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. 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

Ppdallo & West Africa issues

• Ppdallo (talk · contribs)

Ppdallo has caused a lot of disruption in the West Africa topic area. For this report, I don't want anyone to think about content disputes (which is so massively complicated) but instead let's focus on the conduct.

I am not the first user to notice Ppdallo's conduct issues. Chaheel Riens filed this report which ultimately led to Riens abandoning the topic area out of frustrating with Ppdallo. Specially, Chaheel Riens quoted Ppdallo as exactly saying [The Hausa language is] the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages on five different occasions. Ppdallo simply responded, i clearly did not claim that 'the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken'.The word 'popular' is absent there Okay, so that was the old dispute.

Fast forward to 6 September 2021, now Ppdallo is in a dispute with Oramfe over whether or not something or other counts as Yoruba. Here Ppdallo accuses Oramfe of irredentism and says they will be responsible for future conflict among Nigerians. Selected quote:

Your contiguous map of "indigenous Yoruba presence in Nigeria, Benin & Togo" reeks of wanton expansionism and can sow seeds of conflicts in future generations.Please take it down. WEST AFRICA SUFFERS FROM ENOUGH CONFLICTS, ALREADY.

Later in the month, more people come into the dispute as things escalate. Amid some in progress discussions, we see this quote from Ppdallo:

When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture. (bold in original)

After the many hours I spent reviewing this, all I know is that something needs to change here. For brevity, I have only included some of the more serious conduct violations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (uninvolved users)

• I find words such as “haters” and comments such as “You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.” to be incendiary as it pertains to Nigeria where ethnic tensions are at its all-time worst. See this and this & the country is currently on the verge of another civil war and collapse. So in essence, they are inadvertently doing what they are accusing another editor of. In any case, if this isn’t the first time they are being told to be more mindful of their conduct and choice of words then I think a strong warning should be issued to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• We have too much battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. The most recently concluded ArbCom case notes the destructive character of nationalistic disputes. West Africa is not currently an area of discretionary sanctions. Maybe this editor needs to be put under an individual sanction similar to Horn of Africa or Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (involved users)

In addition to above report, he seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view as attested to by the original complaint. Check out one such remark:[1]. line 740

He also disputes editor contributions based on personal hunch (of what he thinks/want to be right or wrong, rather than referenced facts) which majority of the time turns out to be wrong. Check out my reply to him on one such edits where he accused me of putting up a map based on Dubious assumption .[2] He further claims there was never an ethnicity called Yoruba or groups/languages classified as being 'Yoruboid' in history.. Furthermore, he went ahead and accused my person of ethnic irredentism based on a proper map citing peer-reviewed sources on Yoruba presence in southeastern West Africa.[3] which he picked another one of his personal issues with, and then went into an edit-war back and forth.

On the other hand, he was unable to prove the map dubious like he initially claimed or even show that there was any fault with it. After several replies in the article talk page, he eventually referred me to the Yoruboid languages article and implored me to use the map there (an altogether different map). An article on the same ethnolinguistic group he claimed 'never existed'. The ethnic agenda and inconsistencies of this user is glaring. User:Talisman-white can also corroborate incendiary statements by said user which I might not be privy to share. Oramfe (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe I am not here to (...to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask you, how then do you compare your statement in one of my discussions with you that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.") [4] Now who is claiming superiority over the other?

On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per yours here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[5]
Ppdallo (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oramfe, MJL, taking a closer look it appears Bbb23 handed them a two day block for conduct related issues, EW to be precise. Imho all this put together if either of you initiate a proposal asking for a T-BAN it wouldn’t be a stretch, I think this is sheer TE at its worst. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Please consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[6] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[7]Ppdallo (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Here is Oluwatalisman telling his Oramfe buddy the reason why he created the multiple accounts! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[8]Dont you think that I really should sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take him serious anymore??? He just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo I responded to this below. That message was not to Oramfe. That message was to Abal126 and split into 4 sections on the page [9]. In it, I am actually explaining that I was wrong. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I class as involved or uninvolved - so taking the safe option due to previous interaction - I'll say I'm involved. I believe that Ppdallo in their own mind is editing to improve the project, but they're doing so to the exclusion of anybody else's opinion and Wiki policy in a WP:GREATWRONG kind of way, itself a subset of tendentious editing. Even further, anybody who disagrees with their actions is guilty of vandalism and disruptive editing. As I said in my last interaction, I removed any page that may have connection with Ppdallo so I cannot comment on any editing since, but in all honesty based on my last experience I'm not surprised this has happened and their behaviour has been questioned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I never had any issue with you. You requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[10] and i provided it[11] yet you continued with your edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[12] and went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit[13] and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[14] while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [15] Ppdallo (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I want to bring up is his indiscriminate removal of other user edits while reverting any detail he has issue with. He has done so here, here, and recently here, damaging the ethnic infobox borders in the first two, and removing all the new param cleanup edits by Afernand74 in the latest. In this way, he takes the page hostage to his discretion. I know he is not unaware he can manually revert because [16]. The general attitude I find with this user is one of "my dispute is more important than any other changes others have to make and any other challenges others have to bring" so he continually makes demands like You keep out of the map discussion since Oramfe and myself have already reached consensus before you forced yourself in.[17] -- a consensus that Oramfe has continually denied (here and here) but he has no problem recycling the same assertions as with Chaheel Riens, and he keeps regarding several versions of a section that now contains a-whole-nother paragraph as essentially the same as 3 years ago, suggesting we could just as well revert to that version [18] in The Etymology section reverts to its original state (as it had essentially been for three years) to before your drastic edit and then we start over from there.

This seems to be where he is coming from on the topic of the Etymology section of Yoruba people: He is of the belief that THEREFORE WITHOUT THAT HAUSA WORD THERE WOULD NEVER BE A YORUBA TRIBE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. THEREFORE THANK HAUSA PEOPLE FOR THAT [19] and it seems he will settle for little less than sections of this article being reflections of that belief. This is also correctly incendiary considering all the things that Celestina007 has pointed out in their presentation of the current affairs of Nigeria today above. His belief seems to be that entire credit for the existence of the Yoruba people should entirely go to Hausa people, for so far uncited reasons, and he seems pretty unabashed about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for that expression. As you might also see in that section [20], 2 years ago, Largoplazo noticed something wrong with that and it seems, 2 years later, I am here confounded. Besides his statement to Oramfe that there was never a tribe called Yoruba or Yoruboid groups in History. It was Hausa history. [21], he seems to have now also declared that, contrary to an Encyclopedia Britannica entry [22], There is no monolithic tribe called Yoruba..., somewhere in here, though he makes edits to the page. He has claimed that talking drums which are used by many a group in West Africa (as shown in the linked article) serve as evidence that Yorubas are indebted to Hausas since Yorubas, he believes for some reason, could not have made them, and implied that clothing elements which are worn through West Africa serve as particular evidence that Yorubas are indebted to association with Hausas in statements like The "talking drum" is called Kalangu in Hausa and they are the only people using it in the entire Sahel region, except the forest Yoruba, Do Yoruba have a history of leather tanning? How could they make the talking drum?, and Yoruba adopted Hausa clothing 100%. Yoruba have never interfaced with any Gur group in their entire history. All individual tribes comprising Gur groups are very small in population and they each neighbor Hausa people and their culture is heavily influenced by the larger Hausa. Name one Gur tribe using the Kalangu or the so called "talking drum" and what they call it in their language. implying other ethnic groups close to the Yorubas could not have influenced them, but it must all be the Hausas. All somewhere in here. So, when he makes statements like "...i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen."[23], he is making some kind of manifesto which holds that, to him, Yorubas only existed as elements in Hausa history, until they "stole" their independent identity, or elements thereof, from Hausa, or something. The only problem is that he has absolutely no sources for any of these claims -- zero shared so far!

He has recently taken to directly liberally doling out accusations of breaches to WP:ONUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV at the same times in place of other approaches to conversation toward myself and more recently in part toward Oramfe all in [24] and [25] and you can read to see if they were justified, nevertheless as one of the many things I could call him out for, he recently stated the following, ...it seems, you had no qualms violating Wikipedia's (WP:ONUS) to replace a content that had stood for three years and gradually been improved over that space of time, with a new content that is heavily biased and synthesized out of published materials to imply new conclusions. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's two of three core content policies(WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) and for your information Wikipedia says these policies are non-negotiable, and the principles upon which they are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus . In spite of all that you were given a chance to explain your edit, but instead you repeatedly went into abusive and even hate statements against certain tribe and religion other than your own, in clear violation of all relevant Wikipedia rules and policies guiding discussions between editors and editor neutrality. At this juncture, i am not sure if you still deserve the benefit of doubt that Snow Rise suggested in your favor, implying that the benefit of the doubt I had received as a newer user should be rescinded to give way to the actualization of his clearly stated goals in the Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs... section he had drawn user/admin attention to at the bottom of my talk page, while I, in fact, did painstakingly explain my edits to him which were met with ... I cant believe this is coming from you and You are not serious with these images, are you??? and general dismissal under section titled "Collection of your responses are as follows:".

There is a lot I could add. I could add to this in stages but probably the best way to get an idea is to do what MJL seems to have done going through the bulk of the discussions on the talk page, and recently under Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs on Yoruba article talkpage on my talk page. Not that I have been perfect myself but the conduct itself is best displayed. Anyway so far, I think in addition to the edit warring already pointed to above, I think I have included at least one instance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in reverting changes he does not disagree with while trying to have his points on another part of the article he does dispute thereby removing the previous contributions of others unless they return to review the page and by themselves notice that their changes are gone, and I don't know what the previous paragraph counts as but I think I read that Wikipedia policies should not be leveraged against others especially when it is clear that the user is advocating for the strictest interpretations toward clear ends. Thanks for the time. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman This is where you were coming from as well, ("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[26] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[27] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[28] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[29] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[30] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[31], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[32]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[33] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.
I would also refer admins/commenters to my discussions with you as in the link [34]concerning suggested way forward for the impasse. Ppdallo (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [35][36][37] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I also would suggest that the conduct of involved users, notably Oramfe and Talisman-white be taken into consideration. Pls find below some of Talisma_whites' below as well as Oramfe and my issue with Chaheel Riens:

("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[38] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[39] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[40] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[41] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[42] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[43], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[44]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[45] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.

As for Oramfe, I am not here to (seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask him, how then would he compare his statement in one of my discussions with him that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.")[46] At this point, i don't know who is claiming superiority over the other,
On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per his statement here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[47]

As for Chaheel Riens, I never had any issue with him. he requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[48] and i provided it[49] yet he continued with his edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[50] and he went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [51]
Finally I would like admins/commenters to realise that MJL quote is out of context and this is the full text (As an aside, i am not " a repeat offender on Nigerian/West African ethnicity articles here on Wikipedia" as you claim. You only find me hopping in and out of Hausa and Yoruba people related articles and that's because i see a lot of misinformation there.(When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.)[52] and it was just an aside, nothing more to it. That many kind of statements can be seen as in my quote of Oramfe as well as Talisman-white above. Please also consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[53] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[54] Ppdallo (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, you edit-warred to keep your preferred version in place while discussion was ongoing, that was the reason for my response. I still maintain that your source did not uphold your claim of Hausa being the second most prolific, it only gave the number of speakers - which is not the same thing. However as the source was behind a paywall it was difficult to get that across to others. What pushed me over the edge was your ridiculous evasion by claiming that the difference between "second most widely spoken language" and "second most popular afroasiatic language spoken" being "widely" and "popular" - a discussion that can be seen in your link, so thanks for posting it. Once you did provide an adequate link that upheld your view you still insisted on inserting the original link, when it was not only unnecessary, but also still contested for reasons I explained above. That was the reason for the "What the hell are you up to?" comment. It seemed at that point that you were indulging in WP:POINT type editing, and as such I had no desire to carry it on, as it clearly wouldn't go anywhere, yet at the same time your behaviour would bring you to others' attention - as it has done now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, This was the correct diff of the source[55] i provided and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[56] and then you reported me here[57] Ppdallo (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure those are the correct links? They show that you inserted the acceptable Babbel link, then re-inserted the original ethnologue link, which as a wayback link does not support the claim of it being 2nd most widely spoken - as I said all along. The genuine link (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hau here) is a paysite, so cannot be easily verified.

I reported you for edit warring as much as anything else. You started talk page discussion,[58] but ignored the fact that I had already done so[59] - and pinged you that I had done so as well as informing you in a previous edit summary. As you used exactly the same terminology to reply, you must have been aware - you just chose to ignore it and make out you were the one being accomodating. That's pretty telling in itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [60][61][62] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. And in regard to the 6th quotation, the discussion you have linked with Aabal126 as evidence that I tried to misrepresent you is not in regard to the Yoruba people article at all. All of that discussion can be seen at the view history of another article [63], the Yoruba language article. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo And in regard to the multiple accounts, no I was not blocked at the same time as you. More correctly, I was blocked back in July here as a much newer frequent user by Ponyo who has permanently dissuaded me from doing that again in the future. That was my first time warning and punishment all in one action and I quickly learned it was not the best way to go about disputing behavior on Wikipedia. This is the edit [64], all of which's changes I meant to repersist to the page. Much later, note that MJL did some reviewing on my account and dropped a kind suggestion as to how to go about conducting myself on Wikipedia [65]. So far, no one has seen repeated behavior on my part on Wikipedia. I found it vicious, however, that you asked that the benefit of the doubt I had received on Wikipedia be rescinded in attempts to leverage the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia policy against me all to the end of attaining your goals, as pointed out within the 3rd paragraph of my first response above. Thank you -Oluwatalisman (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman Nope. This was you telling your Oramfe buddy the reason why you created that account! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[66] I really need to sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take you serious anymore??? You just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo What exactly are you saying Nope to? That was not my conversation with my buddy Oramfe, that was my response to Abal126 as part of this discussion talk spanning 4 sections. And that shows how new I was to operating Wikipedia as I actually thought I needed to create a brand new section for each response and did not know how to tag users, which is one of my reasons for not responding to your discussions earlier. I think you can see how cluttered my page was at the time. Abal126, who is also much newer, 's statement earlier was I will need you to stop reediting the Yoruba people webpage or I will have Ppdallo and Oramfe to revoke your editing privileges from you and you won’t get to edit webpages anymore, understand? to which I responded with your quote above, assuming he made his statement in connection with seeing the previous temporary revoking of editing privileges on my page. In case you didn't realize, I am stylishly admitting my wrong. Now I do believe this section was brought up about you for repeated behavior. Can you please speak to repeated behavior? And by the way, I do expect you to take me serisously. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MJL, Celestina007 I would like to bring to your notice Oramfe's continued edit warring[67] on the same Etymology section content[68] under dispute, even though i have earlier reported[69] it to User:MJL (MJL, I have provided the necessary diffs and would also like to call your attention to Oramfe's newest edit[70] of the section under dispute also in violation of (WP:ONUS).) Ppdallo (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly, what you call an edit warning to me does not apply because I wasn't adding disputed content. You can't hold an article hostage because you are involved in a disagreement with a third editor, wikipedia is an open resource where editors are free to contribute verifiable content.
• Again, you have the habit of dishing out irrelevant warnings and tags, and accusing editors of false wikipedia breaches. You accused me of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV on my newest edit simply because you didn't like it, which was quite funny and ridiculous to say the least because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your personal agenda. You went on to revert my edit. I took no issues with that and simply created an entirely different subsection unrelated to your ongoing resolution with User:Talisman-white here[71] so I don't know why you are bringing that up as some sort of proof that you warned me for breaching wiki policy. It is totally moot.
• As for my map, I don't need to remind everyone here for the umpteenth time that I never reached an agreement with you. This were my replies to you; (I am not engaging in this discussion with you to win. I am addressing your vandalism and why it wouldn't stand. It isn't your place to accept that the Mokoles are Yorubas, neither is it your place to accept a map that clearly depicts what it is labelled to be... and does a good job at that. In conclusion, I don't see the issue here.' If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org.[72] So yes, I tentatively said I might consider detailing the map further by incorporating information from Ethnologue, but THAT Ethnologue wasn't an adequate resource because it doesn't depict the same thing mine does. Summarily, I never reached an agreement with you. You can't simply pick up issues with verified works you don't like and try to force an agreement with/on an editor to suit your own unsubstantiated POV.
• Also (and In case you aren't aware), I was the one who reported you for edit warring. Before that, I issued warnings to you on at least two different occasions on the Yoruba people edit page as mandated by wikipedia policy, first here at 14:26h[73] and then again here at 14:39h[74] but of course, you ignored those warnings are carried on. I left you to your devices and then proceeded to report your unproductive editing activities, after which I dropped a user notification on your page - again as mandated by wikipedia policy. That notice can be seen here:[75]. Then User: SuperSkaterDude45 came from the notice board section to the article and reverted your last edit here[76]. On my part however, I didn't even realize I had gone over and violated the WP:3RR and when I was issued the block, I appealed it here[77] and the admins responded here[78]
• In summary, you initiated an edit war (In your usual fashion) and of course I abetted your violations too, and got the flack for it by being blocked for 2 days along with you (as should be)- but the blame laid largely on you. The mere fact that you are being testified against by multiple users from different time periods is a testament to the point that you have an unruly and bulldozer editing mentality on wikipedia articles. On your very own page you put it boldly there that you are on wikipedia for an agenda, and your mission statement was to revert what you described as; (When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen".
• This clearly shows that you seem to think that you have a monopoly on what is/should be right, and intend to enforce that opinion. That is clearly battleground editing: WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is one thing Wikipedia is NOT.
• Right from your entrance on wikipedia, you have been problematic. As far back as 2018 you were issued edit warnings on the Hausa people article for vandalism[79] by administrator Thomas.W and again here[80] by admin User:Largoplazo for violating the Yoruba article. These amongst others, and that has been your trend till present with no sign of maturation nor development. Oramfe (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am not going to lie, Ppdallo. I saw your diffs, and I reviewed them. Things weren't as what you purported them to be. That is part of the reason I took to looking into this further. Once I had a more complete understanding of this topic area (which was kind of difficult for me as an outsider), I resolved to write this report. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored

• I have removed this thread from the archive. I would like to see a formal close here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior

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

---

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redvince1, in forgoing further discussion for several days on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism (which I left alone to give them time to respond), had their contributions reverted to the purpose of reaching a consensus. Prior to this, the fellow Wikipedian and I were given notices to prevent a WP:edit war. As a result, they have been previously reported as evident in this archived discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account. Investigating the previous report, both of our personal talk pages, and the article's talk page, we were both assisted in attempting to reach consensus. Until today as of writing (14 October 2021), the article remained status pre ante until their WP:bold contributions which forwent any recognition of consensus. Better yet, in this, I would be willing to revert them a fourth time, but then again that would be seen as an edit war to which I reached out to Editor2020, Ermenrich, and AntiCompositeNumber on my talk page for further guidance. I could be bold as well yet be at risk of punishment alongside this contributor, and I refuse to be baited into doing so. They (Redvince1) were given warning on the article's talk page to self-revert their contributions on the basis of WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I still have yet to gain response pertaining to how their additions contribute to the history of the theological precept, in addition to their previous spurious source and previous biased terminology. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No administrative assistance yet before this goes into the dust bin (archives)? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're going to need to provide diffs and sort of explain the problem a little better. I've looked at the discussion on the article talk page and I can't really make head or tails of it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

1) The following contributor (Redvince1) seems to have introduced polemic into the history section, rather than actual history; 2) They used blatantly biased terminology by using the statement "complain" in a following contribution; 3) I reverted their contributions; they then restore these contributions and claim to have made a contribution they did not (refer to the archived report listed above); 4) their contributions were reverted until a consensus could be reached by an uninvolved editor; 5) they blatantly disregarded that by restoring their contributions, and adding more as if a consensus had been reached; they also forwent any further communication with me on reaching consensus; 6) I revert their contribution on the basis of WO:NOCONSENSUS and with a lack of any action for communication; 7) here we are now. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have observed that this particular article Modalistic Monarchianism seems to have some editors who have a fairly strong Trinitarian bias. My new contributions to this article were merely to add relevant Scriptural passages and logical evidence from a Modalist theological point of view as well. In my opinion, a well rounded Wikipedia article on any topic should include evidence from editors with multiple perspectives. I have not deleted any previous content on the article. I am willing to continue discussion and try to figure out why the new content is so polemic to User: TheLionHasSeen. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop interjecting your responses outside of the pattern of conversation to confuse readers of this report. Next, on my talk page you admitted to being an advocate for this theological perspective. As for bias, where is it? All the article is stating is a historic documentation of the phenomenon; the only thing which you, as an open Modalist may deem biased is the statement: "By the 4th century, a consensus had developed in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, and modalism was generally considered a heresy." Note, however it says it was considered a heresy, not Wikipedia saying it is verbatim a heresy. As for Scripture and logical evidence from your viewpoint, that is also inherently biased furthermore. Wikipedia is not about multiple perspectives in the sense of polemic, rather, documentation with a WP:NPOV. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Just recently, they responded in the talk page which clarifies that they are indeed using Wikipedia for advocacy, not understanding how NPOV works. They even restored a source determined spurious by another involved editor to the encyclopedia. This is ridiculous at this rate! They disregarded more experienced contributors than both of us, because they merely opted to wait for consensus, and remove faulty citations. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What I am seeing here is one editor who appears open to compromise and discussion, and another, the OP, who responds in a belligerent and unreasonable manner to everything the other editor does - including the original filing of this report. I leave it to others beside myself to agree or disagree with this assessment and decide if any intervention is needed, but I think a WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Both users need to be blocked for edit warring

I decided just to look at the page history and these are all the diffs of edit warring: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95].

This is all since October 7. I didn't look to see if 3rr was specifically violated, but I don't think it makes much of difference. Both users have more than deserved a few days block.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur. If I need to be blocked, so be it; I merely opted to WP:drop it and return to editing articles pertaining to settlements (ironically, most U.S. geography places still have the 2000 census results). Especially when someone publicly declares they have an advocate perspective, when none of the information is inherently dogging out the viewpoint they saw as biased. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia staff have done nothing. Editor2020 got involved, and the Redvince1 has placed information which nowhere involves the history nor development of that theology again by forcefully reverting (for the umpteenth time). Then, they had a article about Thomas Jefferson linked that makes no mention of Modalism or Modalistic Monarchianism, nor applies to the content of the article in relation. What is Wikipedia staff even doing at this rate? Counting sheep? If both of us have to be blocked, so be it, but I may just escalate this with Wikimedia via email at this rate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is no way to email them about this type of issue unfortunately. I suppose the English Wikipedia just lacks administrators; anyways, on the talk page and latest edit summary where they staunchly reverted Editor2020, they labeled me and others as "critics." I have had enough, now we are growing into WP:Ad hominem attacks. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As of this writing, on the edit warring noticeboard they claimed I removed citations pertaining to David K Bernard; that is quite foolish considering I placed the citations pertaining to David K Bernard (a Oneness theologian) in the article, and collaborated to bring Oneness Pentecostalism to a NPOV and ultimately achieve good article status. In the archived report, they claimed my contribution which another user called them out for...now they do it again... Wikipedia, seriously? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins are volunteers, just like everyone else. And this looks more like an edit dispute than behavioral issue that requires immediate admin intervention. So I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction on this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Neutralhomer

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

---

I recently closed a report at WP:ANEW filed by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) on Punding as "no violation" as it seemed somewhat vexatious. I also notice they have recently been edit-warring at WMPW. On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times. I wouldn't normally start a thread here for two isolated (albeit recent) incidents of mild edit-warring and a general battleground behaviour, but in this instance I need to ask the question - is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I did the math. With about 74k edits and 24 blocks that is a block about every 3000 edits. That is a lot. I have noticed this user around over the last 14 years but did not personally notice the disruption. The block log includes blocks for personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, block evasion, sock puppetry, borderline harassment, saying an editor "should be executed", 3RR, copyright concerns, wikihounding, misuse of twinkle, severe off-wiki harassment, and battlefield behavior. If blocks were pokémon this user is well on their way to collecting them all.

