Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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)

    This is not at all a solution. One just got to respect the many different ways people follow to protect themselves. In compact metropolitans it's easy to have access to free internet connections, from coffee shops to shopping centres, and from train stations to buses. If people create their accounts it would be much easier to track down all their edits. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    Do you mean IPs editing from Hong Kong or China with this edit summary - [1]? Would you please clarify? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 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)

      Valereee that's just because people are coming from very different places and have very different life experiences towards censorship and privacy protection. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

      I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

      • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

        With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

        • Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Tamzin, quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

          @Valereee: Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an EAL thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious.

          • 210.6.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): The main one in Matthew's complaint, and in my opinion outright trolling, including in this thread. Could be given a few weeks off with limited (maybe no) collateral.
          • 219.76.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Appears to be involved in this based on this edit, but (assuming that it's not the same person as 210.6) I don't think has done anything blockable (but maybe worth warning).
          • 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)): Part of the trolling, and the overlap with 219.76 at Enping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) makes me think still at least partly operated by the same person, while these edits suggest that the football edits on the same range may be coming from that person as well... But maybe better to wait and see.

          I see you've already protected Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. I could also see a case for semi'ing

          • Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
          • Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

          Anyways, hope this is helpful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

          N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

          Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

          My observation is that what's happening around Talk:Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 has had little connection with Talk:List of lighthouses in China, except that Matthew hk took part in both of them. It may not be reasonable to treat them as the same case. On the other hand don't think semi'ing any talk pages would be a helpful solution to the actual problem. It'd be just a way to pretend the problem don't exist (just because there'd be no way for it to be known). 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

          Meanwhile would CU re Matthew hk be the way forward to look into whether those are people who Matthew hk recruited (and denied), Matthew hk's socks or meatpuppets, unrelated at all, or some people "blackmudding" him? 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

          Hello Tamzin would you please help take a look at this edit request? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

          Two cents from just another passer-by: You gotta look into their global contributions, not just en-wiki. The account Matthew hk for example is actually more active elsewhere (not to mention his IPs, and sock and meatpuppet handles). 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 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)

  That's too bad. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What are you doing? You requested for our help , but as soon as you were spotted , you want to get me banned? It was not just me who came to your assistance on your request. One other forum friend has done so too. Are you just trying to get us all blocked? Are you actually siding with the LIHKG and TeleGram people? 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    210.6.10.90 before you go can you please tell us more about what had happened between Matthew hk and you? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• An interesting yet important point to note is that while Matthew hk, Atsme and Valereee believe that they have been doing the right thing the participants at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings think quite the contrary. The same is true at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that the RfC discussion at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings which Matthew hk started has been concluded not in his favour. With precedence cases like Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations and now this one on border crossings I do hope that these people who act like in a way that they were behind the great firewall would back down and observe how the rest of the world function, and that there should be no need to bring anything like this again to WP:AN/I. 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Matthew hk has so far never demonstrated how the non-English off-site canvassing he mentioned and referred to as "pro-Hong Kong" or "deep yellow" is related to the three talk pages identified. It is not even known if that was targeted at the English version of Wikipedia, or if there had ever been any canvassing effort in general which is relevant to this version of Wikipedia. Chinese involvement (or in words of their statement in September, "infiltration") in the Wikipedia project, in comparison, had been something investigated and publicly acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation[2] and reported in the press.[3] [4][5][6] In that statement Maggie Dennis of the foundation had called what had happened "security risks" and concluded there were "potential persecutions"; the foundation had noted the problem as early as mid-2020.[7] 219.76.18.201 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  None of that is directly relevant to this discussion. What exactly are you asking to be done here, 219? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

  @HandThatFeeds: The ip just show up to request a block too as self confession as one of the not constructive underground / offwiki mob. Matthew hk (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks 219.76.18.201. I didn't know Maggie Dennis' recent statement nor the one from the Wikipedia Foundation a year ago. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Such threats are a genuine matter of concern that Tamzin, Valereee, Atsme and other administrators here cannot simply disregard. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Matthew hk can you please translate the screenshot you provided? Or at least copy and paste the text here so that it can be submitted to Bing or Google Translator? I just found it funny for anyone to suppose others can read in whatever languages. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The Lihkg.com one appears to be just another message to encourage people to contribute in a certain topic/area. If you found anything problematic please elaborate and be specific. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    The thread literally teach people how to use a mobilization bot, which this ANI thread and all the rest of the IP SPAs show there must be one place that can summon all of you as off wiki canvassing. You guys just boomerang yourself so hard. And if you able to point out which ip or account are my sock, please open a SPI, but if you are trolling again (just like the User:mathew_hk in the past), beware of a harder block. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

    Please be specific. Quote the post number and the specific sentence. Translate it. Spell out in what way that's relevant to the Wikipedia articles in question on this version of Wikipedia. Prove that that's relevant and that indeed happened. 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  • To 118.140.125.85, nice try on another black mudding. You just show the ips in this threads, almost all of them are SPA/ip hopper if counting in the same ip range, that without any edit in en-wiki except directly involve in the issues and articles in this ANI thread. Which clearly you just boomeranged all of your ip mob for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • What Matthew hk did above is precisely what's described in this BBC story.[8] (Jimbo weighed in in BBC Click's follow-up story.[9]) 219.76.18.202 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

      Are you paranoid that every single admins or editor that report your cult is from China? Then you should have that ban for not constructive off site cult parallel universe or just mentally not stable? Matthew hk (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      I repeat my stance. Your ip cult is ip hopping to vote stacking or try to vote move or try to populate a "discussion" thread with yourself and may be one or two more people. That is not due to admin are from China, if you got blocked , it is your behaviour is not acceptable. Also trolling for accuse me off site canvassing is another reason for a block. I dig out prove you guys organize offsite wiki activity and you guys have no prove on me, which i always a lone wolf in en-wiki (Find me in POE wiki discord BTW for my other wiki edit in poewiki.net). Matthew hk (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      "...From China": No. Certainly not. It's always reasonable to believe everyone is they themself and acting on their very own behalf - unless and if and only if such people are working for somebody else when they edit. It was you who labelled people for being "(deep) yellow" and associate whoever editing without registered accounts to the Lihkg.com and Telegram posts you mentioned - with no evidence or proof whatsoever. You simply assert. (On a side note: Is it a "blockable" act for suggesting any editor is "mentally not stable?") 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion that Tamzin called 210.6.10.X as troll is because Tamzin is Chinese. Or Atsme ask you (the ips) registered an account because he/she (whatever non-binary) is a Chinese. You guy delusional really bad, for example, 210.6.10.X (or 219.76.18.X) has only 256 ips so that registered an account is a right choice, ip hopping and then vote stacking is not and blockable as illegitimate use of socking. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

      A definite no. But even if that were indeed the case, being Chinese isn't something necessary. Take a look at this AFP story.[10] Your way of deduction doesn't sound logical or reasonable to me. 219.76.18.79 (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

    Boomerang? 118.140.125.79 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Tamzin: Please consider to add 219.76.18.X to the block list suggestion due to this edit that claim i am off site canvassing (which does not exist) Special:Diff/1052291298. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew hk you don't seem to be familiar with Hong Kong although you claimed yourself to be originated from there. The IP range which I have been editing from belongs to the largest ISP in the territory. It's a service open for use by subscription at many restaurants, coffee shops, railway stations, buses, telephone booths, some retail shops, and so on. The diff you quoted was apparently done by someone else in a similar range. There are probably many other edits in the range and neighbouring ranges across global wikis. As for off-site canvassing which you alleged (yet all appear to be your staunch supporters, self-motivated or otherwise) from what I know they are across at least three ranges of different ISPs. Maybe more. Are you suggesting that all these ISPs should be blocked? 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, @Matthew hk:, back down. You're crossing some personal attack lines here. I get that you're frustrated, but Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion is over the line.

That said, the IP hoppers do appear to be stirring the pot here, and not legitimately attempting to improve the Wiki. A temporary block on some of these IP groups may be in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reference to NPA. Meanwhile I myself don't actually hop. It's the network which asssigns random IPs to me (and many many others). As for "stirring the pot", one gotta understand what's actually happening in this territory and the extent that has spilled over all across Wikipedia and other wikis. What Matthew and some of the pushers (say, S 0524, Walter Grassroot) have been doing may or may not be coordinated but that undisputably serves the same outcome (as mentioned above). That's the background or backdrop against which the events happened. Editors from the territory are probably tired of defending fact and truth against these people, and blocks simply aren't the solution and would work quite the opposite way. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @HandThatFeeds: Clearly Tamzin suggested a larger ip block range and then i suggested a smaller one and then there is no block actually issued. Ips from 219.76.18.X still spamming this thread. If you are an admin. Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force.

I don't think HandThatFeeds had ever suggested that "a block [is] already in force" in his or her comment at 16:17, 5 November 2021. 219.76.18.203 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice. The ips still have zero understanding what going on and then blame the articles are protected (or potentially, blaming anyone that block them from editing) because wikipedia is corrupted and admin are Chinese spy, or anyone not agree them are enemy and anyone agree them are friend. They (most of them) still have zero idea on what is WP:V or WP:RS and still thinking not using talk page and then just spam for unprotection on List of lighthouses in Macau (just read above on begging someone to read their demand in this thread as off topic) and don't even read the talk page of Talk:List of lighthouses in China that what is the potential way to get what they want on splitting List of lighthouses in Hong Kong as child article. Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that they truly believe trolling me by spamming joke that I am the one canvassing that a low-key /stupid way to think it would made me / the "stumbling block" of rock to get blocked. This is no difference than the Mainland China wiki cult that doxing other Mainlander and force them to join. They just really need to learn to use talk page and solve the matter in civil way. (Still WP:WPHK is a deserted place and no one ever open a meaningful real discussion thread for a long time). It is deranged so bad that a few days before posting trolling comment in talk pages as 219.76.18.X and 210.6.10.X and then totally act like they are angel and innocent in here the ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about my request at 12:21, 3 November 2021, that's an edit request, a request to edit.. hm.. a talk page. Are you suggesting me to go to a talk page of a talk page? Meanwhile apparently it wasn't me who first referred to that talk page. It probably wasn't me who first gone off-topic if that indeed were off-topic. Medical advice, huh? 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It really means you did not understand you, as an ip hopper, (or your cult that deals collateral damage) is the reason that the page including the talk page to edit protected. Please create an account (what i mean is one person, one account, no sharing, no multiple accounts per person. Also may need a lot of explanation if your household use the same ISP and both have accounts in wiki if alerted the Checkuser admins in SPI) and reach "extended confirmed user" status. You not only did not understand what you are doing and instead forum shopping in ANI for something that is in WP:RFP. Matthew hk (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

On "medical advice" and "delusional": HandThatFeeds had asked Matthew to back down but he carried on. Would any admin evaluate and see what action(s) ought to be taken? 219.76.18.75 (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, 210.6.10.64/26 range was finally blocked for edit by 210.6.10.87 (Special:Diff/1054168343), which seem somewhat not related to this ANI thread. Matthew hk (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, are there any admin here? Ping @Tamzin: and @OhNoitsJamie: who accept the protect request. Yet another Hong Kong ip 203.145.95.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (now mobile phone ip that literally anyone easily ip hopping) still claim i am logout editing AND vandalism. Now the ip claim 210.6.10.X (which vandalized Shenzhen Bay Port) is my meatpuppet which i have no relation to the ip and Tamzin already said 210.6.10.X is a troll. Could any admin review this scheme that keep on using HK ip to organise vandalism and then name me as the mastermind as some kind of low quality black mudding. (Also, it definitely not me and I don't need to self request to reveal my ip to Checkuser i am in Australia, right?) Matthew hk (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Evidence that 203.145.95.X range is yet another range that try to troll.

• 203.145.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Special:Diff/1052306852 As you suggested elsewhere : Yet another ip claiming i am offsite canvassing or elsewhere (talk page) in wikipedia?
• 203.145.95.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Special:Diff/1054238016 This IP range has appeared to be shared by meatpuppets of Matthew hk Yet another ip claiming i has ip sock /meatsock but in fact it is all their socks.

The ip is in fact also involved in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that the ip is not agree on the rfc

• 203.145.95.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 203.145.95.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:203.145.95.177 has been given a warning for making baseless accusations. I'm not interesting in diving deeply into this drama, but I blocked 210.6.10.64/26 for disruption at Country. As far as the other range, the user(s) is/are using talk pages for discussing changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Not really for other ip range that use talk page rightfully. At least for 219.76.0.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and use some time range , say, this thread is opened on 21 October 2021, let use +-7 days as example.

The ip edit on Talk:List of lighthouses in China was still part of the issue of the last ANI and the ip other edit in Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau , has causing the talk page to be protected again as that talk page was also involved in the last ANI.

The range another edit in Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (Special:Diff/1052291298) was trolling that made up something not exist.

May be you can count Talk:Han Chinese#Edit protected as legit use of talk page. So that, more unconstructive edits than constructive edits in talk page for 219.76.0.0/19 in the time raneg 21 October 2021 +-7 days ? Matthew hk (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not about to read this overly long thread, and it's not clear to me what exactly the disruption is. If there is ongoing disruption, I'd suggest creating a new thread and being specific (with diffs) as to what exactly it is, and leave out words like "cult" etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To both Matthew and those on the other side, please stop pinging me to ask me to do things. (Reply pings are fine.) I'm not an admin. The only thing I can help you with is finding sockpuppets, and I've already made clear that I don't think there's anything here SPI can help with. Other than my initial comments explaining my decision at SPI, my comments here have just been as a regular member of the peanut gallery.

@Ohnoitsjamie: FWIW, my takeaway, having looked through this a fair bit for SPI, is that the way forward is liberal semi-protections and maybe a few weeks' block of 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for POV-pushing and harassment [11] [12] [13] [14]. But I agree that the case for the latter would be much better made in a new section. (The cases for the former can of course just be made at RFPP.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pushers (and meatpuppets, if in case there is any concrete evidence) like 210.6.10.0/24 should certainly be blocked for what they did but we got to consider the collateral damages too if it's a broad range block. There aren't too many ISPs in this territory and range blocks often bring extensive damages. Range blocks should therefore be as short and as narrow as possible, and if they are already in place there's probably little need to protect the articles too (in this case Country and Shenzhen Bay Port). But then in any case blocks and page protection won't help solve the actual problem we've got on hand. The much much more important thing is that we need consensus, such as those I mentioned above, i.e. Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations, and get them enforced. What has been achieved at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings has so far been helpful too, although it wasn't properly kick-started in the very beginning. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A /24 is a quite small rangeblock, at least in terms of number of addresses affected. In some cases an ISP might have an unusually large number of people on a small range, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Every edit since New Year's Day appears to be by the same person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to Ohnoitsjames's message. I won't repeat here. 203.145.95.177 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, to be concise. Here is the new thread for one ip range #203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly advocate blocking these IP addresses where they crop up as this person (persons?) has been messing up Hong Kong pages for a long time now by constantly adding poorly sourced trivia, WP:OR, apparent hoaxes, extremely obscure place names, etc. Citobun (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would have a look but this thread is far too long and meandering. If someone wants to post a diff or contributions link with a brief summary of an actual problem shown by the link, please do so and ping me. Let's just start with one significant problem and not something like the disagreement at South Island line (West) which should be solved with a discussion and RfC if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Babydoll9799

This editor Babydoll9799 (talk · contribs) is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Billy Balmer as an example. They are removing Category:People from District, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both Category:Profession from City, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category.

Furthermore, edits like this violate WP:SUBCAT, and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories!

A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ".

The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like this (removing category) followed by this (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both Category:Politicians from Liverpool and Category:People from Aintree, why can't Billy Balmer be in both Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby? You have contradicted yourself there.

If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything?

You did refuse to discuss, you ignored WP:BRD, you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Also no, a person cannot be in both Category:People from Liverpool and Category:Footballers from Liverpool per WP:SUBCAT. People get categorised into district and profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point, as expressed here, seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the Category:People from District series. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the Category:People from West Derby category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" and "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. Levivich 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include this and this and this. Therefore, in the absence of a Category:Footballers from West Derby (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing Category:People from West Derby has been disruptive, has it not? GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this is just classic WP:RGW editing ignoring WP:V (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position I know the truth, sources be damned! If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Wikipedia, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. Levivich 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). GiantSnowman 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No need, helpfully @Orangemike: has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. GiantSnowman 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is known for a fact to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. jp×g 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman.

In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England.

I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you do not get it. Here on Wikipedia we do categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. Competency is required and you do not seem to have any. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799, please take some time and review our verifiability policy and category guidelines. While you're at it, you should also read up on BOLD, revert, discuss and how to use Talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as minding my own business when you're being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. GiantSnowman 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at WP:CFD). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the Billy Balmer article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see this and this and this as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? GiantSnowman 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see this and this and this. They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. GiantSnowman 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• My view on this is that if Babydoll continues to make these changes going forward, they ought to be blocked. The canvassing linked above is definitely poor form, but also quite obviously ineffective so it doesn't really concern me. What does concern me is these 350 edits over the past year (although about 300 of them are from the past three days) that all seem to either remove categories, or otherwise change geographical details (e.g. in infoboxes), and many are still the current revision. What are we doing about those: leaving them? Reverting them? Anyone want to go through them all and check? (I don't, and also I don't have the knowledge of UK geography to know if they're good or bad.) Personally I'd support mass reversion because about 300 of them are from the past three days. Levivich 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Given the clear issues raised here and shared by the community, I suggest a mass revert. GiantSnowman 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  +1 on the mass revert. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich and Trey Maturin: is one of you able/willing to mass revert? GiantSnowman 11:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I no longer have the script and long ago asked for the perm to be removed. Levivich 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I started doing a mass revert, but am now reverting some of my own edits in cases where the change by Babydoll9799 was fine. – Fayenatic London 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  thank you @Fayenatic london: - if you are unsure if the Babydoll edit was 'good' please let me know. GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, that was more fiddly than I expected, but is now done. The repopulated categories are now in Category:People from Liverpool by locality. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the disruption has continued. I pointed Babydoll9799 to WP:CANVASS at my Talk page (in response to their message) and reverted several of their inappropriate notifications. I thought that was it, but then I saw that they canvassed again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside, and left a followup message specifically mentioning GiantSnowman. I left a more formal warning for canvassing and then reverted their canvassing at a user Talk page and at WikiProject Merseyside. They've now left me another message, displaying a significant amount of IDHT), reinstated their message at WikiProject Merseyside, and canvassed again at Category talk:People from Liverpool. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799

Because of the disruption mentioned above, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Babydoll9799 from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed, until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies and guidelines.

• Support as proposer. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How can you say this when I was correcting articles? Is Wikipedia not available for people who have only a passing interest in certain pages and wish to correct articles and information? Because another user has chose to disagree I am hung drawn and quartered? I spent time correcting articles and repeatedly explained why but I have been cast as a trouble causer, edit warrer being called disruptive, and also "canvassing" when I am asking for help. Seems you're all interested in calling out people rather than focusing on the articles themselves. Surely correct information is desired? When a person is from a city their birthplace it the city and not a district within; this is the entire basis of my arguement. However I am not even allowed to speak because people like the above user are whipping my ass. Amongst the other users Woodroar and GiantSnowman have refused to listen to my point of view and instead dismissed it. Instead making accusations.

I don't accept this. I edit in good faith if I make mistakes I will accept that. However I will not back down if I know that I am right. (You will have already castigated me about this but yes I know my city do you?). I can say what edi is right and why but all I have is blanket faceless jobsworths telling me that I am in the wrong.

I have stated several times that people from Liverpool should be categorised as the city not the district, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England and that the numerous pages I have edited all (but a handful) have contained incorrect information about their birthplace and the category of where they are from. But those edits have all been reverted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:CANVASS and agreeing to heed their advice going forward. Levivich 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would add three things and then I will break:

This is about the [Category:People from Liverpool by locality] page which were set up by user Rathfelder in March 2020. Those pages seemed error strewn and I had attempted to restore them to [Category:People from Liverpool]. After all, the city (here Liverpool) is the primary place where the person is from, not the district within. As per [Category:People by district in England] This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) .

1 When making these changes there were a number of errors in the birthplace of various people. The birthplace is not an inner district it is the city of Liverpool. 2 When making these changes I found a handful of the pages were not in the correct category anyway. Either from the wrong district or not even from Liverpool. 3 When making these changes I tried to establish when those known people had a specific occupation I recategorised them from [Category:People from Liverpool] to occupation such as [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. A person can be both categories but most pages are by occupation when it is a more specific occupation.

