[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BeatriceCastle (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 15 January 2022 (→Wikibullying by Agricolae). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    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

    User:XhainXpert

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

    This editor is struggling with the obligation to add sources to their edits, and to row in the same direction as other editors. It's beyond edit warring; this editor is now adding fraudulent sources to prevent edits from being reverted.

    At Shady Shores, Texas, they added this unsourced content, which was reverted. So they added the text back, along with two sources that were completely unrelated to the text. I deleted it here, and left this very detailed message on their talk page, specifically explaining policy and that bogus sources cannot be added. No matter. They reverted the edit and added back the bogus sources.

    The same at Denton County, Texas, where they have edit warred and finally added back the same bogus sources they were cautioned about.

    In a response on their talk page, they wrote here: "My edits are based on the knowledge of being born and raised in Denton County and Shady Shores but I have attempted to add sources that corroborate those additions."

    Several editors have tried to help XhainXpert, but they seem to feel they are being harassed and targeted. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While there are problems with the sourcing in those diffs I don't think they can be called completely unrelated to the text. The first one is about Cielo Ranch, and it does mention John Wayne, it just doesn't say that it was used in his movies. The second ref is much better - it does talk about McLendon (note spelling, they got it wrong in part of their edit) making movies at at Cielo, saying The “set” was actually McLendon’s 200-acre ranch, Cielo, located on the west side of Lake Dallas’ north end, near Lewisville. It was perfect for most of the scenes shot in both movies, and it eliminated some of the usual expenses, such as obtaining time-consuming permits and insurance against a property owner’s damage. It doesn't mention Shady Shores, so possibly WP:SYNTH / WP:DUE concerns could be raised, but for such an uncontroversial point it's at least not so out of line as to be a conduct issue. The possible COI referenced below is a bigger problem (it could definitely be seen as promotional, which makes the WP:DUE problems more severe.) But it's not the instant alarm that I expected from your description (ie. citing something with a totally unrelated source, to the point where nobody could possibly make that error in good faith outside of a copy-paste error, would be much more serious.) I would chalk the first one up to editor error due to an overzealous editor searching for keywords and not noticing that it didn't talk about John Wayne in the same context the text cited to it does (which is bad, but not as bad as the overt bad faith that would be needed to use a completely unrelated citation.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a new user. This is my first week. I have familiarised myself with the community rules regarding Overzealous Deletion and unjustified deletions which I have flagged for Magnolia677 who has also repeatedly threatened to have my editing rights restricted (quite the welcome to the wiki community). My other issues have been resolved - another user deleted a full page and then restored it. But Magnolia677 seems bent on deleting my posts rather than enhancing them, I put the community rule citations on his talks. My only interest is contributing to this knowledge base in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @XhainXpert: as I think you’ve been told, WP:Overzealous deletion is just an essay, not a set of rules, and you seem to have called User:Magnolia677 a bully and asked him to try to be “a more constructive member of the community.” You are also editing about organisations with which you are involved, one as a board member, the other as co-founder. See WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve no idea why you vandalised User:Gronk Oz’s user page.[1] Can you please explain this? I also note your comments “I apologise to both Gronk Oz and Magnolia677. As a new user, I did not realise it was common practice to selectively enforce Wikipedia rules and, at times, delete accurate content in its entirety rather than help to enhance it. I am learning a good deal about the spirit of the community, its users, rules and enforcement.” I don’t see that as anything like an apology. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: I got the coi bit completely wrong, which is extremely embarrassing. And as I said to XhainXpert, I should have added a link in any case (which would have shown me that I had confused them with another editor). Not at all the sort of behavior I expect from myself. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what these organizations are. I am not a board member of any organisation and am not a co-founder of anything listed on wikipedia. Can you let me know what organizations you are referring to? XhainXpert (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @XhainXpert: I have to apologise for this. I've confused you with someone else also editing about an area where they live. In any case it was wrong of me not to provide a link to the post I saw, and if I'd done that I would have noticed it was a different editor. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: No worries at all. Thanks for acknowledging and happy wiki-ing!