On the flip side a look through their user archives shows evidence of positive contributions throughout their 14 years here.

I don't know if they are a net positive or not. I do however think when block logs get that long and complete that further blocks need to escalate in severity going from days to weeks to months to indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick maths - perhaps this can be "solved" by making it clear the next block, for whatever reason, will be indefinite? Asking an editor to reflect on their behaviour and appeal their block if they want to edit again can often work wonders... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Only three blocks in the last nine years. Levivich 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point of only 3 of the blocks being in the last 9 years is well taken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out what they think they were doing on Punding. Edit-warring to restore a problematic edit containing errors after the original editor ran out of reverts certainly isn't a good look. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be retaliation for this edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm. That's not great. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh ouch, the ownership going on there is strong and, well, yeah. I don't see a discussion about that (though it could be elsewhere) but they completely ignored DrKay's very valid points in the edit history for that article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's condition leads to them being overprotective of various articles. They do have the best interests of the project at heart and can take into account constructive criticism but it takes repetition and patience. IMO a block would be punitive rather than preventative. As an aside this "it is a featured article and, thus, can't be altered" is becoming a real problem and probably should be added to the arguments to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across this editor, so I can't comment on their conduct and/or edits. Regarding the block log, you can't just look at the raw numbers of 24 blocks. The vast majority of those are more than a decade old, with one of the most recent ones stating "no reason to keep this user blocked over an honest mistake" in the unblock log. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with this to some extent, the block that stands out for me is the one placed in October 2012. Although nine years old, it was for "Severe off-wiki harassment" and sounds like the sort of thing we globally lock users for these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But it was 9 years ago... GiantSnowman 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

^^^This. I don't know how to quickly find the edits, but the indef was rescinded six days later. I assume all parties involved at the time were happy (as they could be) with the outcome, otherwise they'd still be indef'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Details of the indef block on their talkpage. Not pleasant reading. Note this discussion, from 2020 (i.e. not nine years ago), is about both on and off wiki attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: I'm not rehashing or dwelling on something that took place 9 years ago. It's over, buried, done with.

What happened in 2020 I referenced below. That was part of a MUCH larger incident that involved FAR more users than just myself. Harrassment, rule breaking, and other issues were on both sides. There were no innocent parties in that. I, in turn, was topic blocked, blocked for 72 hours (which I rightly earned, again, no innocent parties), and on-and-off-wiki attacked (which no one deserved), though nothing was ever done to that user. But again, I referenced that below. That's why it was a debacle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering that earlier this year they came to my talk page to bitch about being asked to drop an argument, then proceeded to try and drag out the argument in an ill-fated attempt to make a WP:POINT, I'd have say they're not a net-positive to the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm not a big fan of blocking people who are (mostly) a net positive, so I'd like to hear what they've got to say about the various issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't address everything. First, Ritchie333, no, it wasn't "relatiation" for anything. I saw something I thought was an edit war, it was. I was an uninvolved part in that discussion, inserted myself into that discussion, reverted, warned the user (manually), made changes, and the edit war continued by the user, I reverted, warned the user via a template (official), the user again reverted and I reported. That's not "retaliation", that's sticking up for another user who was being warned about other articles at the same time.

MarnetteD, "[my] condition" is called Aspergers, it was first diagnosed when I was 23 (I turned 40 this year). While I do appreciate most of your other comments (to an extent), I don't need time and patience. Featured Articles are held to a higher standard. It's in the rules. A few editors and myself worked very hard to get that article to Featured Article status. It is the only radio station article at Featured Article status, for which I am very proud. Being near the station, I have a special ability (so to speak) to gain updated information about it quite quickly. I also can access my local library in person, which has the information I need. I can copy it in person. So, you call it "protective", I call it upholding the rules of WP:FA. You can most certainly place that arguement within WP:AADP, I don't have the ability to stop you all, but that would change the fundamental foundation and rules of WP:FA, making those articles nothing more than something "special" with a star at the top and anyone could throw anything at them without consequence (just my opinion).

To the rest, it's good to see that I'm (he/his, for those using "they", apperciate that) not a net-positive. Yeah, I've had my problems in the past. Yeah, I have a block log. I've tried to make this place better in the 17 years that I've been here. I've created numerous articles, edited nearly 74,000 times, made a few offline Wiki friends (one of whom I will never forget), made 4 GA articles, 2 FA articles. I outed my own account off-Wiki (on Twitter) and worked with the Asexual Community when there was that huge Asexual Eraser debacle last year (involving Pauley Perrette's article and others), calming a firestorm that this community knew nothing about (for which I was topic banned, by the way) and in turn taught a slew of people, in real time, about Wikipedia. Yet, somehow my block log alone convinces you I'm not a net positive.

If that's all it takes, cool. Do what you wish. All I ask is you allow me 6 hours to get my affairs in order. I do want to have a trusted editor to watch that Featured Article of mine. Once that's done, you are free to do whatever you like. If my actual work can't convince the community I'm a net-positive, then I won't bother trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You're work is a net-positive; it's your soft skills that sink you. then I won't bother trying is part of the problem. Take a break, reflect, come back. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel that any action is needed at this point. I do however think that future blocks for future issues should carry an escalating duration. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that incident where Neutralhomer dug up a Wikipedian's employer, then called the employer to complain about what the person was doing on Wikipedia is appalling. So is the fact that even that block, after a long and storied block log, was lifted in a few days based on a sorry and an oddly narrow assurance that he wouldn't call anyone's employer again. If anything, how about an assurance about not exporting feuds off-wiki, not personalizing disputes, etc.? Of course, if that happened today and went to arbcom or trust + safety rather than ANI, I have to think it would receive a ban. Maybe we've grown enough, or at least the zeitgeist has changed enough, that ANI would be able to handle it, too. I don't know. But we're not going to relitigate something that happened almost a decade ago. It got some attention, and was resolved, for better or worse. Same goes for most of the other blocks in the log. There are [only?] three blocks since then, including one for "clumsiness". I dare we'd need one of those big, lots-o-diffs showing a pattern style of ANI threads that doesn't rely on old stuff for anything to happen. If this section has a take-away, it should be a warning about personalizing disputes. After blocks for hounding, off-wiki harassment, calling someone's employer, etc., there should be zero tolerance for that moving forward, but it's unclear what there is to do right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I will mention the MFD discussion two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP. There were two problems. Neutralhomer was breaking attribution, in a way that appeared to be trying to claim too much credit. Second, when cautioned by SmokeyJoe, Neutralhomer was uncivil. They have been warned that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I am just mentioning this for those who were not at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• See related section below: #Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Wherein Neutralhomer objects to the singular they and calls another editor "buckwheat". Levivich 06:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Quickly repeating something I explained below Neutralhomer's response to the buckwheat IMO epitomises one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing here. They could have simply read the sources provided, learnt from them and undertaken never to use the term buckwheat again at least in Wikipedia and hopefully in the rest of their life. Preferably this would have come in the form of recognition here of their mistake, but I'd personally be fine with no reply if we could be confident it wouldn't be repeated. But frankly I wouldn't be, and I'm even less confident from the way Neutralhomer has responded. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them, unfortunately Neutralhomer seems to have great difficult doing so and hence has a tendency to create unnecessary problems and waste the time of other editors. While they can do great work when they're not wrong, although we all know even an editor in the right can cause lots of problems if they handle it poorly, the risk is their tendencies are pushing the balance of their contributions too far into the negative. As I mentioned in another reply, I'm even more concerned about they way it sounds like they're putting their desire to win an argument ahead of harm to our readers from their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • From the thread below: I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. I think that speaks for itself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Welp:

1. I don't like these WP:RFC/U-style ANI threads. is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? is a question that can only be answered by reading all or most of Neutralhomer's 74,000+ edits, which no one will do. The question is better stated as: Is there a chronic problem, and what should we do about it?
2. I also don't like judging people by their block log, as block logs rarely tell the whole story. Ritchie wrote above:

   On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times.

   Two and a half years ago, Ritchie wrote at AN:

   Unless the problems that led to the blocks are reoccurring, somebody's block log should be irrelevant, and certainly not an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. In the case of Neutralhomer, the blocks from 2018 are for 3RR (generally a one-off, and obvious if it re-occurs) and "clumsiness" which AFAIK isn't part of the blocking policy (and, indeed, was overturned shortly afterwards).

   Neutralhomer has been blocked once since then (before today's block), in 2020. That's not good, but it's not particularly bad, either.
3. I also don't like judging people for how they respond to ANI threads. One person drags another to ANI, the other person flips out and next thing you know they're calling someone "buckwheat", and it's like "Ah ha! See, told you they were disruptive!" An ANI report is provocative for the person being reported, and I don't want to judge editors based on how they react to provocations. However, there have definitely been some gems, such as "buckwheat," "thick skulls," "the real world" and the one I just got pinged to: "Oh, I'm "bludgeoning" people, but personal attacks are A-OK ... Do you all even have jobs?" But that's still after the ANI thread, so I took a look at some stuff from this year, before the ANI thread:
4. First, on the issue that precipitated this report: |publisher=Cambridge |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts should jump out as an obvious mistake to any editor with ~75k edits, just as much as |publisher=Oxford |location=Oxford, Massachusetts. And that's just one of the problems with that edit. To edit war to reinstate such errors, and take it to ANEW, is disruptive. It's not only inserting error into the encyclopedia but also wasting other editors time. Worse, he continues arguing about it, even up to today.
5. In the 2019 AN thread quoted above, basically no one agreed with Neutralhomer, and this exchange shows some strong WP:IDHT:
   • An editor says to Neutralhomer: Remember when you wrote "I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along." in your complaint? Because your responses here do not reflect your words above.
   • Neutralhomer's response: Well, shouldn't I? You all went straight into "it's your fault" and "I'm going to block you for harrassment" without taking a serious look at what I wrote. No one really mentioned anything and when you did you spun it back on me. So, yeah, I am going to take it a little personal.
6. Some user talk page threads from this year are concerning:
   1. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#DO NOT edit other editor's talk page comments
   2. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Thanks - "I'm easy to get along with. It's people who just can't listen that drive me MAD!"
   3. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Question
      • Neutralhomer: "Because, under FA rules, it must show "format=PDF"... I intend to follow the rules to the letter to which they were written"
      • Editor: "Can you point me to those rules"
      • Neutralhomer: "You can find them within the links at WP:FACR"
   4. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WRND (disambiguation)
      • Editor: "You removed the PROD tag without explanation. I'll be taking it to AfD, but I'm curious as to why you removed it, as it seems an open and shut WP:2DABS case"
      • Neutralhomer: "Actually, it's the way we currently do things around here per NMEDIA."
      • Actually, it wasn't, and the AFD closed a unanimous delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRND (disambiguation). Except Neutralhomer's "Keep" !vote which he struck a few days later, thankfully.
   5. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Disruptive Editing - leading to an ANI in July
   6. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Draft:WMFH-LP - about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP, an MFD Neutralhomer started that he withdrew
   7. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WMPW - "Just for the record, the edit summary wasn't even close to "defensive", that was an explanation and a request. Even this isn't defensive. Snarky maybe, but not defensive. You don't want to see defensive. :)"
   8. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Files listed for discussion - all the files were deleted
   9. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#"Buckwheat"
7. Vandalism warnings/reporting
   1. This warning issued in August was uw-vandalism1 for this edit, which should have been uw-unsourced1 (or better yet, no template at all, and just an explanation in an edit summary or a non-template talk page message). Normally I wouldn't nitpick over use of the wrong level 1 warning template, but:
   2. This warning issued in September was uw-vandalism4im for this edit, which might have been incorrect or even disruptive but doesn't look like vandalism to me. Special:Contribs/75.109.70.8 looks like an editor attempting to edit in good faith, and
   3. ANI in April about bad vandalism reporting
8. I noticed also that Neutralhomer can be very nice when asking admins for help if he gets the help: 1, 2, 3, but less nice when he doesn't get the help: 4, 5, which are reminiscent of the 2019 AN thread linked above.

So yeah, I think there is a chronic problem here. Levivich 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Over the past year I've watched the ANI, I've seen enough of these threads to feel someone needs to say this- Are there users somewhere between [b]Useful upstanding Wikians [/b] and [b]"Not a Net positive- get rid of them [/b]? The answer is, obviously, yes. And Neutralhomer is a perfect example. YEARS of editing and GA and FA contributions should not be ignored, neither should YEARS of problems and significant ones at that. There has to be a better answer than "Sorry, you're no longer worth our time- get out." Surely there is a way to apply restrictions and/or moderation/mediation to keep these type of users contributing without returning time after time to the ANI. I realize that the current system is not working either- that we warn, block, unblock, ignore, repeat until exhausted and then indef. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think we owe it to the project to at least try to find a better way. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

We've tried to come up with better ways repeatedly over the ~15 years I've been on Wikipedia. From what I've seen, the only thing that works (and rarely does it work) are custom restrictions for the problem editor. But when it's behavioral like this, it almost always winds up being a temporary respite before they get the restrictions lifted and go right back to doing it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait until Neutralhomer's 48-block expires & allow him to defend himself, in this report. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No offense but this discussion gives a bad impression coming from the user with whom Neutralhomer had an aerated, but civil a day or two ago.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me. But I don't fully understand what you're posting about. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You aren't helping. Neutralhomer has dug his heels in very thoroughly both in this thread and the one below. He has insisted on finding fault with seemingly everyone but himself. There are significant behavioral concerns that he needs to address. If your intention is to divert the focus away from Neutralhomer by making vague implications about unspecified bad impressions, then I'm going to tell you right now that it won't work. The best thing is to give Neutralhomer time to reassess the situation and respond here once his blocked is lifted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

NH blocked indef with talk page access removed

For anyone who has not been watching his talk page, NH has been in battleground mode, flinging insults and accusations at everyone, for 3 days now, with no hint of stopping, and continuing after I gave him a very clear final warning. This cannot be allowed to continue. I tried to cut him a little slack because real life is apparently stressful right now, but it just kept coming. I removed talk page access because his talk page is where all the unacceptable behavior has been occuring. If he makes a request at UTRS, I have no objection to the UTRS admin restoring talk page access if they are convinced he is going to stop now, and they don't need to discuss with me first. I would, however, ask that any admin talk to me briefly before unblocking; I think we're beyond "he was just stressed out" territory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that renders this report moot. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If and when Neutralhomer requests an unblock that request can be handled in a fresh thread. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Wufjdk

Persistent vandalism. Unresponsive on talk page. Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced contents. Removal of maintenance templates. Disruptive editing. These issues mentioned are all on this user's talk page. This user should be blocked. Jourdanescense (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Like the section above this one, looks like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Mobile web editor, no meaningful edits to user talk space. While certainly disruptive, I haven't seen any obvious vandalism. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is recent obvious vandalism: Miss Ugly Face, Fat Body, locale changed to Mars, etc. [96].

Can we get a block already? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Creation today of Home Econimic Education (HEE) Different types of Chart: probably not vandalism, but WP:CIR. Block please. Fram (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements

Hi, My name is Carlos and I live in Mexico so English isn't my mother tongue and I apologize beforehand if this isn't the appropriate place to post the following issue: I recently registered in Wikipedia with the purpose of being able to better help improve the articles I can as many articles, for example, usually sport citations composed just of a last name and a year or very little information and sometimes with no citations at all. With that in mind, I set out to improve the sources and in-text citations of every article I read, I achieved this mostly by filling the most relevant parameters availalbe for each bibliographic source in the articles such as the editors, archive URLs, publishers, full dates, and others.

However, lately, a user named DrKay started to undo all my improvements in all the articles I edited, claiming it was wrong somehow (instead of offering a correction) and when I asked for a justifications he just copied and pasted some generic notice and links to citation manuals, after I insisted he threatened me with banning me or something and the last time I asked him in his talk page to please explain to me his reasons he erased the section I created and claimed in the log that it was "abuse" and melodramatically claiming that I was an editor "pursuing personal vendettas".

I just want to know why the parameters are even made available by the platform in the first place if the editors will not be allowed to use them in a clear way.

Thank you very much in advance, I hope I can get from whoever reads this the help, respect and attention I feel I was specifically denied (perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people).

Thanks again for your time and have a great day, Carlos.

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This would be the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct) to the Punding article (and apparently others), to which DrKay edit-warred to remove. Ritchie333, an admin, asked DrKay for a response and got the same one-line "go to this board" response (which was apparently enough for Ritchie333, see above). So, perhaps, it wasn't I who was "wrong" and "retaliat[ing]", but maybe, just maybe, an admin was in the wrong here. It does happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Exterminating Angel. The brightly colored warning at the top of this page and the big brightly colored box on the page for editing informs you that you must notify DrKay of your complaint. Since you have not done so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look into your complaint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, just to note, while I do agree about the note on the talk page, I did immediately ping DrKay immediately after seeing this post and with my reply. So, he was "technically" notified. Just sayin' and stickin' up for TEA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay's latest edit summary to that article says undo obvious faults like claiming that Cambridge University is in Massachusetts and not England, or that a country that hasn't existed since 1801 is extant, adding irrelevant details that no-one interested in and removing journal names that are required by the cite journal parameter. "Irrelevant details" is a matter of opinion, but the factual assertions appear to be correct. What precisely is DrKay's misconduct here? Neutralhomer, it is well established that a ping is not sufficient notice, because editors have the ability to disable receiving pings. I don't but some do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for help from Carlos The Exterminating Angel. Thousands of Wiki editors over the years have developed regular accepted policies regarding journal citations. These are based on the Chicago Manual of Style which is used by most academic authors, editors and publishers. You should familiarize yourself with the usual policies and you should not change good citations into bad ones. What happened it that you added lots of extraneous and often wrong information that will mislead the many thousands of students who use our footnotes every week. If they start copying you they will get lower grades. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I'm not sure where you get your information, but elementary/middle/high schools and colleges/universities here in the US are highly recommend that their students not use Wikipedia for any sources. If they use Wikipedia, it's only for quick lookups, not for sourcing anything. Even I wasn't allowed to use Wikipedia when I was in school....and that was a long time ago. So, Carlos/TEA isn't responsible for any "lower grades" and furthermore, that's not anywhere close to the subject at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

students in fact use wikipedia a lot according to surveys. the teachers usually approve using footnotes so they can study published scholarly sources. Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Surveys". Not really a damning arguement. From what I've seen, they perfer the students actually use the actual sources (ie: the documents themselves) and not the Wikipedia articles. Meaning skipping Wikipedia altogether. Meaning, students are using Google, looking for actual sources, going to them, and taking them down from the actual source. Not lazily going to Wikipedia where the answers may lay there...if that page is up-to-date, hasn't been vandalized, etc. It's easier for teachers to teach students to look for the answers from the actual source, then from a source that may be up-to-date. Most of the time, it isn't.

Now Rjensen, I get you did a Wikimania talk in 2012 and you have your own article and you are an editor (that's a big deal), but you don't have to preach the Wikipedia gospel to me. I ain't buyin'. But we are still way off topic. This has nothing to do with students, teachers, or anything like that. It has to do with DrKay and his behavioral issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I agree this students thing is a read herring. Whether students are using Wikipedia to find sources or finding the sources directly themselves, none of it excuses you damaging Wikipedia by destroying references making it hard for readers, be they students or anyone else, to find our cited sources because you add nonsense like claiming Cambridge University is located in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You do understand what a "red herring" is, right? There aren't any "students". There is just DrKay's behavior. We can deflect to this non-existant "students", to my block log or something I did 9 years ago, or because TEA brought up race (is he wrong?), but you all are still (intentionally, I strongly believe) overlooking the real reason for this discussion. DrKay's behavior.

Maybe the "Cambridge University" and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was noticed and was left in as a red herring of my own, just to see if DrKay would mass-revert all of those editors/authors once again. I did. See, your non-existant "students" aren't stupid and neither am I. I left that in to see what DrKay would do. He mass-reverted once again based on two things. Instead of removing those two things, doing actual work, he hit the revert button. He engaged in an edit-war over two red herrings. He is the one with the "personal vendetta" and now crying "victim". He violated 3RR, misused the revert button, misused the vandalism templates, misused his admin tools, threatened blocks he couldn't give out. Because he refused to remove two red herrings.

I'm not as dumb as you all think I am, neither are your non-existant "students", but DrKay's behavior and this group of editors and admins defense of this behavior is. He got caught, it's time he faces some consequences. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You should really disengage from this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're admitting to violating WP:POINT? As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I concur with JBL -- this argument is not positive for you (or anyone else, for that matter). eviolite (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite: You call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, you all are still trying to deflect from the actual issue, DrKay's behavior. I know that you want me to stop saying DrKay's behavior, cause it will make it easier to archive this entire thing, bury me or TEA, and make it all go away, but DrKay's behavior is why we are here. So, let's discuss DrKay's behavior. Not me, not non-existant students, but DrKay's behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's very hard to find fault with the fact that DrKay reverted those edits given that you have admitted that they introduced patently false information, any editor who saw the introduction of blatantly untrue material into an article would likely do the same. Are we really meant to chastise users for reverting what is essentially vandalism? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Two small pieces of misinformation, which was intentionally left in to see if DrKay would remove just that information and leave in the actually correct editor/author information he intentionally removed repeatedly or blindly revert the entire thing...repeatedly. Yes, you are meant to chastise an admin for not going the extra mile and actually doing their job. Doing what they are supposed to do, the actual work, what an admin is supposed to do, instead of misusing their tools. Yes, you are meant to find consequence in an admin falling for two red herrings and mass reverting correct information...repeatedly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no more onus on an admin than on any other editor to sift through a vandalistic edit to find what's right and what's wrong. If you can see at a glance that it introduces incorrect information, admin or not, it is entirely reasonable to revert it. We absolutely should not be condoning in any way the idea of falsifying information to "test" other editors, that's just wrong conduct no matter who you think you're baiting with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I removed some of the issues on the Punding page, the initial issue, changed some things around. I knew he was still going to try and revert, but he could mass revert 4 edits from me. But he could just remove that two red herrings. Instead he removed that and the editor/author information. The editor/author information was correct. If anyone of you would actually look, all of those names are actually in the links to the documents themselves. He edit-warred them repeatedly, didn't bother to look and see, he was wrong. Just as everyone here isn't. I did that to prove he was just going to revert the edits regardless. It was an experiment and it worked. He didn't care about the edits, all he cared about was making an editor (or in this case two) go away. Now you are trying to make that go away too instead of focusing on that behavior. You just don't like how I got to it. I got one over on DrKay and you all. Too bad. Focus on the big picture and not me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm 100% getting it. You added "red herrings" (ie deliberately false information--vandalism, basically) to try to bait another editor. Now you want that editor chastened because they didn't sift through those edits to separate wheat from chaff. Well if you don't want someone to revert your edits, don't mix vandalism with constructive editing. If I've got three punchbowls and I see you take a turd in two of them, I'm not checking the third one, I'm throwing them all out, that's an entirely reasonable response. If this was about purely constructive editing being reverted en masse that would be a wholly different matter but it's not, you've set up a situation where any reasonable editor would have reverted those edits. I would have done so immediately if I saw them on my watchlist. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: No, you are 100% not. The editor is an admin, which are intentionally overlooking. That admin is held to a higher standard than I am. That admin must look before they leap. That admin must check for that "turn in the punchbowl" (as you so elegantly put it) and not throw all three of them out the window blindly with the revert button. But that's what he did. He removed perfectly legit information, didn't readd it, hasn't readded it even though it's been said multiple times, because they feel they are right. To hell with the rules. To hell with the fact that the actual medical papers list those names. The admin thought he was right and refused to admin he was wrong, edit-warred, warned a user, WikiStalked, and threatened a user with a block. When he could have easily removed two pieces of information. You might not like how I did it, you might want to overlook the fact that completely correct information remains off the page, that an admin broke the rules, and not "a reasonable editor", but that's what happened.