The above edits were all correct. However some consternation arose because some of the edits were unsual. Taking in to account what (districts) were within Liverpool and also when they were absorbed in to Liverpool (mostly in the 1800's). It is a question of both correcting the birthplace of someone and identifying where they are from. I gave an example Ibou Touray the page said he was born in Toxteth and the category was [Category:People from Toxteth] yet Toxteth is part of Liverpool and has been for some time. Which means this person's birthplace is Liverpool, and should be categorised as [Category:People from Liverpool]. Equally [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. Finally as the page currently states "Born in Toxteth,[3] Liverpool, " ... However since GiantSnowman objected to this incorrectly I might add, and chose to air his grivences here, I am portrayed in a very negative light by both GiantSnowman, and others including Woodroar. Because I am not playing the game they want.

Above I provide reasons why I have edited. I don't think I should have had to jusitfy this but because of being called amongst other things "disruptive" because I have tried to stand my ground, I have had to do this. Perhaps I do need to understand Wiki more but I am not a professional editor, and that does not justify being hounded like this. I have not had any one wanting to discuss this with me; to ask just complete disregard. I assume you have read the above and will consider the reasoning for my edits. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Further points (regarding WP:DROPTHESTICK ) Quote from an earlier comment " Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. ".

Surely instead of telling me off for portraying "I'm from here, I know best" point of view, that you verify that I am wrong? Surely the article needs to be right? Right? I refer to my earlier examples of both the Categories and the person pages that I had edited/correct. I stand by that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support this idea, whilst also knowing that it's not going to gain traction. The problem here is that Babydoll is not wrong, per se, but also not right. They do have a point - to the outside observer (which is the majority of our readership and the majority of our editors) it does look weird. How can someone be both from West Derby and from Liverpool? But that's how much of European society is organised, with our towns and cities growing organically over 1000+ years, swallowing up neighbouring towns and villages. It's hard for most readers to see that someone can - happily - enthusiastically - fully sourced - be both from Acklam and Middlesbrough, or, conversely, from Rainhill but not from Liverpool.

Nevertheless, the main issue here is that Babydoll clearly doesn't grasp how we work here. We work on the basis of consensus. We work on the basis of verifiability not The Truth. They have their own opinion on what the articles should say, and the people who disagree are wrong, as are the sources they quote. We're being ignorant about something that is obvious to them. It must be intensely frustrating and I really do understand. It sucks. But it's how things are done here, and until they can demonstrate that they understand, and stop posting huge screeds explaining how everybody else volunteering here is a fool for not grasping their point, they need to stay away from the articles in question. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all category-related edits, broadly construed, with the exception of talk page posts. It is clear that Babydoll, for whatever reason, cannot see or understand the relevant policies and lacks competence in this area. If a topic ban does not work, then extend to indef block. (NB I've only just seen this discussion on my watchlist; would have appreciated a ping!) GiantSnowman 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, @GiantSnowman! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar: not an issue! GiantSnowman 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject. I have asked several times for people to challenge me on this matter and you have not. Making it about Wiki rules and regs is all very well but I made edits only to correct certain information. I make a few points very clear.

1)This is not about me saying I am right and those that disagree are wrong. I am providing factual elements to the arguement. Where some places (obviously this is in the pages I have edited) the city of the person's birth (IE Liverpool) overrides the district where they are from (IE West Derby). They can be from both, however. I have given examples of this. 2) The category that I was removing was for pages created in March 2020 (People from Liverpool by locality) but again the city (Liverpool) overrides the district. As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England it clearly states we are talking about city's and boroughs. This is clear. All the districts (like West Derby) would be classed as Liverpool. For historical purposes West Derby in the 1800's may have been a township in its own right but in the 20th and 21st century this is part of Liverpool; as too other districts mentioned. 3) Some of the pages edited were incorrect as some of those people were not from the Liverpool district mentioned or from the wrong district. This means just because I have made numerous edits do not mean I have been disruptive or lack compentency. It is something I have done for over a decade. In fact I have expanded the Liverpool pages massively over the years. Many pages owe their existence to myself. As I have asked in a polite way, are you from Liverpool and why are you taking such interest in articles about Liverpool if you are not from Liverpool? Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Re "These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted". First and formost, please state what my disruptive behaviour is, and how I am continuing it? Is the fact I am requesting for some discussion re my good intentions (as in my last post) being seen as disruptive behaviour? Am I not allowed to challenge you guys or are you just happy to weed out certain individuals who don't spend all day reading WP rules and regulations? I am sorry I am only editing in a small way. My lengthy responses make it clear what I am debating here. Have all my edits been checked to see that every single one of them was wrong? Because I can assure you that 99 percent of the edits were done in good faith and some I have to question if I should leave them as they are but sorry if I am saying 99 percent of my edits were correct then how can I be disruptive? Because I disagree with you guys? Funny you don't question whether you are wrong just that I am wrongBabydoll9799 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. We're moving from WP:TRUTH past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT into WP:CIR territory. That's unfortunate, but all the words above indicate that Babydoll just doesn't get how an encyclopedia like ours works. Ho hum. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CIR/WP:IDHT. Levivich 20:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - WP:CIR, and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and [[People from district]] categories, if the former category "tops out" at the city, with no [[Profession from district]] subcategory. To use a similar American example I just edited, John Mitchell (composer) is correctly in both Category:Musicians from Los Angeles and Category:People from Hollywood, Los Angeles. DoubleCross (‡) 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for a topic ban in my view - please can an uninvolved admin review and close? GiantSnowman 19:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If I don't get what the problem is then enlighten me? No one has addressed my points just simply been roughshod about why I don't fall in line with your thinking. This is blatently being ganged on. I can see that this will fall on deaf ears. So be it.

As for the response from Double Cross "and they are just not getting what the problem is. Someone can be listed in both [[Profession from city]] and <nowiki>People from district". This is madness. This is one of my arguements and you're making it appear that I do not understand!!!!! Utter madness. Of course a person can be both a profession and from a district. I never disputed this, it is the wrong point. My point is the "district" in this instance is replaced by the "city". Couldn't be more simpler. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem. On Wikipedia we do not replace more precise categorisation (district) with wider categorisation (city), which is what you have been doing. You have been informed about WP:SUBCAT and this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors and yet you still don't get it. GiantSnowman 21:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: you say "You cannot rule by consensus but be incorrect with the subject". But we can, and we do. You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now.

Indeed, what's happening now is that we're collectively trying to keep you as a valued editor here, by simply excluding you from an area where you won't - can't - accept consensus. The alternative is that we show you the door entirely, and nobody here wants that. But it's coming if you won't drop this damn'd stick.

I know this is hard. I've been there. I tried, as a single editor, to change the abhorrent, inhuman and incorrect phrase "committed suicide" to phrases recommended by mental health agencies worldwide - things like "died by suicide" or "took their own life".

The consensus was against me. My fellow editors didn't agree. My edits on the subject were rolled back en masse. And do you know what I did? I walked away and edited in other places, on other subjects. I know I'm right on this, and I know that all the others are completely wrong. But I didn't win the argument, so I walked away. It sucks. But it's what you need to promise to do now, or things are going to get shitty for you and I'd be very sorry if that happened, truly I would. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional comments and I will read WP:SUBCAT as pointed out by GiantSnowman. Even with a brief check on WP:SUBCAT This is NOT my arguement.

Trey Maturin states "You need to accept that the majority of your fellow editors do not agree with you on this, and therefore you lose. I know they're wrong, as you see it, but... that's how an encyclopaedia like ours, based on collegiate and consensus editing by a community, works. You are not going to be able to change that, certainly not on your own and certainly not by the methods you're trying now."

I try to understand what other users are telling me. I have tried to provide a reasonable "arguement" but I think we're at loggerheads.

If it is me that is not understanding what you're all trying to say, then fine. I can learn. I have not been editing in the interim and I am wanting to remain free to edit in the future.

Whilst I may have plenty to learn and understand and I may have "lost" this arguement; I am sorry I have to challenge because I think we're at cross-purposes, I still have a questions unanswered. This is not about me challenging the consensus, it's about trying to put my point of view across so that you can understand why I am upset by this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, we get why you're upset. But, and I'm being completely frank here, your arguments about how to categorize people based on your own personal knowledge don't count on Wikipedia. And, for that matter, neither do ours. We're here to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say about people and then we categorize based on what the sources say, period, full stop, end of sentence. If reliable sources say that your next-door neighbor lives in an adjacent borough or city, that's what we're going to write. It may seem wrong to you, but real life is messy and where we come from isn't always so clear. A border town near me has changed names and jurisdictions multiple times in recent memory and the people there have strong opinions on where they're from. That can change from person to person and it doesn't always line up with any legal definition, current or historical. As I said, real life is messy, which is why Wikipedia is based on verification and not "truth".

I hope this makes sense. And, for the love of all that's holy, please please please read WP:INDENT start formatting your messages properly. I sympathize with screen-reader users who will have no clue what this is about because your replies are all over the place. Woodroar (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

DinosaursLoveExistence

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

Hi Folks!!. I would like, if possible, that the articles created by User:DinosaursLoveExistence could go through Afc in a similar manner to FloridaArmy's. These article of which there is reams of them have barely any references, often in format that you can't tell what they are, and often only one or two. They are lowest type of junk. I've reviewed several of them in the last hour, some were redirected, other sent to draft, as part of the NPP review process. This is the 2nd editor I see in the last couple of months, and I was planning to post the editor but they have started adding much better references. This article Mike Short is an example. This is a BLP. It has three links, nor refs, the 1st is a companies house profile page, the 2nd is another profile, the 3rd is the front page of some website. I've sure User:DinosaursLoveExistence is more than capable of adding properly formatted reference of the correct type, as they have been here since 2005. Quality must be better than quantity in every instance. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That article clearly needs help from project ARS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Well, if you're interested, you can sign up on their project page; I'm sure they would appreciate the help! jp×g 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking through their ten most-recent page creations (out of 1,000+ total), I agree. Most don't seem to meet notability guidelines and the referencing seems questionable. Levivich 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if a conversation with this editor could be productive? Their talk page is almost entirely template messages, which doesn't help them understand what they did wrong with the articles in question. While many of their articles are low quality, particularly when it comes to sourcing, I don't think they're a lost cause. Mlb96 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that limiting them to AfC might be a good idea in the meantime, though. Mlb96 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

FloridaArmy's creations go to AfC because they often do demonstrate notability, albeit not always on the first attempt, and generally relying on fairly obscure conditions of notability. In contrast, the complaint here is that DinosaursLoveExistence's creations are never or barely ever showing notability. We should first be talking to DinosaursLoveExistence to tell them very clearly that standards are much higher than they were in 2005, and they need to spend much more time on much fewer creations.

I would guess that they simply pick a topic and go for it in writing what they can—this won't work. You need to have a research phase before typing a single word in the edit box where you find all the sources you can and very carefully read the relevant notability policies, and assessments of source reliability (e.g. WP:RSP, or searching for mentions of the source in discussion pages). Only if you are convinced that the topic is notable can you proceed. This has worked for me in my 130+ article creations, but it also has led me to discard maybe 20–50 potential topics as non-starters, because I was surprised to find the sources were simply not there.

(If escalation is needed, limiting DinosaursLoveExistence to AfC will not be the right move, as this would not really change the amount of volunteer time needed to reviewing their creations.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

SportsOlympic

This is another editor who doesn't reference articles, User:SportsOlympic. This is an example of one of their articles Viktoriia Yaroshenko. The references are two database generated profile pages, with no secondary sources. The editor complain incessantly when their articles are sent to draft. It would be ideal if both these editors were sent through AFC for six months to upgrade the quality, as its trash. scope_creep^Talk 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is started with "This is another editor who doesn't reference articles", adding one example saying "Here is one example, all his other articles are the same". I don't like you complain about me at ANI, while you never came to my talk page to talk. If you blame someone of something serious, do a bit of research (I asked you before), especially if it could be a false accusation. Your example of Viktoriia Yaroshenko, probably a deliberate choice but not mentioned before, was created by me during a few days I started creating cyclists who competed at the World Championships. Between 23 and 26 October I created about 50 articles on cyclists who participated at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships or UCI Road World Championships.

Cyclists created by SportsOlympic between 23-26 October

• Nikola Sibiak
• Mina Sato (cyclist)
• Riyu Ohta
• Fuko Umekawa
• Yarli Mosquera
• Joanne Rodríguez
• Léna Mettraux
• Devaney Collier
• Erin Attwell
• Sarah Van Dam
• Ngaire Barraclough
• Aksana Salauyeva
• Stella Bail
• Ludmilla Kotchetova
• Viktoriia Yaroshenko
• Luo Yiwei
• Yana Tyshchenko
• Marianis Salazar
• Veronika Jaborníková
• Alla Biletska
• Rinata Sultanova
• Eukene Larrarte
• Patrycja Lorkowska
• Cybèle Schneider
• Fabienne Buri
• Michelle Andres
• Tawakalt Yekeen
• Grace Ayuba
• Mary Samuel
• Ese Ukpeseraye
• Nicole Koller
• Daniela Campos
• Yeny Lorena Colmenares
• Lina Marcela Hernández
• Frances Janse van Rensburg
• Hayley Preen
• Luciana Roland
• Adyam Tesfalem
• Diane Ingabire
• Asma Jan
• Kanza Malik
• Yanina Kuskova
• Rebecca Koerner
• Anne Dorthe Ysland

If you check the list, if's actually hard to find articles without secondary sources, so it looks like you well selected your "example"; but it doesn't show "all other articles are the same".

But nevertheless, all these articles are meeting notability guidelines of WP:NCYCLING under WP:NSPORTS. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review. Draftification during page review is "an alternative to deletion". People meeting the notability guidelines are likely to survive an AFD; so those created articles shoult not be moved to the drafst space.

I already told you that when I came to your talk page in June User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space and the other time last September User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space. Your response last time to that was inappropriate in my opinion, with a personal attack and threat with words like "No, dude. I'm not... ...What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest..". I looks personal, while you never came to me to talk about the problems you have with my articles.

In addition other users didn't agree with you to move my content to draft space (for instance here, and here)

To reply to your request, I created over 2250 articles in the last 1,5 years. And they have all been reviewed by PageReviewers. To save time of the reviewers at AFC it would be better, in my opinion, that you start talking with me; instead of going straight to ANI with only a few sentences of complaints requesting for AFC. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Rude and abrasive behaviour, such as that which SportsOlympics evidences, only ever entrenches disagreements and makes it almost certain that the other editor will not improve their quality of content creation. Referring to another person's hard work as "trash" is disgraceful. Additionally, it is short-sighted to propose that editors be limited to AFC when this will do nothing to reduce the amount of reviewer time that will have to be invested. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

What personal attack exactly? Ok, got you, that was probably a bit out of order. Sorry, that was crass. SportsOlympic, I've spent the last month or two trying to get you to up the quality of your references. You can't even accept maintenance tags. I know you can create great articles, I've seen them, but there is reams of article which have 1 and 2 references, that are barely there. They often don't have the correct website name on them, just the shortened domain name. They're is generally no authors, publishers, page numbers, dates, access dates times, language versions or locations. All it is doing is creating masses amount of work for the future, when those links disappear. Here is an another example, with a link on it: Toros Toranyan. Even domains change. They're a reason that all the guidance asks for a many fields as possible to be filled in, because it's to stop the article aging. It's storing up trouble for the future. In the argument above you stating the review time is problem, but FloridaArmy's draft articles are not much better in terms of quality than they were a years, otherwise they don't get through. The reality that in 5-10 years time, most of these references that SportsOlympic are adding, are going to be dead and invisible. They break every convention of referenced publishing. The review time is nothing compared to amount of work that will be required in the future to fix these profile articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's best to start a new section for SportsOlympic, with a lot of diffs or links to recent creations, the issues with them, and to discussions already had with them on their user talk page. Sadly, there are plenty of issues, see e.g. his latest creation from today, Hubert Sevenich, where two of the three sources are to a Wordpress blog and the third is a statistics database: all three sources have very little information, which is turned into a somewhat fanciful narrative in the article. So yes, there clearly are issues, but it's best to start this section from scratch (and separately) if they are ripe for an ANI discussion. Fram (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You know, this sounds like what Sander.v.Ginkel was doing a few years ago. Creation of many marginally-notable or non-notable athletes. Not saying that the user here is SvG, just noting the similarities. Discussion from 2018. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks folks, @Fram: That is heartening. I'll get information together in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that SportsOlympic is now blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel. Perhaps some massive G5 operation is needed now... Fram (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, came here to note my block. I haven't G5d yet because a) I don't have the time to go through all their creations right now and b) I imagine that there will be some community input regarding both the block and G5s, and I'd rather have the discussion now as opposed to having to circle back later and undelete 2000 articles. I'm happy to go through and do it if it's clear that that is the way forward here. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Last time they were all punted to the Draft space, where interested users could check and see if there was anything worth salvaging; anything not saved got G13'd. That being said, I think if they were the only editor of a page, it can just be deleted outright. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, and I have been looking at these as they were within scope of Slowking4, but they were not carrying his signature edits. Seems I was not paranoid enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, how about that? I guess my spidey-sense was good on this one. Big thanks to Spicy who did the legwork of collecting the diffs. Now that I think about it, obvious sock is obvious. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

SvG/SO/SK4 mess

I see there are at the moment a lot of deletions going on within this mess (@Anthony Bradbury, Materialscientist, Liz, Explicit, Blablubbs, and Spicy:. I decided to compile a list of articles that Sander.v.Ginkel and SportsOlympic have created (and which got deleted) for easier monitoring. Within that there are now quite some blue-linked pages, which, upon careful checking, turn out to be also the original mess:

• Izabella Chiappini - created by SvG, moved to draft and shortly after expanded and moved back by Beatly (a Slowking4 sock) - further expansions by Degasvenus (another Slowking4 sock); rest of edits are practically trivial (for the link between SvG and SK4: "Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge").
• Karin Harmsen-Roosen - created by an SK4 sock (who also created redirect Karin Harmsen), later edited by SO. In an earlier incarnation created by SvG, moved to draft Draft:Karin Harmsen and deleted.
• Ielena Konstantinova - created by SvG, moved to Draft and deleted. Recreated by SK4 as Elena Konstantinova
• Emma Wright - created by SvG, moved to Draft:Emma Wright and deleted, recreated by an SK4 sock and deleted under G5, now recreated by SO (I now deleted that as well).
• Esther Cheboo - created by SvG, moved to Draft:Esther Cheboo, moved back by SK4 sock. No substantial improvements between or after these editors.
• Georgia Tzanakaki - created by SvG, moved to Draft:Georgia Tzanakaki, moved back by SK4 sock. No substantial improvements between or after these editors.
• Gisele Florentino - created by SvG, deleted. Recreated by SK4 sock and further edited by SK4 sock. No substantial improvements between or after these editors.

