off-wiki, where they agreed to handle things differently than the on-wiki discussion would indicate, and that he would be more careful with his behavior going forward. I am satisfied with his response to my behavioral concerns, but as far as the final disposition of the merger proposal goes, I feel out of my depth: off-wiki discussion cannot override on-wiki consensus, but if the article's regular contributors have a plan, maybe it would be best to just leave them to it. (Neither the article nor the talk page has been edited much recently, so I can't tell what's actually going on.) I think this needs attention from people smarter and more experienced with these things than me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TheresNoTime for notifying the involved parties for me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I'm taking a look at this now; off the bat I can say that a direct revert of a closure is pretty bad form, and MarioProtIV should know better. Apologies for jumping on the ANI notices! ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Weather events seem to be one of those topics, like cars or professional wrestling, that attract people with strong opinions who are not prepared to discuss things with non-fanatics. My approach would simply be to leave it as "no consensus", but with the proviso that anyone who has an opinion can start another discussion immediately if they want, and with a reminder to the participants that decisions about Wikipedia are made on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling those involved have already had reminders/warnings about off-wiki canvassing—this time its going to be blocks if I can prove my suspicion of where this took place. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I request an indef block for myself as I have quite a bit of guilt in matters related to this over the past couple of years. While I have never asked someone to blatantly support or oppose anything, just mentioning a discussion period is still canvassing. If I am being honest, myself and at least 15-20 other people in the wiki project have participated in stealth canvassing as people always bring up on wiki discussions and discuss things off wiki. The RfC in November for colors was canvassed as has the current one since it has been mentioned and discussed off wiki. There have been other discussions linked to off wiki as well. All of us should be held accountable and punished for our crimes. Noah^Talk 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The WPTC discord server has been warned multiple times about off-wiki canvassing (most recently by Enterprisey, and previously by Worm That Turned I believe?), so its apparent this is a systemic issue that warnings alone are unable to prevent. Real-time communication platforms allow like-minded Wikipedians to collaborate on content, and the vast majority of groups who use it do so constructively and with respect for their on-wiki colleagues—in this case, it is apparent to me that you (MarioProtIV and Hurricane Noah) have repeatedly engaged in off-wiki collusion despite multiple warnings.

I'm still trying to work out what we should do about this, and I'd welcome any suggestions.. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I repeat my request to be stripped of my rights and indef blocked. Noah^Talk 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I also want to reiterate that the scale of the stealth canvassing in this situation involves over a dozen people in the project, not just Mario and myself. Many others have mentioned discussions and participated in off-wiki discussions. We all need to be held responsible for what has transpired. Noah^Talk 22:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What does blocking you solve though Noah, other than preventing a normally fairly decent editor from editing? Wikipedia:Canvassing states I can block you both for this, but it doesn't stop the systemic issue as you mention—I can't exactly block 15-20 other people when its only you two who have been reported.. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The only to stop it is to block me indefinitely. Other people will inadvertently rope me into something or ask me about something which makes me just as guilty as them. This is the only way to prevent it from occurring again. Noah^Talk 23:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are either unable or unwilling to control your own actions? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I am saying I am unable to control myself. Either people block me here or I will find someone who will. Noah^Talk 23:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to provide evidence of this, you may do so here or, if doing so would involve outing, email it to the Arbitration Committee instead. Otherwise, your bizarre request that you and twenty other people be blocked seems more like an attempt to derail this discussion than anything else. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the behaviour in this case solely in the scope of weather and related articles? Would a topic ban be sufficient from this area be sufficient to prevent further disruption? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be pointless since that's all I edit. Might as well just indef block and get it done and over with. Noah^Talk 23:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

All right I will say at least, from my view, earlier on I had been made aware of bringing others from off-wiki to discussions was a form of canvassing. Now it seems that applies to the whole project in general, which I was not aware of at all. I, for the most admit I’ve made my mistakes in the past and for that I apologize to all. Also, I will say that in my case, I was called into the discussions off-wiki by Noah mostly, and did not do so to Noah my own record (again for that I apologize for getting involved). I am in no way shifting my blame here as I do own a little bit of it but I am stating my own view which is that I did not really know what I was getting involved into. I do agree with TNT that something should be done to stop this from going on. Also Noah, I appreciate your inputs but I don’t think you need to bring this so much down on yourself. Plus you’re an essential member of WPTC and I think you do have its considerations at heart even though the ways of discussing of it has been thorny.