A situation was, indeed, setup. But had DrKay taken the time to look at it, he would have seen the situation at hand. But he flies by the seat of his pants, is rude, threatens, warns, and doesn't care. Focus on that, not on me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay being an admin has no bearing on this. No admin tools were used. Their edits are being judged by the same standard as any other editor because that's what an admin is in this case. Having sysop tools doesn't mean you have to hand-hold a vandal any more than any other editor would be expected to. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an admin here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue has already been raised and the reason for the reverts explained multiple times on talk pages,[97][98]][99] by edit summary[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107] and at other noticeboards[108] by multiple editors. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:: Not even close, dude. Not even close. When you explain, with directing people to a noticeboard, why you removed authors of papers, from references and did it repeatedly to the point you violated 3RR. Also why your snide remarks to just about every talk page post from "abuse" to "personal vendettas" and just rudeness with no reason. Then we can consider it "explained". Cause when you were asked anything, you just erased it and actually issued repeated vandalism warnings against The Exterminating Angel, an editor you were highly WP:INVOLVED with. I don't think you should have been throwing any sort of warnings out. This edit, perfectly fine] you removed portions of it and then issued a Warn4IM warning. The hell dude?! These are authors and editors on the papers. They are allowed to be used as citations and attributions within the reference. Do you know anything about referencing an article?

There are other examples of this, but I think this is enough. This is a prime example of extreme admin overreach, WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates (I know that one), misuse of admin tools. You should be TROUTed and thrown to ArbCom and you owe Carlos an apology. The hell dude?! You know better! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, maybe you should be a part of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There are several things happening here that I want to separate out, as it may explain the issue more clearly:

• Most of what DrKay removed were things that were factually incorrect. I have no problem with these, nor should anyone else.
• The exceptions were, as Cullen328 suggests, whether to include editor names in a citation. AManWithNoPlan gave a reasonable justification with this comment "Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used. For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time. Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author." Personally, I can't get excited about the formatting of citation templates and think we have more important work to do around here.
• Help:Citation Style 1 says "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." I would suggest that if the formatting of citations is not to your liking, you raise a discussion about it - Talk:Punding would be a suitable place to start.
• In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive. (After all, it tends to leads to ANI threads like this one!) In this instance, a good response would be a polite follow-up question to DrKay along the lines of "Sorry, I don't understand the salient point in the conversation you linked to, can you clarify what you mean"? How to ask smart questions may be useful reading. That does not mean I'm excusing DrKay's conduct - admins should strive to communicate as helpfully and thoroughly as they possibly can, but telling someone to do their own homework is not really a sanctionable offence.
• Neutralhomer appears to be inflaming the situation. I advise them to step back and reflect on what their actual goal is here, because despite their protestations, it still seems to be centred round wanting to "stick it" to DrKay and hold it up as an example of "admin abuse". No good will come of this; in particular you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia.
• Do not, even in vague suggestion, accuse editors of racial bias, particularly when the dispute in question has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: First, it's not "they", it's "he". I'd thank you to get the pronouns correct. Second, I left examples above of how, yes, he is "significantly harming the encyclopedia". Third, nowhere have I said I was going to "stick it" to DrKay. I don't like to see admins going after users for no real apparent reason. Fourth, I don't like admins sticking up for admins, especially when they know they are wrong and threatening those who go after their friends (ie: "No good will come of this"). Fifth, if you can't operate with a clear mind (ie: "you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia"), then maybe you should have an uninvolved admin step in. Because you are "excusing DrKay's conduct". That is what you are doing. You did it at 3RRV then you turned it on me, you are doing it now against TEA, you aren't able to operate with a clear mind. Maybe it's time for you to step away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, if you don't want to listen to my advice, then I'll duck out of the conversation. However, I will just add that a) "In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive." is hardly "admins sticking up for admins" and b) if you carry on like this, you run the risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Neutralhomer: Here's some feedback from a non-admin: interjecting your commentary here isn't helping you or TEA, and is actually helping DrKay.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @BubbaJoe123456: How? Everyone has been coming to his rescue from the beginning. He didn't need my "help". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: No, I want you to actually do something more than tell TEA that he needs to form his responses to DrKay's rudeness in a better manner. Look at the evidence of his WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates, misuse of admin tools, his threatening a user with a block, and actually do something that doesn't involve threatening the other user. Do something to the offending user. Because when you "duck out", you are sticking up for admins. You can block me, I don't care. I fully expect it. DrKay will continue to bully other editors, you will continue to stick up for him. Nothing will change. Be the change, block me, or be a coward. You have three choices. Make one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A) Who's Carlos? & B) This is a content dispute, which should be settled at the artice-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Carlos is the name TEA gave both at the beginning and end of their post. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish to request a one-way interaction ban on Neutralhomer with regard to me. I consider the posts in this thread, which are not supported by facts, as prima facie evidence of a personal vendetta, which arose over me making two edits to WZFC (AM) which were so wholly trivial that they did not even noticeably effect the appearance of the page. However, on the basis of those single edits, he has pursued me relentless from talk page, to AN3, to ANI and clearly has no intention of stopping. His complete over-reaction to such trivial edits is concerning, as is his previous history of off-wiki harassment. I feel fortunate that I edit anonymously. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop trying to force yourself into the role of a victim and agree to engage here what you refused to do with me even when I pled with you and which of course to hold a civil and rational discussion, please? No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations, let's just talk this over. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations": you mean like calling someone whose skin color, home life, life story, and nationality are a complete mystery to you, a racist? DrKay (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race but yes, I belong to a racial minority (I'm Hispanic and that can be easily surmised since I actively participate on the Spanish Wikipedia) but I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it; is it? I truly hope not for the sake of Wikipedia.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race—You literally said perhaps because of race-related reasons in your first post in this thread. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not? Where did I say that? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay Dude, you are not a victim here, so stop acting like one. You are an editor who refuses to communicate with editors in anyway but rudeness, snark, and one line directions to a noticeboard. Then, when you are actually confronted with your behavior, you play the victim card, say you are being "abuse[d]" and the person confronting you has a "personal vendetta". When your edits are open to the public and it's quite evident who the real bully is. You can bring my block log up all you want. I can bring up your actual behavior, your WikiStalking of TEA, your same one-line directions to another admin when he was asking you, basically, what your problem was. Now you want a "one-way interaction ban", meaning you can still bully me, but I can't do anything about. No. Interaction bans don't work that way, buckwheat. If any I-Ban happens (that's a BIG if), it will be two-way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Buckwheat", Neutralhomer? Really? Please explain your use of that term. What, precisely, does it refer to? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Have you ever heard of The Little Rascals? I'm not that old, but they used to play in reruns with The Three Stooges on TBS in the mornings. Also, I'm from the South (Virginia to be exact), "Buckwheat" is something you call another person. Yeah, it's an old term, but since my parents come from Preston County, West Virginia, which is home to the Buckwheat Festival, it's still used. It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. It has a place in two very distinct areas. The Little Rascals and The South/West Virginia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was what you meant. You are admitting that you used a racist slur. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to epitomise one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing, their refusal to accept when they are wrong which leads to an inability to admit being wrong and more importantly learn from their mistakes. While I admit I'm a bit like that as well albeit mostly on the refusal to accept being wrong, IMO Neutralhomer tends to take it way too far. Especially considering they don't back down or disengage. (At least when I make this mistake I tend to post one or two long posts, and promptly ignore the discussion forever or at least days or weeks.)

I suspect most of us are fine accepting Neutralhomer was unaware of or didn't understand the racial connotations of the term and didn't mean it that way. However per the source provided by Cullen328 and even more by Schazjmd (which to be fair, I'm not sure if Neutralhomer saw even if it was before the above comment), it's a term that is considered racist. This takes into account the history including way it's been used.

Using such a term isn't a good thing, still the simple way forward is for Neutralhomer to recogise what the sources are telling them and accept that it's a racist term and therefore not use it anymore on Wikipedia. Ideally this would come forth in something like "Wow, I wasn't aware of the history of the term and didn't mean it that way. I apologise for using it and won't ever do so again.". Or at least some acknowledgement "Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that.".

Instead we get this. As I said the thing that matters most is that they learn from this and so even with this reply or no reply, it wouldn't be that bad if we could be confident Neutralhomer wouldn't go around using the term buckwheat again. But the reply combined with my admittedly very limited experience makes me think we can't have confidence this is what will happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NBC, ABC, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and AP News all characterize it as a racist term (as did the Colorado legislature which reprimanded the member who used it). Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you think "Interaction bans don't work that way", you should read WP:IBAN, and learn about one-way IBANs. It most certainly CAN work that way.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: Like I said, if (and that's a BIG if) any I-Ban happens, it will be two way. I won't have a known bully of an admin being allowed to bully me and I not have recourse. It will be a two-way interaction ban, again if one actually happens. At this point, I don't think that will take place, not the way this discussion is going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no bulling from me. I've not once posted to your talk page; neither of us edits in the topic area of the other. This would all go away if you left me alone. This has all happened because you approached me, followed me and are determined to push a false narrative in relation to me. Just walk away and you're very unlikely to ever come across me again. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Hello everyone,

I've decided to add a more complete explanation so you'll have the full context: My name is Carlos and I'm Mexican; Wikipedia is, to put it simply, my passion, (not a pastime, a passion; I feel true well being and satisfaction when I help improve an article. With this in mind, I created an account and never had a problem with anyone (other the occasional spelling mistake, as Spanish is, naturally, my mother tongue). I focused my efforts on adding new bibliographic sources (I won't use those which are more than 15 years old, unless they're considered classic) and trying to fill all the parameters that Wikipedia made available to me and everyone and which I suppose aren't there just for show; anyway (like the names of the editors, publishers, places of publication, full date when available instead of a year, among many others), because I believe that MORE INFORMATION IS GOOD instead of les information.

DrKay caught wind of this and undid my editions, when I complained he just put copied and pasted a text redirecting me to Wikipedia's manuals, then he tracked down all the articles I've ever made and undid those too, which to me, speaks of malice; when I complained again on his user talk page he erased my plea to just have a normal civil discussion about the issue and he arrogantly and disdainfully mentioned in the history log that he erased my posts because I was an editor "with a personal vendetta"; a smear. So I had no choice but seek other alternatives and I chose to complain here.

Now, he mentions race which I thought was not a factor in this issue, and even if he didn't know me is easy to see my contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia and my username which is the title of a popular Mexican-made movie. So, indeed, I belong to a racial minority.

For the sake of Wikipedia (which I would be embarrassed to see involved in a scandal), I hope DrKay has no ulterior racist motives of any kind, but he's the one that brought it up. Regardless of that, like I said, he just undid my edits even if it meant turning the article into a stub like with Punding; his mentioned motives? My sources I think because he refused to explain more and even threatened with having me banned from editing. And he remains rude and defiant as you can see. That's what happened, in a nutshell, and I hope I will find here the help and resolution I seek; and if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place? (Furthermore, when added a source with relevant parameters nobody complained and did the same for all the other sources so they would look the same).

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're proceeding from a misunderstanding about sources and templates. Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable. That's a question of norms and common practice. The related issue is that you apparently don't understand the distinction between the editor of a book with multiple chapters by different authors, and the editor of a journal. I explained all this to Neutralhomer in this thread. That's the main reason why you were reverted, and DrKay explained that in the revert.
• Regarding your claim of racism, please post a diff. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Break

Maybe I can chime in as someone who spends some time fixing {{sfn}} no-target errors, which often involves tweaking {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} parameters (and also has relevant IRL experience). Attempting to fill in all the parameters of the templates is detrimental to the reader experience and unnecessary inflates the length of citations; as a result it is pretty disruptive. In addition, and as with any work that consist mindlessly copying stuff, it also introduces a significant number of errors and imprecisions. And looking at just a single edit, the number of errors is pretty astounding:

• confusing the British Cambridge with the Boston-suburb Cambridge (as has already been mentioned);
• spelling out the UK the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" without mentioning Northern Ireland,
• Listing the Mayo Clinic as a publisher of "Drug-Induced Compulsive Behaviors: Exceptions to the Rule–Reply–I", which does not seem to be the case
• Using the current editorial board to fill in the {{cite journal|editor}} parameters of a 12 year-old publication
• Using the {{cite book|chapter}} parameter for a single-author book, whereas the docs at {{cite book}} indicates that it should be used in relation to books written by multiple authors (as is the practice in regular scientific writing).

I could go on, but I will stop. I think The Exterminating Angel's current editing habits are disruptive; they should stop filling out unnecessary parameters, and absolutely double-check or triple-check the validity of any information they are adding in those templates. JBchrch talk 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: TEA made mistakes on article-in-question. DrKay corrected those mistakes. Well then, what's the problem? What's this report about? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: DrKay engaged in a revert war, instead of actually "correcting" mistakes (which would have required removing a small amount of text), he removed all of TEA's text. He then WikiStalked TEA to other pages, issued warnings, continued to revert war, broken 3RR repeatedly, refused to discuss anything in a constructive way (even with an admin), and threatened to block an editor who he engaged in that revert war. DrKay did not simple "correct mistakes", he blindly reverted.

If JBchrch thinks these parameters are "unnecessary", then perhaps those fields should be removed from the infobox templates completely. TEA added all available information to the infobox template. Instead of working with the editor, we have yet again warned over and over and over again, insulted, and diminished another new editor to that of a child who knows no better. We have yet again had admin after admin circle the wagons around another abusive admin who is given carte blanche to do whatever he wants without consequence and the reporting editor(s) are the ones threatened and punished. When will it end?

Maybe TEA did make mistakes, but he is a new editor and English is, admittedly, not his native language. But we are holding that against him. We are excusing the behavior of DrKay, all the insults and rudeness, because, essentially TEA made a mistake. He wasn't "disruptive", he didn't "damage the encyclopedia", it's still standing, it's still running, no one was sued. We can stop being overly dramatic. He made a freakin' mistake. Maybe we should help the new editor instead of insulting and punishing him, just like we always do. Then hold DrKay responsible for his actions, actions even Ritchie333 "counter-productive" and "not polite and helpful".

Do I expect this? No. Do I expect you lot to actually do the right thing? Hell no! Will DrKay see even one sanction? Absolutely not. Will we lose yet another new editor to abusive editors and admins? Yes! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I think the parameters were unnecessary in context, not in general. Hope it clarifies. JBchrch talk 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: So the editor/authors listed on the front page of the documents in question are "unnecessary". I doubt they will be happy to know that "in context" or that will "clarif[y]" anything, but I'm not telling them squat. It's not like anyone who it's on a medical paper gives two shits what people on Wikipedia think anyway. They got published in a medical journal, they are far and above us no-name cretins (myself included). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Are you deliberately interpreting uncharitably what I write? Honest question. JBchrch talk 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: No, I'm not. What was removed was the editor/author names, which are listed on the actual medical papers. You said those fields (ie: names) were "unnecessary". I took that to mean you think those names are "unnecessary". 1+2=3.

If people would actually look at the history of the actual (ie: Punding) and what was removed, instead of focusing on me or TEA, maybe this would move a little bit better. Maybe I come off a little "rough", but when people focus on anything but the subject at hand, I tend to get a little bit cranky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

May we have a list of the article or articles being disputed over? Sources are either correctly shown or they're not. It can't be both ways. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I can only speak for myself (pinging The Exterminating Angel), but Punding would by my example. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in that case it's simple. TEA's version, which you reverted to, isn't correct (I'm looking at [109]). There has never been any such country as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"; there is no context in which that would be the correct way to refer to the United Kingdom. Not now, and not before 1801. Jon Stoessl, though quite distinguished, became editor-in-chief of Movement Disorders in 2020 (see [110], page 8), and was not editor-in-chief in 2006 when "Punding and dyskinesias" was published. Even if he had, the editor of a journal is not considered a co-author of a paper published in that journal. The same goes for Julio Licinio, who was editor-in-chief of Molecular Psychiatry when "Insights into pathophysiology of punding reveal possible treatment strategies" was published in that journal but is his name is not "on the paper" nor does he list that paper in his extensive CV. Confusing Cambridge with Cambridge, Massachusetts is a problem inasmuch as both have major--but different--academic institutions based there.

For those unfamiliar with how academic publications work, there are important distinctions between the editor of a book with multiple chapters submitted by different authors and the editor of a journal. In the former case, the editor is really another author, who has probably helped organize the book and more than likely will contribute a chapter themselves. They may have organized a conference panel or two which led to the book. In the latter case, they are overseeing the publication of the journal, organizing submissions, assigning reviewers, and such. It's a much more permanent role; lasting years. The key distinction is that they're the editor of the journal, not of the articles published in the journal, whereas in the former case the credited editors are the editor of the book (as opposed to the editor(s) who work at the publishing house that published the book).

To take this back to the original issue, citation templates have many parameters to help Wikipedia editors capture the many nuances of the publishing world. Not all are necessary or even appropriate in all cases, and using them incorrectly, no matter how well-intentioned, can convey inaccurate information to the reader, as in this case. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, Mackensen. Outside the academic arena, it is neither necessary nor useful, and actually counter-productive when citing an article in the New York Times for example, to add to the reference that Punch Sulzberger was the editor, and that the newspaper is published in New York City, the state of New York, and in the United States of America. The senior editor of a major newspaper is not involved with fact checking or copy editing routine articles, and the repetition of "New York" enters into blue sky territory. If the name of the city is part of the newspaper's name, then there is no need to repeat it elsewhere in the reference. And if you do add a location, be sure to get it right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: So, what you are saying is, because TEA used the wrong template, since he is a new user, English isn't his first language, and didn't understand the "nuances of the publishing world", that made it OK for DrKay to insult/warn him repeatedly and threaten him with an indef block. Is that what you are saying? Instead of DrKay being helpful and polite to the new user, he was rude and engaged in an edit war. What DrKay, an admin could have done was explain what TEA had done wrong, help him to better understand those "nuances", better use those templates. Is that not what admins are for?

Now, I have readily admitted that after I moved somethings around to help TEA out, I left the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Cambridge University" in as red herrings for DrKay (with no intention of leaving them in permanently, I'm not a complete jerk). The editor/authors were admittedly OK. I personally didn't see the Infobox book use as a problem. If the use of Infobox journal was a problem, DrKay could have certainly explained that too, again politely. He did not. But the use of the red herrings were to see if he would remove them or just revert all. He reverted all. That was a problem.

TEA was not helped, nothing was explained, and even I didn't see the Infobox journal issue until now. I think Infobox book was fine. Had DrKay explained that, I would have learned something new. I may have been here for 17 years, but I haven't learned everything. That was something new. But DrKay could have explained everything to TEA in a polite way and not just revert with rudeness. That's not helpful to anyone. It helps no one. It leads to issues like this. We all need to be better editors. That's what we are here to do, edit an encyclopedia. I think we have forgotten that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Actually Cullen328, when they are listed on the front page or top of the document (and it's an academic document, a medical article, not the New York Times), you do add the editors and authors. DrKay removed many editors and authors....repeatedly. Which I have said....repeatedly. This wasn't the Times, but medical articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, in your first contribution to this conversation at 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC), you wrote °the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct). Right? Now, a little more than 24 hours later, you are talking about two pieces of false information that you call "red herrings" that you deliberately restored, in an attempt to somehow trip up DrKay. You told incompatible stories. There is a word for that behavior and it is reprehensible. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Please study it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No, I actually didn't, if you would stop putting your own spin and interpretation on what I write. Read the words as they are and go from there. You and I said the same thing. You just spun it. With the exception of the red herrings, which show DrKay not doing his due diligence, TEA did everything right. DrKay didn't help a new editor as an admin should. No one wants to see that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, are you still trying to argue, 25 hours into this farrago that you created, that it is a good thing to add a list of the names of the entire editorial board of an academic journal to a reference to an individual article published in that journal? Where on earth is that considered good practice? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

First, I didn't start this discussion, TEA did. Second, yes, I am prepared to continue to argue DrKay's behavior until it gets through your thick skulls. I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. Third, it is always good practice to stand up for what's right, never back down to bullies, and always tell people when they are wrong. I will always die on that hill. Maybe I'll die alone this time, but I'm fine with that. Fourth, the hell is a farrago? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Farrago is a Latin word, meaning "mixed cattle fodder", used to refer to a confused variety of miscellaneous things, and several online dictionaries agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Several online dictionaries agree that you could just say "bullshit". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I make my own vocabulary choices, and anyone curious about a word I use can look it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Never said you couldn't. It is funny, though, that you get defensive about me using a thesaurus on farrago and coming up with "bullshit". "Mixed cattle fodder" is a polite way of explaining that, but a thesaurus does come up with the comparison just the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reading of my comment that allows that interpretation. I do think it would help this discussion if you gave concrete examples (with diffs) of the things you're talking about. From what you're saying above it's my impression that you're still confused about the author/editor distinction in academic publishing, but I could be mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Real quick, what part of my three paragraphs "allow[ed] [for] that interpretation"? From Punding and from Mexican Spanish. I would advise everyone to actually look at the individual links, click on them, and look at the documents. Remember that TEA is a new editor and that DrKay is an experienced editor and an admin before passing judgement. The "nuances" and what template to use and how to use it is confusing to a new user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Mexican Spanish, yes, TEA's edit is wrong, and wrong for the reasons DrKay gave. John M. Lipski is the sole author of Tracing Mexican Spanish /s/:: A Cross-Section of History. Crediting the editors of Language Problems and Language Planning is incorrect and would give a false impression of authorship. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with academics and publishing. María Rosario Montaño-Harmon is the sole author of "Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric and Its Implications"; Karen L. Smith appears to have been the editor for the Applied Linguistics section of Hispania at that time; compare doi:10.2307/344576. It would not be appropriate to credit Smith. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: OK, Now look at this. First edit removed. He leaves some of the editors. If the editors aren't necessary, then why remove some, but not all? He also removes ISSN numbers. Why?