Many others are very stubby articles (one sentence, one ref), though they seem to be independently (re)created or having been moved back independently from Draft (without further improvements). (this also brings up some likely Slowking4 socks (Leetotherear pops up a couple of times), but they are SPI-stale (and behavioral not completely convincing)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’d like to make an article but it is black listed (notify me if this isn’t the correct noticeboard

I’d like to make an article about the web series ‘Battle for Dream Island’ but it is blacklisted. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco the Dawg (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This article was deleted by the community due to not meeting our inclusion criteria.. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the one that is blacklisted, but Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two has been unfinished since January. The draft's creator ChannelSpider is currently an active editor. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BFDI is correctly salted, there's no reliable coverage whatsoever, yet people keep recreating it. I could see an article for the creator, Kary Huang in the future of he gets more coverage, as he has done other notable things like Scale of the Universe Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island is currently salted, and the Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two is clearly just a salt evasion. It should be salted as well if the original salting was the consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, someone is trying really, really hard to get this show on WP. Draft:Battle for Dream Island is salted, as is Battle for Dream Island. Then there's the twice-declined Draft:Battle_for_BFB. Then there's the Draft:Object show, which is clearly just a coatrack for Battle for Dream Island. There are also the drafts Draft:List of BFDI:TPOT episodes, Draft:List of Battle for BFDI episodes, and Draft:List_of_BFDIA_episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbabej (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to nominate BFDITPT or whatever for deletion as salt evasion but it wouldn’t let me for some reason relating to the action being “admins only” or something. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way an admin can salt the above salt evasions? --Kbabej (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Tepkunset

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

---

I apologize if this is not in the right forum, but I have concerns regarding recent edits made by Tepkunset. This editor has gone through dozens of articles removing links. Most of these links are to countries. In all of the instances that I have seen, these countries have not previously been mentioned in the articles and they are relevant to the articles and should be linked. I am willing to assume that the edits are in good faith, and I don't support any sanctions, but I do believe that they should most likely be reverted and that the editor should be asked to cease such4 behavior in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's just applying WP:OLINK. If you have examples where the user is going overboard, please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

[15] This diff from an article about a language spoken in a part of France. Because France is so closely related to the language, it should clearly be linked. He removed the links of some countries but left others behind here, here, and here which in my view is totally nonsensical. In an article entitled "Economy of Botswana," he removed a link to the country of Botswana. [16] In an article entitled "Geography of Kuwait", he removed a link to the country of Kuwait, as well as to neighboring countries, which for obvious reasons are of high importance to the article. [17] Does this meet your definition of going overboard? Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

All of those look reasonable to me as they are all well-known geographical terms. Generally, countries do not need to be wikilinked. I certainly don't see any misbehavior in this area on the part of the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Botswana is not especially well-known. Countries should definitely linked in articles about those countries. It's inconceivable to me to have an article about the geography of Kuwait and not link to the articles about countries that surround it, and most especially to Kuwait itself. When countries are mentioned in passing, true, they generally do not need to be linked. But when discussing something that is relevant and connected specifically to one particular country, it is important to link to it just as it is to anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(1) Can you identify Botswana on a map of the world? (2) What was its name before it gained independence, and when did it do so? (3) Who was the colonial power, and why did that power take it over? (The reason was unusual, and possibly unique.) Answer those questions, and I might begin to be persuaded that linking Botswana is WP:OVERLINKing. (I sometimes despair at the unnecessary links to countries and cities everyone knows about.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:OL asks "does reading the article you're about to link to help someone understand the article you are linking from?" I would think anyone reading Economy of Botswana already knows enough about Botswana to understand the article. Regardless, I know editors disagree on this but it is clearly a content dispute to be discussed elsewhere. MB 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of such links is not just to identify the country. It also helps the reader go the the main page for the country if they want background. If I were reading the article mentioned, I maight, for example, want a quick way of finding the history of Botswana. I know it's in the Navbox, but how many general readers will realize that? Even for countries like the United States. If I were reading Housing discrimination in the United States, I might quickly want to find some demographics. Thee's not even a Navbox to help. -

I think the principle invovled is that nobody should make wide=reaching edits enforcing MOS [points of style acrosss a very large number of articles without being quite sure of consensus. They're too much work to undo. - DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)``

Hello, thank you for everyone's thoughts on this matter. First a little explanation...Reading and learning about new things is wonderful and very interesting to me and many people. Articles that have many links are often distracting to me and others and take away from the article, I did some research and found the Manual of Style/Linking page and found that country names are listed as the the number one major example/violation of overlinking. I have attempted to clean up many articles and bring them into a more standard and excepted format, some times I run out of time or just miss some of the links but I do try to standardize the entire article. Everyone doing their own little part is what builds these articles into what they are, a great resource for everyone. Also Wikipedia's own research has found that most links are never clicked. I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that someone reading about the geography of Botswana, does not have ability to easily search for other facts and articles about Botswana. That being said, I do see how some links to countries can help the understanding of the reader and I do leave those linked. Alas, not everyone has the same background or viewpoint in these situations. It is my view that unlinking the country of Botswana from an article about things in Botswana does not undermine the readers understanding of Botswana. Also is my behavior really so heinous and intractable that the first step is a topic on this admin/incidents page? "Never use a cannon to kill a mosquito" - Confucius, WP:BITE. @Display name 99, I would happily discuss my edits with you in a civil manner for the purpose of finding common ground on what is best for Wikipedia and the many users and readers, maybe you could reach out to me directly next time? Tepkunset (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The respondent has never been blocked. We should start with a warning, which I have given, and see if he follows advice. If he persists, there may be further warnings or blocks before an indefinite block.Jehochman ^Talk 09:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

• Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Pollster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Impru20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, The Pollster has engaged in a fairly egregious uncollaborative behaviour at Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election. TP made a series of edits that were contested by myself and another user, Jeppiz, who went on to point this fact in the article's talk page. I then reverted the article to the version previous to such edits until a consensus could be reached, as per WP:BRD. From there, TP has gone into an ownership-like behaviour over the article's contents, coupled with tendentious editing and personal attacks on both myself and Jeppiz, with claims such as:

• "You have contributed nothing to this article impru. Go back to Spain"
• "You guys have no clue of the current political situation in Austria and should be more concerned about your own countries"
• "Impru, go back to editing your Spanish articles and leave this article alone !"
• "This article will remain as I edited"
• "Jeppiz, please go back to Sweden and mind your business there"
• "So, once again impru and jeppiz, go back to your own countries and articles and mind your own business and let me do the job here"
• "the article looked horrible BEFORE, but now it looks decent and modernized. Thanks to my edits and updates"

The Pollster is unwilling to come to terms to the fact that their edits are contested, and has gone to reinstate their own preferred version without re-engaging into the discussion (this despite having been warned earlier on to adopt a much calmer demeanor and to stop the edit warring) with this edit summary: "vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation".

So far, consensus-building attempts have utterly failed since this user is basically prohibiting anyone aside of themselves from contesting their edits and seems unwilling to work collaboratively at all. Thus, a solution of another kind is required.

PS. Note that while I was writing this report, TP has made a further comment in the talk page, claiming that "There are not many people editing this page. It’s mostly me (who does the most in making this look modern, while a few others only added the fraudulent RA polls in the past. Then there are you 2 (impru and jeppiz) who only serve as querulants and who do nothing to contribute to this article and only come once a year to complain, without actually being from Austria" and "My version is correct and hopefully a few other members come here to say so". I have added WP:PA to the list of spotted policy violations as a result. Impru20^talk 12:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• This edit, which says in Wikipedia's voice (and in a somewhat informal tone) that Research Affairs is under investigation, with no sourcing, is unacceptable. I'm surprised that there's disagreement about that. Revert-warring to keep it in place, while making aspersions about the nationality of other editors, is unimpressive at best. It may well be that including Research Affairs polling is inappropriate, but this is not how to go about excluding them. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have long contributed to the polling sections of Austrian polls and know what I am doing. I was only advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls, but not Austrian ones where they have no clue what is going on here. Besides, the dubious Research Affairs polls are not removed in my edits - just collapsed and hidden in „old polls“ sections. This is used and done so on the German Wikipedia too without any complaint. Why there should be a massive table of old polling is beyond my comprehension. There should only be visible polling of the last quarter or so, every older poll archived under old collapsed polling. Also, I included a recent poll chart that was missing, using main polling instead of alternative polling incl. MFG. This would be removed if my edits are removed. I advocate that my edits (modernized !) remain in place. --The Pollster (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Firstly, you have no right nor power to unilaterally exclude anyone from editing any article. Arguing that what you did was "advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls" is basically a reiteration of the behavioural issues reported above. If your edits are contested, you must accept that you are not the holder of the universal truth and that you must work collaboratively to reach a compromise. Secondly, you may be well aware and/or more experienced in the knowledge of a country's politics than other users, but that does not waive the verifiability, be bold nor civility policies for you, which btw happen to be three of Wikipedia's five pillars. Thirdly, this discussion is not on the merits of the content added/removed, but on your behaviour. This notwithstanding, it should be mentioned that this issue was already discussed several weeks ago with no final reply on your part, then you waited a couple weeks to game the system by applying your version of how to "remove" or "hide" those polls, despite knowing there was not a consensus for it. You had ample opportunity to press and source the claims for your edits at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, and what you did was to demonstrate that you cannot work collabotively in a Wikipedia as of currently. Impru20^talk 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I have now removed the controversial disclaimer notice, as it is no longer needed (the Research Affairs polls who were faked are hidden in the older polls sections which are collapsed, but still visible for those who want to see them). I also added a source from the official Austria broadcaster ORF about the OGM controversy in the quality criteria on top of the article. Every major concern is now removed and the article is modernized. --The Pollster (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
        • You still fail to get the point at all. Article content was not the motivator of this thread. Plus, edits like this in which you again insist on the whole "fake poll" issue without any source, while vindicating previous edits that you leave no one to contest, only serve as further evidence of the problem at hand. Impru20^talk
          • I have now included 2 additional (!) sources in the VdMI section on top of the article, which explains how Research Affairs polls were deliberately faked between 2016 and 2021 (emphasis until this year ! - not just their old polls) - therefore making the article even more up to date. I know that this evaluation here is about my controversy about „mind your Spanish or Swedish business“. Ok I apologize, it wasn’t a personal attack, just a reminder to let me edit this article because I know what’s best. And it now looks pretty modernized and reflects all sources needed. --The Pollster (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Yet again, this is not the place for content dispute resolution. Anyway, I checked the edit and the sources and those support the "inadequate metholody" claim (which was there already), not the polls being "faked", which is the claim you insist on both in here and in your edit summaries. They are also no justification for distorting the article the way you did. Using a source to back up a statement that is not contained in the source is original research; further, using a combination of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly backed by any of them is synthesis. I would suggest you to stop touching the article and instead explain yourself on the behavioural concerns raised above and the remedies you are willing to take to address those. So far, with each new edit you only deepen on these issues while keeping raising new ones. I cannot help you any further. Cheers. Impru20^talk 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
              • The Fake Poll accusations are part of my sources/newspaper articles, but if you want a better source it’s here, directly from the investigation act of the Corruption Prosecution Office (whole act, via Falter newspaper): https://www.falter.at/media/downloads/kurz_akt_blacked.pdf I can include this Prosecutors document too as an official source in the poll article. The point is that, as a compromise, I still let the fake polls remain in the article- but collapsed in the old polls sections. That is a really good compromise in my opinion. On the accusations of my behavior to you and the Swede, I already apologized. The case should be clear ... and closed. Article let as it is right now. --The Pollster (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                The Pollster - you can explain to people why you disagree with the edits they want to make, but you need to keep that based on sourcing and the content itself - you can't say 'I know more about this than you, leave it to me, don't edit it'. You've gone way beyond that though: you absolutely, definitely must never tell someone that they can't edit an article because of the country they are from. That is non-negotiable, and it shouldn't need explaining. 'Go back to your country' is a hateful phrase that nobody should ever have to see here. I have no idea who is right with regards to the disagreement about content, but your conduct has been unacceptable. I note a half-hearted apology above - that does not convey to me that appreciate the gravity of how offensive your comments have been. I suggest you try harder. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                • (edit conflict) You still fail to get the point, TP. Your behavioural issues are not solved merely with an empty apology when you keep demonstrating with your unilateral edits and with each new comment that you will be behaving the same now and in the future, over and over again. Also, claiming apology while referring to the other user as "the Swede" shows the emptiness of your apology and how much contempt you have towards those that disagree with you. I'll be letting others opine now. Cheers. Impru20^talk 14:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • I have apologized fully for my comments, if you like it or accept it or not, is up to you. I cannot do more than that. I also do not have any contempt. The thing is that I think the article as it is right now is just fine, all is sourced and as a compromise, even the fake polls are still in the article under the collapsed sections if someone somehow wants to read these results. But there is no need to have a wall of old (sometimes faked) polls in the article. Better to archive them after a quarter and have a good up to date overview of polling and 2 nice charts showing the results in a historically interesting manner.--The Pollster (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                    You have not apologised fully. I'd like to see a statement from you to the effect that you understand that you are in no position to tell someone else not to edit an article, and also that you understand that telling someone to edit an article because of where they are from will result in your account being blocked from editing. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

                    • Ok, I apologize to them and I understand that I am in no position to tell someone else not to edit an article, and also that I understand that telling someone to edit an article because of where they are from will result in my account being blocked from editing.--The Pollster (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Pollster, when you parrot back the exact words of an administrator's warning, that can be interpreted as grudging rather than sincere. I truly hope that you were sincere. As an American, I intended to let you know that you would be welcome to contribute regarding American elections and then I took a look at your contributions and discovered that you have edited articles about American elections since at least 2008. To me, it appears quite hypocrital for an Austrian who edits articles about American elections to tell a Swede and a Spaniard that they are not welcome to edit articles about Austrian elections. Let me be crystal clear: editors from any country on earth are completely welcome to edit articles related to any other country on earth, as long as they comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So please never use that tactic again, because it is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for ThePollster

Based on their multiple personal attacks against any user who doesn't share their opinion, as outlined above, I propose that The Pollster be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Whatever positive contribution The Pollster might add is dwarfed by their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, frequent personal attacks, edit warring, and WP:OWN issues. When a user says things like "This article will remain as I edited" [18] or "leave this article alone!" [19], it's the most obvious case of WP:OWN I've seen in over a decade here. And when the same user repeatedly use other users' nationalities to attack them, as in "Go back to Spain" [20], "go back to editing your Spanish articles" [21], "go back to Sweden and mind your business there" [22], "go back to your own countries and articles and mind your own business and let me do the job here" [23], well, once again, I can recall personal rants at this scale. What make it even worse is that the only action that set off this tirade of racist abuse was merely disagreeing with ThePollster on one article. Again, in over a decade here, I never came across a user behaving so badly over so little. I hope the community agrees that WP would be better off without this kind of behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This only recapitulates the evidence already presented above, with a lot of bolding and angry language added for emphasis. The editor has apologized and we should now see whether the apology was sincere by observing their behavior going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it's a summary of the problems mentioned. And yes, I admit I'm a bit angry when a user with whom I never had any interaction launches multiple unprovoked personal attacks on me (and others). What I said about rarely seeing so bad behaviour here in over a decade is not really 'angry', it's a matter of fact. And as others say below, their "apology" does not come across as sincere and does little to acknowledge their behavioral issues.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The issue is that I cannot see it as sincere considering how they have not even acknowledged their own misdeeds, have been performing further unilateral edits in the article with both the talk page discussion and this ANI thread still ongoing in an effort to preserve their own preferred version (not acknowledging that the issue is that such version has no consensus and that no one else has supported their claims), and their apologies here seem more like an excuse to keep on their OWN behaviour, specially when they have shown no effort at easening their grip over that article. I have refrained from reverting them any further out of fear that it would result in even more disruption. That their aspersions were as strong as to judge on others' nationalities only made this worse, but that's a symptom, not the disease. Impru20^talk 18:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support a time-limited block, but not indef (yet) indef block I am sorry about this, but what I have seen in this discussion so far leaves me no other choice. I see an indef as just too much yet, as blocks are not meant as punitive, but I see it as clear that the user has not gotten the point and, if left unchecked, they will just continue with their WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour by preventing anyone else to edit that article (or any else within their "influence") against their wishes. To sum the whole situation up: The Pollster was warned several times about their unilateralism, was called several times to abide to WP:BRD and to stop enforcing controversial edits, and their response was to just reiterate their alleged ownership of the article and to cast aspersions on those who disagreed with them. They were required to reach a consensus for their edits (which, as of currently, does not exist), yet they still continued on their egregious behaviour. They were brought here to ANI, where the concerns on their behaviour were brought and the opportunity was given to them to explain themselves and the remedies they would bring to change this situation, and their response has been to, basically, reiterate some of their aspersions while keeping conducting unilateral edits on the article. They then suddenly claimed to "apologize" (with no other action) while continuing to mock Jeppiz as "the Swede", and when a stronger commitment was demanded from them, they limited themselves to parrot back the administrator's words. I am starting to question whether there is a competence issue here, but as of now it is obvious that this user is unable to work collaboratively and has shown a total disregard to some of Wikipedia's most basic principles and guidelines even after being repeteadly warned by a number of users, so a block is due to preserve the article's integrity and to show them that this is not the way to act in WP. Just my two cents. Impru20^talk 18:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Restoring full support for a block after this edit. Defending their edits by accusing another user of "legitimizing corruption and fake polling", as well as the overall formatting of the edit itself (has this been written by a 5-year old?), considering the discussion in here, is outright incompetence at best. Strongly support the application of WP:CIR at the very least. Impru20^talk 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per LV After reading Levivich's comment below, I think we can give TP some WP:ROPE, making it clear than repeating such disruptive behaviour again may lead to an indef block. I've stricken my previous comment and commented this at the proper article and reverted their non-consensuated edits, commending them to engage into civil discussion and achieve consensus the collaborative way (which means accepting a consensus for their edits may not exist as of currently). Indeed, they were lucky they were not blocked outright by a passing admin; nonetheless, the way they behave from now on should be indicative of the sincerity of their actions. Impru20^talk 16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Holding back !oppose as per above

Support time-limited block. Unconvincing apology - i don’t think the user gets it or takes it that seriously. The behaviour is serious and a block may get their attention. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support block. There behavior, as indicated above, has been egregious. Paul August ☎ 00:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Trying to evaluate whether an apology from a stranger is sincere over text is just judging someone for how good of a writer they are. Clearly the comments were way over the top; there's no doubt about that. Pollster is lucky they didn't just get blocked as an ordinary admin action. But at this point, the only thing that matters is whether it stops or is repeated. Stopping with no apology is way better than an apology without stopping. Sincerity doesn't matter, apologies don't matter, "self-reflection" doesn't matter... all that matters is that the disruptive activity stop. Because the offensive comments haven't been repeated since they were called out in this thread, no further sanction is necessary right now to prevent disruption. If, however, they make any other comments like that in the future, they should be indef'd. Levivich 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per LV, particular wrt the last point: that the next offence should probably result in an indef—not because it will be surely a worse offence than this (it might not be), but because if it reoccurs, it will be not just recidivism but compounded by WP:HEAR. As with all our DR processes, the important thing is the resolution, not who gets bollocked or how badly. ——Serial 15:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If we are to believe The Pollster is sincere, the least we'd expect is for them to revert the edits in question. The situation at the moment is that ThePollster can ignore this discussion as they have edit warred to unilaterally impose their own version of the article, disregarding WP:BRD and WP:EW, while abusing others in the process. So if the decision is to give ThePollster a chance to improve their behaviour, surely a self-revert is the first step to take. In the absence of such a self-revert, it's hard to believe ThePollster cares about this discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply to ny own comment: I see Impru restored the consensus version, so the above is a moot point by now. Jeppiz (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And it will soon become apparent whether or not the Pollster is sincere and has got it. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm holding back on my previous oppose while restoring my support to the block after this edit. They are not getting the point on how to address an issue without casting aspersions on others. Accusing me of "legitimizing corruption and fake polling" after I myself came back in support of WP:ROPE for him, followed by a child-like argument on how their version is the best and the previous one was "bad", with the stronger argument for it being the aspersion itself, is just over the top. Impru20^talk 18:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The line was "The reverts of impru make no sense and legitimize corruption and fake polling, when it shouldn't." I get why you'd have a strong reaction to that, in light of the previous incivility, but I don't think that's actually accusing you of legitimizing corruption and fake polling, but rather saying the edits have that effect (note the use of the pronoun "it" as opposed to "you" or "he/she/they"). I once said that an editor's edit "perpetuated a hoax" and the editor said I was accusing them of perpetuating a hoax, but I wasn't; I was talking about the effect of the edit, not the intent of the editor. It might seem like splitting hairs, but I think we gotta be able to say things like "that edit is misleading" without that being interpreted as "that editor is trying to mislead". We gotta have the freedom to criticize edits without those criticisms being interpreted as criticisms of editors. Levivich 20:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that "perpetuating" and "legitimizing" are not similar concepts. You can conduct an edit that unwittingly "perpetuates" an hoax (though the hoax nature as such should be proven for such accusation to be true). You cannot conduct an edit that unintentionally "legitimizes" something, as that by itself implies intention, and no evidence was presented as to how the edits in question "legitimized corruption and fake polling". That's WP:ASPERSION. Besides, the issue is not so much on the aspersion itself, but on the fact that TP did cast an aspersion while this ANI was still ongoing, after he was warned by multiple users to be civil and in spite of their previous, egregious behaviour. Still, as both DeCausa and I just discussed on their talk page, we can still asume at best that TP does not have bad faith, but just that they do not have the required competence to work collaboratively in Wikipedia, with each new edit that they conduct pointing out to that conclusion. Impru20^talk 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weakest possible oppose (for the moment). It's a tough call. On the one hand, Pollster's nationalistic WP:OWNERSHIP issues and their belief that they can try to enforce discussion ghettos for Wikipedia's content based on location, national identity, or creed, are beyond merely "inappropriate", and in fact suggest pretty profound issues with regard to WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. This kind of attitude doesn't just demonstrate that the user has made zero effort to understand even the most basic rules that govern discussion in this community, but indeed that they fail completely to understand the most fundamental open knowledge purposes of the project itself, which their approach stands in more or less absolute antithetical contrast to. I'll be honest, with this particular manner of behaviour and outlook, I entertain almost no belief that this editor is likely to conform to a future pattern of behaviour consistent with Wikipedia values of inclusion and open engagement: there's simply too much of a gap between how this user is conducting themselves so far and where they need to be, just in terms of the most baseline acceptable attitude and civility towards other users.