    And today, with this edit, they removed a source I found which would support one of their unsourced edits, and replaced it with a bogus source that does not support their edit. A completely vexatious edit. Such a disruptive and frustrating editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @XhainXpert: I'm a little puzzled. Above, you said that you are a new user, and that this is your first week, yet in this edit you said that you had first edited seven years ago. Can you clarify that? JBW (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBW: In 2007, I made a couple of edits at some point creating the page for Steve Szabo and some other small odds and ends one day (maybe 10 edits in all -- I can't remember the name). In 2015 after leaving my job, I joined under the name PointSchuman and made around 15-20 edits including creating the page for Derek Chollet and adding some small stuff to my home town page. I couldn't log in to PointSchuman anymore (I haven't used it for 7 years) so I created a new account on Jan 1 2022. I have never used "Pages" in my life. I don't know all these fancy scripts but am trying to learn. I have made more edits in the past 10 days (and apparently upset many many more people) than I ever did in the past. As mentioned, it was a more positive experience back then but I didn't really do anything. My editing history was very minor. As you and others have pointed out, my skills are rudimentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs)
    In that case I'm even more impressed by your use of {{Outdent|::::}} which even after 230,000 edits I haven't learned - I can do {{od}} but that's my limit. Now I have to go find out more about using it. One of the great things about editing Wikipedia is you learn something new almost every day. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @XhainXpert: Thanks for that clarification. There were a few small inaccuracies in what you said, but that isn't surprising, considering that you were referring to things from several years ago, presumably from memory. It took me a minute to find your old account, because it was actually called Pointschuman, not PointSchuman. In fact you used the account on and off from April 2015 to September 2017, and you made 50 edits altogether.
    A more important point, I think, is that your attempt to ping me didn't work, because you didn't do it correctly. It didn't matter this time, because I came back to check whether anyone had posted anything more to this discussion, but another time someone might never see a message you intended for them, so it's worth knowing how to do it. When you ping another editor, in the same post as the {{ping|...}} you have to sign your post by adding ~~~~ otherwise the ping doesn't work. You should in fact add ~~~~ to every post you make on a talk page or discussion page, for other reasons, but with a ping it's essential.
    Unfortunately XhainXpert had a discouraging start to their comeback as a Wikipedia editor. Very soon they found their work being reverted or deleted for reasons they didn't understand, and not surprisingly they found that frustrating. They didn't handle the situation as well as they might have done, and unfortunately their negative responses led to further negative responses from the other people involved, producing an unhelpful negative feedback loop. However, XhainXpert clearly has a good-faith wish to contribute positively, and recently I believe they have understood some of the issues involved better, and made more positive comments to other editors. I see no reason not to regard this as a very unfortunate 😕 period in XhainXpert's experience in learning how Wikipedia works, but one from which they should be able to move on and settle into working with others collaboratively. I don't think anything more needs to be done at this time, apart from more experienced editors being helpful to XhainXpert by giving friendly 😊 advice and explanations when necessary. I suggest we all try that approach, and I have every hope that it will work. JBW (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBW: Thanks for this! I am learning and appreciate the tips! That was definitely me way back when. I hope I can be more sustainable this time. That's my goal. But I can assure you and others that my interest is 100% factual, verifiable information. I am just trying to figure out how to verify, especially the nitty gritty stuff. XhainXpert (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point about a negative feedback loop. Hopefully your approach will work. I've just given him some advice about the problem of relying on unsourced material in other articles. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    JBW, Doug Weller - where multiple usernames have been advised, IMO these should be soft-blocked forthwith, to memorialise Admin scrutiny; this would obviate spi/cu. I have been involved in reporting similar. I made this point at the Teahouse recently (archived, also see this live COIN report) and there seems to be no concerted protocol, and the accounts are ignored. One (not obvious) reason for blocking is that in 2015 around the time when journalists were adopting the epithet Je suis Charlie, Jimbo appeared on live UK television (BBC, the government's own terrestrial channel) claiming to have 19 million registered editors; the last time I looked it was 41 million. In just a few days from my recent experiences, several accounts have been admitted to by just two individuals. I tried to moot a js that would find inactive accounts (perhaps based on a one-year inactivity threshhold, similar to that applied to sysops) but that's another story.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @XhainXpert: all my experience has taught me that finding references that meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE is probably the hardest part of editing. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion for enforcement of non-aggressive tone in section title