Also, he also removes is the publisher. Those are required, even in books and newspapers. Look at any article. Those are required. Not adding the publisher, etc. could get use sued. It almost did with the Nielsen Arbitron debacle (see WP:TVS). We didn't have the right publisher information and Wikipedia got slapped with a DCMA notice. So, yeah, it's required. Explain that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The editors of academic journals were removed. The editors of books and conference proceedings were retained. This has been explained already. The issns were replaced with journal names, which were otherwise missing causing a CS1 maintenance error. 'journal' is a required parameter. 'issn' is not required. Publishers of academic journals were removed. Publishers of books were retained. Again, this has been explained already. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you truly believe that listing the name of the publisher is required for newspaper, magazine and academic journal references, then it should be easy for you to provide a link to a policy or guideline spelling out this requirement. Please do so when you wake up. My own practice is to provide the publisher for references to books, but I contend that my practice of providing the name of the periodical is sufficient for references to newspapers, magazines and academic journals. Let's see your evidence for this requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You lot are giving me a migraine and I have to be up at 8a for the real world. I know the vast majority of you don't live there, but some of us do. So, final punches.....and go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

...and that's time ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends. I look forward to more deflection later today. Let's try for after 3p EDT, shall we? Good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is TEA's report. Let him comment from here onward. Don't make yourself the focus/topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: you most definitely do not get to decide whether a one way ban is happening. Nor does DrKay. While your can feel it's unfair, and you can explain why you think it's unfair, it's our decision as a community of editors (generally for many of these discussions with a majority being non-admins) that ultimately matters. Although I don't personally think an iban, one way or two way is merited you continuing insisting it isn't going to happen isn't helping anything, in fact it's increasing the chances it might happen albeit only very very minorly. (Your other behaviour here is however likely having a bigger effect on the chances a one way iban might happen.) Frankly your apparent disdain for our readers, be they students or anyone else, which seems to be reflected in your comments here makes me think a better solution might simply be a site ban or indefinite block of you. (Redacted) What anyone editing here should care about is our readers not their ego. If an action makes the experience worse for them for no good reason, that is something we should all care about. If an editor keeps insisting on preserving or changing something despite the harm to our readers for no apparent reason other than a desire to win an argument, that's an editor who likely doesn't belong here per WP:Vandalism and WP:POINT. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ever since DrKay mentioned my race out of the blue (by the way and for the record, DrKay mentioned race first, not me) and because of how antagonistic he has been to me, I became paranoid about racism which I had never experienced in Wikipedia with the possible exception of this instance, and it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal). So I hope we can deal with this issue in-house, on our own, with my question being: If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay mentioned race first, not me—Would it be possible for you to provide a diff of this? Without seeing where this happened all we have to go on is that you first mentioned race when you started this ANI heading, and if anything has happened previous to this it hasn't been linked to here yet. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: No, for the record, he did not. In your very first post to ANI you said perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people (in which you not only mention your race, but also an assumption on DrKay's race based on nothing), and I haven't found anything about race in any of DrKay's prior edit summaries or talk page posts. Also, could you clarify what you meant by the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes? Votes in what?

In regards to citation parameters: please read the content guideline on what information to include on a source -- it conveniently presents what to present for each type of citation, notably excluding editors for everything except individually authored chapters in books (which these were not). Of course, you should not add blatantly false information either (Cambridge etc).

And when multiple experienced editors, all active for over a decade (I count at least 4: not just DrKay, but also Rjensen, AManWithNoPlan (here), and Philip Cross (here)), tell you that something should not be done, you should listen to them, not get into multiple simultaneous edit wars. That is not productive at all. Regards, eviolite (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I will listen to what I'm told, however I must add, science is not a consensus. Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: I realized I should clarify something you might have misunderstood -- if you were worried about this "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mexican Spanish" -- Mexican Spanish is referring to the article you edited (as you can see by the link). These are standard warning templates people use when editors seem not to cooperate. No racial insinuation at all. eviolite (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: But you don't appear to be listening to what you've been told. The reason for not filling in all the parameters has been explained several times, including at least twice on this page by User:Mackensen at timestamps 02:13, 18 October 2021 and 02:44, 19 October 2021, e.g. "Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable." Extra details like the full name of the country "United States of America" are unnecessary in almost all cases (since the city and state will suffice) and distracts from the key information. Similarly, as was explained earlier in this thread (and elsewhere), listing the editorial board of an academic journal is unnecessary and extraneous, and gives excessive weight to people who have had no academic input into the work cited. It is also often wrong since editorial boards change frequently and indeed examples of where they were wrong are given above in this thread. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nail on the head hit by Celia Homeford, very patient and clear explanation. I'd put it a bit more bluntly: just because my QWERTY keyboard allows me to type profanity doesn't mean that it is useful to, nor does it mean that any of the keys should be removed. That a citation parameter exists means it is useful in at least one case, not useful in every case. — Bilorv (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Been around here for over 15 years. Gotta be honest, that this has been the most confusing ANI report, I've ever seen. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Neutralhomer for 48 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the discussion. The comment above gives me no confidence that he can simply walk away from a debate when he is being disagreed with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He mightn't see it that way. But, it's for his own good. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the condescension is necessary; it's for the good of WP to stop the disruption. I think the requested interaction ban (forbidding NH from interacting with DrKay) is also a good idea, for the same reason. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An interaction ban makes sense but given the admission of introducing false content to "entrap" DrKay I would suggest a tban worded in such a way as to prohibit the knowing introduction of untrue material into articles for any reason (I can't believe we'd actually have to write such a thing out, but here we are) as it seems that this behaviour could conceivably continue otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary. NH said he hadn't read WP:POINT, so in theory he didn't know he couldn't do that. Now he knows and has been warned not to do so under any circumstance. Were he to do that again after unambiguously knowing he shouldn't, a block would be warranted. —El Millo (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an editor who's been here since 2007 with 66k edits to their name should need a specific guideline to understand why damaging Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. (While technically it doesn't matter, the fact that it's IMO a very dumb point doesn't help matters to me.) The point I was trying but maybe failed to explain above is when Neutralhomer gets into these disputes, to me it looks like they get so focused on defending themselves and their edits and trying to prove they are right that they forget why they are here namely to create an encyclopaedia to serve our readers. To some extent many editors fall into this trap at times including me, but it seems to me Neutralhomer falls into it too easily and too hard. It's fine to think your preference is better for the encyclopaedia and our readers and defend and support it. However you also have to be able to accept when the community disagrees with you, including the level of discussion that may be reasonable to establish this depending a lot on how much it matters. And most importantly, you should never lose sight what matters is what's best for the encyclopaedia and our readers. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but their comments above where they didn't seem to understand the point being made by me and others that we are here to serve our readers is a major red flag to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems to matter a big deal to NeutralHomer I should clarify I meant live edits. I restricted it to live edits since these seem to be the best indicator of experience. I apologise for any confusion or offence causesd by my failure to make it clear I meant live edits above. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. By bludgeoning the report (which wasn't begun by him), the lad made it about him, when he wanted it to be about another. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the word for a boomerang that seeks out vexatious bystanders? EEng 03:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Contempterang? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd call it a vex-byst-erang. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that may mean something very rude in Swedish. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's either a kind of dinosaur or candidate for the missing link. On reflection, see WP:VEXBYSTERANG. EEng 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Endorse, good block, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: despite the derailing of the discussion by another editor, you must have learned from it that your edits have been too error-prone to expect other editors to leave them stand, or to check each fact one-by-one. For instance, at both George V and Punding you introduced the misconception that Cambridge University Press is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, rather than Cambridge, United Kingdom. I can see how you'd make this mistake, but if you had a more thorough double-checking process when making these reference changes, you could have caught that before submitting your edit. Obviously you've now learned this particular publisher's location for future, but how else will you be changing your behaviour in future to increase your accuracy? — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University are the same institutions and that is obvious; and so is the fact that Cambrige University Press is an autonomous institution derived from Cambridge University, as the name says, I was just trying to be thorough and complete in the info about sources but no reasonable person would consider both to be the same; I agree it's wrong because someone might assume CUP belongs to CU and while this is financially true, functionally is a complete different institution. Either way, that would not warrant reverting an entire edit, just a correction and telling the editor to please not do it again (talking to the editor which is DrKay never did with me, and saying it politely, which DrKay has never been either).The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To clear things up: the issue is not with Cambridge University at all. The issue is with the locations you placed. Cambridge University Press is not in Cambridge, Massachusetts as you wrote. It is in Cambridge, United Kingdom, a completely different city. eviolite (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A simple mistake and very natural confusion if you don't live in either country and it can be corrected, still no need to revert the whole thing.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the press does happen to be part of Cambridge University (which is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom), but I'm rather confused as to what The Exterminating Angel is saying because I never mentioned the university. Cambridge University Press is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Simple as that.

Re-reading this discussion, I see a comment by DrKay that somewhat escaped me showing that, I believe, the primary concern with your edits is more a matter of excessive detail in sourcing (for which "the parameters in the template exist" is not a compelling argument). DrKay's diffs show a pattern of other editors raising issues with your edits. In this case, it seems to me like this needs an RFC or discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere, as ANI is not the place to decide content disputes (only conduct disputes). — Bilorv (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Where's ETA??? It's rather frustrating, seeing Neutralhomer going to bat for him & he's been absent from a report he began. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  ETA's expected time of arrival is about 10-15 minutes. EEng 03:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the OP

Folks. I was initially sympathetic toward The Exterminating Angel. I thought, a newbie misled by the WMF's instructional videos into thinking citation templates must be used ("the more complete a bibliographic source, the better; ESPECIALLY, in articles where the sources are just a title and a year"; several references in Mexican Spanish are {{sfn}} references referring to listings in the bibliography; a new editor is unlikely to be aware of WP:CITEVAR and the separation of notes and bibiography in many of our more sophisticatedly developed articles because, after all, the video just says to use citation templates) and jumping to the conclusion that the existence of a parameter means it should be filled out: "those parameters are available by this platform for a reason". See also his first post above. But now I'm getting a whiff of under a bridge troll. (NOTE: edited with strikeout and plain speech on 20 October, with apologies to anyone who misconstrued my allusive language; see below)

• On his talk page, in edit summaries, and here, several editors have attempted to explain the misapprehension about parameters, many in response to the initial query. The first attempt, by rjensen, precedes DrKay templating him. He rejects the information and accuses DrKay specifically of rudeness and vindictiveness.
• Some of his additions to the citation templates were also erroneous. Several editors have pointed this out, but his response here was to sidestep the issue with an assertion that Cambridge University Press is independent of Cambridge University.
• I have not seen rudeness from DrKay in his dealings with this editor. It is possible that the editor misinterpreted Template:uw-disruptive2 and Template:uw-disruptive3 as attacks, but a statement of terror seems overblown, and there is open hyperbole in the claim that DrKay reduced Punding to a stub. That makes me ill disposed to take the accusations of rudeness and vindictiveness at face value. Looking at Dr Kay's removal of TEA's last post at User talk:DrKay, I find "I already explained, multiple times, as have other editors, multiple times" quite a mild edit summary, especially in response to "Honestly, give me a legitimate and valid reason why should I heed that rule".
• From his first post here, this editor has suggested racial animus against him; added in the second edit: "perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people". After asserting repeatedly that "DrKay mentioned race first, not me", "I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it", he has now changed to: "I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM."
• Veiled threats to stir up a mob against Wikipedia on Twitter, or just to get us downvoted on Reddit or something: "it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal)"
• I see the username, which nobody but me appears to have had any suspicions about, is attributed to a Mexican film, but by this point I'm done assuming and need evidence of good faith. What is this editor here to exterminate?

I think we are being played. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You might have mis-linked to the Mexican film. This is what we say about The Exterminating Angel. The “comic horror” of a “slow descent from normality into anarchy” in ”a never-ending feast”. Hmmm… DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"The movie follows a group of wealthy guests finding themselves unable to leave after a lavish dinner party, and the chaos that ensues afterward." Hmmm, now that sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of the key indicators of NOTHERE behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My 15+ years on this project, is giving me 'two' impressions about ETA. Either he's got WP:CIR issues or he's entertaining himself, which would fall under WP:NOTHERE territory. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll sum up for myself and state the following:

• I see no evidence of any racist comments by DrKay and I have no idea what the basis of the accusation is, despite all the words spilled above.
• TEA's edits were incorrect and unhelpful and DrKay was right to revert them, and DrKay explained themselves in a reasonable way.
• Neutralhomer inflamed and escalated what should have been a simple matter, and their contributions to this discussion were uniformly unhelpful, even after multiple uninvolved editors asked them to stop.

TEA is a new editor who got confused. Fine, that happens. Multiple editors have explained citation templates to TEA. They'll learn from this experience or they won't. Neutralhomer has been here since 2007 and has a history of blocks and warnings for battleground-style behavior. This is yet another instance. They show no awareness that there's anything wrong with how they approached the situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate summary of the problem. I'd suggest this report be closed with a warning to TEA to heed others when corrected on Wikipedia policy & procedures. We can seek sanctions on TEA if they repeat their behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My concern is, that accusing people of racism without evidence is a serious civility violation, and devalues the experience of victims of racism, and I have not found any evidence that TEA had any reason to make such an accusation; moreover, he's doubled down on it and been caught in an absurd equivocation over who mentioned race first. Since at least one person—NeutralHomer—found my reference to "under a bridge" susceptible to more than one interpretation, including racial bias, I've struck it out above and replaced it with "troll". Whether he was at the start or not, TEA appears to me to be trolling, and that's something we need to protect the encyclopedia and the community from. Ritchie333 already warned him against unsupported accusations of racism above, and he continued attacking, right here on AN/I. I think at the very least we need either evidence of bias in how TEA's edits were treated and how he was addressed (it's possible I missed something, but I found only mischaracterizations of all interactions as attacks), or a convincing apology, before we effectively express the message that preemptive accusations of racism, or accusations of racism in the mistaken belief that that is the most plausible reason his changes are not automatically accepted, or whatever it is, are ok. (I still think choosing the username "The Exterminating Angel" is indicative of a combative attitude to editing from the get-go. Even though he said in one of his posts here that he named himself after a film, presumably the Buňuel film (I linked to the diff where he explained his username; scroll down in it), the name is worthy of WP:UAA. We've bent over backwards to extend good faith to this person. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Neutralhomer, who had 14 years of service, was rightly indeffed for repeated, unsupported accusations of racism. I don't see why the consequences should be lighter for someone who hasn't really established a history of productive contributions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More accurately, Neutralhomer was indeffed for complete loss of self-control for several days, ranting and raving about a wide variety of things, and engaging in many personal attacks against other editors. It was particularly striking to see this editor make "racism" accusations shortly after they lobbed the buckwheat slur at another editor. As if people routinely call other people a grainlike crop grown in West Virginia and Russia and a few other places. Intelligent people know exactly what it means, from its 1930s film origins to the outrageous 1980s parodies by Eddie Murphy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pilgrim might have been a better choice. EEng 05:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

EEng, why oh why isn't John Wayne a featured article? If it was, we could all argue endlessly about adding or removing an infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir The racism accusations are definitely serious, I agree. But at this point, aside from a punitive block, I'm not sure what else we can do besides warn TEA. Hence my application of WP:ROPE.

As for the name, it does sound aggressive, but the explanation given makes sense. I have been accused of having a needlessly aggressive name myself, though I intended it to just be a silly play on a common phrase, and an homage to a Nine Inch Nails song I enjoy.

So that leaves me stuck at my previous stance. Unlike NeutralHomer, TEA seems to have quieted down, so I'd rather give them a strong warning and see if their behavior changes in the future. If they return to these kinds of baseless accusations, they get an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, HandThatFeeds. I didn't propose any action because I can't think of any, either. TEA already received a clearly and strongly worded warning from Ritchie333, right here (emendation to 10:49 on 17 October by adding a link to WP:NPA). There were no consequences for his blowing right past it, partly because Neutralhomer was more or less blindly supporting him; and there remains the possibility his concerns were sincerely held. He's not so much quieted down as stopped editing after hurling accusations and making equivocations here. But he's done his damage, and its being a classic film does not excuse a username that gives the impression of having been chosen to intimidate (that's my concern, rather than implications of violence). I'm sure there are lots of classic films whose titles are also inappropriate as usernames. My impression is that not questioning the name is an indicator of how gently the community treated this person (who is very far from incompetent, received lots and lots of clear guidance, and declared on DrKay's talk page that they did not intend to follow our rules). I'm gutted about Neutralhomer but no, I have no suggestions. Horse, barn door, WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Perhaps this ANI report should be closed, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by LTA

• 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in March, and since then has periodically returned with an assortment of IPs. The user is active again using the 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, which had previously been under a three-month block earlier this year. Topic areas and editing patterns are still identical; another block on this range would be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits are still being made from this range, like the tampering with sourced data that Ninenine99 was known for. Is a block on this range feasible? --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Still going... Please check all current revisions for unsourced additions or changes to data. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sable232 and LaundryPizza03: Please be more explicit and spell out at least one example for dummy admins. For example, this edit given above shows 2603:8000:b00:386f:8d25:d46e:40c6:5aa4 fiddling with two lengths. If I were to check the article would I find an easily accessible source that easily shows the IP made the values wrong? I've investigated stuff like this before and it can be a wall of fog with model numbers not quite agreeing with the source and the source saying that variations occur. Something like this would make me more confident in issuing a block: "This diff [link] shows the IP changed 180.6 to 181.6 but the source [link] says '...180.6...'." Also if, without too much trouble, you can find a case where the blocked user made a similar change, please post a diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning (2)

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

---

The bot is no longer working anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujianyang (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § General query: I imagine this has been caused by the removal of some deprecated API parameters for obtaining tokens (see phab:T280806). There's nothing really we can do, the bot code will need updating. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• See a similar query on this page from 15 October, the bot operator is working on it. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

172.58.128.0/17 again

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

---

May an admin interested in range blocks take a look at Special:Diff/1049981274/1049982671? Kleinpecan (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've converted the /17 block into the two range blocks previously mentioned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

119.93.40.241 repeatedly adding unsourced info

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

---

Reporting this IP user repeatedly adding unsourced info on these articles: Balitang A2Z Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 and Honeycomb toffee. Need an action. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I was only restoring what Ctrlwiki has been removing. What with restoring uncontroversial additions by other users? These were cast members and segment titles that are easily verifiable. Which can easily be added a reference. The user is obsessively removing content without explanation--unsourced is not an explanation. Aren't we supposed to be building an encyclopedia? The guy is single-minded about providing a source. He could have verified the content added or provided the citation himself, instead it's no source, delete for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.40.241 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: Wikipedia says, it's your responsibility to provide a source, so don't push me to provide a source for the information that I didn't add. I explain and warn you at your talk page. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, he's removing names in the starring section of the tv show infobox because starring and main cast are different, really? I know English proficiency is not required but there's no getting through to him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't let him to add a content without providing a reliable source, those excuses he makes will destroy the rules of Wikipedia. Please warn this user! He forces me to add references to those information he added. That user previously blocked here in Wikipedia for disruptive editings. If you don't block or warn this user, he will continue to add unsourced content and continue to disrupt any articles, the rules of Citation are mentioned in these pages: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Help:Referencing for beginners, and don't let him to break these policies in Wikipedia. Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

ISIL Anthem

Just a heads up that the ISIL anthem file is in an infobox on the Dawlat al-Islam Qamat, it was posted there by User:2601:192:4B40:7410:F877:650D:4234:17D8. Previously it was only linked to, but the actual file itself is now there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dawlat_al-Islam_Qamat&diff=prev&oldid=1050710370

Not sure if something should be done about this? 106.69.33.39 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany also has its anthems in the infobox. Levivich 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, sadly, Godwin's Law does not have an anthem. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But Godwin does. Levivich 15:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The file (which is on the Commons) will be deleted soon, as there was no copyright info supplied.— Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• By far the quickest vindication to date of the WP:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity:

“ In any sufficiently long Wikipedia discussion, sooner or later someone is bound to invoke the Infobox Wars. Then Nazis. Then infoboxes and Nazis. ”

EEng 02:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki removing names in the infobox

Ctrlwiki can't seem to wrap his around the word starring, apparently starring means the actor playing the titular character that is why he keeos removing the names of the other actors despite being part of the main cast. Maybe the guy should read the instructions on how to use the infobox on television or compare similar usages on Supergirl (TV series) and Grey's Anatomy. 143.44.164.124 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove those names. If you will read the first sentence at the top of the article: "starring Jane de Leon", there is only one cast mentioned, but if you read the starring section at the Infobox, you will see a lot of names. So it is not the same? Other editors agree and removed those names you added for other reasons. Readers will confuse when they read the article. Let's wait for the admins response for this. Ctrlwiki (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Actually you just did. Main cast are listed as starring in the infoboxes. What's not clicking? Not only are you stubborn, you're a big liar. Your swift removal of warnings in your talk page clearly illustrates your stubbornness and unwillingness to listen. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be related. Also, you are required to notify the editor on their talk page when you open a discussion about them. I have notified them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated at the page protection request this is a simple content issue that should be resolved on the article talk page. There is no need for admins to get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure we don't need to have a thread open for a week or two with back and forth bickering about content matters? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be what the editors involved want. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Ctrlwiki has been a regular fixture in ANI the last two months. Common denominator, clearly there's a problem, not the guy he reported nor the people who reported him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the problem here. FYI, if I'll list your problems here: Edit warring in many articles, removing templates / content without providing a valid reason, adding unsourced information, not using edit summary, personal attacks, you've been reported here in May 2020, and you've been blocked once here. Protecting articles for disruptive editings is not a problem. Ctrlwiki (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Misdirection. Typical liar. You're claim" removing templates / content without providing a valid reason, yet you reported me for adding content. Adding and removing are two opposite things. Secondly, I was blocked in 2029, that was a year ago. That was a long time ago. Then again, I'm not the only one with a block history. Lastly, edit warring is two ways. It wouldn't be an edit war if you can comprehend what I was trying to add. Yet, you're very mind is closed. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

2029? I guess I was comatose longer than the doctors said. EEng 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This covid thing has really dragged on.. feels like I've been locked down for a decade.. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar, adding a content without sources (which what you are doing) is called lying. The problems I've mentioned are based on warnings you received on your talk page, so be careful with your words. Ctrlwiki (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have a choice here. Either this thread is closed quickly as a content issue and the editors involved talk about the issue civilly on the article talk page(s), or they talk their way here into blocks. Which will it be? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just close this nonsense issue, the discussion here is not clear. Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times before, anyone bringing a content issue here is already generally demonstrating they are a problem. Add to that the failure to notify, we have even more evidence. Then we compound that with the most serious problem namely Talk:Darna (2021 TV series) [111], Talk:Balitang A2Z [112], Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 [113] and Talk:Honeycomb toffee [114] having no relevant edit history and it's a triple whammy. So you IP are clearly one of the problems. To be fair Ctrlwiki is as well since the talk page discussion point also applies to them especially given the RFPP. However "we're both big problems" is never something you want to bring to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to say that Ctrlwiki is wrong to be removing the main cast en masse; as far as I know it is fine to have the main cast in that section. I looked at a few TV Featured Articles and it is certainly the case there (i.e. House (TV series)). Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you and other IP users. The only thing I wanna know is if the first paragraph of the article mentioning that Jane de Leon is the only starring, but if you read the starring section of the Infobox, there are three names mentioned, so it is not the same? And please warn that IP user for not posting a reference for every content he added. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove the main cast, I only removed the names in starring section in the infobox of the article, because it is not the same when you read the first paragraph of the article. Try to read the article so you can understand what I really want to say. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no helping this guy's comprehension. Per Black Kite (talk) I looked at a few TV Featured Articles and it is certainly the case there (i.e. House (TV series))., yet this user still insists on matching the lede and the infobox. I doubt he checked out the example mentioned. And we haven't touched on his fixation on sources. 143.44.164.124 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

187.171.44.114 is an active IP relevant to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Urbanuntil

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

---

Title, this guy edits very quickly. Attention needed. Zayul (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Zayul" is other account of Tbhotch. --187.171.44.114 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but @Materialscientist can confirm I have exactly one account. Zayul (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

? --187.171.44.114 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to overstate what a checkuser can confirm, but I can confirm I've checkuserblocked the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Redvince1 reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

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

---

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This incident published to the adminisrators' noticeboard has been summarized in a fashion to assist with its complexity.