All of that said, as a purely pro-forma matter, I think Cullen is right. Here we have a user who has nominally acknowledged what they have been told about the unacceptability of their conduct. I too have serious doubts about the sincerity of their commitment, given the manner in which they parroted back the statements in question, and I have to admit I think we're going to be right back here shortly for the ultimate indef (unless an admin follows the situation and acts independently at the first sight of failure to follow through on the professed commitment). But the commitment has been made all the same and I think maybe the record is such that AGF pushes use towards at least leaving them this chance to reform their approach here, no matter how dubious we may be that this is going somewhere constructive. But I favour a zero latitude approach to this situation, and wouldn't mind a close that speaks directly to admins in terms of saying any further disruption in the same "go back to X" area should be met with an immediate indef, without the need to pass this by the community at large again. For that matter, I would happily endorse a TBAN from areas of polling and elections, broadly construed, at this present juncture. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For the time being. From what I can see, the user hasn't made any egregious edits since their apology, and I worry that indeffing them before any further violations happen veers too close to being punitive rather than preventative. JellyMan9001 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• You can refer to me as „he“ because I am male. Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and it seems the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version, because they clearly see through the double standard that some are applying on the Austrian polling section vs. other polling sections. For example, they argue that collapsed polls are OK in the 2024 US President election article (where no fake polls are collapsed), while sections with obvious faked material in the Austrian polling article cannot be collapsed ... a really weird double standard. It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. Admins, please restore my modernized version of the article, because of this context. Thanks, --The Pollster (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not an admin, nor am I making any comments on the content dispute. I'm just giving my opinion on the indef proposal. JellyMan9001 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

it seems the majority of admins are against censoring me and for restoration of my version and It gives the impression that you (impru & co.) want to sustain corruption and fake polling in this article for whatever reason. This, coupled with his new edit at the article's talk page accusing editors directly (not their edits) of "protecting fake polls and corruption" while still not getting the point of what other uninvolved users care to explain to him (also note that he moved a comment of mine critical of his behaviour out of place against WP:TALKO). This is The Pollster's conclusion of all of this ordeal, assuming no wrongdoing and keeping on their OWN and ASPERSIONs despite being a clear unanimity for condemning his behaviour, and despite no one having supported "his version" (this venue is not for content dispute resolution). The only point of discussion as of currently is whether a block for him is due now or next time around. If this is what he is willing to throw in an ANI thread discussing a block on him, just imagine what he could do once not under scrutiny. Impru20^talk 08:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Ali Fadhul

Eyeballs? From my viewpoint, it looks like the intersection of WP:OWN and WP:CIR; the disinterested party might mutter something about WP:EW.Qwirkle (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This basically appears to be a dispute over whether the Daily Monitor is reliable, correct? Why did you bring it here instead of WP:RSN? Mlb96 (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion exactly. For whatever reason, Qwirkle decided to interpret my suggestion in bad faith. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Probable sock- or meat-puppetry at Minneapolis and similar articles

A number of new editors have taken an interest in the Minneapolis article, including User:JesseeV3, User:Gooob, User:Marshens, and User:V3393s. JesseeV3 and Gooob have both deleted the photo montage from the infobox; all four seem to be intent on giving mention of the city's milling history greater prominence in the lead.

Gooob has claimed on the talk page and in a hidden comment to have a consensus, and to have consulted with other editors, but there is no sign of any such discussion anywhere in the user's contributions. This makes me suspect off-wiki coordination with the persons behind the other accounts. Interestingly, V3393s' first edit in this situation was to give a notice to Gooob about unconstructive editing. Subsequently, they posted on the talk page about having gotten a "notification" about it and agreed that the edits were undue weight, but then proceeded to add back in some of Gooob's changes while falsely claiming to be undoing them, and later re-added them again with an incomprehensible edit summary. Another interesting correlation between the two is having made the same edit about a day and a half apart on another article: [24], [25].

Gooob has been more prolific than the other accounts, making largely disruptive edits; deleting infobox images from articles on other municipalities as well as adding unsourced erroneous qualifiers to the leads of others ([26], [27], [28]), in one case falsifying a reference to do so ([29]).

Extended-confirmed protection would help on Minneapolis but that may merely shift the problem elsewhere. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the content itself (yet) but I had the article on my watchlist previously, and the editing is clearly disruptive and there are strong signs of meatpuppetry. --Sable232 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Sable232. I have communicated with user:JesseeV3 via email off of Wikipedia that is all. I do not know the other editors you have mentioned. I will stop communicating with him off of wiki and will work to become a constructive editor. Thank you~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooob (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How and why did you come to communicate with another editor off-wiki about edits to this article? BD2412 T 05:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that V3393s has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Jwb23. --Sable232 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also Gooob retired from Wikipedia yesterday. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing B. P. Acharya

B. P. Acharya [30].
User:Basanthjain, a promotional editor who is almost a SPA for the subject, is repeatedly whitewashing this article, removing properly sourced information. They have made no attempt to engage on the talk page Talk:B. P. Acharya. Has made a vague claim of "removing factually incorrect data" [31] but has not backed this up with any evidence. Warnings [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] and information [37]. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme, the edit they have been reverting includes the text "for his involvement in the Emaar township scam". Has this event been proven, and do reliable sources refer to it as a "scam"? If not, this may be a BLP violation. – bradv^🍁 04:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@User:Bradv. The NDTV source states "prime accused in the Emaar township scam". duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There are ample sources on his arrest and the context of the charges, but the latest information on the case that I was able to find was from early 2017, when a stay was in place, and he retired in October 2020. I have reverted the latest removal by Basanthjain and largely rewritten the article with a subsection on the investigation and a bit more on his career (using sources that were already present). Our article on Emaar Properties, the private partner in a public-private development project that gave rise to the charges, may also need some attention; it appears to me to be somewhat effusive. Duffbeerforme started a talk page section; I'm going to post there inviting Basanthjain or others to find references on the disposition of the investigation since 2017, since they may be in Telugu, which I can't read. (I found a Telugu reference hiding in the article's refs under an English title.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Since Basanthjain deleted Yngvadottir's excellent rewrite without discussion, without responding to the concerns on their talk page, and without participating here, I have blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. If Basanthjain would like to help write an encyclopedia, they can discuss their plans to do so at User talk:Basanthjain. – bradv^🍁 04:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Since they did leave a comment on the talk page (unsigned and no source) and are raising a BLP issue, I have posted to their talk imploring them to get us a source. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Rastakwere dubious articles? Request admins

Hello this user has been creating several dozens of articles based on non-peer reviewed and user generated WP:UGC sources. Many of the articles are claiming that this [[]] source received international media attention, when it's in fact a non-peer reviewed source. I already expressed concern back in July Talk:Grizana massacre but i waited to see if any more reliable sources where coming to the forefront. Since then this user has been on a spree creating several dozens of articles in the same fashion. Special attention to the reaction section, he also uses other sources in conjuction that doesn't specifically mentions the subject or place.

Some of the articles(only a small fraction of the articles created):

Adi Hageray massacre Bisober massacre Grizana massacre 2020 Shire massacre 2021 Shire massacre 2021 Megab massacre

Kindly requesting admins to investigate all articles created by this user, followed by the appropriate measures. Thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Most recent-events articles are based on mainstream media articles, which are typically less reliable in terms of context and balance and checking of method and details than academic research articles. This particular research article (a preprint) appears to have been submitted to Journal of Maps, published by Taylor & Francis, a generally accepted academic publisher, and Nyssen has earlier published 2 articles in Journal of Maps. The peer-review time scale has slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic, but 6-18 months is not unusual, especially for a big article full of many details. There is no particular reason to suspect that this article is not going through the normal peer review process.

I agree that some of Rastakwere's edits need attention by other editors, but I have always found that s/he responds constructively to edits based on Wikipedia policy and with the usual edit summaries or talk page discussions. Boud (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that these articles are all sourced to a single data table in an appendix of that unpublished paper. There is no reason for each row in that table to have its own article. WMSR (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, there is collusion by WMSR and Dawit S Gondaria to do this. Are they running a bot to put labels on articles that I created? Looks like vandalism. How to handle this? A massacre in the US with three people killed has its place on Wikipedia but a massacre of 60 in Ethiopia wouldn't?Rastakwere (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Rastakwere - rest assured I am not "colluding" with anyone, am not running a bot, and am certainly not trying to minimize the tragedies occurring in Ethiopia. Perhaps it is unfair, but the way that notability is established here at Wikipedia is by coverage from independent secondary sources (see WP:EVENT), and these individual events do not reach that threshold of coverage. Again, no doubt these events are horrible, but it is not feasable to have 106 articles based on one data table in an appendix of an unpublished paper. I am glad to continue that discussion at the AfD, but ask that you please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks both here and at that page. WMSR (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Baseless accusations by Rastakwere mind you i could have started an ANI months ago. Instead of improving those articles with reliable sources, Rastakwere created even more dubious articles over the past months and added them on other Horn of Africa related articles, which affects the quality and neutrality of those articles. Examples [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], this is only just a few. I daresay this user appears to have a agenda based on the articles created. Also in addition to more eyes on his articles, i'm proposing if possible a ban on article creation for this user, and a topic ban on everything related to Horn of Africa. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

User:Qhalidal15 uploading images that may be copyright

I first encountered Qhalidal15 (talk · contribs) when I noticed they were not using edit summaries at all and marking every edit as minor. These are not big issues but he did not respond to me at all. More recently he has been uploading numerous images without attributing a source. Ones like this [41] with a watermark clearly seem copyrighted. I'm asking the wider community to look at his/her behaviour concerning images and a refusal to respond. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

LibStar, that is a watermark but so subtle that I had to zoom in on my smart phone to see it. And even so, I cannot make out the URL. I want to visit that website to see its copyright notices. Do you know its exact origin? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it says Tribunnews.com . Appears to be an Indonesian website. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It does - https://www.tribunnews.com/ I couldn't find the exact image, but this is surely the same event - Agence France-Presse / Romeo Gacad. Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

2600:8804:6600:C4:0:0:0:0/64

• Special:Contributions/2600:8804:6600:C4::/64

An AE report in relation to COVID-19 DS may be an option, but evidence shows clear WP:NOTHERE and battleground behavior. The first edit under this range was to harass RandomCanadian. Their block log shows this editor is somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. More recently I've had to warn them again for failure to focus on the content rather than specific editors and for disruptive editing. Very recently they've vandalized a user essay (pointy vandalism: Special:Diff/1054197900). This is most likely one of the conspiracy theorist LTAs in the COVID-19 area. As is common for IPv6, hopping within a /64 or /48 is constant, it's never clear when they can read warnings. A block is however evidence that they know something was wrong about their editing, and I've made some efforts to point out at previous warnings in their history. Pages where they received warnings include:

• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506
• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:3960:5A22:2350:25AC
• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:8C26:74C7:8EAD:C63F
• User talk:2600:8804:6600:C4:CC9F:4E65:9616:EAB6 (also trying to point at older warnings)
• Very recently, at the talk page of the essay they attacked.

I post here to request a longer block for this /64 range. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Range blocked for two months/ Doug Weller talk 09:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat and disruptive editing at WP:RfP

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

Wikipedia:RfP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone have a look at Chickdat's behaviour with regards to this redirect please?

This redirect spent 15 years targeting WP:Requests for page protection until retargeted to WP:requests for permissions by chickdat last year. I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it.

I therefore took the redirect to redirects for discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where consensus was unanimously against their retargeting and resulted in the redirect being restored to it's original target.

They are now continuing to disrupt this redirect by attempting to convert it into a disambiguation page, falsely claiming that I need talk page consensus to implement the consensus of the RFD discussion and that their edits fall under WP:BOLD (which does not apply to contested edits and cannot override a formal community consensus building process like RFD).

This page should be turned back into a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection per the outcome of RFD discussion, and fully protected to prevent any more disruption from this editor and to match the fully capitalised redirect WP:RFD 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was making a WP:BOLD change on the page. This IP however, instead of approaching me on the talk page, jumped straight to ANI. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Because we already had a discussion about this redirect at RFD, which you damn well knew about because you participated in it. You know that the community decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection because that is literally what every single person in that discussion apart from you agreed with. WP:BOLD does not apply to your edits there, WP:DISRUPT does. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And instead of friendlily attempting to reach consensus on the talk page, you went straight to ANI. The disambiguation revision was intended as a compromise version, pointing to both project pages. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to reach consensus with you personally because the community already reached a consensus through a formal process at RFD a few weeks ago. No-one agreed with your proposed compromise, there was unanimous consensus that this should be a redirect to WP:requests for page protection. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I didn't propose the compromise until three days ago, when I WP:BOLDly edited the redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You made the bullshit claims that there was consensus to disambiguate it at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_21#Wikipedia:RfP, where not a single person agreed with you. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not let other users comment on this discussion, rather than just the two of us? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I objected to their retargeting and reverted it a few weeks ago, which they in turn reverted while lying that they had consensus to retarget it. - by consensus I meant WP:SILENCE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You nominated it's fully capitalised brethren WP:RFP for discussion less than a day after you retargeted this redirect, and again the community disagreed with you Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_7#Wikipedia:RFP, it was obvious that the community did not agree with retargeting. WP:SILENCE stops applying as soon as someone reverts your edit, so reverting my revert claiming consensus under WP:SILENCE shows you fundamentally misunderstand that essay. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe you saw this discussion. I'm clearly not the only editor supporting a retarget of RFP. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean another discussion which closed with consensus that it should remain targeting at WP:Requests for page protection? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So you don't see that 5 editors supported disambiguation/retarget? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't see the closure? "The result of the discussion was keep" 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do see the closure; I just wanted you to see that I'm not the only editor that supports this change. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, I propose a compromise. WP:RfP and WP:RFP redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, however, a page, WP:RFP (disambiguation) is created linking to other uses of RFP, like Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Additionally, a hatnote is added to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection saying "WP:RFP redirects here. For other uses, please see WP:RFP (disambiguation)." 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about you poor behaviour and general disruption with regards to that redirect, it isn't a place to decide on what to do with the redirect - that was already decided at RFD. Your proposed compromise is terrible and makes no sense - you'd add a hatnote to each article that links to a dab page with two entries, one of which is the page you just came from? that's stupid - just include a link to the other page (which is what is already there). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What makes my proposal stupid? I'm trying to reach a consensus here. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The consensus was reached at redirects for discussion, where multiple editors discussed what to do and decided that this should be a redirect to WP:Requests for page protection. I don't need to reach a consensus with you personally because you disagree with the result. I'm going to leave this for an admin to look at now, because you clearly don't care that the community disagrees with you on this redirect and are going to continue to disrupt and bludgeon it until you get your way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying, IP, is right. Just because one editor disagrees with a consensus doesn't mean that it needs to be changed. However, at least 5 editors here believe that the page should be disambiguated. That might mean that the consensus must bec changed. Even so, look at WP:RfP! I turned it back into a redirect shortly after this discussion began. That doesn't look like I'm disrupting and bludgeoning it until I get my way, does it? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

However, I will leave this to the admins, too. If they decide to block me, I'll go quietly. Either way, I'm dropping the stick now. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) IP is correct in saying consensus was reached at redirects for discussion; both recently and on previous occasions. WP:RFP pointing to Requests for Page Protection has several times now been agreed upon re-litigating it without new, strong evidence that it should change (ie, concrete proof that a majority of users are using the redirect to find another page) is not a good idea. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm involved here as I participated in a couple of the RfD discussions, but the IP editor is correct that multiple discussions have found consensus against Chicdat's proposed/actual retargetting and they are also correct about WP:SILENCE and the lack of need to gain consensus to implement the consensus of a recent discussion. Chicdat: it's beyond time to drop the stick, if you don't do it voluntarily it will have to be dropped for you. A topic ban from discussing or editing any redirect, disambiguation page or hatnote that links to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and/or Wikipedia:Requests for permissions (directly or via a redirect) is the narrowest I think that would work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Thyrduulf, nice to see you again. My comment above indicates I did drop the stick voluntarily. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Chicdat, just remember to keep the stick dropped. Which is to say, please don't submit bold edits to that page any more, even much further on in the future. Feel free to advance whatever proposals to change something, but let someone else submit those once they enjoy consensus. Hope that makes sense. El_C 12:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • How about... For one year, I have a zero tolerance ban on anything related to the redirects WP:RFP, WP:RfP, and WP:Rfp. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • That is to say, the redirects themselves, not their targets. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @El C: Would you be willing to fully protect WP:Rfp and WP:RfP? Thryduulf suggested it would be a good idea at the last RFD, and the fully capitalised variant (WP:RFP) is already fully protected. There's no reason why such an ancient project space redirect would need to be retargeted except at the conclusion of a RFD, and this would go a long way to avoid issues in the future. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Works for me, IP. Fully protected indefinitely. El_C 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Chicdat: I don't see the point in a tban from retargeting those redirects when it appears you are already under a voluntary restriction from that exact same thing since May. Instead of adding more restrictions to the pile, try being less gung ho in certain areas of the project. Isabelle ^🔔 14:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• That list of voluntary restrictions is getting long... Levivich 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I would say that this discussion should be closed with a very strong warning to User:Chicdat. If they really think that they were making a bold edit against consensus, rather than a tendentious edit, then their inability to understand when they are in a known minority is a problem. They should be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    • [Not the same IP as OP] Considering the fact that they already have a restriction about retargeting project-space redirects, I would concur and that at the very least a final warning should be lodged. The fact that they edit-warred against 163.1.15.238 (OP), though, makes me think a short block might be in order to get the message across (since this isn't the first time they've had issues with retargeting project-space redirects). 68.193.40.8 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• While unrelated the RfP topic at hand, I would also like to point out where Chicdat went against the consensus that was established Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_47#Merge_Provisions here (he participated in the discussion). He decided to modify the WikiProject Weather template against that consensus here when he clearly was in the minority. He also moved a page in a similar manner here. Additionally, they engaged in multipage edit warring across a sanctionable topic in October at: 1234. Im deeply concerned considering their mentor, MarioJump83 is at semi-retirement and is no longer active per their userpage. I think we need to establish formal restrictions since it is clear that the involuntary ones are not keeping Chicdat out of trouble. I don't advise blocking Chicdat at this time, but I think they need formal restrictions to keep them out of trouble, especially considering their mentor is no longer active here and this is not the first time they have been brought here for their actions. Noah^Talk 14:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say stay out of projectspace altogether. Levivich 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Since Chicdat doesn't seem to understand consensusmaking processes I'll try to explain the norms around it. Not all consensus making processes are equal; "better" consensus processes cannot be overriden by "worse" consensus processes. In order from worst to best, it goes from WP:BRD (making an edit and nobody challenging it), to an informal discussion on the talk page, to a structured local discussion like an RfC on the talk page, and lastly to a structured "global" discussion like an RfC at a noticeboard or RfD. This isn't really set in stone (e.g. WikiProject consensii are weird and can be before/after a structured local discussion), but that's more or less how things work in practice. If a consensus has been established at a higher level, you cannot overturn it by trying to establish consensus at a lower level. You need to engage at the higher level because that's where the discussion is at. For instance, now that the issue over redirects has gone to RfD, you can't try to use BRD to challenge that consensus, nor can you try to start an informal discussion with another editor on the talk page. The way to challenge the consensus would be another RfD discussion, although repeatedly starting new discussions is an issue of its own. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many of us are aware of the elephant in the room. Chicdat does not have the Elephant to see the difference between WP:BOLD and reckless wishful-thinking. He's an asset when working on content, and often goes awry when assessing other editors efforts & working in non-content areas. I'll repeat my comment from September 2020 - "It's my honest belief that the most supportive thing the community can help you with is to urge you to keep away from those administrative areas for the time being."