    While not as bad, the titles of ANI threads kinda reminds me of YouTube thumbnails: clickbait and sensational. By doing so, the threads can easily erupt to be an uncivil debate, as people want to appeal to their emotions (both editors and admins). Since many editors are in a bad mood when they file a complaint here, I suggest to make sure the title of the sections to be more neutral and less loaded, just like what we have on articles. However, I don't think that enforcing this to the body of sections would be practical, as a person involved in a dispute would hardly be neutral. A few examples randomly picked to illustrate my point:

    • NOTHERE ViP? – better written as "Aaron da Lover is NOTHERE"
    • MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment – can be better if written as "MojaveSummit stated asking for evidence is harassment"
    • User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia – not loaded in my opinion.

    Here's my two cents. What are your thought on this proposal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt that anyone would disagree in principle; it’s more a question of Quis custodiet and Who shall bell the cat; with some experience that suggests that a lot of disputants will act like domestic assaulters and assaultees, who often put their differences aside to attack the first cop or neighbor to show up, thrown in for good measure. Qwirkle (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed a section title or two. I think just the username suffices for most cases. Firefangledfeathers 03:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The C of E and DYK

    I would have preferred to impose the proposed expanded topic ban against "sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content". But consensus is crystal clear here, there's simply no way to discount the community's opinion as fundamentally flawed, it's been open 48 hours, and consensus is not going to swing the other way. So, User:The C of E is now subject to an indefinite topic ban from WP:DYK, broadly construed. A couple of people also proposed a specific ban from rude/racist/provocative wording in non-DYK editing, but that didn't get consensus. However, my educated guess, based on years of observation, is that any pattern at all of trying to use rude/racist/provocative wording in articles is going to result in a trip back here with a possible site ban, so if I were The C of E, I would act as if such a topic ban exists.

    There is no official limit on how soon these things can be appealed, but (again, based on years of observation) I'd guess any appeal of a consensus this clear is unlikely to be accepted earlier than 6 months of problem-free editing of articles.

    Finally, this last bit is a judgement call, since it wasn't really discussed, but just to prevent another discussion: Any of The C of E's already-approved DYKs can proceed thru the pipeline (thanks for the prompt about this, User:28bytes). We're preventing future disruption, not punishing anyone. And, I haven't checked to see if this applies, but: any already-made but not-yet-approved DYK's can proceed, but if the QPQ hasn't been done, or any uninvolved reviewer rejects the DYK for cause, that can't be fixed or appealed. Hopefully that seems fair enough that I don't get claims of deciding this part unilaterally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In September 2020, User:The C of E received an indefinite topic ban: "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics." (with some additional restrictions) here. In November 2021, they appealed, but their appeal was rejected[2]. To quote from that appeal: "I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this."

    At the moment, there is a discussion about 3 current DYK nominations by the C of E, which do not violate his restrictions, but simply show that they have continued their "provocative" approach with other subjects, in this case getting "fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#For fuck's sake. This is about Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager, Template:Did you know nominations/One fuck rule (with the article up for deletion already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-fuck rule), and Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves, where the article as well had to be rewritten to get rid of the utterly gratuitous use of "cock" throughout a paragraph[3]. After his two first attempts at getting a hook with "dick" and "cock" on the main page were rejected, they suggested a third alternative, again using "dick" in a deliberate manner.