Around 7-9 October 2021, Redvince1 contributed to the article listed above. Reviewing their contribution as a new Wikipedian, the article appeared to have content written like a novel. Within the contents of their contribution to this article, wording which violated a neutral point of view were found. One blatant example was making use of the term, "complain." Undoing their contribution on the basis of their initial workmanship to Wikipedia, information that had no relevance to the historical development of the theological position (rather instead, seemed as alleged polemic to justify it from their personal point of view, more on that later) was purged and term "complain" was replaced with "suggest." Doing so, they haphazardly claimed my contribution as theirs in the diff which can be clicked here. They also restored this information which was removed to the purpose of representing advocacy.

As evident in the previous report--Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account--Firefangledfeathers corrected them and vindicated my displeasure with them claiming my own contribution to the article (removing biased language) as their own, to which an apology of varying weight was given by Redvince1. Being personally notified that my responses instead of with grace were becoming WP:BITEy, I alleged that Redvince1 continued to deflect from the conversation, and gave my concern with their claims of my contributions being seen as an attention-seeking impersonator account; the incident was thereby archived.

Being contacted after much delay on my personal talk page which can be currently seen, I have been duly notified of edit warring warning alongside should have known better to initiate the discussion on the article's talk page. Redvince1 reaches out, yet clarifying my allegations of polemic, they indeed stated they were a Modalist perspective editor, and then a blatant Modalist. From their perspective, the information in the article lacked information from a Modalist perspective and "logic" (apparently the article lacks logic, to which it would have been duly deleted by then), however in all actuality, there were citations from well-known Modalist, David K. Bernard of Oneness Pentecostalism which I allege invalidates their argument on my personal talk page. I was invited to discuss, yet highly displeased with their delay with communicating while prioritizing an edit war which allowed me to shoot myself in the foot.

Nevertheless, on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism, I tried to clarify that their contribution to the article cannot be kept as in discussion there has not been a consensus reached yet; their response is that it takes multiple people instead of us to reach this consensus. The first uninvolved contributor (known for editing theological articles), Editor2020 reverted their contribution to this very purpose. Redvince1 against these desires while continuing to as of today claim boldness even in this edit warring report, and vowing to continue reverting every few days, reverted their contribution to dispute resolution. Then, on 14 October 2021 a second uninvolved party, Scrollsaficionado removed a source that was deemed spurious. Having realized they forwent additional contributors being involved, I reverted their contributions again on the grounds of there not being a consensus. They (Redvince1) continued to insist otherwise. They also restored the citation that was removed. I become involved again, and become aggressive out of angst for this situation remaining a stalemate at this rate. Redvince1 claims boldness.

16 October 2021 comes, and I revert stating in their boldness, discussion should still be upheld which they seemed to have promised to continue trying to do. They forgo this proposition and continue reverting. Becoming exhausted with this issue as seen in this diff on the noticeboard, I revert yet again which allows me to shoot myself in the foot on edit warring rules which I disregarded feeling WP:trolled. Later, I add quotations from the citations already listed pre-dispute and a third uninvolved editor contributes to the article. Editor2020 then improves upon the article as it was in its state, to be staunchly reverted by Redvince1 yet again; he then in the edit summary rudely labels me and others reverting his contributions as "critics."

Agreeing (as seen prior in the diff of my exhaustion on the noticeboard) that we should both just be blocked (me on the accountability of failing to have proper conduct in dealing with their advocation and now WP:POV pushing and WP:POV railroading me into oblivion), I took the issue to the edit warring noticeboard. Redvince1 then again blatantly states the following: "I am puzzled why TheLionHasSeen is unwilling to include or consider the content with references on modern day adherents of Modalism such as David K. Bernard and logical arguments that are made by those who adhere to the Modalist Christology perspective. I am reverting this article every few days to get more attention to this article so that more editors will get involved in adding content and so that TheLionHasSeen and myself are not the only arbitrators of what content goes on this article. I am adhering to WP:BOLD in doing so." I responded by clarifying I am the one to originally posit David Bernard into that article, and never removed him. The information on Thomas Jefferson and Arianism had no relation to the content of the article, and to show that I was not a critic I assisted in providing a NPOV for Oneness Pentecostalism which on its talk page was commended for (not directly) with countless contributors on Wikipedia. I then called them out for their claims that they placed Bernard in the article again and rebuked their action for making Wikipedia a background, and deliberately ignoring those other contributors that became involved for not agreeing with their advocacy.

As a result of this, I motion whether I am blocked on pretense of shooting myself in the foot while handling this or not, that this contributor is blocked from editing Wikipedia for the purpose of being an advocacy-only account, and for their blatant muddying of the conflict at hand to cause confusion toward all involved. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• If that's a summary, can we please have a summary of the summary? EEng 06:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• New user make edit. I revert edit seeing it as blatant POV pushing; they revert back and make tons of horrible arguments (even against others while focusing on me especially). They then label those that do not agree with their edits as critics, and lie about their edits as if they placed citations from certain scholars in that they never provided. I then get annoyed at the Wikipedia's 1,000+ administrators not being able to respond to this complex issue. I then will soon shoot myself in the foot again, by just blatantly disregarding all rules since the other contributor wants to (after I acknowledged two wrongs do not make a right), because the staff are not that active as of late, and revert their POV pushing as I did with a certain contributor to the P'ent'ay article for months. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the closed incident above: WP:ANI#User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior, and should be closed as a duplicate of that report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to me! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: you keep bringing Wikipedia "staff" but there are no such thing. The Wikimedia Foundation has staff but they don't generally concern themselves with the internal runnings of any project. AFAIK even the controversial UCOC doesn't seem likely to result in significant staff involvement especially on large projects.

Wikipedia has administrators and arbitrators but both are community appointed positions filled by volunteers. Neither rule on content disputes. Your complaint seems to be mostly content issues which you need to resolve via discussion starting on the article talk page and using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if needed.

In so much as there are behavioural issues which is something which administrators do deal with, there are enough problems with both of you to suggest if the solution is restrictions on editors, it would be for the both of you. But the far better outcome would be for both of you to stop without requiring restrictions.

I'd note at Talk:Modalistic Monarchianism#Dispute Over Additional Content I see some discussion which is great. Unfortunately far too much of that discussion seems to be over behavioural issues and frankly having skimmed through it I remain confused what the actual dispute is about. I'd suggest a reset of that discussion focusing on one or two proposed edits and going from there. Since there are only two of you, if you still can't come to consensus WP:3O is an option.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Davide King disruptive behavior

This user (Davide King) does contribute to articles, I have nominated him once in my ITN nominations as he contributed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2021#(Posted)_2021_Czech_legislative_election). And I was thanked by him (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=122677475). However the recent edits have been getting severly worse and this is why I'm reporting this. Whilst if there would be a consensus in doing this, I'd understand but of course there is nothing in talk.

So he goes on to remove all the sourced ideologies in the defense that 'as a member of the PES, it is a centre-left, social-democratic party'. So now we are basing it only on international alliancies according to him. He removed in total 13 sources in the defense of that and 'bloated infobox', leaving only centre-left and social democratic because they are a'member of PES' with no consesus to remove the sources and just ignoring the sources totally. This was the first warning sign of breaking NPOV, putting his opinion (without sources) over how it should be displayed over everything else.

For BSP: This was his presented way: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Socialist_Party&direction=prev&oldid=1050817866 And this is how it was and with sources should look: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Socialist_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050817866

In conclusion, he removes all of these sourced ideologies without consesus in the defense of a bloated infobox to only keep 'social democratic and centre-left' on the basis of them being a European Socialist member. Democratic socialism[3] Social conservatism[3][4][5][6] Left-wing populism[7] Left-wing nationalism[7][8] Factions Pro-Europeanism[9][10] Russophilia[11] Position: to left-wing[13]

He not only goes on to remove the sources presented in this article in the infobox but, The same with PSD of Romania. He goes on to remove 20 sources and 5 key ideologies in the defense that it 'bloats up' the infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)&oldid=1050522420 Another experienced editior responds with reverting it and telling him to go the far-right party AUR and do the same there and see what the response would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)&oldid=1050523332

In conclusion, he removes all of these sourced ideologies without consesus in the defense of a bloated infobox to only keep 'social democratic'. Left-wing nationalism[7][3][8] Left-wing populism[9][10][11] Social conservatism[12][2][13][14][15][16] Soft Euroscepticism[17][18][19][20][21]

He goes on to remove Pro-Europeanism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_Action_and_Solidarity&oldid=1050814172

He goes on to remove Republicanism and Eurosceptism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Left_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1050752545

He goes on to remove hard eurosceptism and socialism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1050641517

Here's an even funnier one, this is how it looks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Șor_Party&direction=prev&oldid=1050820012 National conservatism Protectionism Statism Russophilia Euroscepticism[1] Populism[2][3] Regionalism[4] Political position Big tent[a] He goes on to change it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Șor_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050268754 He removes all the sourced ideologies again, and keeps 'big tent' in description, "big tent and regionalist party,[3] it promotes both left-wing and right-wing views. The party does not define itself as belonging to either side of the political spectrum and its policies mixes Moldovan identity with support for the former Soviet Union." But because the party is a member of ECR (European Conservative) he changes it to " A member of the centre-right, Eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists Party," and the politial position now is Centre-right based on his edits. He just puts in his own opinion without any sources, and removes all sourced ideologies. On the basis that the European affliation is all that matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_of_Moldova&oldid=1050268498 Social democracy[2] Populism[3] Pro-Europeanism[4] His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_of_Moldova&direction=next&oldid=1050268498 He goes on to remove pro europeanism and populism sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSP_for_Bulgaria&oldid=1050816675 And again.. TO him an alliance with two communist parties is only social democratic.

Again from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_Liberal_Party&oldid=1050123952 Canadian nationalism[1] Federalism Quebec autonomism Factions: Social democracy[2] Political position Centre[3][4] to centre-right[5][6][7]

To this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_Liberal_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050123952 Removed centrist, removed the sourced stuff, and only centre-right according to his opinion now without any sources.

Obviously, reverting all of this will just lead to an edit war, and in my three years of Wiki experience, I look at how the big parties are lined up for me to make it as close as possible. I look at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDU/CSU, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_République_En_Marche!, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

So to end this off, I am submitting this report in as he is 1) removing all sourced ideologies and positions that doens't fit him in the infobox to only keep one political position and one ideology in. Several examples up is that he only wants 'centre-left' and 'social democratic', the rest are completely irrelevant to him. He is trying to get rid of all 'Pro Europeanism' as can be seen in this report although it is well sourced and he has no consesus, on top of that the big parties use it in Europe. He is using the justification of 'European affliation' to political position as can be seen in BSP and SOR edits, the sources and consesus are irrelevant to him. He is also using the justification of the 'infobox being bloated' for removing all sourced stuff, but yeah, I have never heard of anything like that in my years. If he is so confident, he should remove all factions of the Republican party and democratic party and see what you guys administrators and editors say. So yeah, he is doing this to several parties, he has no consesus behind him and he is removing sources to only please his own opinion. Both of these clearly breaks NPOV and WP:SOURCES as he just completely discontinues them. If there was a consesus that we can only have 1 political position and 1 ideology, I wouldn't make this rpeort but he has clearly decided that he has to change the political parties to his own will, and that's the reason of this report.

This has to be looked into, one user should not be able to remove all sourced ideologies of an infobox in a political partyy for his own will (if there is no general consesus on Wiki regarding this).

Cheers, BastianMAT (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Involved user's response

First of all, you are resorting to other stuff exists rather than our policies and guidelines, or do not actually understand NPOV and RS, as I did not violate NPOV not any other guideline because ... say it with me ... no sources were actually removed from the article; that many infoboxes of political parties are bloated (as noted by Autospark and others who have supported my removal of bloating, including the view that policies should be removed from the Ideology parameter) is not an excuse or good reason to not improve it; our guidelines say they are for key, uncontroversial stuffs, and should be seen as a summary, which is why I took care to better contextualize it in the lead rather than use bloated, empty labels in an infobox; of course, you did not say this and falsely accusing me of removing sources (we actually have a references removed tag, which did not appear in my edits ... because I did not removed sourced stuff, I simply better placed and moved them to the lead to contextualize it!) In addition, some things put in there (pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, etc.) are not even proper ideologies but policy positions that I simply moved to the lead.

Second of all, I did not actually remove any source, I simply moved them to the lead, so your wall of text is clearly misleading, and of course you are mystifying things like me saying "as a member of the PES, it is a centre-left, social-democratic party", which you took out of context; it is sources saying it is a centre-left, social-democratic party and member of the PES, I simply summarized it as such rather than bloat it, like any other centre-left, social-democratic like-minded party. Second of all, several of those articles (e.g. Șor_Party) are not well-sourced; again, Political position (as the link says, it is about the political spectrum) is for left-wing, centre, and right-wing, not catch-all, or big tent categories, which can be easily put more appropriately in the lead; if you are opposed to the change to centre-right, we should leave it blank rather than put something that does not actually fit the parameter. Thirdly, you falsely accused me of relying of personal opinions rather than sources but I simply followed the given sources (academic books) in describing the Quebec Liberal Party; I was also careful to clarify in the lead, where ... you know ... we can actually contextualize and explain stuff rather than bloating the infobox, that the party is centrist by federal standards but centre-right in the context of Quebec politics, which is why I used centre-right in the infobox, since it is a party in Quebec.

In short, your flawed arguments boil down to other stuff exists, or are misleading if not outright false, while I am at least trying to argue based on our policies and guidelines, which say the infoboxes are for key, uncontroversial facts (they need to summarize, not be bloated) and it is much better to make it a prose in the lead. Finally, rather than engage in a discussion on the talk page, you took me here. You said "reverting all of this will just lead to an edit war", except that is exactly what you did here, again using a misleading summary; I did not remove any source from the article, I moved everything, with proper context, to the lead, and only left the key, uncontroversial facts in the infobox.

Davide King (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like the the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks are at it again. EEng 15:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I get the reference but what is the point of your comment? This is serious, I have been falsely accused of removing sources when I did no such thing. I just trimmed the infobox (removing stuff that is a policy more than ideology, e.g. pro-Europeanism, or unsourced stuff, e.g. liberal conservatism at Quebec Liberal Party), which should be a key facts summary, and expanded the lead using the same sources but with context rather than empty label in a bloated infobox. I have been simply following the policies of WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF rather than a false-balancing equivalence of malpractice of other stuff existing (e.g. the whataboutism of malpratice within infobox of other political parties), which is an essay and not a proper or prescribed policy and guideline. Davide King (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  My point is that the wall-of-text complaint followed by the wall-of-text response looks, to outsiders, like one of those tiresome doctrinal debates no one wants to read. In fact had you not responded to me, this thread would probably have died a natural death, and no one would even have known (or cared) what you were being accused of. EEng 12:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, so I got the reference right. You are right but there was just so many falsehoods, so much misleading stuff, and lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I had to write one, and if that highlighted how those accuses of disruption are false, it is good by me. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Davide King - Without wanting to comment on the content, an area with which I'm unfamiliar, I would ask you to bear in mind that, if you're a member of a political party, you can't be 100% impartial when editing on the subject, and it would be as well for you to avoid making any edits that might be considered controversial. Deb (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with this. "Membership in a political party" is far too broad and indirect to be any sort of serious WP:COI when such membership can include huge swaths of a nation (and you'd obviously have to bar anyone with membership in an opposing political party in the same way, which would rapidly spiral out of hand to the point where you're barring most people with detailed knowledge of or interest in the subject.) It is comparable to asking an editor to limit their editing in a particular topic because of, for example their religion - would you argue that practicing Catholics should not make controversial edits on anything relating to Catholicism or Catholic doctrine? Or that active Jews should not make any controversial edits on anything related to Judaism? Or that both Jews and Muslims should refrain from making any controversial edits related to Israel? If not, how is this different? Would we similarly bar members of the Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) from making controversial edits on either article? (That would be 84.6 million people, or about a third of the adult population of the United States - and it would be the third most likely to have an interest in or knowledge about those topics.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, completely agree. As I wrote below before your comment, the real problem is that one actually has to comment on content rather than engage in such speculation; once one does the former and not the latter, it can be seen this is an issue of basic verifiability (e.g. BSP) which I have tried to solve, and I am the one who is respecting proper policies like WP:INFOBOXREF, and the other user is violating them. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Deb, with all due respect and understanding the point your are making, this makes no sense since I am not even a member of a political party, and those parties involved all come from the Eastern European region and Canada (I am from Italy and do not belong to any political party); ironically, your comment seems more appropriate for the other user who took me here (despite me opening a discussion on the talk page, e.g. Bulgarian Socialist Party, but got no response, only reverts, and now this), since they seem to be the one to be biased. The OP lacks context and contains clear falsehoods, which do not stand to WP:INFOBOXREF and is serious.

In the case of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, as I wrote here, this is a simple matter of verifiability, since refs for social conservatism only say that the party leader opposes same-sex marriage (as shown in the lead, that is not the sole position), and the academic book source says that it is a social-democratic party with somewhat socially-conservative views, which is not the same thing, is qualified, and reflect the region's strong social conservatism), yet I have been falsely accused of removing sources and not actually following them when the reverse is true. Again, given academic sources describe the Quebec Liberal Party as centre-right, so I changed the infobox to reflect that, also removing liberal-conservative which was unsourced and not discussed at all in the body, and I am the one who is failing our policies and guidelines?

I am actually standing by them (WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF), while the other user is resorting to an essay, and making such false accuses is not something that should be taken lightly. You should really comment on content, rather than engage in speculations, and you will see that I am not the one who is being disruptive. I am not the one who reverted, edit warred without citing any policy (I actually explained it), and took me here. I am the one who opened a discussion on the article's talk page, as done here and here, but all I got was no response, edit warring, and false accuses, so forgive me if I am pissed off by this. Davide King (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Davide King Could you please clarify - did you use the phrase: "as a member of the PES"? Deb (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Deb, at first I did not understand what you meant but I think this is a misunderstanding on both of us. I was not saying I am a member of the PES, I was saying that the Bulgarian Socialist Party is a member of the centre-left, social-democratic PES, so we can just have in the infobox Centre-left and Social democracy, both of which are supported by the academic book, while the other user misled and insisted on bloating the infobox (see diffs). Davide King (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Darylprasad & Platonic solids

• Platonic solid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Classical element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Darylprasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Platonic solid [115] [116] [117] (the attitude of the other edit warriors there was less than optimal, but I'll move on). When it became apparent the content would not be accepted there, they tried to insert the same content in Classical element [118]. When I objected to this on the talk page [119] and reverted it [120], they started mass-removing other content from the article repeating a sentence from my talk page comment as an edit summary [121]. I think they need a cool-down period. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (as non-involved). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears that all non-sourced material has been removed from the article "Classical elements". And we quote Apaugasma who says quite rightly that "Writing sections based upon no source is original research, which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia" Have a nice day. Regards Daryl Darylprasad (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This may be resolved for the time being [122]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're right. Darylprasad strikes me as someone who has the capacity to improve WP, but who doesn't understand very well what encyclopedic writing is about, nor various cultural norms here. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL, I will try to do better next time. I will use the talk pages first before making large contributions. Once again, thanks for your comments, I am just trying to do my best to improve Wikipedia. I am new to "Talk" page etiquette.Darylprasad (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• While this editor has been very tiresome to deal with at Classical element, I think this mainly stems from inexperience. He has been editing for a couple of years, but not very heavily. He needs to learn to listen to others and not cause disruption when he doesn't get his way. This report should serve as a warning to him that such behaviour can get him blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 07:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Per this editor, see also Talk:Cerberus#Massive insertion (pinging Doniago, who was also involved in that discussion). Paul August ☎ 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• The user is now asserting on his talk page that all messages will be deleted unread and that he won't engage on any talk page. We have two behaviour problems here; WP:COMPETENCE and failure to work collegially. SpinningSpark 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems with User:Vice regent not accepting the result of a closed dispute

I believe we might have a series of problems with the Sexual slavery in Islam page and its POVFORK. More than one year ago an editor, Vice regent, who did not like the “sexual slavery” label in the page title, attempted to rename the page without consensus, but the the issue was solved and the previous title was restored. However, as of today, they still claim that “the title dispute was never resolved”, and in the name of this belief they keep restoring the {{POV}} template that they had inserted long ago during the title dispute (#1, #2, #3, #4 – I am not sure if this list covers all the reverts). Furthermore, in the meanwhile they have also WP:POVFORKED the page and created a duplicate, Islamic views on concubinage, basically as a way for bypassing the closed dispute. I was not aware of the WP:POVFORK, and after becoming aware I have requested a page move (please see Talk:Islamic views on concubinage § Requested move 14 October 2021). The issue should be considered long solved by now, and I find it challenging to discuss: on the one hand, for defending the separate existence Islamic views on concubinage, they claim that sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam speak about different phenomena, while on the other hand they also claim that the they are the same thing and the Sexual slavery in Islam page should be renamed to “Concubinage in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits on 11 different articles. At one point I counted their edits and found that Grufo spent 90% of their edits on wikipedia getting into disputes with me (all of which Grufo followed me to, not the other way around). Grufo was warned against edit-warring by an admin, and then eventually blocked. If you look at Grufo's latest proposal, every single user has opposed it[123], but that's not an ANI matter. This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior.[124]VR _talk 21:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

“Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits”

Vice regent, you cannot link an old failed attempt of yours to bring me to ANI for WP:HOUNDING you as a proof that one year ago I was hounding you.