TL;DR I’ve made my mistakes before but was not fully aware of the scale this was breaching and was unknowingly drawn into it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the off-wiki elements involved, I'm going to put together an arbcom case—I don't think there's anything more we can do here.. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

KingsofLondon's disruptive editing

• KingsofLondon (talk · contribs)

Please have a look to this user's disruptive edits. He'd arleady been given a 4im warn but he's still disruptive. We've tried to explain him what he'd done wrong but doesn't want to listen to us. Dr Salvus 08:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for disruptive behaviour? I went through some of the edits that triggered warnings on his talk page... seriously? Given a warning for inserting the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on Kimi Räikkönen (who retired in 2021)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, there are unsourced info 1, 2, 3, 4. There are also other unsourced edits. The last uncostructive edit is 5 (updated the infobox but didn't the table) Dr Salvus 10:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The first diff he added information to state that Hayden Mullins was no longer manager of Colchester United. He was correct. Has anyone actually tried working with him rather than biting? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Warren, Andy (January 19, 2022), "Colchester sack Mullins as ex-Town defender takes interim charge of U's", East Anglian Daily Times, retrieved March 27, 2022

User:RomanceLove88 and the endless redirects

User:RomanceLove88 has seemingly been going on an endless redirect spree recently, creating an incredible amount of somewhat absurd and unnecessary redirects that have resulted in a large headache for other users. Their redirects have been the subject of numerous RFD discussions in the past week, with 130 nominated on March 22nd alone. After their initial batch of Pointless MCU redirects (None of the MCU movies have ever been called "episodes"), were sent to RFD, they started creating redirects for what was apparently EVERY SINGLE Mii ever included in Nintendo games (note that the number of redirects was far larger than what was shown in the RFD thread, the list was simply too large and I gave up 1/3 of the way through), redirects that truncated "The Amazing Spider-Man" to just "Amazing", and even redirects for a sequel to a movie that was never produced. This eventually got to the point where User:Tavix nuked all of their recent creations.

Despite efforts from editors such as User:InfiniteNexus, User:Tamzin and myself to get them to stop, they have recently created 신비아파트: 고스트볼Z (which one could argue would violate WP:RFOREIGN) and does not appear to be able to comprehend why their editing is disruptive, as evidenced by their recent edits on Tavix and their own talk page. This disruptive behavior cannot continue, and having to patrol their edits for further creations is exhausting. I am proposing either a T-Ban on all redirects or harsher action, despite their otherwise clean record- this is as their promises that they would stop have proven to be empty.Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would support a TBAN (allowing AFC/R as an alternative, as I, Padgriffin, and Tavix have all suggested), as well as a revocation of their WP:RWHITELIST pseudo-perm. However, there are communication issues (and maybe competence as well) here that concern me much more than the redirects do. "New(er) user fails to understand a set of norms and makes a huge mess" is a tale as old as Wikipedia, and usually it can be resolved by experienced users explaining those norms, the new(er) user saying "Oh shit, I'm sorry", and everyone moving on. When we decide to TBAN someone, it's usually because they rejected that advice but are still a net-positive. Here, though, RL88 hasn't so much rejected my and others' advice as clearly failed to understand it. I pointed out that they were about to have 130 redirects deleted, and that that meant they should ease up. Their response was to continue creating redirects. I posted on their talk again, saying they really needed to answer. Their response was to defend two newer redirects I'd mentioned, completely ignoring everything else I'd said. When I asked if they understood my broader points, they replied simply "yep". Comments since are comparably disheartening. I fundamentally question whether this is someone capable of editing as part of a collaborative project now or anytime in the near future.
  Disclaimer that Padgriffin and I discussed this matter off-wiki, but as an RfD regular I had already been aware of the issues RL88 had caused, and, as I've in the past been able to successfully intervene when users were serially creating bad redirects, I decided I would try my hand here. I was not asked to come comment in this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  It was an accident, i forgot Tamzin tell me for waiting in the next month. RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  And almost forgot, i confused this Wikipedia rule. RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Worse than Putin?

With

• this[182]
• this[183], and
• this[184]

I think AsiBakshish has crossed a line. Could an admin take a look? Alexbrn (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Indef please. Anybody who can't be bothered to type the word "are" is a net negative. – ².O.^Boxing 11:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)