    Perhaps, as this extends to the mainspace, even harsher restrictions are needed, but for now I would suggest that the only way to finally get rid of the years-long disruption The C of E has brought to DYK and the Main Page is to change his topic ban to a complete ban from DYK broadly construed. Fram (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support DYK topic ban, as C of E shows no interest in reforming, stopping disruption. As I'm unaware of other disruption, neutral on broader sanctions at the moment. Star Mississippi 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef DYK ban. Again, stirring the pot. After User:Joe Roe noted how he spent so much time trying to get "Nigger Love Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" on the front page (appeal discussion), I knew we would back here. Even User:Jayron32, who was sympathetic in the appeal, previously noted that CofE "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page". Same shit, different day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This again? Can we be rid of this for once and all? This is growing wearisome. --Jayron32 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support DYK topic ban at minimum. But note also that 'The Ce of E' has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere: note the title of this article draft [4]. The draft has now been moved to article space under a more appropriate title, but it surely has to stretch 'good faith' beyond reasonable limits to suggest that creating a draft under the name 'ohfvuk' was unintentional, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on DYK and the entire main page. Someone who admits to being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement must be prevented from trolling on the main page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A ban seems heavy handed. He's creating good content, even if it is provocative content. --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I strongly opposed a ban last time, but even I have limited patience for this juvenile nonsense. In the end, if you're going to carry on being deliberately disruptive, you should expect people to become tired of you becoming a time sink. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ah, this sheds a different light on United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster (2 cocks in one DYK!). Well, it's a hobby.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was pretty happy to get my DYK for Shit flow diagram on the main page, but it wasn't cunning wordplay to include shit, it was just in the name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban from DYK. If this behavior moves to other main page sections, we should start thinking about a long block --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full DYK tban. As I brought up at WT:DYK, this is wearily, horrendously persistent. Neither the "watermelon song" debacle nor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona are long ago. We will be here forever if we don't put a stop to it. Vaticidalprophet 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Support. I really am not happy about it, CofE is a good contributor to the encyclopedia, but I finally got here because it's been a long-term waste of time at DYK. I don't care if a hook includes cock, fuck, dick, whatever. If that's the best hook, so be it. The problem is that it's seldom the best hook, it's almost always just juvenile giggling, it often produces drama, and that's a time-waster. Switching to oppose per CofE's stated willingness to comply with any required restrictions. The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content. Period. I don't care if the article is BEGGING for it, someone else can be the one to suggest it. valereee (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with mainspace topic ban on slurs/swear words - not only has this user been skirting with WP:NOTHERE in attempting to stir up divisions and arguments by trying to get inflammatory material posted on the main page, they also seem to be trying to use slurs and swear words as much as they can get away with, in a way that I can only describe as trolling. I would support the current proposal, along with a mainspace topic ban on using/posting anything to do with slurs/swear words (with the sole exception of reverting obvious vandalism). Theknightwho (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I feel this is a little heavy handed, when I was complying with the restrictions placed upon me last time. I am willing to change, if the swear words were the problem (as I was not under restrictions for that), I will be willing to submit to that additional restriction. I recognise my previous political issues and I do want to prove I have changed. I am prepared to add the "no swear words" restriction to it and formally propose it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, it’s one thing to say you won’t do it again, but why did you think that doing this was a good idea in the first place? You can see from the above reactions how out of step you were with the community. People are even talking about WP:NOTHERE. Can you explain what was motivating you, that you understand that whatever that motivation was it was misplaced and give assurance it’s not going to emerge in some other format beside DYK? DeCausa (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DeCausa: I appreciate the open question. The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia but I am perfectly able to go without them (as can be seen from my many other contributions) but also as a way to attract editors towards a topic which can be improved as a result. I do understand how people can view that and I can assure you that it will not arise in DYK as the consensus dictates. Nor will it anywhere else where it is not part of a sourced quote. All I ask is that a few minor missteps in humour not overshadow my vast contributions towards DYK and that I be able to continue to contribute to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, weak oppose then. I know you do a lot at DYK and elsewhere. But this is a really bad misjudgment. It’s not “little a bt of fun” because it just causes work/hassle for other editors to sort out and wastes their time. And it’s just not funny. You probably are going to be Tban’d but if for some reason you’re not and it comes up again either because of DYK or elsewhere I would support sanctions. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak oppose - Based on how egregious some past threads, etc. have been, I read the top of this thread and was inclined to support. But while these are obnoxious, they aren't the kind of offensive we were talking about last time around. So I decided to take a step back and spot check of entries at User:The_C_of_E/DYK to see how representative those linked at the top are. Scrolling around randomly, I don't think I've found one that's offensive yet. Of course, if I search the page (there are 516 DYKs), I do see four fucks, two shits, one dick, two cocks, and one shag. Maybe some other words or double entendres I didn't think to look for. So yeah, he does seem inclined to the naughty in a way that's not appropriate (without good reason) on the main page. But I also see I see he does try to keep it lively -- sometimes to a fault. While I don't approve of going out of one's way to push dirty words onto the main page, I do think making the hooks as interesting as possible is the whole point. We have an awful lot of hooks that just aren't going to compel the average reader to click (I've submitted some myself), so I think when someone is committed to the idea of making fun hooks, we should try to retain that person when we can. All of this is to say if there's a more expansive restriction we can try, I think we should try it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the tricky part. C of E is under a very heavy DYK restriction. It's had even broader additions proposed before (e.g. an expansion to cover BLPs after the Uunona debacle) that only failed on technicalities. There is a point where widening a restriction to encompass an ever-broader swathe of a topic area is worse than just restricting the topic area entirely. C of E is a lot more than a guy with a dirty sense of humour -- I don't particularly mind the dirty sense of humour, it gets a chuckle from me. He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of. To add insult to injury, it's hard to even say he's committed to making fun hooks; when he works in sports, his most inoffensive area of interest, his proposed hooks are often workshopped on for long periods due to failures of interestingness in the original proposals. At some point, when somone is twisting the spirit of a tban to keep disrupting, implementing ever more twistable versions of it doesn't work. Vaticidalprophet 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's nothing wrong with changing focus when restrictions prohibit me from working in a certain area. What is wrong with any of my Rhodesia hooks? I chose that because there are a lot of topics in there that don't have their own pages like the Police Support Unit or John Morkel (plus bringing Des van Jaarsveldt to GA) because traditionally they are areas that people shied away from. I always tried to keep everything balanced with criticism where appropriate for racial issues. Also, I was not under any restrictions for swears/slurs at the time but this is exactly what I am preparing to voluntarily submit to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Moving from one highly charged topic involving British imperialism (broadly construed) to another, following a topic ban from the first, might be seen as naive if you had only done that once, but the examples that @Vaticidalprophet has given shows that it seemed to be a way to evade the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. I don't think that trying to deny that is likely to turn out well for you. There is a repeated pattern of you simply broadening the scope to keep getting away with what seems to be (at best) trolling, or (at worst) WP:NPOV violations. Theknightwho (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand? I was complying with the restrictions that were put upon me. I was banned from a specific area (Which I have obeyed), I genuinely had no idea I was banned from every controversial area. I even checked from time to time with the editor whom put those on to see if it would or not because I was being very careful to follow the rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • You weren't banned from every controversial area - we both agree on that. However, the point is that changing topics is a way to evade a ban while continuing to engage in the same kinds of disruptive behaviours. This is something that Vaticidalprophet gives two examples of (jokes at the expense of names instead of demographic, and trying to get swear words on the main page instead of slurs). Even regarding Rhodesia, had you changed topics to something controversial but not engaged in any problem behaviours anywhere else, then I don't think anyone would have seen a problem with that. However, taken in the context of everything else, it felt like it was a topic that you picked precisely because it was controversial, and it felt like it was a matter of time before the same issues started arising again. The repeated patterns and the totality of your behaviour is what matters here; not the specific wording of a particular sanction taken in isolation.
              FWIW @The C of E, I do think your work is of high quality, from what I've read. The articles are interesting, cogent, and well put together. Just let the material speak for itself; there's no need to lower the quality with tabloid sensationalism.