“Every single user has opposed it”

Being minority would not be sin. WP:POVFORKING after being minority instead would be. You, Mhhossein (who once accused me of being uncivil for defending two atheist bloggers who opposed a bloody dictator), Baamiyaan2 (who you keep accusing of being a sockpuppet), Jushyosaha604 (who was involved in the previous discussion on the minority's side) want to keep your WP:POVFORK as it is, while Anachronist, Wiqi55 and I are open to a change. Your side also uses opposite arguments (some say that it's because “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” are two different things, while you say that it is just one thing). There are not many users currently involved in the new discussion.

“This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior”

WP:POVFORKING a page and not accepting that a dispute ended after more than one year is not “a content dispute”, it is a natural case for WP:ANI.

Could you please explain to the admins here, do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why have you created Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why do you want to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

--Grufo (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re POVFORK, see this discussion.VR _talk 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics, broadly construed. They are practically a WP:SPA when it comes to this topic area, and seem keen to push an anti-Islam agenda. I encountered them last year when they were pushing Nonie Darwish, a noted counter-jihad personality, as a reliable source for Ruhollah Khoemini's views on sex with underage children. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:

• Yeah, I remember you too. I remember that you called me “a civil POV pusher” one of the first times we met (or you met me), commenting about a discussion of mine related to the Planck units (in which you were not involved and I am not completely sure you understood), in the WP:HOUNDING discussion that Vice regent had raised (which had nothing to do with physics).
• Fortunately we don't need your memory, as my contributions are public
• How can someone be “a WP:SPA [only] when it comes to [a specific] area”? If I have many interests, how can I be WP:SPA? You do you realize that this is an oxymoron, right?
• As it seems, you were not happy with my contributions even when they were about physics, so maybe I should be banned from physics-related topics too?
• I was not pushing Nonie Darwish (who I certainly did not know), I only fought to make sure that the reliability of a source is always discussed first. Thanks to me we discussed the topic, and my opinion is still that despite her political views are disgusting (according to me) she can be reliable when she tells the story of her life. Opinion-wise, I consider Nonie Darwish utterly garbage (sorry, I am far left politically – so I also can hardly have a “counter-jihad personality”).
• “A topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics”: Specifically, what edits of mine are you referring to? I would say that your attacks are purely personal, I am not the one who lost a dispute and WP:POVFORKED a page, and I also haven't edited many Islam-related pages lately.
• I had expressed in more than one occasion that I sincerely believe that Vice regent is in many ways a WP:SPA: his edits tend to be Islam-related and with the intent of pushing the same point of view (in this case that of using an apologetic alternative to “sexual slavery”) independently of the consensus – but we also don't need my memory, as his edits are public too. And yet we are not even here to discuss the WP:SPA nature of Vice regent's account, we are here to discuss two very specific facts:
  1. The fact that Vice regent has WP:POVFORKED a page after loosing a dispute more than one year ago
  2. The fact that Vice regent keeps pushing the {{POV}} template that he inserted in Sexual slavery in Islam during that dispute one year ago, despite the dispute has ended, and despite several editors have attempted to remove it
• Do you have any actual opinion on what we are discussing here? Feel free to contribute.

--Grufo (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with you on the Plank Units discussion either. Vice Regent is a competent editor who mostly focused on Islam and Iran related topics. This does not make him a SPA. My SPA accusation came from your very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles. Which you returned to after a year hiatus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• As I thought. Obviously you haven't read the Plank units discussion. It was a very long discussion with only three editors involved (me included). The trio became a duo almost immediately. And yet you commented about that lonely duo that I seemed to “have issues finding consensus with other users”. On the other hand, the discussion about Vice regent's proposal of using an apologetic alternative for “sexual slavery” has been a rather participated discussion, with many editors involved, about which he still struggles to make peace with the fact that the dispute ended.
• “This does not make him a SPA”: this is literally what makes one WP:SPA. He literally is a WP:SPA – whether good or bad, we are not here for that (my personal opinion based on the nature of his edits is that he is on an apologetic mission even at the cost of the truth – but again, we are not here for that).
• My “very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles”? Excuse me? What exactly are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The RM you linked to was closed as non-consensus so you can't say it was resolved. This doesn't mean it's acceptable to simply ignore the previous RM since when there's no consensus we preserve the status quo ante, but since we operate by consensus working towards consensus is generally a good thing. Also while this wasn't mentioned by the closer, it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam. So VR's actions don't seem inherently even against even the no consensus RM. Clearly we don't want duplicate articles, but what each article should cover or even whether we should have two can only be resolved by further discussion, again aiming towards consensus. You are free to link to the previous RM help guide the discussion but you can't claim it establishes something it clearly doesn't. Frankly although it's probably too late to close, the new RM you started seems a disaster as it's missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two things are mysterious for me in this discussion. The first is the passion for discussing about unimportant things, the second is the passion for discussing about what I do, although I haven't done much in the last year. Unless people are really interested only in me – and I will be happy to have conversations in my talk page – I still believe that the question here is: do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

It is a stale mate created on purpose by a specific user. You say “it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam”. Yes, some (few) editors supported that (not me). The result? Vice regent created a clone and uses that clone (which shouldn't exist) as an argument for pushing the {{POV}} template in the original article, despite a dispute was closed (you like it or not). Do you sincerely believe at this point that Vice regent wanted to treat a different topic when he povforked the page, or instead he deliberately wanted to bypass the ended dispute and treat exactly the same topic under a different name? --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of Grufo's WP:IDHT. They asked this exact question earlier in this section, and I pointed them to the answer. Yet they continue to WP:BLUDGEON with the same question. Per WP:BOOMERANG, examining Grufo's conduct is appropriate.VR _talk 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I hadn't replied to your previous non-answer for politeness, but now I will: you have not answered my question yet (no, your link is not an answer to my question). --Grufo (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed

• Islamic views on concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sexual slavery in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Both Grufo and Vice regent have dug in their heels at Talk:Islamic views on concubinage and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. Grufo seems to have vowed not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery" instead (coming here after their move request was receiving much opposition). Vice regent appears to have vowed the exact opposite, and will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles (as it is entirely absent from Islamic views on concubinage, a POV-fork which they wrote, also after a failed move request last year). It seems that Grufo wants to turn these articles into attack pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam was a special, institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage), while Vice regent would rather like them to be apologetic 'defense' pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam should ever be called or treated like a form of sexual slavery at all). Neither of them seem particularly interested to work towards a solid summary style- and NPOV-compliant article, and instead they (ab)use these pages as a battleground for (anti-)Islamic apologetics. This has become time-consuming and disruptive. I therefore propose to topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed.

Pinging editors recently active at both articles' talk pages: Toddy1, Wiqi55, Baamiyaan2, Assem Khidhr, Srnec, Mhhossein, Anachronist, Aciram, Slywriter, Jushyosaha604, Sirdog, FormalDude, Wikiedit01995, Bookku, Mcphurphy.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If both are topic banned, what is to become of the POV-forkiness? Vice Regent proposed a reasonable split, one article being about the history of sexual slavery/concubinage (I don't care what it's called), and the other being about Islamic views (theology, legal issues) toward it. Right now there's too big of an overlap for the two articles to exist, but a case can be made for two independently notable topics. Vice Regent is a major contributor to one of the articles and would be the best person to get them both into shape, as long as the arguments over titles stop. That can be handled in a RM discussion covering both articles simultaneously, and both editors could be banned from that discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Anachronist do you see anything problematic with my participation in the RM discussion? I have consistently cited loads of RS[125][126]. In fact, Apaugasma referred to my research as "impressive"[127] so this topic ban proposal comes as a surprise to me. What have I done wrong here? I'm happy to listen to feedback and use it improve my conduct during discussions.VR _talk 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We would not be here if you had not created a POV fork. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where this proposal comes from, or why. With the idea that discussing openly and reaching consensus is always the right approach, the only thing I have edited after being pinged in a talk page by a user on 13th October have been talk pages. “Receiving opposition” for a request is not a bad thing as you present it, I consider it rather good. The bad thing would be ignoring the will of a community and proceed with an agenda anyway. I can proudly say that I never did or attempted anything close to that. --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The disagreements between them are not restricted to those two pages, and lots of stuff seems related to sexual slavery - for example Grufo moved Contubernium to Contubernium (Roman army unit) and then wrote a new article on sex with slaves on top of the redirect created by the move, which Vice regent disagreed with (see Talk:Contubernium (Roman army unit) and Talk:Contubernium). The thing that comes out of looking at some of these disagreements is how reasonable Vice regent seems to have been.

• Interaction analyser (undated)
• Interaction analyser (2021 edits)
• Interaction analyser (2020 edits)

It does not make sense taking any action against Vice regent.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Excuse me, is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The "accusation" is that Vice regent behaves reasonably in disputes with you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That is rather subjective. It might be that I have just different opinions than you. And if your accusation was that of not being responsible in disputes, don't you think that started with the wrong foot? --Grufo (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, I commented on him. I did not comment on you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's even weirder. So your accusation against me is that he behaves reasonably? --Grufo (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I "accused" him of behaving reasonably in disputes with you. I did not comment on your behaviour.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are making things worse, Toddy1. You were answering to “is your accusation against me that of creating the Contubernium article?”. --Grufo (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any "accusation" against Grufo. I looked at some of the many disputes between Grufo and Vice regent. I gave the Contubernium one as an example. It seems to me that Vice regent generally behaves reasonably, and a topic ban against Vice regent is not justified.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Grufo (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The Contubernium example is a nice example. Basically, after I created the page, Vice regent appeared out of the blue and started to POV-push the idea that “concubinatus” could be used as a synonym for it, oddily using a source about Middle Age in support, despite “concubinatus” and “contubernium” were separate institutions in the Roman Law, on which the amount of specialized sources is uncountable (you can read the short discussion at Talk:Contubernium). That was also the time when Vice regent was trying to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam” – it looks like it had become a passion for him to push the word “concubinage” into Wikipedia articles. Was this particular behavior what you consider a “reasonable behavior”, or are there other reasons why you found it useful to present my Contubernium article? --Grufo (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma's proposed topic ban was limited to "sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed". So it was useful to show that the sex-and-slavery disputes between Grufo and Vice regent have been more wide-ranging than that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I was quoted here. I am interested in the articles in question. However, I have not followed the conflict and discussion between the two editors mentioned here, so I can't really comment on them. But I will say this; these articles are sensitive. They present a subject which is sensitive in the eyes of people with religious bias. For a long time, I have obsered through the edit history of these articles, particlularly Sexual slavery in Islam, that they are almost routinely vandalized by IPs, and the reason seem to be that Muslims regard the subject shameful to Islam. Because of this, I asked for the article Sexual Slavery to be protected. It resulted in the article being accused of racism and all sorts of things, which did not give me a better impression. Because of all this, I have more or less stayed out of getting involved in these articles. I was strenghtened in this decision, when the User Vice regent aggressively attacked me out of nowhere because I asked for citations for one or two sentences in the article which did not have citations - I was not aware of this user beforehand, but they appear to have felt personally attacked, and I did not wish to become further involved with them.

To summarize my opinion: these articles seem to be exposed to attacks by (Muslim) people with religious bias against it. It is my impression. But the subject are important and should not be censured because of religious bias. If these two users can't edit in neutrally, they should be banned from the article. Due to the sensitive issue of the article, and my experience by observation of its edit history, I am afraid that this would not be suprising, and perhaps not the last time such a ban would be necessary. We should not bend to religious pressure, but present the sensitive subject neutrally.

Without being closely informed about the article renaming and split; Islam had special rules around sexual slavery and these warrant its own article. It isn an important subject. All concubines in the Muslim world were by definition slaves. Hence an article about concubines in Islam is the same thing as an article about sexual slaves in Islam. However; not all sexual slaves in Islam were concubines. Therefore, Sexual slavery in Islam and Concubinage in Islam is not the same thing and that should be clear. Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma pinged me and some others above. I feel that if Vice regent keeps inserting a {{POV}} tag and creating forks for Islam related articles, he should be blocked or topic banned from Islam related articles, essentially because he's a biased Islamophilic.-Baamiyaan2 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oddities

There is something funny about this discussion. I go to someone for a question – let's say “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with another question concerning me, something like “What color is you hair?”. I answer the question, then I ask again “Do you know what time it is?”. The person answers with a another question, “Where have you been yesterday?”. I answer also that question. After going on like this with me answering all the questions, I still ask “Excuse me, do you know what time it is?”. But then the person screams at me, and says “Stop asking that question! Don't you see that we have moved forward, you stupid WP:IDHT! You are just a WP:BLUDGEON with your wish to manipulate the discussion about the time! You know what? I think you are a WP:SPA.”

I am perfectly fine with all you asking me all the questions you want to ask, and look at my contributions as much as you want, and I love the WP:BOOMERANG idea, but I would still like to know: Do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

Thanks to all of you who want to give their time to answer. --Grufo (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss whether Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It is the only possible place when a dispute goes on for more than one year despite formally closed, and a user keeps forbidding other editors to remove the {{POV}} template that they had placed in Sexual slavery in Islam in the name of that dispute, in spite of the fact that they have even povforked the page in the meanwhile. Where else should it be asked? Thanks for not answering – at least you didn't scream. --Grufo (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI is for discussing users' behaviour. The article talk page is for discussing the article. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies. You could use the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process. If you think that one article is redundant, you could propose it for deletion at WP:AFD. But be careful not to engage in forum shopping-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As explained in the introduction, a behavior (#1, #2, #3, #4) is what brought me here. --Grufo (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Vice regent's behaviour in the diffs, Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Neutrality template (again) seem entirely reasonable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

100% agree- ANI is the wrong place to discuss content- stick to behavior here. If you want a moderated discussion of content- your options are WP:RFC, WP:3O or WP:DRN, please head to one of those venues. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I go to WP:RFC or WP:3O and ask what? “Hey guys, there is an editor that keeps pushing the {{POV}} template in a page in the name of a dispute that ended more than one year ago. It is not like anyone forbids them to improve the page, and indeed they often make contributions, they just like to keep the {{POV}} template anyway. Can you make them stop? They have even povforked the page in the meanwhile.” Do you think that could work? WP:DRN might not be a bad idea though. WP:DRN is for solving disputes. There are currently no disputes in that page. --Grufo (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask them directly. @Vice regent: Why do you think it is better for Wikipedia that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic? Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself? Are there sources that you would like to insert but you are forbidden to insert? Any concrete example? --Grufo (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, please stop trying to discuss content at ANI!-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Things are getting out of ANI scope. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: What is the sense of coming in a place full of admins and trying to convince them that behavior-related questions are not behavior-related? A Wikipedia admin tends to be familiar with rhetoric fallacies, and WP:BOOMERANG applies to everyone after all. These are both behavior-related questions:

• “Why do you think it is better for Wikipedia that you concentrate in maintaining for more than a year the {{POV}} template in Sexual slavery in Islam rather than directly addressing what you find problematic?”
• “Is there anything that you think should be changed in that page which you cannot do yourself?”

The very fact that a single user “maintains” a {{POV}} template in a page for more than one year without trying to address it is a behavior problem. There are two sections in the discussion – § Neutrality template and § Neutrality template (again) – that were created by editors who attempted to remove the template, not by who keeps pushing the {{POV}} template. --Grufo (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This behaviour by Grufo is called sealioning. As you can see, he/she has been doing quite a bit of it on this page. It is very annoying. Can I suggest a 2 week block for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Wojak6 Needs to be stopped from misusing article talk page. Editor needs corrective action.

Wojak6 is misusing the Kisii people article talk page (refer to recent inputs on the talk page by editor). The editor is using the talk page to express his personal views and his inputs to the talk page are full of negativity and appear to express hate speech to an editor and a group of people. The editor appears to be using the page to fight another editor rather than using it for a discussion to improve the encyclopedia. The editor posts unnecessary content to the page and does not add anything rather than continuously criticizing an article without providing any solutions. I am personally tired of having to reply to the editor's rather irrelevant posts which seem to be getting out of control as the talk page is now getting overfilled with a lot of unnecessary content. It is also getting tiring to report on this editor and long term solution is needed. I don't want to engage in any more discussion with editor as he appears to be fighting me. The editor need to be stopped from posting irrelevant and unnecessary content on the talk page. The editor seems to post anything he feels like on the talk page. The editor also seems to ignore the feedback and warning on his talk page since he repeats some of the concerns on his personal talk page. Serious intervention is needed to help stop the editor from misusing the talk page. The posts by the editor on the article talk page need to be removed to clean up the page which is now overcrowded with unnecessary discussions. The editor needs corrective action.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea if you were previously the ip editor(s) who have bloated the article into an unreadable wall of text over the years, but ever heard of "less is more"? Wojack6 isn't communication great on the talk page but your long posts on Talk aren't exactly helpful either. Additionally, while you managed to get an admin to previously protect the page as edit-warring, even got Wojack6 warned, a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions. The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter The article has been edited by several IPs and for some reason you seem to assume I am the one who edited the article over the years. That is simply not true. As much I have mostly worked on the article, it does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has edited the article over the years. "a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted....." I have no idea of what you are referring to and I have only done very few reversions on this editor and I have always left reasons for reversions. I only restored earlier to earlier version of the Kisii people article this morning and did not quickly restore content and seek sanctions as you put it. There were intermediate edits between the edits by the editor and my edit where I restored an earlier version. So I did not quickly revert as you put it. The report is about the Kisii people article talk page and not the actual article and was filed yesterday. It does not make sense to claim that I should provide sourcing not restore content and seek sanctions. You are not addressing the report but defending the editor and blaming me and even wrongly accusing me of being the editor that bloated the article on an article edited by several people before I even started editing.

The long posts were just unavoidable. What are your suggestion for the talk page? Should the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page as they are mostly irrelevant and a number of them have negativity. Are editors allowed to deleted content from the article talk pages, or is that the work of the administrator? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1045663114 where you accuse the Wojack of vandalism and restore content, half of which is completely unsourced. And I did not blame or state you were the ip editor(s), in fact I said " No idea if.. " I was pointing out that both the article and talk page are suffering the same problem which is dense walls of text, which make it difficult for a reader to comprehend the article and difficult for other editors to get a grasp of what the issues are without committing significant time. Wojack isn't without guilt as they are removing sourced material as well as unsourced but as other editors have noted here, their concern about the article is not without merit. Slywriter (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter I still don't understand why you state that ...."a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".....That is very biased and one-sided view. The point is that Wojak6 was blanking entire sections and parts of sections and not providing any solutions. The reasons provided for deletion were not good enough to justify deletion of entire sections of the article. And on the basis of the claims on some of his summaries and on the talk page indicate that he did not read through the article for starting blanking it of content. The best solution was to reverse the article as the editor was not helping the article rather than making it even more worse. Why did you even talk about this issue as it was already resolved?

What the editor did to the article was vandalism because he was basically blanking the article without sufficient explanations. Your claims that half of the content was unsourced are also not correct and biased. The editor continuously continued deletion of content despite being reversed several times and then the page was protected. I was basically reverting to safe the article as the removal of deletion of entire sections of both cited and uncited information was not constructive. Was it wrong to seek administrator intervention to stop what was happening on the page? Was the reversion wrong? Should have been left to blank the entire article of content because that is what was going to happen if the page was not protected.

I basically only did the work of reverting the article that was being blanked of content. Why do you then claim that ..." WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".... You seem to be assume that I am the only editor who edits the article that is edited by many. Why should I be the only one responsible for providing sourcing on an article that is edited by many? I did not restore content and seek sanctions as you claim as I only reverted an article that was basically being vandalized. Blanking of articles is really vandalized as both sourced and unsourced content were removed and no solutions provided. It is very surprising that you think an administrator intervention should not have been sought.

Your claim that ...." The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard.".... Indicates that you support what the editor was doing blanking entire sections of the article. Why do you assume I was guarding the article when I was simply saving it from losing entire contents? Was blanking the article a solution? You should admit that you are biased and have only provided one sided views. You have also mostly defended the editor rather than addressing the report. You have only talked about an issue that was already resolved.

What are your stands? should the editor continue with his current editing practices. The editor mostly never leaves summaries for most of his edits, deletes and adds content without providing any summaries and if he provides then they are not good summaries. I suggest talking a look at his talk page to see concerns from other editors. I mean you mostly defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My stance is simple... you see enemies everywhere, which is not in collaborative spirit this encyclopedia is based on. Even here, you are making accussations against me and accusing me of bias. WP:Vandalism means something very specific here and WP:AGF is not optional.

The talk page is covered in long winded rants by you. Even here, you still insist on writing novellas as a response. And I have repeatedly started there are concerns with Wojack's editing but I do not see them as the only problematic editor on the page, you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.

And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic . Slywriter (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter What do you mean I see enemies everywhere? I only expressed my concerns about your one sided-view in your replies which I found to be unfair. Of course you had bias in that you mostly defended the other editor and made blaming statements that I quoted in the earlier reply against me. How does that apply to collaboration on Wikipedia? I have not accused you anywhere but expressed my concerns about what you said earlier which I quoted. There is no battleground mentality here and there are no disagreements between you and I on anything. I have just expressed my concerns. Please clarify this statement...."you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.".... what are you referring to? ..."And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic.".. which topic are you referring to? you are confusing me with the quoted statement. The report was about the talk page and not the article itself. How come you are now talking about the article and not the talk page? Are you trying to imply that I am the one who wrote the Kisii people article and/or it is based on my personal views and so I have a battleground mentality on whoever disagrees with me? Because if you are assuming that then it is wrong because the article was not written by me. The article was there long before I stated editing and there are many people who edit it. There is no accusing you are having a battleground with you. I am just offended by the statements you have made on your replies which I have quoted. I will appreciate if you can use a neutral language rather than the one you have used in you replies. The only thing that I have done on that talk page is replying to threads by Wojak6. How come you think I am developing a battleground with those who disagree with since the threads were not mine and I just replied to them? Shouldn't be the other way round because it is the other editor who started the threads? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is grossly lacking citations for much of its content. From a quick look, it would appear that much of it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the 5th time you've brought this editor to ANI in a month [128] [129] [130] [131] [132]. At this point this is simply becoming harassment. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:192.76.8.77 Like I said I am not going to be engaging with the editor anymore. I only had a choice of reporting him and I am just tired of doing so.