There are limits to the number of trips to AN & ANI which can be endured while waiting for Chicdat to acquire Elephants. Cabayi (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, as noted above, Chicdat is already under a myriad of 'voluntary' restrictions, and this edit-war retargeting violates one of Chicdat's existing restrictions anyway: I may not ... Retarget project-space redirects without a discussion at RFD. Thing is, this many formal restrictions would be unheard of, and it's probably hard enough for the editor to keep track of themselves for one. A few months ago, Chicdat's mentor said: Chicdat is currently not competent enough for administrative decisions I don't think that state of affairs has really changed. Besides, there are various issues that have never really reached this noticeboard. Some are in Chicdat's user talk archives, and some weren't even worth mentioning there. It pains me to say it especially as it's not really due to any intentional fault of Chicdat, but it's clear we'll end up here again and again, and so I agree with Noah that formalising a broad restriction from the areas of concern is probably appropriate, which (based on the evidence/discussions linked above and the few user talk discussions I remember reading) seems to be more or less across projectspace, bar WikiProject participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Chicdat is partial-blocked from editing in the project space

Given my comment and those made by others about Chicdat unintentionally and chronically causing disruption in project space areas, I propose that Chicdat be partially blocked so that he is unable to edit pages with "Wikipedia:". He would still be able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. Chicdat should be prohibited from editing redirects to pages in the project space as well. I believe this would provide a balance between keeping the encyclopedia safe from future disruption while also keeping Chicdat out of trouble. This restriction would be appealable at this noticeboard after a minimum of 6 months pass. Noah^Talk 02:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per my comment in the previous section. In spite of the voluntary restrictions, there have been recurring issues and violations. In fairness, it is hard to remember a long list of restrictions like that -- last time we were here this was proposed, above we have this proposed, then there's frequent modifications like this (and others), etc. It's just too much even for any editor to reasonably remember, much less actually adhere to strictly (as is expected for bans). This is far simpler, appropriate in scope, proportionate to the issues, and unfortunately necessary. Also helps the editor stay out of trouble and focus on the areas where they're an asset. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• How about instead of a partial block, I adhere to a 0RR in project space? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  For me, the issue isn't just the edit war, it's general judgement in administrative tasks. Just as in the previous case the issue wasn't just the single tightly-scoped area under discussion. When you look at all the different discussions (at AN/ANI and on user talk), then the proposed scope becomes the most minimal one that encapsulates most of it. Also, I note there's already 7 voluntary restrictions and 5 areas of caution. I don't feel compounding the list is effective (I'm not even sure the current list is); I think it's better to replace the entire list with a new software-enforced scope, and also easier for you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• After all, please consider my productive contributions in project space. I'm a helpful asset to WikiProject Tropical cyclones, and I have nominated many articles about old people for deletion. I also make many helpful comments on all areas of the village pump, et cetera. The only problems I have in project space are those that stem from my WP:BOLD, revert, revert, revert editing. Therefore, a 0RR would be much more productive than a p-block. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed block is only from the Wikipedia namespace, not the Wikipedia talk namespace, so you would still be able to participate in WikiProject tropical cyclones. I don't agree that your comments at the village pumps are helpful, I'm afraid. Is "Yes" [42] a helpful comment that helped advance that discussion? Here [43] you quote deletion policy when someone is proposing a new project? In your most recent deletion nomination you spent a good third of the nom statement on how the person isn't in the top 20 oldest people, something that has no relevance to notability and no relevance to whether the article should be kept, and which confused the discussion [44]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Indeed. Another example is [45], which should've been read as a consensus against the proposal, but Chicdat seemed to have misread it and then created [46] with a mass-ping which was largely a waste of time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    And in the end, archives were added to RfPP, but you seem to have ignored that. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The fact that you eventually got what you wanted doesn't remove the fact that you were completely unable to read a discussion and see that the community overwhelmingly disagreed with you, and it doesn't excuse the disruption you were causing along the way. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    If I was causing so much disruption, why did nobody bring it up until now? Besides, being outnumbered in a discussion isn't disruptive editing. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    The disruptive element wasn't you being outnumbered. Also, the issue was brought up, at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive335#Changes_at_Requests_for_page_protection where your involvement was also mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    How come I was never notified about that? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, with regret. I might be an IP editor, but I'm not a newbie, and this isn't the first time I've noticed issues with chicdat's editing in "behind the scenes"/administrative areas. The distinct impression I have always had from their contributions in the Wikipedia namespace is that they are overenthusiastic and often overconfident, often to the point of mild rudeness, which coupled with major gaps in understanding and as Cabayi puts it issues with Elephants is always going to be a recipe for disruption. They're already under a voluntary restriction from large chunks of activities in this area, and a look through their talk page archives will show a history of disruption in this part of the project in a number of areas. It's a shame that in the almost two years they've been editing here they haven't been able to acquire Elephants in this area, so unfortunately I have to support a namespace block. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Their comments in this discussion have convinced me that they completely lack any understanding as to why their editing is disruptive or that what they were doing is wrong, so I'm revising my !vote to an unqualified support. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed restriction makes sense and is simpler all-around than the voluntary restrictions targeting project space. Mackensen (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This should be seen as a last warning by Chicdat. As the IP in the section bellow comments, there are serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to administrative areas of the project. I hope Chicdat can see the conversation here as a learning experience, and understand why he was wrong when he tried to be WP:BOLD. Isabelle ^🔔 13:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Isabelle Belato: I do understand why this didn't qualify as BOLD. It was because there were already three discussions against me. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose partial block from W: namespace. Wrong tool. Support TBAN from Projectspace maybe except WikiProjects instead, per nom/above. Levivich 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would like to note that some of the disruption mentioned above involved the moving of a WikiProject page and the modification of the project's template against consensus. The premise of this proposal was to prevent disruption across all the areas mentioned above. I have concerns that Chicdat may try to further involve himself in the merger process of the weather wikiprojects which is a long-term process. The page move and the template change he did were against part of the consensus involved in the merger. Noah^Talk 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Point taken, I updated my !vote. For me the important thing is that it should be a tban from projectspace (not just WP: but also templates, files, etc.) and not a pblock from just the Wikipedia namespace (I don't think they should be in WT: pages either). We'll never technically restrict someone into becoming a productive editor; this would be a tban to force them to focus on mainspace and nothing else, the idea being it's a last chance to be productive and not disruptive. I don't think they've been tban'd before, and if they violate this tban, the remedy should be a full block. It seems weird to exclude someone from participating in wikiprojects (it's like tban'ing someone from collaboration, like some kind of "solitary confinement"), but maybe there should be no exceptions to the tban. I could go either way on that. Levivich 14:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Others above say it much better, but it is clear that Chicdat is a net negative in project-space. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all pages beginning Wikipedia:, oppose using the partial block tool to enforce it. There's overwhelming evidence that Chicdat is being repeatedly (and unintentionally) disruptive across a broad swathe of project-space, but there are too many occasions in which there would be a legitimate exception to the ban, and as such using a partial block would itself be disruptive. (A partial block would render Chicdat unable to participate in an Arbcom case even if they were the named party, for instance.) As in almost all the cases where people propose partial blocks against a named editor, as long as the wording of the topic ban is unambiguous there's no need to use a partial block to enforce it; if the user isn't willing to comply with the topic ban then we should be going with a full block not a partial one, and if the user is willing to comply then any partial block would just be a waste of time. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. 163.1.15.238's impression has been mine as well: this user, while obviously well intentioned, simply lacks the ability to edit competently in administrative areas at the moment. Perhaps that will change in the future, but his participation in project-space is – and has been for a while – a clear net negative. I would tend to concur with Iridescent that a partial block would likely do more harm than good: a duly-enforced topic ban should be enough to resolve the crux of this problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support PBLOCK from WP:, perhaps limited to 1 year. Oppose TBAN which is just setting a trap given Chicdat's inability to stop himself. Cabayi (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My observations

So I've been dragged to ANI once again. I apologize for my prior absence from the discussion, I was grounded. From my knowledge, here's what's been happening. 21 October 2021 12:16: An IP reverts my retarget from July 2020, saying that in prior discussions, RFP was unanimously against being retargeted to PERM. 12:18: I revert with the untrue statement that I did gain consensus. 15:44: The IP did not revert, but instead nominated RfP at RFD.

During the RfD, I meanwhile got myself involved in a content dispute about a man's death date.

29 October 2021 3:16: The RFD was closed as retarget, and RfP was retargeted to RFPP. 31 October 2021 13:03: A longevity dispute I was involved in, with many edit wars, was resolved by Blablubbs, who threatened to sanction both of us. 6 November 2021 11:23: I WP:BOLDly turn RfP into a disambiguation page. 9 November 2021 11:29: An IP reverts me. (The IP is the same one who reverted earlier.) 11:30: I revert the IP. 11:30: The IP reverts me. (2nd time) 11:32: I revert the IP. (2nd time) 11:34: The IP reverts me. (3rd time) 11:35: I revert the IP. (3rd time) 11:47: To avoid breaking 3RR, the IP reports me at ANI.

Now it is being proposed that I am partially blocked. However, I have good contributions in project-space, too. WikiProject Tropical cyclones. The village pump. XfD. Discussions concerning adminship. Why can I not adhere to a 0RR in project space instead, with the condition that if I violate it or exhibit any tendentious editing, I am indefinitely blocked? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you are still claiming that your edits fall under WP:BOLD shows the issue here. You cannot just BOLDly decide to override a community consensus built through a formal process that closed a week prior. Have you actually sat down and read WP:BOLD or are you just throwing it around hoping that it says what you think it does? You really need to read the sections on WP:RECKLESS, the need for careful editing in the Wikipedia namespace and that you need to take your edits to discussion after your "bold" edit was reverted. Also I did not bring you to ANI to avoid breaking 3RR, I brought you to ANI because you were being extremely disruptive, were engaging in Tendentious editing and were refusing to accept multiple community consensuses that were against you. If you cannot understand this then this really reinforces the need for a partial block until you do. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No. My edits were bold at first. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you trolling, are you looking for an excuse, or are you legitimately unable to understand the concept of consensus building? We had a discussion a week prior at a centralised venue, where everyone on Wikipedia with an interest in that redirect could comment, and not a single person agreed with your theories on why this should be disambiguated. When the community has universally rejected your proposal you don't then get to disambiguate the page a week later claiming "WP:BOLD!". If you aren't trolling or trying to use BOLD as an excuse and legitimately cannot understand this then the closing admin should consider my !vote revised to "Support Site Ban, per WP:CIR". I'm going to leave this for others to comment on now since this just seems to be going round in circles. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I know how people create consensus. They start a discussion, and what is generally accepted becomes consensus. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants you to be indefinitely blocked. To make such a restriction on you even if you are the one suggesting it would be punitive rather than preventative. The issues I have are more with your overall judgment in the project space. It's far more than simple reverts and a 0RR restriction wouldn't cover the array of issues presented here. Your list of self-prohibited items is growing significantly too long as problems have cropped up. I felt the best option to keep you from being dragged back here again was to do a partial block. It prevents any future disruption across the whole project namespace. The goals here are protecting the encyclopedia and keeping you out of trouble. You would still be able to participate in discussions on any talk page as the Wikipedia talk namespace would be unrestricted. Noah^Talk 12:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am sure that there are alternatives to a partial block. For instance, I am open to someone mentoring me. You know, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Isn't blocking a last resort? Is there something I can do to convince you that I'm here to build an encyclopedia? I'll do anything. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts your good intentions. It's the repeated poor execution that's the issue. A partial block would help keep you on track and hopefully ensure there isn't a "next time". There have been too many "next time"s already. Cabayi (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I never have once thought that Chicdat has been acting in bad faith. However, there have been too many "facepalm moments" that have required cleanup from other editors. I think Chicdat could be a good editor eventually, but he just needs more time to learn, and hopefully, a restriction would help with that. Noah^Talk 20:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Block review requested

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

---

After three earlier blocks User:Hatto was indefinitely blocked in April 2008. A few weeks later they created User:Hatto0467 who has been editing steadily since, including the creation of articles. On the 6th of this month they logged into Hatto and redirected Talk:Hatto to Talk:Hatto0467, which gave the blocked account ECP and was noticed in a discussion about ECP. I note that one of the issues with the original account was misuse of the minor edits tickbox - they still seem to have a bit of a problem with this. I've CU blocked them as they are clearly block evading, but I'm not going to lose my cool if someone wants to unblock them although I personally don't like to see block evaders get away with it. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

They've been editing for 13 years without incident? That kind of proves that a block in 2008 was not necessary to prevent disruption. I don't see how a block today is necessary to prevent disruption. Unless Wikipedia is the kind of place where "rules are rules" and if you broke one 13 years ago, you should be blocked today, regardless of how much good you've done in the last 13 years. I don't think that's what blocking policy envisions. Unless they've done something disruptive in the past decade, let's unblock them. Also, editors whose second accounts use the same name as the first account aren't really trying to evade anything. If nobody noticed/cared for 13 years, why notice/care now? Levivich 15:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep him & his sock(s) blocked. I fatefully served my 1-year ban, so why can't he. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If they are contributing usefully to the project now, then why spit in their face for some long-ago transgression? Clearly they aren't causing major disruption sufficient to warrant permastomping. As GoodDay notes above, sometimes long ago mistakes were made in blocking; in that case it should have been permanent. I'd like to see some acknowledgement of the old sin and a pledge to keep on contributing. After all, it's not as if he's flying under the radar now; he has eyes - unwinking, unforgiving eyes - on him. --Pete (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Out of curiosity, how does redirecting the original page piggyback the EC status of the later account? (Although, admittedly, I also don't see the point—the current account presumably has that right already (with >1K edits)).

Regarding the point at hand, I'm tempted to echo Levivich; while I'm usually the first to demand that he editors log into their original accounts, realistically, after 13 years of no-mishaps surely we make an exception...? As for the minor edits thing, I haven't looked closely, but the numbers are pretty clear that Hatto467's minor edits are <20% of their total, compared to his earlier rate of (gulp!) >60%. ——Serial 15:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: how does redirecting the original page piggyback the EC status of the later account? it doesn't. Extended confirmed status is given either when you make your first edit after your reach the threshold, or your first edit after 5 April 2016 (the date EC went live on en.wp) if you reached the threshold before then. The redirection was the first edit made by user:Hatto since 2008, but they made nearly 4000 edits between 2005 and 2008 so they go the status automatically. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I seeee, Thanks Thryduulf: so EC wasn't retroactive when it was introduced, but would kick in on the first edit since then—of which that was the one on the 6th! Check. Thanks for resolving that. A harder question to resolve might be... why?! It seems a curiously pointless action, tbh. ——Serial 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Some might say that redirecting your old account's talk page to your new account is disclosing the earlier account. So after 13 years of editing without being blocked, the editor gets blocked after linking the accounts on-wiki. I wonder what message that sends to block evaders... Levivich 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Levivich, SN, and Canterbury Tail here, there's really not much value in blocking them at this point. And the message, as with most long-after-the-fact cases of block evasion, is "if you keep your nose clean people aren't going to notice". ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't have happened in an ideal world, but it's been 13 years without any issues from the user. Trout them and then unblock as an WP:IAR interpretation. They're productive and blocks shouldn't be punitive. Talk to them on the minor edits thing if we think it's still an issue, but I think the block should be lifted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• 13 years of good behavior certainly merits WP:SO qualification, even if it is a bit unorthodox. I'm okay with the WP:IAR unblocking here. The rules are meant to stop disruption, and clearly this person has made it 13 years without disrupting Wikipedia. I'd say they've proven themselves. If we had caught them right away, perhaps a block would be in order, but Wikipedia stands to gain nothing over keeping them blocked. --Jayron32 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Question is - How many more socks is he operating. I assume they'd be more creatively named. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• He does need to stop using the minor edit tick box so much IMHO. I didn't do a thorough check so don't know about more socks. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ok, I've checked. I see a lot of editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously he's being dishonest with the community. His IP(s) should be blocked, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Is it abusive logged-out editing, or the sort that would normally be handled by a {{uw-login}} or such? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have blocked under these circumstances and I think the user should be unblocked absent additional evidence. I have some questions about the original block from 2008 and I doubt it would withstand review if done today. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, any block placed by Rodhullandemu should probably be vacated on principle, or at least reviewed with a jaundiced eye. ——Serial 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Tbh anytime I read "block from 2008" my initial reaction is "it was probably a bad block". Those were the Old Times, when Titans roamed the encyclopedia, devouring mortals. Levivich 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Their earlier blocks: 02:50, 3 March 2008 DragonflySixtyseven talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 2 days, 48 minutes and 48 seconds (autoblock disabled) (Ignoring warnings on abingdon boys school and related articles) (unblock | change block)

  14:30, 12 March 2007 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (anon. only) (removing replacable fair use tags despite multiple warnins and notices, and gross incivility and personal attacks) (unblock | change block)

  3:11, 29 June 2006 William M. Connolley talk contribs block blocked Hatto talk contribs with an expiration time of 8 hours (3rr on Masashi_Tashiro) (unblock | change block)

  @Tamzin:I haven't examined their IP edits carefully, but the problem for me is that there are a lot of them. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• What Levivich and SN54129 said. This is a punishment looking for a reason. Unless anyone has any diffs of any actual disruptive behaviour from, say, the last few years, then unblock as "time very much served" and move on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Of course, unblock. If WP:SOCK becomes the end, not the means, then we've stopped trying to build an encyclopedia, and are just playing Sock Hunting the Video Game(TM). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • • I play that every week I unload the washing machine and dryer. Canterbury Tail talk 19:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The world's most boring MUD. Levivich 18:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

    In Q&A sections of newspapers and websites on Mars, a frequent question is "Where do the unfamiliar odd socks in my laundry come from?" Narky Blert (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support Unblock per above. A trout and informal warning (for minor edits) are all that is needed as they can clearly edit constructivel. The block was also placed by an admin who is now banned. dudhhr_Contribs 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is an odd situation. I think an unblock probably is merited, although it seems like there ought to be some closure to the prior indef. Rather than unblock unilaterally, why not suggest that they file a nominal unblock request and then approve it? Someone who is willing to constructively edit Wikipedia should be able to come up with a cursory justification for doing so.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• I think we're now at consensus standards for unblocking, with just some differing on the nature of the warning that should be given alongside. Per "NOTBUREAU" I don't believe we need a "nominal unblock request". However, this is technically a CU block, and I'm not sure whether but I'm not going to lose my cool if someone wants to unblock them is "CU permission for a regular unblock" or "permission for another CU to unblock without further query to the blocking admin". Thus, any CU please process. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Paging Barkeep49 on aisle 5 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can unblock. Please mention minor edits again though, I've already dealt with editing logged out. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Not entirely sure why I was paged specifically and as I am not Batman I make no promises to always turn up at ANI if the signal goes up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just note I think it's a bit concerning to see CU blocks used when there is obvious block evasion just from behaviour (username, in this case). It limits unblocking to CUs and slows down the removal of bad blocks, since not every admin can review them, or at least it seems other admins feel cautious about undoing them (as seen above in Nosebagbear's comment). Also think an admin should show a bit of discretion when the original block apparently being evaded was for improper use of minor edit indicators... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ProcrastinatingReader: I agree, and would go further and say that {{checkuserblock-account}} should never be used in the event of a purely behavioural link between accounts. This is intimated by the template itself: Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively... (my emphasis). Clearly, in cases such as this, technical logs didn't come into it initially. ——Serial 11:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking a sock-master who's claimed his english isn't very good. Very well, then. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Sockmaster" is a little inaccurate don't you think? If an admin looks at the editor's contributions and wants to block them for a substantive reason - disruptive editing, perhaps related to their English ability or something else - then they could do that. But blocking them for being a 'sockmaster' or for 'marking edits as minor' are both obviously bad blocks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My feelings on sock puppetry are well documented, but essentially I asked for diffs of recent disruptive behaviour (on the grounds that a sock will "revert to type" eventually and do the things that caused them to get blocked in the first place) and there were none forthcoming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I could swear I posted about two hours ago, but something failed. Anyway, what I wrote more or less is that in hindsight I agree it should not have been a CU block - I think it was a desire to be overcautious in checking I was right, but that wasn't necessary. Not my best block but please note that I immediately came here for a block review. Of course the most important thing is the result, which is what I hoped for or better. Hatto has his old username back which he's very happy about, another Admin and ProcrastinatingReader have advise him about minor edits, I've told him he can always contact me and I've shared a good website with him. Because of the name change the CU block doesn't show up in his blocklog. As I assumed Ritchie read the block log I didn't see any point in analyzing the frequency of minor edits - there was no question in my mind of reverting to type (ignoring warnings etc, the reasons for the earlier blocks ), I have no idea why that was mentioned other than his negative feelings . Doug Weller talk 12:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie's disruptive editing