              Theknightwho (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It was the construction of the Dick Graves article that I found the most shocking: that it was written with such a disregard for encyclopedic principles in order to get seven mentions of the word "cock" in a single paragraph—to justify why "cock" should be used in the DYK hook?—when the sources used "rooster": this was a solid-gold rooster created as a publicity stunt to advertise the casino's "Golden Rooster Room" restaurant, but that reason was completely absent from the paragraph. It's time for The C of E to be given an indefinite ban from DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My experience is that The C of E has never been interested in behaving collegially. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This is the best solution to The C of E's front page trolling, rather than just adding curse words to his already lengthy list of restrictions. This leaves him free to write articles for the encyclopedia rather than for a provocative hook. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Leaving him free to write articles is well and good in theory but he is pulling these shenanigans in article content as well, not just DYKs. Consider United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster. This is an article about a fascinating topic that is relevant to the monetary and legal history of gold in the United States, gold as an artistic medium, the promotion of gambling in Nevada, and so on. The article is very good in many ways and I am glad that we have it in this encyclopedia, and I mostly commend The C of E for writing it. Cutting to the chase, this is an article about a golden statue. The reliable sources pretty much universally describe the subject as a "rooster". Over and over again, The C of E describes the statue as a "cock", or a few times as a "cockerell", surely not a common word in American English. So, this otherwise excellent article is jammed up with "cock", "cock", "cock", "cock", "cockerell" in every mention of the statue. The guy who commissioned the statue had the name of "Richard" and the nickname of "Dick". So, take a look at the talk page of that article, where you will find The C of E joking about "Dick's cock". Reprehensible conduct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and the juvenile Dick Graves stuff is indef worthy. Levivich 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will leave it to wiser heads than myself to determine the proper course of action here, but I feel I need to say that I would be somewhat sympathetic to the "it's all just puerile nonsense" interpretation if not for the attempt to get a truly vile racial slur on the front page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. C of E's behavior seems to me to be intentionally disruptive. Paul August ☎ 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While this is an extreme example, perhaps the extreme example, it’s only a blown-up version of what is inherently wrong with the whole “Do You Kare?” section. The idea of deceptively showcasing articles (which are often in need of vast improvement) is more in line with a clickbait spammer’s values than an encyclopedian’s. Qwirkle (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is rightly a lot of discussion and !votes hinging on the "n-word" hook above. I am not part of the demographic that is targeted by this slur. However, I think it's worth reiterating that trying to get the slur onto the main page just for laughs is not reasonable. WP:NOTCENSORED is one thing, but intentionally trying to publicize a word that is known to hurt and marginalize people is just unacceptable. I keep waffling between outright support for a topic ban and just a comment highlighting the severity of the issue here. Ultimately, I don't know this user's work enough to judge them. I do know that learning about this has now colored my previous interactions with them at a race-related AfD and caused me to become concerned. Hopefully, we can depend on the editor to contribute in good faith going forward. No other comment on the topic ban at this time. AlexEng(TALK) 06:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't know if C of E doesn't understand what is and is not within the community's boundaries for DYK or simply doesn't care about the community; either way, he shouldn't be allowed to continue this over and over. Happy days ~ LindsayHello
      The C of E, i find it hard to understand just what you mean, so i'll slightly elaborate on what i meant, and hope that answers your question. The first part of my comment was an attempt to be nice while suggesting that WP:CIR might be usefully read: Your behaviour could be that of someone who simply doesn't understand what he is doing wrong, which means that you aren't competent to be allowed near DYK. The second part is expanded below by ScottishFinnishRadish ~ the alternative to a lack of competence is that you don't care about the community, so you don't make the effort to read the room, to understand what the community wants and expects ~ from everyone, not just you. Either way, it doesn't matter to me which is the truth, your behaviour makes it necessary to restrict you so you stop being disruptive. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps take the topic ban, and before requesting it be lifted, learn to read the room. That you've continually pushed the limit in this way, even after sanctions, doesn't make me confident in new restrictions short of a tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has C of E considered starting his own Profanipaedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "yes, he really puts the fanny into fanipeadia...", etc.[reply]