• I do not see that Wojak6 has been any less constructive on the talk page than Nyanza Cushitic. Both editors need to base their arguments on the sources rather than what they "know" themselves, which seems to be informed by misplaced ethnic pride rather than facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Thank you for your input. I have just tried my best to reply to the editor on the talk page and just got tired and don't want to engage with the editor. Can the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page? Is that the work of the administrator to delete threads from article talk pages? or Can an editor go ahead and delete the threads. If the threads were never posted, I possibly could have not even replied to them. It is the threads that led to replying. Can they be deleted? I believe that will help remove unnecessary discussions and some negative threads from the page. If you can please help delete the threads from the talk page. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to edit an article then you have to be prepared to discuss issues with people who may disagree with you, rather than come running to a noticeboard whenever that happens. I don't see anything so egregious that it warrants deletion from the talk page. Instead of going off on long rants just say in a sentence or two what reliable sources you have looked at and what they say. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil BridgerWhy do you for some reason assume that I am the only one who edits the article. The edits put some input on the talk page which I tried my best to reply. Why do you assume the editor was disagreeing with me and the editor too seems to assume I did this and that according to the input on the talk page. What do you mean I run to the noticeboard? was it wrong to file a report about a misuse of the talk page? The editor put some input which I replied to, so how come you say he was disagreeing with me? I mean the article is edited by many people and for some reason you are assuming that I am the one who wrote the article and the editor was disagreeing with me. That simply wrong. The article is editing by many people and has been edited for wrong before I even started editing, so how come you assume that I am the writer of the article? You claims are simply biased and unfair. So do you probably believe that I did not have or don't have rights to seek administrator intervention? You should accept that some of your claims are wrong. You have also very much defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody misused the talk page, so it was wrong of you to say that anyone did. Your only complaint is that you disagree with what someone said there. Talk about it there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I just read through that talk page and Nyanza Cushitic, I highly recomend you review WP:NPA because you have been incredibly uncivil and have made some unnecessary personal attacks towards the other user. There is no need to question their intelligence or understanding of English because they disagree with you. You must be WP:CIVIL when you interact on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle I asked the editor understood English because he posted content unrelated to the thread being replied to. It was not meant to attack the editor. Is asking whether one understand English really an attack? I don't remember questioning the intelligence of the editor anywhere on the article. I have not attacked the editor other replying to his threads. Your claim that I was incredibly uncivil is simply an overstatement. Is asking whether one understands English really uncivil? I don't remember question the editor's intelligence in the talk page, but to claim that those two claims are incredibly uncivil and personal attack is an overstatement. I have mostly replied to the threads and nothing more than that, unless replying to the threads is an attack. Your claims of attacking the editor could be misplaced. Has Wojak6 been civil in the talk page? The editor has mostly assumed that I am the one who I wrote the Kisii people article and even quotes content from the article assuming that I am the one who did this an that. Whenever he read anything on the article that he does not agree with he assumes I am the one who put it there. isn't that also an attack against me then if asking if one understands English is an attack? It could be great if you can clarify by personal attacks because I could not see any attacks made other than replying to the threads. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Interaction and topic ban proposal

It is clear from this discussion that although Wojak6 (talk · contribs) has made inappropriate edits at Kisii people and its talk page, Nyanza Cushitic (talk · contribs) (NC) has also behaved unacceptably toward this user.

• The two users had an edit war about a month ago where Wojak6 blanked content regarding the origins of the Kisii people. While their edit summaries were clearly based on their personal opinion about the topic, the content they deleted contained lots of unsourced OR, and NC's reverts contained unambiguous personal attacks, including accusations of vandalism. The section in this particular edit was recently removed by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) on the correct basis that it was entirely OR, with no references that were actually about the genetics of the Kisii people.
• More recent edits to the article by NC, such as the first edit after unprotection, have been focused primarily on making genuine improvements such as removing unreferenced content and redundant statements. Hence, NC should not be topic-banned from the Kisii people.
• They have discussed this issue on Talk:Kisii people, beginning around the same time as the edit war, concerning the article's POV. NC repeatedly asserted that Wojak6's concern should have been brought up at Talk:Gusii language, which is incorrect per WP:NOTFORUM since the original concern was about a POV issue in the Kisii people article. Both users' statements are tainted by personal opinion: While it is obvious in the case of Wojak6's statements that their POV is heavily based on the Niger–Congo hypothesis and a misinterpretation of the Bantu expansion hypothesis with unreliable sources (as asserted by NC), NC's arguments were also based on OR with no attempt whatsoever to back up their claims with reliable sources. NC also made a few personal attacks such as, Your assertions [about the Bantu languages and the genetics of the Bantu people] indicate that you clearly lack knowledge on so many things as most of your comments and assertions are absurd.
• NC continued to attack Wojak6 after both users (along with a few others) turned to revising the article and deleting unsourced content and OR, such as on October 13 where NC once again dismissed Wojak6's concern about poor grammar, and order them to fix the claimed grammatical errors themselves. An overview of the later Special:Permalink#1051310691, the last revision before I started deleting OR and redundant content in the History section, clearly shows a number of grammatical errors, mostly missing commas such as, The Abamaragoli though close to Abagusii, their relationship is only tied to having similar oral traditions. Other than that, they are distinct in terms of culture and language and the Lulogooli is very distinct from Ekegusii language spare some lexical items shared through interaction and intermarriage. A recent thread that lasted from October 11–20 repeated many of the assertions from before with new claims (unsupported by RS) about the Khoisan peoples, plus a new personal attack by NC where they told Wojak6 twice to stop putting words in my mouth. Since this started with an off-topic question by Wojak6 about the speakers of the Omotic languages, with zero relevance to the Gusii language or the Kisii people, I think Wojak6 cannot edit productively about this topic area.
• On October 14, C.Fred (talk · contribs) warned Wojak6 about a personal attack about NC in an edit summary at Great Lakes Bantu anguages 3 days prior; Slywriter (talk · contribs) complained about Wojak6's lack of participation here and (without specific examples) that they use rude edit summaries or none at all.
• The fact that NC has filed 5 ANI threads about the aforementioned dispute, including this thread, is a serious behavioral problem in and of itself, as pointed out by the 192 IP. Harassment is often grounds for an interaction ban.

In conclusion, I propose that Nyanza Cushitic and Wojak6 be banned from interacting with each other, and that Wojak6 be topic banned from the migration history of, and linguistic or genetic relations between, African peoples and languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think that an interaction ban really addresses the underlying problem, which seems to be one of neither contributor fully understanding Wikipedia policy, particularly in regard to original research and the need for sourcing. Certainly their behaviour towards each other wasn't at all appropriate, but it seems to me that it arose in the first place because of the poor state of the article as they found it (for which neither seems to be directly responsible), and to neither contributor seeing the fundamental issues with how it had been written. I'm inclined to suggest that the more appropriate action here is to suggest that both contributors read up on policy and guidelines, not just on WP:OR and WP:RS, but on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and the options available when two contributors cannot reach an agreement. Maybe I'm being overoptimistic (not my usual habit) but I'd like to think that given a better understanding of how their interactions might have gone more constructively, they may now be capable of still working together. Wikipedia clearly needs contributors capable of creating appropriate content in this topic area - our coverage of the complexities of ethnicity in an African context is sorely lacking, and what exists is often of questionable merit - and an interaction ban that prevents two such contributors from working cooperatively together may not be in anyone's best interests. If they don't wish to work together, they clearly aren't obliged to, and if we find that they can't, without causing further drama, maybe an interaction ban or other sanctions will prove necessary. For now though, I'd say give them a chance to see if they can work together if they wish to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation for "The Golden Verses of Pythagoras (Rowe/Firth translation, modernized)"

The user Apaugasma has recently reverted an edit of mine.

The reason Apaugasma gave was that

" Rowe is probably more reliable than Westcott as a translator, given the latter's explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools"

By this reasoning, Apaugasma should delete all Christian edits that have allegiances to Christian theological schools. Similarly with other theologies.

And by the way, Wescott did not translate it. It was translated by someone with the initials A.E.A. Wescott was an editor of the volume the Verse was published in. So Apaugasma's reasoning is incorrect on all accounts.

So the reason for reverting was incorrect. Can I revert it back? Or should I just leave it?

The reason I edited it in the first place was the doubt I had about a potential copyright breach for the the modernized translation as no reference was given for that, and is still lacking. Usually, modernized versions are copyrighted by somebody. The Rowe/Firth translation currently on Wikipedia is a modernized version of the Rowe/Firth translation of the Golden Verses. The version I replaced it with is not under copyright. The reference provided for the modernized Rowe/Firth version does not state who translated the modernized version.

I hope I have gone about reporting this issue in the correct manner, if not please tell me.

Regards Daryl

PS. Both Rowe and Firth have "explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools." But we do not know about the translator of the modernized version because it is not given.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You should have notified Apaugasma of this discussion. I have done so for you. Additionally, this reads like a content issue to me. As you've already brought it up at their talk page, I suggest you wait for their response. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rummskartoffel

Thank you for that. I don't have much experience in "Talk". Darylprasad (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed entirely about content. I've answered the query at Talk:Golden Verses. The translation I reinstated dates from 1904 and so should be safely within the public domain. The copyvio accusation (also here) is thus entirely frivolous.

@Darylprasad: this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I may have set somewhat of a bad example yesterday by bringing you here after your point-y edits [133], but please take more care in the future before you wrongfully accuse a fellow editor and waste community time both here and on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Also, please try to finish your comments in talk pages with a few less edits: this clutters up the edit history, which many people use to watch the page. Thanks!

Incivility/personal attack by User talk:Qwirkle

Regarding these posts at Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021 (unless otherwise indicated):

Revision as of 02:41, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Not particularly civil but not of itself a concern.

Revision as of 13:53, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Note that the edit posts at two places. I would characterise the second as ad hominem and feel it is quite inappropriate.

Revision as of 14:26, 20 October 2021 Cinderella157: I addressed Qwirkle at their talk page, expressing my concern that I felt their post was uncivil to the point of being a personal attack.

Revision as of 14:30, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Their response at their talk page: If that is all you can assume, then I suggest you take it to ANI. Goodbye.

Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: I believe that this edit falls to casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

In consequence of this last post, I bring this matter here.

Revision as of 05:02, 21 October 2021 Cinderella157: Notification of this discussion

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | tålk 06:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

• This apparently all relates to Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021. While I would support any effort to indefinitely block those who repeatedly generate disruption by arguing over pointless details (in this case Subway vs. subway), the claims of incivility are bogus. I'll take this opportunity to rant on my favorite topic—this is a worldwide encyclopedia where volunteers create and maintain excellent content. Bludgeoning such volunteers until they submit is not productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of expression on my user page

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

---

"Holocaust enthusiast, not an expert by any means" -> this was removed by User:Bishonen. I've explained many times that what I meant is "A Holocaust enthusiast is someone who is interested in Holocaust studies but not at expert level, not someone who would like to participate in the Holocaust." I was questioned at length by multiple editors. When they're out of logical reasoning, Bishonen decided to censor any perspective/interpretation that he doesn't like. This is a gross violation of my user page rights. I request to delete my user page to restore to what it was (taken from Meta). Perhaps, a warning to Bishonen that his forceful action is unacceptable. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The self-explanatory thread on the OP’s user talk page fills in the gaps: User talk:Nguyentrongphu#Refactored from ACN. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have any appetite for arguing with Nguyentrongphu on ANI as well. I've said my piece in this exchange between multiple editors, which I recommend people to read. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

Everyone, please read! An admin cannot just remove any interpretation that they don't like, especially in a user page. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the OP, and I don't want to make a personal attack against them, but with all the good faith I can muster this post is indistinguishable from trolling. If you have to explain many times that a statement is not expressing your support of mass murder, you probably need not to have that statement on your userpage. I support Bishonen's action in removing that offensive phrase, and am flabbergasted that someone would come here to defend it. I strongly urge the OP to accept that the statement is unacceptably offensive, and to drop this. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I know the OP from a previous interaction. They’re not trolling. They have a significant WP:BLUDGEON/WP:IDHT/WP:STICK problem. Given that English is not their first language, using the phrase originally is understandable. The stubborn resistance when this is pointed out to them seems to be the underlying problem. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've dropped it since then. For the record, I've never edited Hitler article, not even once. I've done some good work on Hitler related articles before I moved on. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to everything that has already been said, I would point out that there is no right to free expression on Wikipedia, so nothing for there to be a "gross violation" of. If this user doesn't want to edit English Wikipedia without that statement on the user page then I would suggest that an admin helps him not to edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Enough people are confused by this that it obviously is confusing. And being clear enough that people understand you is kind of a requirement. Why not just rephrase it to "Holocaust studies enthusiast", which is probably still short enough for your purposes and clear enough for everyone else? Reyk _YO! 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reyk I accept your solution and ask that my user page be deleted for Meta page to take over. Thanks for a great idea! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Post-close discussion

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

---

• I once was on a bus tour somewhere in Italy with a guide who was truly excellent despite her only moderately good English. As we pulled up to St. Someone's Church (on which she'd been rhapsodizing for several minutes) she was puzzled by the titters that met her exhoration that we "all get out now and see this marvelous erection!" Same principle at work here, I think. EEng 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. Indistinguishable from trolling sounds about right. Note that I'm considering contacting T&S (Steward?) to look into this user's contributions on the Vietnamese wiki, where they hold advanced permissions — I've said that much on that user's talk page (diff).

1. The English language is always changing. I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the future (could be a long time), more people would use "Holocaust enthusiast" with a positive connotation. I'm happy to participate in its evolution of becoming a popular expression one day. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

2. I'm also a highly respected admin on Vietnamese Wikipedia too. [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021

3. El_C Same-wise here. Your last phrase is up for debate. You got your buddies to back you up in the English Wikipedia. I'm at a disadvantage here. You should come to Vietnamese Wikipedia sometimes for a treat :D. We can agree to disagree. This discussion is done here. Adios. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

4. Bishonen We'll talk at ANI. Good luck being a star attraction. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Super weird. Add to that the naked hostility and repeated attacks as well as the relentless IDHT, and I'm troubled more than ever now. El_C 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More:

5. I take "language gap" [...] the same way as attacks on my knowledge of the English language [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is odd, because though my command of English obviously exceeds this user, English is also my second language (my native tongue is Hebrew) and yet I still fall prey to language gaps all the time. Except, I welcome when native (or non-native) speakers correct me. That's largely how I learned to speak English, with a heavy dose of error correction. And it's how I continue to learn and improve my command of it. Also:

6. Bishonen I do not value your opinion. No thanks. [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021

These are not exceptional quotes. Pretty much the entire exchange is like this. And just now:

7. We respect editors more here in Vietnamese Wikipedia. I actually have a more advanced permission than you in Wiktionary + admin in Vi Wikipedia. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss here, honestly. El_C 15:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd let it go. Nguyentrongphu changed the questionable text. Not very gracefully, but to have it changed was the original request here. They have no admin functions here, and if their behavior at vi:wp is problematic, then I'm sure vi.wp will figure that out without the help from en.wp. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I already conceded. WP:DROPTHESTICK. You called me incompetent and bad faith indirectly + used Dunning–Kruger effect to low-key attack me. I didn't attack you from any of the quotes above. For example, how is this, "We'll talk at ANI. Good luck being a star attraction" or "I do not value your opinion" an attack? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a one-off bizarre WP:IDHT from Nguyentrongphu. See this ANI thread about these three threads at Talk:Adolf Hitler. There’s the same behaviour in both incidents with similar themes including the memorable “I'm sorry my seniority is higher than all of you”. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think we can see how well that's been working at the horror show that is the Japanese Wikipedia, so I'm skeptical. And I don't know if, here at en, a free pass is called for. Especially in light of DeCausa's additional info directly above. El_C 17:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, I conceded both cases. I've never edited Hitler article (not even once) and moved on since then. Why keep digging up dead incidents? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because it establishes a pattern (i.e. concerns about future misconduct). Simply copying WP:DROPTHESTICK over and over again isn't gonna diminish from that. El_C 17:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You meant my pattern of making concession when I saw consensus wasn't supporting me? This continued discussion is unwarranted. You're trying to get me blocked for no reason. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If it has to take you that long to realize consensus wasn't supporting you — that's a major problem in my view. El_C 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones. This time around the realization comes fairly quick if you ask me. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, but I suppose it's better than El_C Thanks! Our conversation is done here. I'm going to ignore you from now on. You're welcomed to visit Vi Wikipedia any time though to see a more civilized community. El_C 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course they are attacks. If you don't understand that then you have a much less than professional grasp of English. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone incompetent, bad faith and acute Dunning–Kruger effect is civility? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me give you some unsolicited advice -- simply step away from this thread, and say you'll be more collegial in the future. I don't think you are doing yourself any good. Your English is obviously excellent, but that is hurting you here to some degree. The phase "holocaust enthusiast" is so wildly offensive to any speaker of idiomatic English that questions about competence and good faith are bound to arise. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Except, I do genuinely think you lack competence in this matter (I linked you to WP:CIR). I'm allowed to make that criticism. I'm still not sure you're operating in good faith (I linked to WP:PACT), though perhaps you are. I'm not gonna engage in mental gymnastics to express that. Nor do I feel that calling your prolonged IDHT behaviour acute Dunning–Kruger attitude is an attack. You grossly overestimated your expertise, and then grossly underestimated the input of others. That is a fact. I'm allowed to call a spade a spade, especially when it concerns disruptive conduct. El_C 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be two possible issues. One is perhaps overestimating their own fluency in English; my advice is that if someone with more advanced skills tells you a phrase is offensive on its face, you take them at their word. The second is perhaps not great online social interaction skills, which unfortunately isn't something one can easily fix. Nguyentrongphu, you're telling people to drop the stick, then immediately following that with further accusations. FWIW, no one here on enwiki cares that you have advanced permissions on another project (and actually it wouldn't impress anyone if you had them here and behaved badly, either.) Realize that things are done differently on different projects, and it may take you some time to understand how things work here on enwiki. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  First, I wasn't the first who brought up advanced rights. Second, the issue at hands was resolved, and I was happy to let it go until this diff. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I brought up your advanced permissions because it concerned me in light of your recent misconduct. The problem wasn't solved in my view, because I and others here have little confidence you won't behave like this again. I'm not sure I'm able to explain that any more clearly. El_C 17:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've been contributing fine (moved on from controversial topic) for the last 6 months until you brought up a problem regarding my user page, which was resolved fairly quick in everyone's views except yours. My advanced permissions in other Wikis are irrelevant to this project. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think that this should be reported to the Trust & Safety people. It's excusable for someone to not realise that something not written in their native language is bad, but for someone who claims to have a professional level of English to carry on in that belief after multiple native speakers have said they are wrong is inexcusable. If this kind of behaviour is accepted at the Vietnamese Wikipedia and other projects then that should be reported to the owners of all the Wikimedia projects. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Changed my mind. I no longer think my erection story is apropos; instead, I think Nguyentrongphu is just being a dick. EEng 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Is being a dick actionable? Nguyentrongphu seems to have accepted the main point, and the pile-on of dredging up mildly argumentative posts is excessive. Let the issue drop. Spike 'em (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Mild. Alright. Wow. El_C 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Whatever. Spike 'em (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  You sure showed me. El_C 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you can make snarky, dismissive comments, then so can I Spike 'em (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay. El_C 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If being a dick is not actionable, we need to revise some policies. Levivich 17:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Post-close discussion addition

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

---

Blocked per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've made several replies prior to learning of this action, which I (unsurprisingly) support. El_C 17:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A 1-week block from WP:ANI, would've sufficed. The userbox complaint was already resolved. Wish I had been around, these last few hours, so I could've advised the (now blocked) editor, to back away from this (ANI) discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, maybe approach them on their talk about how to extricate themselves from bad situations here on enwikie. —valereee (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's too late. Unless, he isn't blocked from his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

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

HK unregistered ip cult again

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

• I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)

Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058

• (210.6.10.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
• (210.6.10.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:Military of Hong Kong, Talk:List of lighthouses in China)

despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me

210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402

210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100

And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890

• A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.

Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock/global issue

Following this discussion on a racist and disruptive user, I've periodically blocked IPs that are obvious socks of them. Recently they have started editing much more frequently and from quite a range of IPs (93.142.156.26 (talk · contribs), 93.143.100.86 (talk · contribs), 93.140.140.247 (talk · contribs), 93.140.140.84 (talk · contribs), 93.142.144.122 (talk · contribs), 93.140.158.79 (talk · contribs).

Occasionally when I've blocked them, I've had messages posted on my talk page on other language versions, commons[134] or meta[135]. After blocking another sock today, I had offensive messages posted on my talk page on over 30 different language versions of my talkpage (e.g. [136][137][138]) or random pages/files I had edited[139]. This particular IP has been globally blocked by Tegel (thank you), but I was wondering if any more could be done to prevent them editing here or globally. Cheers, Number 57 10:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Jadidjw

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

---

• Jadidjw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has been disrupting Hazaras for months now by altering sourced info, as well as adding non-WP:RS to the article.

1 July 2021 Removed (sourced) mention of the physical characteristics that the Hazaras share with the Mongols and Turks, added obscure citation

23 July 2021 Removed mention that the Hazaras were Persian speakers in the lead

30 September 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect

5 October 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect again. Makes WP:OR claim that many Hazara does not speak the dialect anymore

6 October 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect again. Makes WP:OR claim that many Hazara does not speak the dialect anymore

6 October 2021 Added non-WP:RS source named 'khorasanzameen.net' to support the POV he had attempted to push earlier regarding his claim with the Hazaragi dialect

6 October 2021 Added tons of non-WP:RS (www.kabulpress.org, www.radiozamaneh.com, www.afghanpaper.com, etc) to push a claim that 60% Hazaras were massacred

I did revert those 2 edits right above me, only for the user to start edit warring. Thus I created a section [140] on the talk page for him to explain how those random websites are WP:RS. He failed to give an explanation, and I eventually reverted him after having waited almost a month. Yesterday, he once again added a random non-WP:RS [141], once again failing to explain why it is WP:RS, and once again started edit warring, without reaching WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, again.