User Echo1Charlie is engaged in disruptive editing and edit-war with multiple editors on multiple pages while giving misunderstood policies as rationale for reversion and large-scale content removal (see 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). The editor also questions reputable RS just because it comes from a certain country (see 1 & 2). The user doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY means (see 1, 2 & 3) or what WP:LONGQUOTE means (see 1 & 2). Calls a print magazine a WP:SPS (see 1 & 2). The user has already been warned for such behavior. Tagging @Satrar and Samee: for more input. --119.157.254.153 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins should also note that this user was also warned here earlier. 119.157.96.86 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The OP is a block evading sock of [[47]] as already described here. He couldn't get his POV on 2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown that's why engaging in this forum shopping. Given this disruption, the article needs ECP protection. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Says someone who routinely engages in meatpuppetry. 119.157.126.39 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie doesn't have to edit via his IP, all his edits are via his user ID :) because all edits I make are reasonable and the reason would be normally provided in the edit summary and the editwar regarding samee and satrar. I'm curious how do you know about the incident regarding samee and satrar? I was trying to find the diff I made in that editwar report , to prove which was a false accusation, but I lost among 2000+ edits I made, I couldn't find it (but will add here later), being an IP how did you know that incident??! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh you mentioned mentioned that here, thanks for doing that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Let's begin with reputable source argument you made -

1. [48] - if you came with your user ID I could've pinged you, I provided the reason in detail here and a Pakistani news paper in India Pakistan matter especially regarding Kashmir is a biased source, violating the policies I mentioned in the talk section. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. WP:PRIMARY is not generally encouraged to cite on articles, especially when it comes to controversial subjects like Kashmir issue it's not acceptable at all (I think so). —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Globalvillagespace - "The reputable print magazine" (are they actually print magazine in the literal sense) - in their about it reads - "Global Village Space (GVS) is an initiative of few friends from Columbia University Alumni Club of Pakistan." - now my question is it a reliable source regarding India - Pakistan issue? Or Kashmir conflict? To me it sounds like a potential WP:SPS —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Regarding your this reply [49] accusing an editor calling him meatpuppet sounds so familiar to me [50] Satrar calling an editor Thewolfchild who put a comment in that report - a meat puppet! Coincidence?!, also calling Satrar and samee here [51] could be a coincidence too right?! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Long quote quote farm - [52] Long quotes were removed but the citations retained including that of Dawn.com at the bottom, also it's a WP:QUOTEFARM - just look at the number of quotes they've put in that singe sentence - starting with "There was also.." to "It was at the centre of..." - that's 5 quotes in a row! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
6. And about the first 5 diffs your provided - I think edit summaries I provided there would speak for me. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• My Observation : It's interesting to note that IP editing is increased on India-Pakistan/Kashmir related articles recently, see here [53], [54], [55] - content of this well cited article was completely removed by an Ip on 4 November 2021 [56] calling WP:OR WP:POV - this incident came to the light only because we discussed the matter on my talk page here. I think these are done by experienced editors, (IP Sock??), I request these articles should be protected from IP editing. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Echo1Charlie, there is no requirement that otherwise reliable sources be completely unbiased. If we eliminated all pro-Indian and pro-Pakistani sources from coverage of the Kashmir dispute, we would have very few sources left to cite. It is the task of productive Wikipedia editors to accurately summarize the full range of reliable sources. So, a pro-India editor should be willing to cite a pro-Pakistan reliable source, if it makes a cogent and relevant point about the conflict. And vice versa. My edits that I am most proud of are to defend articles about people I do not like off-Wikipedia, from edits that violate WP:BLP policy. Every living person deserves that protection, even if I think Person A is a jerk. The same general principal applies to articles about controversial topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point Cullen328, actually we're on the same boat see my arguments here [57] under subtitle Neutrality Issues. I'm against attaching Dawn as an external link [58] as I have stated here its a violation of

1. WP:ELPOV - it reads " avoid providing links... to one point of view"- here the external link provided is that of a Pakistani national daily - the dawn, known to push Pakistani narrative
2. WP:LINKSTOAVOID - it reads - " Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject" - here external link provided is a news link

hence in my opinion news site as an external link can't be allowed. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Also in this article 2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown under reaction section, Pakistani dailies like dawn, pakistantoday etc are cited, I haven't removed them with this judgement! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Interestingly, the consensus early on in the development of 2020 Delhi riots was to cite only third party international sources (especially those with journalist agents in India), rather than Indian sources, because it was such a divisive event that even Indian sources normally considered reliable (including The Hindu I recall) were found to be unreliable for reporting about that event. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear from the discussion above just what you object to, Echo1Charlie. Are you saying only that Dawn (newspaper) is not appropriate as an external link, but that it is otherwise acceptable as reliable source? I want to be sure that I understand you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Dawn is not acceptable as an external link (I can't comment on its reliability though, in general), also in my opinion we need to use user discretion in citing these sources, example here [59] we don't know the accuracy of this information here, hence a neutral source is needed with the Dawn.com ( I think reuters cover these kind of news) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, are you equally opposed to the use of pro-Indian media sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't generally rely on Pro-Indian sources, I mostly cite WP:HINDU, Diplomat.com, Reuters etc on my edits, also if I came across Pro-Indian unreliable sources like -WP:TOI, DNA news, republicworld etc, I remove them and the claim associated with it, if I can't find a reliable source for example see here [[60]], I don't even cite India Today!, also I rarely edit controversial subjects like this but if I do, I do it with non-Indian source, see for example - [61] —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I opined about Dawn as external source on the said article's talkpage [62] but it may have went unnoticed so commenting it again here.

"I disagree as to Dawn (newspaper) pushing Pakistani narrative. It's the most revered newspaper in South Asia and is Pakistan's Newspaper of record. It is often criticized in the country for being against the state narrative, an example of which was Dawn leaks controversy. So you can't really say that it pushes Pakistani narrative, it is rather quite neutral on it." USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh you sure about that USaamo? Let me read one line from the said link [63] which the Ip was trying to add there as an external link -"Security operations against Kashmiri fighters have accelerated" 4th paragraph, calling terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Al-Badr (Jammu and Kashmir) - freedom fighters?? or do you have a different opinion regarding these UN listed terror outfits??! This is the very reason why I object to it's listing as external link! —18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)

PM calling Osama Bin Laden - a martyr [64] and countrymen celebrating Taliban takeover in Afghanistan [65].., I'm not surprised! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well now that's a nationalist attack and is unacceptable here. What if I say that they have elected a murderer of thousands of Muslims as PM of India [66]] and the government party leaders in India want Muslims to be skinned alive for cheering up Pakistan Cricket Team. [67] Should anyone be surprised or it's normal in this regime? USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Echo1Charlie: your comment can easily be interpreted as racist. I suggest you strike it out. @USaamo: please don't engage in this kind of rhetoric.VR _talk 21:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your concern Vice regent, I just quoted BBC news and Washington news, also these are not my opinion, invention or allegation! Also I didn't racial profile them, I didn't mention any religion or country's name, did I? How mentioning news with link be offensive? I don't understand that. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to quote Mr Khan from the news link "I will never forget how we Pakistanis were embarrassed when the Americans came into Abbottabad and killed Osama Bin Laden, martyred him," Khan said." - I'm not guilty but those who, worshipping and hailing a terrorist responsible for the death of 2996 innocent lives is guilty. Why should I strike out my comment for that?? Even their Opposition leader criticised him for this remark! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is going downhill fast. After taking a look through, I'm still not entirely clear what administrative action anyone is looking for here, and unless that's forthcoming I'll put this thread out of its misery and suggest everyone here deal with the content dispute through appropriate channels. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

CREG7898

CREG7898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor was blocked on Friday for edit warring and failure to communicate. The editor then proceeded to continue the behavior that led to their block, which included two reverts without a valid explanation and zero communication as an attempt to discuss the issue. The editor has reverted 3 different edits of mine, two of which were reverted multiple times. I warned them about this behavior. After being blocked, this editor then proceeded to leave a personal attack and for some reason an assumption of my political beliefs on my talkpage after being topic banned from Odell Beckham Jr., which was the page this all occurred on. Not sure if anything can be done, but it seems this editor is holding some sort of vendetta against me.--Rockchalk717 23:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And the personal attacks have moved to the talkpage of the previously mentioned page.--Rockchalk717 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked. What a loser. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Thank you. This editor has been a pain in my you know what for a few days, on top of his strange personal attacks and assumptions about my political views.--Rockchalk717 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

181.165.53.145

181.165.53.145 (talk · contribs) Static IP, single purpose account. All they do is go around adding hlist templates to infoboxes where they're not needed. I (politely) explained on their talk page why the this was unnecessary and not preferable, but they have not responded and just keep on doing it, so I issued warnings instead but they just keep on. IP has never edited in talk space so seems unwilling to engage in discussion about their edits. Pinging @Binksternet: who has also been reverting this IP on the basis of MOS:VAR and has also issued them warnings. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This IP seems to be acting alone, not connected to other IPs. No communication, persistently changing trivial style and layout details against the guideline WP:STYLEVAR which allows the existing style to stand if it is acceptable to MOS. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

• 203.145.95.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• City University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Island line (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• old ANI thread 1
• old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852) Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere, which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning.) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing , just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to the range ([68]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia.. So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?

BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) 124.217.188.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem more clear cut disruptive by add obsolete place name New Kowloon. (@Ohnoitsjamie: Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)

• While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)

Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR

203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185

But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung#Geography) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Cite-spamming tendentious IP sock

Dealt with a tendentious editing serial-sockpuppeteer that was also a serial cite-spammer. When its last accounts User:Chathu69 and User:Chathuwr were banned and I purged most of the cite-spam and self-work/self-promotion but then a IP sock 212.104.224.5 suddenly appears and tendentiously edits Age of Information page to restore the content. Then right after it did three reverts it shifts to 212.104.231.67 and continues restoring the self-work and then 212.104.236.95 comes and tries to restore the content proving that the sock tried to lure me into falling into 3RR violation but didn't know removing WP:SOCK material is an exception to 3RR rule. I cannot tag the page for speedy delete because it was a redirect page existed before sock took it over. They are pretty much in the same range of IP socks used by Chathu/Basnayaka. SPI couldn't ban them because they are dynamic. Thank you -UmdP 06:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Another IP of the range hits other pages too all trying to bring back the refspam of the sock. Then the IPs loses it and tries to revert my edits in other pages throwing accusations like vandalism-UmdP 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Iyo-farm repeated block-evasion

Iyo-farm is indef blocked on Wikipedia and has been evading his block by using o2 mobile IPs to post on the Vegan Society talk-page and at British pet massacre. There is a current SPI about this user [69]. Many of these IPs trace around the UK to four or five different locations, so this individual travels a lot which makes it easy for him to get a new mobile IP.

These IPs he has used today.

• 82.132.230.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.232.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.184.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.217.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And before that, these and many others (he often signed his comment on these IPs with his username)

• 82.132.225.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.186.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.234.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.229.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.224.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.220.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I want to point out this has been going on for 1 month now. I don't know if a range block is possible or not, I did suggest it to an admin but another opinion is needed because such a block would stop many others from editing from o2 so it is probably not fair but recently this user continues his block evasion on these IPs almost daily. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Iyo-farm had many problems, but definitely wasn't 89.241.33.89. I should now because that was me, a fact I even had on my user page for awhile. The IP address isn't even in the same range, try not to tar all IPs the same. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Actively, I agree with you. 89 was not him sorry, it got lumped in their by mistake. I added it by mistake when looking at the history of British Pet Massacre. All the others are definitely him. He is currently using this o2 IP to edit these same articles and his SPI [70] Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest partial blocking the 82.132.0.0 range from Iyo-farm's usual targets, I doubt the collateral will be that great. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

British pet massacre has been semi-protected for several months. Definity the right move. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Their range appears to be 82.132.128.0/17, if a rangeblock is ever needed. wizzito | say hello! 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's go back to first principles here. What's really going on? Psychologist Guy wants to discredit the Vegan Society with a length paragraph that fails on the grounds of NPOV, NOTNEWS and WEIGHT [71]. I reduced it to a couple of sentences retain the references [72]. Since then, he keep reverting to his NPOV version. All of the rest of it, is just obfuscation, & character assassination in an attempt to "win". It's all diversionary tactics.

Let's go back & examine his edit on the basis of those policies, & see if it actually works. As I pointed out on the talk page, it doesn't because of the brevity of the topic. The short version is better. --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.0 (talk • contribs)

More of the same. Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Frequent edits sanitising articles regarding Hong Kong and other Chinese related articles by Sgweirdo

I originally reported this user to AIV, and was told to bring it here. This user has received multiple final warnings, but then just hides his talk page so gets away with disruptive editing everyday. He has a fixation on Hong Kong and other Chinese related articles and frequently removes flags, adds unsourced references, etc.

Example edit diffs:

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Diff 4

Update: Editor blanked the page to hide the notification about this incident report on their talk page.

Editor also makes a lot of edits to hide his disruptive edits and ignores all warnings. Equine-man (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment None of those diffs seem to show 'Removing flags' or 'adding unsourced references' they don't seem particularly troublesome.. 1. was rewording something 2. seems to be a minor formatting change. 3. was removing a sound clip, that was uncaptioned and unexplained. 4. Was, however, an unexplained deletion. You described the edit here [[73]] as 'Vandalism' but I don't think it is necessarily vandalism. I can see where they are coming from, Patten is not the governor of Hong-Kong, nor was he the only one so having his photo on the page is a little odd, they made a change, it was reverted, and you haven't suggested they are edit warring to restore such changes.. Blanking their talk page is their prerogative entirely. JeffUK (talk)

Comment None of the diffs above show a conduct issues or even an obvious content issue (which is not what ANI is for). A number of their edits have been reverted, but none look like overt vandalism to me, rather it is a content disputes, for which we have WP:BRD cycle. I do not see evidence of edit warring, nor attempts at discussions (beyond templating warnings, which by removing they show they've seen them) by multiple parties on either the article talk pages or user pages. Still, Sgweirdo made no attempts to re-add content without consensus. If I am missing any concrete examples, please link them. Reading an ANI complaint shouldn't require us to do the digging for evidence. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User Wennradio

• Wennradio (talk · contribs)
• Tariq Nasheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wennradio has a coi[74][75], is a spammer ([76] [77][78][79][80][81]...), and a SPA with less than 150 edits over 13 years, attempting to control the content of the BLP article Tariq Nasheed and related topics. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: [82] --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: I'm busy right now but I think this belongs at WP:COIN. I see that your coi links show that Wennradio says they are a representative of Nasheed, who they are indeed spamming. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting subpages created by banned user

Hello, following some images I found that a banned user created many user's sub-pages (some are huge, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FlamingSkateBoard) with repetitive content and images deliberately confused and manipulated.

- It seems that the main user was "Favoritismo", banned in January 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Favoritismo

- Later he re-created identical confusionary sub-pages as "Rallyismo": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rallyismo

- Then "FlamingSkateBoard": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlamingSkateBoard

- Then "CrabsPlankqon": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CrabsPlankqon

- Then "QutanRawr": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QutanRawr

- Then "EggYolkLol": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EggYolkLol

All the accounts have various of these sub-pages, and there may be other accounts that I have not found. I think that they should be all deleted per G3, G5, and G13.

Thanks for the attention.--37.160.160.89 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you failed to notify any user you have reported as required. Chip3004 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The accounts are abandoned, however I have now notified them.--37.160.160.89 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Jengaboot just here to push a negative POV

This is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Please follow the instructions and steps on WP:DISPUTE. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Jengaboot appears to be here just to push a negative POV on Antioch International Movement of Churches, including using weak referencing and loaded language [83], placing undue emphasis on living persons leaving the church [84], edit warring over negative coverage being removed [85], and removing content for not being critical of the church [86]. Their latest edits to the article came after I cautioned them on their edits, and it seems they've been copypasting my edit summaries. Their only talk page edit was to accuse another editor of bias [87]. As such, I can only conclude that they are an SPA here to turn the Wikipedia page into an attack page CiphriusKane (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane (in user's words) "nuked" my established contributions instead of constructively working and editing to maintain them. A "nuke" is a name for a reckless indiscriminate means of destruction. To accuse me of negative bias is a subjective accusation. My entries have been quite matter of fact. If you feel there is bias and loaded language, the proper edit would be to make it more matter of fact instead of blowing the whole effort up. I don't have a large expertise on the intricacies of Wikipedia's rules but there are ways to fix an entry rather than senseless and baseless mass deletions. User:CiphriusKaneseems to have an overly positive bias towards [88] to completely eliminate some of it's controversially noted entries. User:CiphriusKane has an intent on attacking me and my contributions. One such example is insisting on a copyvio on an entry that was already deleted by CiphriusKane . You can't have a violation when the entry is already "nuked". A "nuke" is a name for a reckless indiscriminate means of destruction. That vandalism is exactly what has taken place byCiphriusKane's actions . I would address the "problems" these entries have myself but, if user User:CiphriusKane were truly an unbiased and productive editor, it would be better for User:CiphriusKane to add back the entries in a format you deem correct. (talk)10 November 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:Jengaboot (talk • contribs)

I removed the controversies section because it was an indiscriminate and poorly sourced attack section, including implicitly trying to link the actions and beliefs of individuals to the church. I am neither in favour nor against the church. Also, the copyright notice is an alert to administrators that there is a copyright violation in the page history that needs to be deleted, which is still there. If there is legitimate and reliably sourced criticism about the church then it can be added to the article. To clarify, the criticisms sections took up half the article, and included the departure of pastors, and comments such as this edit summary indicate that this is largely built off Jengaboot's personal views.

Also, I would ask Jengaboot to assume good faith about my edits. Accusing me of vandalism and of bias for cleaning up a badly sourced and indiscriminate list of "controversies" which was frankly too long to go through individually is quite rude. That comment is actually a recurring theme in Jengaboot's repeated readditions of their criticisms, that any attempts to clean up the section is pro-church bias [89] [90] [91] CiphriusKane (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane your egregious "nuking" behavior and reverts were only destructive and seem to indicate you to believe certain privileges apply to you for some reason don't apply to me. You believe you can "nuke" entire sections claiming bias, but when I do this, for some reason, is not according to your biased preference. The controversies I recorded were matter of fact. Incidents occurred, I reported and cited them. Again, if there is any fact you found "loaded" or "bias" why not edit it to report in a more professional or unbiased manner instead of destroying the entire page? This is nothing more than effort to conceal and eliminate reports about this church and the truth. To "nuke" something entirely simply because you dislike or disagree with, and attack me with baseless accusations it is lazy, mean spirited, and extremely non-productive. For you to claim there is absolutely no value of authenticity to the contributions I carefully made is simply incorrect and if you were worth your salt, you would agree, reinstate, rework to maintain the page's controversies and accusations in a more professional manner than totally destroying it in the child-like manner you have chosen to carry out. (talk) 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide examples of your claims against me or redact them. This is entering personal attack territory. As for the reversion I made, it was blatant removal of content for the sake of removing content, including using false edit summaries and copypasted edit summaries taken from my own edit summaries CiphriusKane (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane You created this incident against me. You "nuked" ALL my articles, just because you felt like it. You made accusations against me on my userpage. Yes, YOU User:CiphriusKane are making these offense actions and personal attacks against me. When it comes to this page you haven't contributed anything, you've only worked to destroyed it. That's a fact. Why don't you take me up on an effort to contribute, to make the format work, or inform me how to do things properly when done wrong. Even better, aid the Controversial and Allegation contribution sections to preserve it. Not follow an abusive pattern of wanton "nuking" and destroying the page's articles, attacking me, based on your personal bias.  You have contributed absolutely nothing constructive nor productive to the page.  You have helped nobody by doing this. Everything I contributed seems to be wrong to you, I simply don't believe every single contribution I made is flawed. If you're so useful, instead of trying to wage a verbal war with me, why don't you go back and show me you can actually do it right? Restore a Controversies and Allegations section. Add back every single one. Because if you don't, every single thing I just said is right about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide examples and evidence of these accusations or rescind them. I have explained all my edits. And I will not be readding "every single [section]" to that page because the sections are designed to present an overly negative image of the church based on what seems to be your interpretation of the church's own sites and blogs rather than what has been said about them in reliable secondary sources. If you are just going to keep up with this type of comment, then I will just ignore it CiphriusKane (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CiphriusKane Summary: I've been very reasonable with you but here you are, refusing to take accountability for your destructive poorly backed actions. Yes, it takes a lot of work to write and research these solid facts that you so casually and easily destroyed in a few clicks. You are the overly negative person here. Don't "NUKE" every thing you have NO effort of contributing constructively and NO intention to discussing constructively to.

Jengaboot is now trying to refactor this discussion and refusing to provide any evidence for their claims and attacks against me, despite repeated requests CiphriusKane (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

CiphriusKane continues to personally attempt to smear me, fails to explain his casual deletions of this page while ignoring stated evidence. CiphriusKane can choose to be constructive on the content of the page he completely destroyed just because he felt like it but instead chooses to focus on personal issues and refute reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither have discussed any of this on the article talk page. I do think that deleteing the entire controversies section, because 'some of it is a copyright violation' then trying to get the revision deleted from history based on a claim of copyright violation does look an awful lot like whitewashing. Especially concerning, considering that much of the material removed was not found in any sources directly, and much of the material that does look to be a copyright violation remains in the article JeffUK (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a simple content dispute that didn't need to be escalated to ANI so quickly. JellyMan9001 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@JeffUK: @JellyMan9001: I removed the entire list for being elongated, poorly sourced, and indiscriminate, as assessing each individual section would have taken too long (I believe the relevant essay is WP:TNT). At least two of the sections were lifted directly from the sources. Furthermore, I did attempt to open a discussion with Jengaboot on their talk page, and their response was to copy my edit summary and start removing sections for not being critical enough. Given their past behaviour, which includes slow burn edit wars going on for nearly a year and spurious accusations against any who disagree with their version of the page, I felt like it was pointless discussing further, and brought it here as I felt their behaviour was a chronic issue of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN (see "You "nuked" ALL my articles"). I have made no comment on their behaviour, only their edits, yet I've been accused of bias, being childish, wanting to destroy, and being "overly negative" without any evidence of that being provided CiphriusKane (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff. I really don't know what 'copyright violation' User:CiphriusKane was referring to anyway. It just seems like something he's making up. And holy crap, [92] his own violation citation [93] says there is a 0.0% similarity to a copyright violation; violation unlikely. That's all User:CiphriusKane has got. And look, I've been saying even through his false claims, let's work together to make it work. Why is this way bad and how can we make it good besides just broad "nuke" deletions. I'm the only one saying that. But clearly User:CiphriusKane sees things that are not there and won't back down. Can't reason with that. The Controversy and Allegation sections deserve to be reverted in full. This was a baseless biased hit job mass deletion and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 07:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

[94] The actual comparison, which shows a 49.5% likelihood and a passage lifted straight from the article in question. Jengaboot's version shows a 0% copyright violation because I removed it CiphriusKane (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean you removed the copyright violation because there was no longer a violation. And I edited to remove the violation because there was no longer violation. But then you edited to reinstate the violation because you wanted to burn in a violation that no longer applied? Sounds like suspicious behavior to me. A 49.5% check; a tossup analysis, on a single subtopic entry sounds like a horribly abusive excuse to delete an entire largely unchecked section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengaboot (talk • contribs) 08:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly stop misrepresenting my actions. I've already stated twice on this page why I removed the entire section. The copyright violation (there were 2 that I personally saw) was only a minor part of it. Secondly, the purpose of the notice is not to signify copyright violations on the page, it is to indicate copyright violations in the history that need deleting. They have yet to be deleted so I readded it CiphriusKane (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just explained this on the user's talk page. If there were copyright violations on the page then they still need to be revision deleted form the history. Meters (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Jengaboot, please sign your talk page posts (I explained how on your talk page). They should also be indented the appropriate amount. Use one colon per level of indent. Meters (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

CV gone. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Thank you for teaching me to sign. I'm still learning. I'm not perfect here. But if nobody teaches me how to do things right, I'll repeat my "mistakes" because I don't see anything wrong. User:CiphriusKane make the effort. Show me what's salvageable for a Controversies and Allegations section, describe exactly why an entry doesn't work and how it can be edited to make work in an appropriate way. Something like "loaded wording" can be fixed incredibly easily. But I honestly don't even see it in my entries. Their leader and founder endorses spanking children. How is that not significant to his church? The belief of the individual who is the founder and current head of this movement is totally relevant and significant. A pastor was legally charged with prostitution. How is that a smear? It's not a lie. It factually happened. These were described by jellyman9001 as "simple content disputes". There have been too many subjective removals. If you're too offended and want to move on, alright, but whitewash nuking and taking subjective issues with every word isn't helping me nor has it been productive. Please demonstrate in a fair and balanced manner. Thank you. Jengaboot (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved

13 was warned about this earlier I believe, but they haven’t improved their behavior:

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron

Redirecting the Article Rescue Squadron:

Prop: Conspiracy mongering about “stifling reasonable minds” with “prior restraint” Prop 2: Calls editors he disagrees with “trollish” “sharks” who “pounce” (a bizarre triple mixed metaphor) on AfDs, without evidence Prop 4: General passive-aggression

Is ARS still here?: Conspiracy/persecution complex mongering, unprovoked haranguing/canvassing-lite of prospective new member, I’m a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for wanting to reform ARS, the “inquisition”, importing the below-mentioned drama from AfD as “evidence”

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

Disruptive personal attack conspiracy mongering in the middle of an unrelated discussion

Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of you come out of those two spats very well, to be honest. But I don't see anything worthy of admin action. Can we keep the ARS drama away from ANI for a few week unless something really egregious is happening? Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I’d like multiple opinions first. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • BK, this is at least the third time this has come to ANI since I've been here, and you said something like this the last two times (last year, this month). What's he gotta do, kill somebody? :-P I don't get why this one is different from the other two (against whom you supported sanctions last time). Seemed obvious to me that if we tbanned two out of four, the other two would continue. But more to the point, your thesis that "some admin will handle it/community's patience is clearly not endless" gets undercut when you're more-or-less against an admin handling it ("not worthy of admin action") and in favor of extending the community's patience ("unless something really egregious is happening"). After however-many years, maybe it's time, you know? Levivich 15:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • If this isn’t enough evidence he just wants to feud with and WP:HOUND me I don’t know what is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=1054689154&oldid=1054687222 Dronebogus (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) Dronebogus started the nomination with Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. But not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted there, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. Dronebogus seems determined to blame the Article Rescue Squadron for things they didn't do. Also why don't we have a rule that if you don't like how a deletion discussion ends, you can't just renominate it less than two days later? Isn't that a bit disruptive? Or gaming the system? In that AFD instead of focusing on the article, he keeps making accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 15:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What rule? Where? And why can’t I re-nominate it after it closed as no consensus? Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO, referring to the re-nomination of no-consensus AFDs as disruptive is one of the tactics ARS use to badger nominators. Similarly to the practice of referring to no-consensus results as a "keep" (and recording them as such on the rescue list). Thus, they make the argument we see in this AfD that this article was kept twice and a third nomination is therefore disruptive. But of course it isn't: re-nomination is the natural thing to do after a no-consensus result. Similarly, ARS will badger post-AFD merge/split discussions, saying that if the article was kept (even if it was actually no consensus), any efforts to merge/split is "back door deletion" (or similar). Let me know if anyone wants diffs of examples of these tactics being used. Levivich 17:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I recall being told calling someone "paranoid" is not acceptable. Dronebogus does that in his rant. [95] I'd also like to point out his previous rant against the ARS when he nominated it for deletion at [96] He seems determine to cast accusations against "its four dominant members". Please list specific evidence against individuals you believe are doing something wrong, and stop making vaguewave accusations. Dream Focus 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I literally presented evidence about one member above. With links. What more do you need, fingerprinting? DNA tests? Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Evidence about this ridiculous and relentless canvassing accusation is what I meant. Dream Focus 16:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • This isn’t about the earlier ARS drama. This is about 13’s recent antics. This doesn’t involve you or the two tbanned ARS users. Stop dragging this away from the topic. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • This is about you arguing with him at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Is_ARS_still_here? and both got a bit unpleasant towards each other, and over at the AFD I mentioned [97]. You don't just make accusations about him but the Article Rescue Squadron. Dream Focus 16:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Look we’re obviously never going to agree on the ARS but the main issue is 13. And yes I may have gotten a bit snippy with him. But based on his reaction to this ANI issue he’s clearly interested in making this a matter of personal “honor” and not a professional dispute. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This is about User:Dronebogus's wilfully disruptive behavior at WP:ARS and at various deletion discussions. He never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on me and WP:ARS. The whole fiasco at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination) and its predecessor was apparently intended to make a point. He should be WP:Topic banned from the ARS pages and participation at articles for deletion. I have not called on him directly, but I have been firm in my expessed belief that ARS should be allowed to conduct its business withhout the saboteurs taking over. Indeed, I should not be personally harassed, which this is. It is time for a WP:Boomerang. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You’re the one who made the snarky overly personal remark about this discussion at the ARS talk page, not me. You’re the one who has ended up here at least two unrelated times, not me. You’re the one who immediately walks in here demanding sanctions, when I just wanted a review of your behavior and offended no comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Read the whole pages and the AFDs. User:Dronebogus is not alone in this. But his part and intent is clear and unmistakable The WP:Harassment has got to stop. Do your duty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You think admins are just going to do what you want because you demanded it? The first admin who showed up wasn’t even on either of our sides. The fact that you respond to any criticism by WP:HOUNDing me and ranting about Deletionist conspiracy this or that is telling. Dronebogus (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. Topic bans are required. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • This isn’t a place to get revenge on rivals! I opened this because I wanted an admin to look over this matter and see if anything needed to be done, not because I want to start a grudge match! Even if you believe my behavior to be out of order you’re not going to correct it by coming in here eagerly calling for heavy sanctioning before even a warning or significant admin comment. Dronebogus (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "I'm (Dronebogus) making fun of your (7&6) group (ARS)". We can see that. They disrupted a neutral question by "making fun" of people. Maybe the connection between ARS School and WP:ARS is "funny", or not even by accident, but I'm trying to solve a puzzle (finding more sources) and when a user disrupts that process with mockery it shuts down the process and becomes, as they say, "drama". -- GreenC 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I apologize for that. But that isn’t topic ban material. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I observe [98] and [99]. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (And no one better say that ARS regulars post there to draw attention to discussions where they hope like-minded editors will look. Heavens, no!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen

This argument is not going to cease and will continue in ARS and across various AfD's. I propose a no-fault, time limited, interaction ban between Dronebogus (talk · contribs) and 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk · contribs) to prevent further disruption. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Please. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I propose that Dronebogus stay off the WP:ARS page. And his participition at AFDs likewise. He proposes and supports a lot more AFDs than I participate in. I do not interact with him but I should not be curtailed from parfticipating in AFDs by his broad brush. That we are going through serial nominationsd at the ARS School demonstrates the problem.

And while you are at it, ban the bomb throwers from the ARS pages. Read them and you will understand that this has been going on for years. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Might help if you didn’t just assume everyone knows what you’re talking about. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree with ARS sanctions because I want to work on reform efforts but that’s for an admin to decide. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Reform as in spread rumors when a new comer shows up then arguing with others? You aren't going to reform it, you just insult it constantly, and did nominate it for deletion even. It would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to be bothered this way. Dream Focus 17:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I could say “no you” but this is obviously going nowhere so sure topic ban me from ARS. And set up n interaction ban between me and DF since we always just end up fighting. Dronebogus (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that might be the wrong person to topic ban, assuming this is needed. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • By that you mean…? Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not quite at the stage of suggesting an interaction ban, but to be quite frank I feel like blocking the next one of Dronebogus and 7&6=thirteen who slings mud at the other. Please, just calm down, both of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • blocking is more reasonable than an interaction ban? Dronebogus (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    It means I would like both of you to stop arguing and thinking that the other one is "the enemy". I'm off out in a mo, but on my return I would love this thread to be closed as "The two parties have agreed to disagree and avoid each other voluntarily - no administrative action required". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

    Yes please. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I came here because I was of this edit: [100], and was going to request 7&6=thirteen not to change discussions without timestamping: (The case of the additional sentence here was likely minor and inconsequential, but the fact I noticed it meant it was disruptive). However from their talk page I note this ANI drama. Given Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083##Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic closed 4 November 2021, the nomination by Dronebogus of ARS Public School at AfD two days after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (2nd nomination) non-consensus close by Scottywong rather than the two months suggested by the guideline Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion pointed to by the BEFORE instructions was a probable WP:SEALION attempt, which looks very likely to succeed in bans/blocks for one or more other editors. The ARS acronymn in the title is likely to allude to "Article Rescue Squadron", so the article selection here looks very POINTy. But I agree with Richie/JBL, this has to stop, so I hope people listen to what they say. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Boomerang Dronebogus is being disruptive. They have followed, and grave danced, and repeatedly brought editors to ANI. Their behavior has been POINTY. They also pulled me back into ANI last week for essentially more drama and harassment. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Here here. I hadn't heard of Dronebogus before a month ago, now it seems their name is all over these boards. That's not a good thing. Seems like they're trying to stir and are going looking for trouble. How about avoiding the drama and concentrating on editing and improving the project? Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Note for admins. Isn't this a violation of Lightburst's topic ban?[101] This discussion is focused on behavior at AfDs and ARS. No one with such a topic ban should even be thinking of commenting on those discussions. The whole point of that ban was to keep Lightburst from continuing in the battleground mentality related to this subject or related editors. KoA (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• I propose that (1) Dronebogus, at any time that you feel that 7&6 and/or Dream Focus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And (2) 7&6 and Dream Focus, at any time that you feel that Dronebogus has said or done something you object to, just ignore it. Let it go. No matter what it is, just let it slide, and move on to something else. And the rest of us, let's bring down the hammer on whoever breaks that silence first. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not a support or oppose, just a note that if, after just 2500 edits, you find yourself repeatedly embroiled in conflict without even getting into DS topic areas, and have more than three times as many edits just to ANI as to the entire talk namespace... you may want to experiment with helping out in different parts of the project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish, Rhododendrites and others! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

{{yo:Dream Focus}} You talk above about those who had a wikiproject. But note, a project is not owned by its "members", each project belongs to all of us. Paul August ☎ 01:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I should've wrote "those who are active members of a Wikiproject". Note I wrote "I would be great if those who had a wikiproject were not allowed to bother it this way." So obviously I didn't proofread or think it through before writing. I just fixed it so now it sounds more coherent. Dream Focus 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Dronebogus from ARS, per their own recommendation above. The pattern of behavior here is simply unsustainable. This AN/I thread about an ARS member comes a scant four days after Dronebogus' previous AN/I thread about ARS members, created while they were in the middle of a heated argument with said members (in which they made posts like "Why do you think that the founder of this website wants to hear you complain about some drama at ANI? Why are so self-important as to think that your personal disputes warrant the Immortal God Emperor of Wikipedia’s direct attention?"). No action was taken. That thread itself came just a couple days after this AN/I thread about the ARS (one of the longest in the history of AN/I), which Dronebogus also started. The degree to which they seem to be fixated on these editors is concerning. I think that it may be more productive for everyone involved if Dronebogus and ARS members simply did not interact. jp×g 07:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this in a little more depth, I find bizarre conversations on WT:ARS, with Dronebogus contributing posts like "this is the reason ARS has so many enemies. Not because we hate you and articles and Wikipedia or whatever, but because the first thing you tell new users is that you’re victims of an evil Deletionist conspiracy and everything you hear from outsiders is filthy slander" and accusing ARS members of "paranoid hostility". In what way is this intended to be a constructive discussion? jp×g 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with those who dont yet think topic or iBans are needed. DroneBogus seems a smart editor & hopefully has begun to learn the importance of winning gracefully. Their original ANI caused the first substantial damage to the squad in almost a decade, despite many other attacks & plotting. Even some who found it woefully misguided can respect the achievement. But while understandable they let the success go to their head, these further ANIs are having the opposite effect, and just wasting the communities time. I agree with giving them perhaps a one month block if they launch any further attacks. And also for a similar block in the unlikely event any ARS editor goes out of their way to harass Dronebogus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive train station addresses IP

User:47.146.89.139 Special:Contributions/47.146.89.139 This IP has been constantly adding addresses of stations to articles on rapid transit lines, completely against consensus [102] [103] [104]. They have been warned many times by myself and two other editors, yet refuse to listen to anyone [105]. At this point, only a block will stop them from disrupting articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Has there been discussion on this issue or some place you can point an admin to to show the consensus? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has been primarily on the IP's talk page, and at User talk:RickyCourtney. Pinging @RickyCourtney: and @Lars Smiley: who may wish to weigh in as well. Generally, the IP refuses to communicate, beyond saying on RickyCourtney's talk that "Addresses our very important". To quote RickyCourtney's response, "I disagree. Looking at the pages for systems in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York City, Seattle, and Washington DC (just to name a few)… none have station addresses on the route level overview page. This information is displayed only on a station level page." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The concerns for me are the repeated disrupted editing (which, granted, could be subjective) and the users unwillingness to engage in an any discussion about the changes they are making. As I previously pointed out, the changes being made are against the accepted style on peer pages. I'm more than willing to have a discussion about this editors proposed change. --RickyCourtney (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Maybe you should have a discussion at a neutral venue for the purposes of determining an explicit consensus. No offence, but if I was a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia I would be seeing a bunch of people who are complaining about my edits and insulting me. The phrasing of the messages that were left don't really seem to be an invitation to discuss so much as saying "you're violating some kind of decision that was made in a discussion you weren't allowed to participate in and have no clue exists". It seems rather Kafkaesque to me to block someone for going against an unwritten consensus. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll add on that the editor in question is a mobile editor. They may not be aware of talk pages, given that the mobile website doesn't actually link to talk pages nor does it provide a clear path to get there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: Considering they have posted on RickyCourtney's talk page twice [106], that is not the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Going on the mobile website while logged out in an incognito window, it appears to me as if user talk pages are linked from the main userpage but article talk pages are not. e.g. [107] (today's featured article) versus [108] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Banana Republic casting ASPERSIONS and overall not assuming good faith

Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Brandon Brown (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is discussion going on at these three pages regarding the incident in which Kelli Stavast interviewed a NASCAR driver, leading to some phrase she said becoming viral. There are legitimate WP:BLP policy concerns being made which have led to RfCs at all three talk pages. Simultaneously, Let's Go Brandon and Kelli Stavast were nominated for deletion (Stavast by myself, on the same rationale that I used to nominate 3 other NASCAR reporters the same day, two of which were closed as delete; LGB by Beccaynr on the grounds that a previous incarnation of that article, Fuck Joe Biden was closed as a SNOW delete).

Throughout these discussions, Banana Republic has repeatedly accused Beccaynr and myself of inappropriate behavior without any evidence to bring forth(aka WP:ASPERSIONS, and in general are assuming bad faith. Let's look at some of Banana's diffs.

• diff 1 It is pretty clear that Beccaynr are acting as a WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev, they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, so they are now throwing moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with GhostOfDanGurney to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. - Recurring theme here that we are trying to "censor".
• diff 2 ...they (along with one of their buddies) are wasting the community's time with frivolous AfDs (frivolous AfD#1, frivolous AfD#2, and frivolous AfD#3) and now this frivolous DelRev. I wish there was a way to sanction them, but working together, they know how to game the system and exploit the community's patience and good will. - Accusing me of "frivolous AfDs" despite me stating on MULTIPLE occasions that I put up other NASCAR reporters and of vaguely "gaming the system". LGB closed as keep by a non-admin in a highly controversial topic area, the only reason for the DelRev (such DelRev was also described as a "hissy fit" by the closer [109]).
• diff 3 GhostOfDanGurney is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to concede to consensus and playing tricks such as [this AfD withdrawal comment] in order to get another opportunity to bring up an AfD. - My only "agenda" is improving Wikipedia, so on that ground, guilty as charged? Yes, when the first Stavast AfD closed, the closer said in the closing message no prejudice to speedy renom, which I did. Evidently, that was a bad idea since at least one editor said doing so was "ridiculous". I then withdrew it, which, according to Banana, is a bad faith "trick".