Looking at these diffs, I believe user has personal feelings related to these people, which is why he engages in WP:TENDENTIOUS. There might also be some WP:COMPETENCE factors behind this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "personal feelings?" Minkai ^(rawr!) _{(see where I screwed up)} 12:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I don't think I think there's anything to clarify in that regard. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's clearly a pattern of disruptive editing by Jadidjw on this article. I have alerted Jadidjw to the India, Pakistan, & Afghanistan discretionary sanctions and I would suggest that any future disruption result in a block under those DS. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

30 minutes later [142]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit is based on the source from a PDF book written by Basir Ahmad Dawlatabadi.--Jadidjw (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Requesting an interaction ban between User:Benmite and myself

Almost since the day this person started editing this article HoYeon Jung, he has had an agenda (or should I say vendetta) to remove and censure any contributions I've made and make up reasons why they shouldn't be in the article and when I respond he starts this delusion of how I'm violating some policy. It's normal to alter edits here and there. It's not normal to spend a week constantly trying to undermine someone's output. It started with little things I was willing to look past, but it's been a week now, and over and over again. I've never come across an editor feeling the need to create not one but 2 different concurrent pontifications discussions about every single contribution I've made, as if they're not even valid. Then turn around and ask me, twice, to bring back something they removed. I'm not disrupting the article by moving a sentence or adding one, or hell, even moving a word. But he's actually disrupting it. This hypocrite Benmite believes he has omnipotence on any editorial decision on this article be it an added source or added content then accuse me of "ownership" or "bad faith" when I've broached this subject. This would be understandable if the article had been created last month and was in DYK territory, but we're supposed to be building upon something created 3 years ago from absolute scratch and here he comes with this crab barrel mentality every time the article expands practically beyond his own edits. It's frankly weird. Personally I'm glad to see that the article has evolved from the 137 or so words it began with in 2018, to now being C class and people actually wanting to read it and finally having a great wealth of sources for editors to use. Do you see me wielding a fictional red marker? Anyway, I've grown tired. Interaction ban. Trillfendi (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history and talk page, it looks like there are some content disputes going on which Trillfendi is making personal via assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. e.g. "It must be tiresome being so pedantic, but remember it's not about you: it's for the interested reader's knowledge." Even this post is pretty pointed, in that it accuses Benmite of "delusion" and "pontification". The claim that This hypocrite Benmite believes he has omnipotence on any editorial decision on this article is contradicted by the fact that Benmite seems to be very patiently trying to initiate discussions of content disagreements at Talk:HoYeon Jung. Colin M (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So, someone has finally challenged Trillfendi's claim to ownership of all of our articles about the fashion industry. I can't claim to know who is right here, but I do know that it's a healthy thing that that challenge has occurred. Such a large area of human endeavour shouldn't be dominated by just one editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'd like to be pointed to any instance in the past 5 years where I "claim ownership of all our articles about the fashion industry" (at least stretch before a reach like that, good Lord). 2 years ago I'm told I make articles for "obscure" models.... Having the initiative to create models' articles isn't "claiming ownership of all our articles about the fashion industry". I don't get paid a dime for any of them, so in what way am I actually profiting of any of this? The only reason you call it "domination" is that I'm seemingly the only person, who has stuck around long enough (5 years since Van Rompaey) to keep creating these pages or routinely update them, partly because of Wikipedia's known, multifaceted gender bias problem; anyone else has the ability to do the same if that's what they want to do with their free time. Even you. But I do find it preposterous when Wikipedia editors who can't even tell you what board is which, what poaching is, why an exclusive matters, why one cover is more important than the other, etc. have so much to say about how I edit the subject of fashion on here. That's when I start getting dogmatic. Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Anyway, I've grown tired. Interaction ban." Yeah...that's not remotely how this works. The community only issues bans where significant violations of policy, leading to ongoing disruption, are taking place and the ban is necessary to arrest that disruption. Having just reviewed the article edit history and talk page discussion in some detail, I see absolutely no indication of policy violations or behavioural issues on the part of Benmite. On the contrary, it seems to me that they have followed a scrupulously civil and (wiki-)professional approach in all discussion on that talk page, avoiding personalization of discussion and keeping their commentary focused on sources and policy. All of which belays the rather strong speculation you make in your complaint here (with pretty absolute rejection of WP:AGF) that they have been "pursuing a vendetta against you from day one" for....reasons? Indeed, I think that accusation, based on what I am seeing on that talk page, is saying a bit more about your own approach to the dispute than it is about Benmite's, especially in light of the fact that your own posture has been somewhat less than perfectly collaborative in some instances. And not for nothing, but I note that at least one other editor, unconnected with this dispute, has reached out to you on your talk page in the last week to ask that you adopt a less aggressive tone on that particular TP.

Furthermore, even if we were in a scenario where the community was likely to endorse your perspective on the dispute there, IBANs represent a particularly situational sanction that really only works in certain contexts. Here we have two editors at a loggerheads over multiple editorial questions, which have seen no consensus as yet on the talk page. How would that situation be improved by making the both of you unable to communicate directly while you remain in fundamental disagreement about the content in dispute? Are you volunteering to leave the article or avoid all edits pertaining to the disputes? Because if you were just planning on getting the IBAN and then having it shield all of your edits from "interference" from Benmite, that's clearly not feasible: that would make the IBAN imminently subject to abuse and gamesmanship from both sides. Efforts towards consensus would be further complicated (not aided), and the virtually unavoidable calls for action on the IBAN from two editors still looking to engage at cross purposes would constitute increased disruption for the community, not reduced.

Let's be clear: from all indication on that article, this is essentially a straightforward content dispute, and yet you've come here asking the community to take the extraordinary action of a ban to resolve those matters without having made even the most rudimentary of efforts to avail yourself of the numerous community processes that are available to you to break any deadlocks in opinion: you haven't opened or proposed an WP:RfC on any content question, you haven't sought help at WP:DRN, you haven't requested input on a WikiProject or policy talk page, or put the questions regarding the sources to WP:RSN. You haven't so much as asked for a single WP:3O. All of these are steps that you should have contemplated before coming here to ask that the ban hammer be wielded to resolve a nexus of disputes that could easily be addressed through normal community consensus and dispute resolution processes.

I'll be blunt: I see very little likelihood that the community will endorse your claim that you are being hounded here, when the entire dispute has been contained to a single article and its talk page, over a very short period of time, with the other editor completely avoiding commentary about you, keeping their opinion focused on the content issues. This is my rather strong take on the matter as an uninvolved editor with no previous experience of the dispute, the article, or the parties involved, who is reviewing the matter de novo, as it were. So I would very seriously consider a different tact on this dispute: if you are as certain as you seem to be that you have the right end of the policy stick on these issues (and I'm not certain you should be, but that's a question not fit for ANI), then you should be seeking additional community input on the questions and building WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for your preferred approach on the talk page through sound policy arguments--not attempting to shut down another editor's ability to engage with you on those questions, just because they happen to critical of your approach on multiple editorial points, but have not in any way violated policy or collaborative principles in disagreeing with you. I can't see any realistic chance of an IBAN being implemented here under the current facts. Unless of course you want a unilateral one against your ability to engage with Benmite: I'm sure if you want an !vote on that, you'd be indulged: this situation already has strong shades of WP:BOOMERANG, frankly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The move discussion currently in place was needed out of protection for the article. I have yet to see any contribution I have made require an RFC, whatsoever (but if you do, let me know). I do find the "every day removing someone's contributions after I edited the page" charade very strange. User Benmite seems to be the only one who has a problem with each individual thing and instead of "talking it out", finds reasons to rebuke them. Simple shit like moving a reference in a sentence is a problem to him. Mind you, all I did was move a sentence for this to have been precipitated. Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A 1-way IBAN on the creator of this thread would be a neat example of poetic justice. Unfortunately I doubt it would be the best way to address this issue. For starters, an IBAN is meant to be a preventative measure. Given that this dispute appears to be limited to one article and short in duration, I don't see how an IBAN would be very helpful. That being said, I'd like to see a short-term block (like 24 hours?) for civility and wasting time at AN/I. The comments directed at Benmite such as "It must be tiresome being so pedantic, but remember it's not about you" [143] or the messages on the talk page of HoYeon Jung are wild. [144] Saying that someone doesn't "know shit about fashion" is sort of uncivil regardless of the truthfulness of such. Likewise with phrases such as "get your lies in order" and whatever else.

Speaking directly to Trillfendi now, I get that it's a heated discussion and you didn't feel that you were getting anywhere. That's exactly the time when you need to get outside opinions and input so you can resolve the dispute. It's necessary to recognize when you're not going to come to a compromise by debating with another editor and go get a third opinion or start an RfC. I'm directing the brunt of these comments at you because you started this thread, but Benmite also shares the responsibility for resolving the disputes, especially when they acknowleged "At this point, I'm just repeating myself" in the thread on the talk page. This whole thread could've likely been avoided if either of you took the initiative to seek a third opinion or start an RfC. The point of an RfC is to resolve disputes in a clear manner. You start the RfC, put in your reasoning, wait 30 days, and the issue is settled.

While you've done an excellent job at more or less single-handedly creating much of Wikipedia's coverage on fashion, you've also clearly not had many content disputes with other editors. As you've said yourself, Wikipedia has systemic bias and there's a lack of fashion editors relative to other subjects. You're the only person willing to stick around. But at the same time, for the systemic bias to actually be addressed, there needs to be more editors interested in fashion. Eventually you will have content disputes with those editors and you will have to resolve your differences with dispute resolution. Right now though, your behaviour at Talk:HoYeon Jung is the kind of behaviour that actively drives editors away from editing Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Joiedelacruz6 creating draft hoaxes

Joiedelacruz6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating draft hoaxes such as Draft:A23 (TV channel), Draft:Studio TV, Draft:Sky Network Television Philippines and User:Joiedelacruz6/sandbox (that has the same edit of Draft:A23 (TV channel). These are hoaxes because these came from an opinion of the Solid Kapamila's or Kapamilya Fans from a FB Group called ABS-CBN ( In The Service of the Filipino Worldwide). They like this to happen if ABS-CBN will be given a new franchise on 2022. I cannot find their post about this topic because they posted on the FB group a few months ago (I always read their posts but I am not a member of the group). This discussion was originally discussed in a MfD, but a user said, it would be better if I report it here. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that any action needs to be taken against the reported editor. What has happened is that the reported editor has created unverified drafts reporting planned television broadcasting. My opinion is that the drafts are crystal balling with no references, and so they should stay in draft space. The reported editor hasn't submitted them for review. If they were submitted for review, they should be declined. The filing editor has nominated them for deletion at MFD. I personally don't see a reason to delete them as drafts. If they were in article space, they should be deleted or moved to draft space. I also don't see a conduct issue. I don't think that they are hoaxes. They are unsubstantiated plans or business daydreams. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question hasn't edited in ten days. But, in my opinion, the drafts are not worth the concern. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeated POV edits by Bkuhar

Bkuhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has worrying pattern of POV edits, for example adding words to claim the opposite of the meaning from the source, changes to apparently based on their beliefs and edits to an advocacy organisation despite claiming to be Executive Director with a WP:Conflict of interest including the change of "she complained to the store's management" to "she whined to the store's management" about a woman that conflicted with the organisation that they claim to lead.

They have not responded to the warnings on their talk page (the only response is from an IP) 2001:8003:34A3:800:2974:542B:3AEB:3B0B (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear POV-pushing to me. T-ban from abortion related topics would be a good idea. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. Recommend indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, EvergreenFir--done. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Zerbstill

• Zerbstill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Glen Glens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He is persistently making disruptive edits to the Piers Corbyn article. Someone else warned him on his talk page which he removed. He has been asked to reach a consensus via the talk page before reverting again, but he continues to ignore that advice and keeps reverting time and time again. If someone check his talk page then one will see that he's been warned in the past about making disruptive edits and then denied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Glens (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Glen Glens: Looks like you are both edit warring. Think I'll partial block you both to stimulate the discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Glen Glens, you failed to notify Zerbstill of this discussion. I will do so. Noting that Zerbstill's last edit was to the talk page whilst Glen Glens was to revert Zerbstill. We are still short WP:3rr . Perhaps we can discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Someone who is not heading out the door 'cause they live in Florida and life's too short might want to review this more closely. Feels wrong. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Zerbstill's last edit may have been to the talk page, but it was only to inform people that they had changed the article before agreement was reached in the discussion. Glen Glens seems to have simply been reverting to the consensus version. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I did leave a disruptive edit warning on his talk page. This is the first time that I have had to use this reporting method. Thanks for informing him. I have not edited the article, I have only reverted back to the consensus version of the article.--Glen Glens (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to reach a consensus on the talk page, however in doing so Glen Glens began going through irrevelevent previous edits of mine and became incredibly defensive. It went off-topic quickly. Based on this, I tried to rectify the situation by creating an edit to the Piers Corbyn page which took into the account ALL of the comments made in the Talk page, linking to the vaccine hesistency article which had been mentioned to satisfy all users. I do not believe the previous edit to be disrputive at all as it took into account Glen Glens comments. You have to understand, it is very difficult to stimualte discussion whereby Glen Glens is going off-topic. Please view my most recent edit to the article and compare it with the Talk discussion and I believe it to have met the consensus made--Zerbstill (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You did no such thing. No consensus has been reached yet on the talk page, and, at the moment, we have two editors supporting having "anti-vaxxer" in the article and just you against, but you removed the word. That is flying in the face of consensus, not "creating an edit to the Piers Corbyn page which took into the account ALL of the comments made in the Talk page". If you believe that the talk page discussion is not proceeding properly then follow procedures for dispute resolution. Don't put your own non-consensus version into the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I want to point out that I'm not too pleased with Zerbstill calling me and other people's edits vandalism in edit summaries. Likewise, I'm not a fan of them then going on to also call my entry on their talk page where I tell them to please not do this, vandalism. They've apparently done this before, so I could be inclined to suspect that this is them trying to browbeat their edits through. Whatever the case may be, I'd appreciate it if they assumed good faith. Eik Corell (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Noting Zerbstill has received a DS alert for Covid 19. I see Glen Glens is blocked now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Always love it when the OP is sock blocked. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger - if you look at the edit, "anti-vaxxer" was included, though I changed it to "against lockdown and vaccination which more or less covers the same thing.

Eik Corell - I was reverse my views to good faith. Best, --Zerbstill (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

System-gaming WP:HOUNDING and personal attacks from user who claimed he was stopping

Me and Bkatcher had a dispute back on the 19th of September (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkatcher ) in which we agreed to a detente. Ever since then he’s made a series of talk page edits to various users he agrees with (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renewal6, User talk:Tiredmeliorist, User talk:76.11.71.40, User talk:86.144.76.56), which he all but admitted were meant as subtle digs on me on Chicdat’s talk page (referring to me as “DB”, he says: “I've been talking to a lot of users about his attitude.”, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat). He then sarcastically pretended he was “actually” talking about DB Cooper when I called him out. This is basically WP:HOUNDING that deliberately tries to avoid “naming names” to get around WP:NPA and I’m not amused by it. Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here. There is a larger concern here. Bkatcher is WP:Canvassing, and suppression of their email address may be necessary: [145] [146] [147] MarshallKe (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • And that. I guess I should have added that, it’s kind of obvious. I’ve warned Bkatcher, though it’s unlikely to do anything. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• On first looking at MarshallKe's diffs I assumed that Bkatcher must be a naughty child who we should simply ask to come back in a few years, but I then saw that they have been editing since 2004. Some people just never seem to grow up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Nearly 23,000 edits as well. I'm a librarian and I give workshops on the importance of Wikipedia as an education tool (a very unpopular opinion in library circles, I might add). Bkatcher (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • All that and you still invite people to talk about someone behind the bike sheds where teacher can't see you instead of behaving like an adult and having an open conversation. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, perhaps I channeled my inner eight year old there. In my defense, I was attempting to take the conversation to a non wiki platform, and this is my first Admin notice in 17 years. In my defense, I mentioned no one by name in a single one of those instances. But (and I know I sound like a philandering husband asking for one last chance here) I will give it a rest. Unless DB would like to officially become arch-enemies? That could kind of be a blast. Think of it! We could be like Bond and Goldfinger! (I get to be Bond). Holmes and Moriarty! Mr. Pibb and Dr. Pepper! A rivalry for all times! What do you say, DB? You have my e-mail. Bkatcher (talk)
        • Attempting to take a content discussion off-wiki is a bad move and a strong sign that you are attempting to subvert the consensus process by excluding the wider community. Users have been banned for long periods of time for doing exactly what you have done. MarshallKe (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Then I shan't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkatcher (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, Bkatcher's sarcastic non apology is probably more enlightening as to their attitude than any of these diffs here. What's even the point of challenging DB to be an archenemy of yours? DB obviously just wants to edit but Bkatcher wants to start fights with Dronebogus and provoke them. I'll also note that this isn't Bkatcher's "first Admin notice", so to speak, given they were just here a month ago and was already warned about insulting Dronebogus. [148] Convenient that they left that out. I agree with the philandering husband metaphor and would like to see a metaphorical "restraining order" in response, i.e. a 1-way interaction ban. At this point this is the second instance of harassment and Bkatcher has shown no remorse whatsoever. If we let Bkatcher off with no action here they're not going to listen to what we have to say. They're just going to continue to harass DB and try to needle them with bullshit like this. 1-way IBAN and a temporary block for JUST the harassing behaviour because we need to nip this in the bud before it gets worse. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, c'mon, you're scaring me here. I'll leave DB alone forever, but I honestly am giving a workshop promoting Wikipedia in the near future at the Missouri Association of School Librarians conference. Please. I'm really upset here. Wikipedia has been a big part of my life for nearly two decades and I'm sorry I let my emotions get the better of me. I'll leave DB alone, but please don't ban me. I need this. Bkatcher (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe flippancy wasn't the ideal approach to take to the OP's complaint here. I'd suggest that you operate on Wikipedia as if you have an interaction ban with Dronebogus. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Consider it done. Bkatcher (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Why do I not believe you? Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I guess I haven't given you reason. But I'm scared, DB. Wikipedia is a major part of my life, and I really can't lose it now. Please don't take it from me. You win. Bkatcher (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I think RandomCanadian once said “begging for mercy isn’t a good argument”, but fine. If I catch you misbehaving again you WILL be coming back here immediately and without warning. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a one way interaction ban is the way to go against Bkatcher interacting with Dronebogus. Given this response I am going to take that as an agreement to such a ban. Please read WP:IBAN and follow it.

You are worried about losing Wikipedia fine, follow this voluntary interaction ban and you should not have any more trouble from this particular issue. Violate it and you are likely to be blocked. Dronebogus while this is a one way interaction ban you should probably avoid talking to or about this user short of addressing behavioral issues.

I suggest that this thread be closed with the voluntary one way interaction ban as the result. I will be doing so later if nobody objects, or if nobody else does it before me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• • I’d like to make two other requests: 1., that Bkatcher delete all his disruptive/offensive canvassing/hounding posts (or if he doesn’t I be given clearance to do so), and 2., that someone with privilege to do so expunge his email from public records. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

    Special:EmailUser already exists. If Bkatcher wants to put their email up publicly that's their choice, the problem is the purposes they're putting their email up for. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

    It is precisely because they have put up their email address for the purposes of subverting consensus that their email should be suppressed. It's not to protect the editor, it's to protect Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Some LTA

Some LTA is going around and creating blatantly inappropriate usernames that are borderline offensive, with the clear intent to evade edit filters designed to stop such abuse. See here and here. Note the use of the extra "l" in the first word, which effectively bypasses edit filters. This is clearly some LTA (both of these accounts are without a doubt the same person) but I have no idea which one it is. Admin eyes requested for further account creations. Also,  Checkuser needed to figure out who this is. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any other user names with the term "plenis" in them that need blocking? Does this need an edit filter setting up for? Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandry Sm being difficult about accepting his sources are not RS

I considered EWN for this, but it's become a conduct issue. User:Sandry Sm has been adding increasingly poor quality sources at Run for Cover in support of a release date, none of which satisfy WP:RS. These range from Last.fm to Rateyourmusic, and some absolute junk website which specialises in celebrity gossip rather than music. I'm certain that the latter have simply lifted the dates previously removed as unsourced from WP.

Via edit summaries and user talk page discussion I have tried to make him aware of this, but he's having none of it. Instead, he resorts to ranting at me on his talk page. Remarks like "You animal!" and "It seems to me that you're doing this either for personal taste or for a fetish" just ain't gonna fly with me. I've been editing music-related articles since 2008 and know full well what WP's guidelines are by now—hey, we all have to learn sometime.

Also, deflections such as "If you're not satisfied, go find your Kerrang or Rolling Stone source. [...] If you think you can do better, then do it", upon my request that he find some reliable magazine publications, says to me that he has no concept of WP:BURDEN. Therefore, instead of ensuring that his sources comply with WP:RS or omit them altogether, he flies off the handle and expects others to do the work for him.

Finally, a quick glance at his previous talk page interactions regarding the same complaints about poor quality sources would suggest WP:CIR issues. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative hounding and tendentious editing

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

User:Generalrelative is hounding me across numerous articles[149][150][151][152] with tendentious edit summaries and personal attacks (accusing me of "POV push[ing]" [153] and "inaccurately throw[ing] around the 'inaccurate edit summary' accusation"[154], and calling my additions "obviously unencylopedic"[155]). I asked them to please stop harassing me[156], but they have continued to do so.

This is not the first time this user has harassed me (they have previously admitted to "poking" me[157]). Nor is this is not the first time they've followed me around Wikipedia[158], although previously they did not do so in combination with personal attacks, so this new escalation is particularly distressing. Stonkaments (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Rarely have I seen such an obvious candidate for a war boomerang. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

+1, I second Roxy's comment. The four examples of "hounding and tendentious" edits by Generalrelative look like good edits to me. Stonkaments seems to have a habit of deleting well-sourced material or shortening and rewording it so that it no longer accurately represents the source, with an edit summary claiming it was "undue" -- and always in a way so as to skew the article politically to the right. It's Stonkaments, not Generalrelative, who's pushing a POV rather than accurately citing sources. NightHeron (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion; I take issue with the tendentious, accusatory edit summaries and personal attacks, not the merit of the edits themselves. I don't believe there's an exemption to WP:CIVILITY for otherwise good edits. WP:HOUND says: Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter... Stonkaments (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur that the four examples look like good edits. In particular, the second one really was necessary to fix a misrepresentation of the cited source. The bit about "poking" reads in context like "antagonizing" or "rubbing the wrong way", i.e., not a confession of malice but an acknowledgment that sometimes particular people have a hard time getting along. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the underlined addendum: I read the edit summaries when I evaluated the edits. They seem pretty tame. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Stonkaments: you can’t add to your post after people have replied to it as you’ve done here. If nothing else it makes it difficult for others to follow the conversation. I suggest reverting and posting your latest comment separately after NightHeron’s comment. Btw, there is no confusion. As others have stated your edits are problematic. WP:HOUND doesn’t apply if you need to be followed - which is the case. Generalrelative is protecting the Encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that. I thought I was properly following WP:TALK#REVISE, which indicates that it's appropriate to insert text with <ins>...</ins> after people have replied. Stonkaments (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  fyi, that’s for when you just want to exceptionally make an editorial adjustment e.g. typo, withdrawing a comment after you’ve changed your mind etc. Not for continuing the conversation. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is stronger because of editors' ability to notice that a problematic edit was substantively repeated over a range of articles and then revert those changes. I would advocate for making it clearer in WP:HOUND that this is an exception. Obviously personal attacks shouldn't accompany those constructive reversions. The claimed personal attacks here don't count. I doubt you'll find an experienced editor that hasn't accused anyone of inaccurate edit summaries or POV-pushing; Stonkaments has done both, and so have I. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As WP:HOUND currently says, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. It seems like that that applies here, or at the very least, Generalrelative was within the bounds of reason to believe so. Moreover, The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason (emphasis added). Again, it wasn't out of line for Generalrelative to believe that an overridingly constructive reason existed, and I don't see how any of their edits mentioned here could constitute disruption to the project generally. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I didn't mean to imply the GR's actions here weren't justified by existing policy. Hounding complaints here frequently begin with mass edits followed by mass reversions, and I think it's a particularly clear cut case of good-faith contributions-based work that deserves a mention to avoid a common complaint. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:CompactSpacez

CompactSpacez has a light editing history, but the history is strewn with warnings for uncivil behavior. One of them resulted a week-long block. Most recently, he voted in an article discussion for deletion in which he made a baseless and insulting statement about the nationality and motivations of editors calling for the deletion of an article: [159]. I propose that the editor be blocked for a longer period. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. And the history has stuff like this, so NOTHERE is not totally inappropriate, given the recent edits. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked them indefinitely as not here to build the encyclopedia. While looking at the basis of the various warnings on their talk page, it became clear that this editor has repeatedly engaged in very malevolent behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs)

the user सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs) is known for disruptive edits. Almost every edits were reverted and sufficient warnings and blocks are in talk page.

• Yeah. You didn't sign this, you didn't notify them, you didn't discuss the matter, so no, you can't ask us to get involved with this. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)