Overall, this is getting tiring from them. We are trying to have a discussion, but these repeated and continuous assumptions of bad faith by this user do nothing but discourage that discussion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I recently commented in one of the discussions about article content with an array of diffs [110] to offer some context to the broad statements made about me in the discussion, and as part of my appeal to all participants to assume good faith, practice civility, and avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It is an incomplete synopsis, but I offer it here to the extent that context may be helpful to this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Further diffs here and here since this was posted further illustrating that this editor has no intention of working civilly. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• This complaint is truly bizarre !!! They are complaining about me inappropriately assuming bad faith, and then they quote another editor who is also criticizing their behavior? Did we just enter the twilight zone? Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And just for good measure, here is another editor questioning the motives of GhostOfDanGurney. Banana Republic (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The questioning of their motives just keeps piling on from other users. Banana Republic (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have followed what's happening and did not really want to involve myself as I thought that the opposition to this topic's coverage would fizzle out. I'm now involved as I posted in the DRV, and have made a revert in the article. These are some of my thoughts:
  – diff1: Banana Republic did not use the word censor -- what they said are mostly historical facts about the overarching dispute.
  – diff2: The characterization of actions as "frivolous" seems to be the problem... If one keeps starting hopeless processes and disputes that don't seem to lead anywhere, and are patently programmed to fail (unless we somehow imagine we are all collectively really really dumb), someone will at some point become concerned, and this word will come up.
  – diff3: What GhostOfDanGurney was doing with their immanently frustrated delete initiative was strange. When such seemingly irrational things are done, someone will express their concern using some and not other words, some of which are maybe kinder and better. "Agenda" is maybe less kind and worse, but in substance it changes nothing -- it's impossible to avoid this bad perception, and everyone is not going to keep their mouth shut. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

He did in fact present evidence. Beccaynr did try to delete Let's Go Brandon [111] and then tried to get the close overturned at DRV (for which Beccaynr was trouted) [112], then Beccaynr tried to remove Kelly Stavast's name from the article. [113] After that RfC failed, Beccaynr tried to remove Stavast's name from just the lede. In all of those cases except the DRV, GhostOfDanGurney participated and agreed with Beccaynr. And the user interaction timeline of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr is certainly interesting. [114] I would say the MfD was certainly a bad nom and so was the DelRev. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [115] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue.

I'll also point to this exciting discussion at User talk:Beccaynr [116] to sort of demonstrate that the uncivil sniping of third parties in laudatory talk page messages seems to happen from both sides of this dispute. It's also interesting that GhostOfDanGurney brings up that they put up other NASCAR reporters at AfD. Is it truly coincidental that Beccaynr showed up to comment at all 3 of those AfDs of the "other NASCAR reporters"? [117] [118] [119] I'd like Beccaynr to explain their thought process as why they decided to comment on those three AfDs in particular. Were they chosen at random? Were they found at a noticeboard or delsort listing? etc etc. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well.

I certainly wish Banana Republic would've brought these concerns to ANI rather than immaturely sniping at the two editors in question on talk pages complaining about how Banana Republic wishes "there was a way to sanction them". That is practically useless and is still casting WP:ASPERSIONS, even if the claims are true. The reason is that article talk pages and other content discussions forums are not good places to discuss editor conduct; discussions of editor conduct inevitably overwhelm actual content discussion and degrade the quality of our output. I can see a temporary block for that behaviour. I also wish that Banana Republic's response to this thread would be a little more substantive than these diffs from other users criticizing GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The idiom is "use your words", not someone else's. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, chess, for pointing out the bad behaviors of GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr. The reason I did not file complaints against them is that I don't know the process (and don't care to become familiar with the process) of filing a complaint. I'd rather spend my time editing articles, than getting into Wikifights. I definitely don't want to waste my time gathering evidence to file a complaint, which is why I wrote "I wish there was a way to sanction them", as I don't know the way to do it, and don't want to know the way to do it. Since neither explicitly violated WP:3RR, for which evidence gathering is relatively simple, I did not file a complaint. Banana Republic (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If you don't care to become familiar with the process for dealing with other editors' behaviour then you need to stop talking about other editors' behaviour. If you don't want to get into WikiFights then you need to stop taking shots at other editors. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just quote Potter Stewart who said "I know it when I see it". I know bad behavior when I see it. I don't know how to build a case to sanction the bad behavior, but that does not mean that I cannot call out the bad behavior. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, not wanting to come here does mean you can't call them out if you want to continue editing this encyclopedia. You should be addressing your concerns with the editor that you have a problem with. If that fails, then you can come to ANI with the behavioural problem. You do not get to spend your time calling people out on article talk pages or with passive aggressive user talk page messages that masquerade as compliments towards another person. It's not that discussing another editors behavioural issues is wrong. It's that we have a designated board for those discussions. This is that board. If you're going to refuse to say your piece now and explain the problems you have then you're going to lose the benefit of the doubt in the future when you make these comments, even if the comments are accurate assessments of the situation. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to accuse them of anything any more. Others are doing a much better job than I ever could (and that includes you, Chess). Banana Republic (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I would characterize the other side's conduct as reckless (more in diff). Pushing for the desired outcome using all permitted venues (while being more or less okay or not) is one thing, but insisting (reverts included) on a totally unjustified POV template in an essentially okay actively-worked-on-and-discussed article with tens of thousands of daily views prompted me to react. By their account, the template would have been removed when their version of the lead, exclusively stylistically different (diff), was implemented (where's the POV issue???). So it looks like the goal was the template for the template's sake. This made me suspicious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel this is a fair characterization of my position, particularly after my repeated attempts to explain the justification based on policy and guidelines, as well as my offer to further clarify in the related discussion at the Talk page. From my view, the template is supported, and it is a way to encourage discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see it as fair. I have a sincere concern. It's hard for me to see how adding that template on such a hot topic, in an actively worked on article, that already has a lot of participation, would have encouraged anything positive. To me it feels like the idea was to keep the template up as long as possible on formalistic grounds of there being a dispute that somehow, in theory, very tenuously, has to do with a POV concern. Keeping the tag would impede progress as it would divert everyone's attention to the issue seen as connected to the template, but the issue isn't very material to start with and it would only have led to general frustration and loss of interest. This disrupts normal work on the article, undermines the consensus-building process, and unduly worsens readers' reception of the article. It's really a good way to undermine an article after deletion attempts have been frustrated, and it's a known pattern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Am I alone among the 96% who don't live in the United States in being totally bemused by this whole topic, and wondering how any encyclopedia could possibly feel the need to have coverage of it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hell, you aren’t alone among those who -do- live in the US. Qwirkle (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:WORDISSUBJECT article with established vast notability. The 96% needs to read more such articles to get a feel for how normal it is to cover such topics I guess. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Chess, you asked me to explain my thought process as to why I decided to comment on those three AfDs, and my recollection is it was due to the AfDs being mentioned in the first Kelli Stavast AfD by GhostOfDanGurney, e.g. on October 18 [120] and October 19 [121], so I looked at them, conducted research, and then !voted. I'm also sorry that my reference to the observations on Wikipedia behavior essay on my Talk page [122] comes across as uncivil sniping, when it was intended as supportive reassurance to GhostOfDanGurney, after they reported an attempted attack on the security of their account to me. I wasn't sure how to respond, and had thought a well-regarded essay that I like to review from time to time might be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I also participated in the Kelli Stavast AfD because I routinely check the Women-related AfD del-sort, which may be evident from my userpage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hello all. Chess pinged me on my talk page, so I figure I may as well give my few cents:
  1. I have been subject to the kind of side-sniping that Chess describes both on and off-wiki, and—believe me—it does not make me feel good when I see it. Please don't be passive aggressive to other editors on talk pages, because editors will probably wind up seeing the edits, and doing so with the intent to snipe at people behind their backs is uncivil. In my view (I don't think there's a policy on this, so take this as you will), behavioral issues should first be directly discussed with the editor that has problem behaviors, except where that behavioral issue is directly pertinent to the discussion at hand (for example, canvassing in an AfD) or when you are asking the editor to strike a specific personal attack.
  2. As Chess notes above, yes, I did ask GhostOfDanGurney to rescind their withdrawal of their close; I had thought (and still think) that it was not done in line with WP:WITHDRAWN. I did say that I was going to pursue a close challenge, though as 力 alluded to this wouldn't have really changed all that much with respect to the article's current status as being kept. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard (see this diff for the full conversation) seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. And, to be frank, this edit made by GhostOfDanGurney on the talk page of Beccaynr seems like it could reasonably be a canvassing problem. In many ways, I'd expect that there would be room for a WP:BOOMERANG if sanctions against editors wind up being handed out.
  3. I have been involved in a content/sourcing dispute with Beccaynr on Kelli Stavast and Let's Go Brandon that played out, in part, on both of our talk pages. In what I can only describe as an egregious example of stretching policy way beyond a reasonable reading, the user has repeatedly argued that I could not use a source because its title contained information that was related to an ongoing RfC, even though I was using the source for the date of the individuals' engagement. The user framed this on my talk page as intending to keep the page stable pending the conclusion of their own RfC, which... honestly didn't sit right given how weak the policy claim was, though they also noted disagreement over the extent to which the source was an WP:RS, and that's obviously a valid part of a good faith sourcing dispute. I repeatedly asked the user to strike their characterization that I had somehow been violating RfC-related policies by making this edit, though the user has repeatedly declined to do so in line with their reading of WP:RFC, which I guess is their right.

I understand that there's a great deal of frustration brewing between editors here, though I really do find it strange that this sort of stuff wound up on ANI. There really isn't anything in my view that rose to the level of bringing it here; nobody's been violating 3rr, while there have been aspersions they haven't been egregious and people who have been subject to them don't actually appear to have asked for apologies before coming here (or if they have, a diff would be nice to see). It also seems like the consensus on the content (which shouldn't be a factor at ANI but can add to general tension between passionate editors) is pretty clear, and I don't see much of a reason to believe that behavioral issues are affecting the outcome of content disputes. But, now that we're here, we're here. The only way I see out of this without some sanctions being handed out to someone would be for people to apologize to each other for when they wronged someone else, and to promise to work collaboratively in discussions going forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am only involved here in an administrative capacity. The immediate re-nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination) should be considered explicitly allowed based on my close of the first nomination. Beyond that, regarding the initial filing: Banana Republic's complaints about the existence of tedious procedural issues, while perhaps not framed with perfect decor, are based in enough evidence there is no cause for sanctions. Regarding anything else: editing recent American Poltiics topics isn't the topic area for you if you can't handle disagreement on talk pages. Apart from "hey admins, maybe watchlist these pages", there is no action needed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Alright, I see a few points raised:
  1. And wow, holy shit, "no prejudice against speedy renomination" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast does not mean "renominate after 38 minutes" with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination). Banana Republic is right that the second nom is bs and he's also right that the withdrawal was questionable, although he could've said it far more civilly than he actually did. Mikehawk10's message [115] provides a far better example of how Banana Republic could've handled the issue. .... Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could elaborate on what they meant by "There sure has been a lot of crap coming from the trees the last few weeks." as well. -- The first Kelli Stavast AfD had become a hot mess of off-topic arguments. I interpreted the close as "no consensus" as a way to stop these before they got out of hand. Was it hasty to renom so quick and should I have talked to 力 first to confirm my assumption? Yeah, absolutely. Bullshit? Fuck no. The first time I nominated the article, I had been unable to find adequate sources such that I felt it failed WP:NBASIC. The discussion immediately became about "LGB", which is fair given the timeframe of the event, but I felt many !voters were !voting on "LGB" and not the subject of the article itself. I allowed myself to get sucked in to this,[123] and in my haste in the renom, failed to clue in that by doing it so quickly, I was only going to invite the same type of discussion. The "crap from the trees" comment was an observation of Beccaynr willingness to edit on in spite of all of the chaos that apparently is par for the course in AmPoli discussions (which 6 months ago if you told me I'd be involved in, I'd say you were nuts; my primary topic area is motorsports with occasional dabbles into Canadian politics).
  2. However, the immediate assumption of bad faith made by GhostOfDanGurney shown in this edit (and expanded upon in this edit) did leave me rubbed the wrong way. -- The sharp tone of the response to you here was a combination of stress on my part and frankly, the fact that you weren't honest in your explanation; You had told me essentially "Hey you didn't follow WP:WITHDRAW because Beccaynr didn't strike her rationale",[124] when you had just prior made edits stating The most recent AfD on Kelli Stavast was a Snow Keep to such an extent that the nominator withdrew it.[125]. I don't get what your aim here was. If it truly was a snow keep, what's the point of me reopening it when there were votes like "an absurd waste of time and effort" and "Same guy nominating the same article a day after the previous nomination ended in no consensus, is just ridiculous!"
  3. The recent attempt by GhostOfDanGurney to drag Banana Republic to the edit warring noticeboard seemed somewhat frivolous as there were a total of three reverts listed over a period that encompassed three calendar days. -- I point to this[126] conversation between MER-C and myself where I was advised to go to AN3.

As for why I'm here, I want Banana Republic to stop commenting on other's motives and accusing me of "gaming the system". GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Complaint concerning Sarah-Lee Heinrich's article

Context:

Sarah-Lee Heinrich, a German politician made several racist remarks. e.g. When she was an adult she called German society a "disgustingly white majority". This was reported by various German newspaper, including Welt.de ( https://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/plus234372910/Parteinachwuchs-Eklige-weisse-Mehrheitsgesellschaft-Die-Gruene-Jugend-und-ihr-Deutschlandbild.html )

Incident:

After I've added this information to the article about Heinrich the user User:TheRandomIP removed the information multiple times. When I tried to contact TheRandomIP on their talk page, they reverted the message and kept reverting the article.

A few hours ago User:ToBeFree joined TheRandomIP and reverted the article, then locked the article. When I tried to communicate with ToBeFree on their talk page, they reverted my message.

This appears highly dubious to me and I believe TheRandomIP and ToBeFree are politically motivated to defend the politician's reputation, despite wide criticism in the German press.

I am not sure how to proceed from here as I feel that Wikipedia is being abused by them for political purposes and direct communication is not possible, when messages are ignored and reverted. I do not believe that Wikipedia is intended to sweep widely reported hateful speech of racist politicians under the rug and this kind of political censorship goes against the values of Wikipedia.

I am very disappointed that ToBeFree has abused their position of power to side with the politically motivated, bad faith actor TheRandomIP and helped them to do damage control for a politician, who conducted racist hate speech. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a propaganda tool to defend racist politicians. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that you've abused this noticeboard to cast aspersions of political motivations against other editors, without having made any attempt to gain consensus for your edits on the article talkpage. You appear to have a strong POV that you're trying to insert into the article - you will need to gain consensus. I note that TheRandom IP suggested and implemented wording that had been included by consensus on dewiki, which you've ignored. Shrill accusations of political manipulation like those above will not gain much sympathy at ANI. I've revised the heading on this section to something less shouty, and warned you for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion that the IP needs to tone things down considerably. That said, it was unhelpful for ToBeFree to remove the entire paragraph in question and then also protect the page. That's crossing the streams a bit, and the article had been stable for a week prior to the current dispute. No one disagrees on mentioning the incident; removing it entirely confuses the nature of the dispute. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatives to protecting the page (and returning it to the status quo) would have been blocking at least one IP range and another IP address for edit warring, so I think it's a good compromise. WP:BRD is a good guide. —PaleoNeonate – 03:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion How is it a strong POV, when it is exactly what welt.de (one of the major newspapers in Germany) reported? Also I'm not sure how repeatedly removing the racist hate speech by Sarah-Lee Heinrich from her article (despite being reported on) can be interpreted differently than "politically motivated".

Lastly the discussion in the German Wiki was mostly concerned with Sarah-Lee Heinrich's racist Tweets as a teenager and her "disgustingly white majority" comment (which she made as an adult) was only added as a sidenote that wasn't covered by the discussion about her teenager Tweets.

I'm not sure why exactly the politician gets special treatment and sweeping hate speech under the rug is being tolerated. Heinrich is a person of public interest (politician and Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend of the Grüne Party), she made racist hate speech many times, this was reported widely in Germany.

So why exactly is this information excluded from Wikipedia? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It is your POV that I'm referring to - you have a strong agenda that seems to have caused you to focus on denigration of the article's subject. That's not good. I agree with Mackensen that removing the section and protecting was not appropriate. I can see a rationale for the protection, but I have reservations about removal in the entirety by the same admin. One or the other, but not both. Except for that, this is a content dispute that belongs on the article talkpage, not at ANI. We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection, but we will not tolerate aspersions of political bias in the meantime, or score-settling. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"We should give ToBeFree an opportunity to respond about the removal and protection"

Fair enough.

Just as an additional information: The article used to include the "disgustingly white majority" part ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah-Lee_Heinrich&oldid=1051761722 ), before TheRandomIP made 7 edits in quick succession, which removed the section. So I'm not sure why it is suggested to block me, when TheRandomIP started the situation. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure what you mean by "denigration of the article's subject. That's not good."

How would you phrase it then, except calling her comments racist hate speech and her a racist? (Especially as she repeatedly made racist remarks in the past)

--94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The article started as a horrible BLP violation which took what looks like an opinion piece and turned it into "objective" phrasing in Wikipedia's voice. TheRandomIP needs to be commended for starting to turn that awful thing into a real article. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm plowing my way through the article, slowly; the IP could have been blocked already for a BLP violation in this edit summary, which makes me wonder if this is the same person--this is the IP who first introduced the content. The real question is whether we are going to argue whether an admin was too heavy-handed--or whether an admin did exactly what needed to be done in order to prevent the "orchestrated shitstorm" from being continued on our Wikipedia. And what did ToBeFree do? Remove content for which there was no consensus, content that clearly had BLP-related problems, and semi-protect the article in order to prevent a series of IPs from reintroducing that content. What TheRandomIP should have done, of course, is loudly cry "BLP" in the edit summaries--but they don't have a lot of experience on the English wiki and we shouldn't fault them for that. ToBeFree deserves a beer/barnstar, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If somebody edited Trump's article multiple times and at the end the "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists" tweet simply disappeared and Trump was solely portrayed as a blameless victim of a hateful shitstorm, would it be equally commendable? Would you advocate to block the person, who included the information? --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your POV, encapsulated in that edit summary, is highly problematic. In general, we extend considerable discretion to editors and admins on matters of BLP, which is what I see in the removal and protection in the face of your behavior. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is "highly problematic"? She made racist comments (not only the "disgustingly white majority" one). How is it problematic to call her comments racist, when the comments are racist - or her a racist, when she repeatedly makes racist remarks?

How is it POV or problematic? To me it's simply factual. I would really appreciate an explanation as I do not fully understand your criticism of what I did. --94.31.105.144 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do the WP:BEFORE, but this seems like the type of article where possible BLP issues are best handled at AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for this discussion if someone could state what they think the BLP issues are, either here or on the article talk page. Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself and they're being removed, but I'm not seeing it in the content revisions themselves. If folks think this is a WP:BLP1E situation then fine, but then the article should go to AfD. In its current form, there's no assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously, the IP's edit summaries are a problem, that speaks for itself"

What exactly is problematic? I would appreciate an explanation of what exactly you find wrong.

AFD: Sarah-Lee Heinrich is a German politician and the Bundessprecherin for the Grüne Jugend. Also she is is in various interviews by big media outlets in Germany (e.g. ZDFheute, SWR, Sat1). I think a politician who is so public, controversial and in such a position of power should get an article.

--94.31.105.144 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Verbal abuse in hindi language

I can clearly see how this user(Leif Eriksson VV) using verbal abuse on the talkpages[127], mentioning someone's mother in such a way warrants a block for at least 24 hours. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content and re-direction to pages

User TompaDompa removed the content entirely from pages such as List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada and re-directed them. I restored them all (whatever I saw had been removed). Kindly review. Surge_Elec (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I WP:BOLDLY performed a WP:Blank and redirect for those pages (mostly because I considered them to be WP:CFORKS). You have reverted my bold edits, so the next step is discussing it. Methinks the talk pages for the articles and/or WP:AfD would be a better forum for such discussion than here. For what it's worth, the Nobel laureate lists you restored (such as List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II) were subpages of a version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation that no longer exists (following very lengthy discussion), so I don't think it should be controversial to redirect those to the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Around 45 articles had been redirected. Discussing on the talk pages of every article page was not really practical, so brought it here. Resp. admins - Kindly tell your decision on whether the content should be kept (given that there were no persisting issues and no census to redirect them). Surge_Elec (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)