    • Support. Limited restrictions have not borne fruit and have simply redirected the silliness to other topics; CoE is not contributing to DYK so much as gaming it for an audience of one. Removing the possibility of showcasing his antics on the mainpage seems like a clear use of WP:DENY that should be followed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Back in the original topic ban discussion, I wrote "If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism ... That is exactly the wrong way round." Now look at the "Dick's cock" paragraph before BlueMoonset rewrote it. That's a particularly egregious example of writing content to fit a gratuitiously provocative hook. "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock"? Who in their right mind could think that acceptable in a Wikipedia article, never mind promoted on the front page? Then there's the One-fuck rule AFD, which at the moment is showing an overwhelming consensus that the subject is not appropriate for a standalone article. The C of E has previously admitted to creating inappropriate provocative DYK hooks for his own amusement, and received a partial topic ban as a result - but he's still doing it, just in different topic areas. "I am willing to change", he now says, but where have we heard that before? In the original discussion, I thought a ban from The C of E's pet political and religious topics would suffice. But these new examples, plus the recent "...Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" one, make it abundantly clear that The C of E does not possess the judgment needed to create material for promotion on the Wikipedia front page. A full DYK topic ban is unfortunately needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and one addition I just have to make. In his appeal in November, The C of E spoke of the "maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed". And "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" is an example of that maturity, is it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, Once someone just moves their disruption to a different topic, they need to be banned from the process altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is intentionally disruptive, trolling bullshit. It's obviously not going to stop without a topic ban. DoubleCross (‡) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per above. This just it too much of a time sink. MB 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: indef DYK ban. I firmly believe that there's a point at which it's just simpler all around to conclude that an editor cannot be trusted, and shutting it all down is preferable to yet another go-round. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not the domain of sniggering eight-year-olds who believe it's the bee's knees to use naughty language in public. Enough. Ravenswing 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - best to escort the fellow off the DYK premises. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinite topic ban from DYK and anything that has a relationship with slurs or questionable content: If anyone else had done this, they would have been banned from DYK a long time ago. We cannot allow users to try to get racial slurs or other blatantly provocative content posted on the main page. Honestly, it is shameful that this has been allowed to go on for this long. Considering the user's behaviour both on DYK and elsewhere, there is no indication that they have any intention to reform. Furthermore, if we allow this to continue, these events will eventually become front-page news. That potential scandal is entirely avoidable. There are no downsides to banning this user from DYK. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The C of E is just deliberately trying to see how much they can get away with and is extremely aware of what they are doing. There's no subconscious acts here, it's all deliberate provocation and pushing. They may be creating content but the driving force appears to be how far can I push this, and can I slip something in under the that I know is juvenile and inappropriate. This isn't new, it's gone on long enough, this behaviour is not acceptable and is against the spirit of the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as long overdue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: If an editor of C of E's tenure needs this kind of restriction, then they should be under one that is relatively easy to police. The more complex a restriction, not only the easier it is to (attempt to) game, but the more of a timesink it is for other editors to police. SN54129 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support DYK topic ban. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There have been very many opportunities for course correction, and The C of E has taken none of them. I have yet to see anything that feels like genuine self-reflection about this behavior. And I'm honestly not convinced this will solve the problem entirely, as he's still working on fraught topics, and has shown a history of poor judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support racism, homophobia and dodgy Rhodesian articles on the front page? No thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Using juvenile humor such as this in DYK's isn't clever or funny. Using it in articles is just sad and there is absolutely no good reason. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with an added note that the first hint of anything like this behavior cropping up elsewhere should result in a site ban. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from DYK, broadly construed (no nominating articles, commenting on nominations etc.) GiantSnowman 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per everyone above. I'm no puritanical uptight person by any stretch of the imagination, but slurs, fucks, shits, cocks and double ententres don't belong on the front page. The C of E should know that kids use Wikipedia for research, and imagine a kid trying to explain to a teacher why those things are on the front page. I'm honestly surprised someone of The C of E's tenure needs to be told that. JCW555 talk ♠ 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support long overdue indef DYK topic ban. I was pretty sure that C of E was trolling ever since I saw his Sheep shagger DYK back in 2016. I think the idea behind the serial disruption falls under WP:POINT as well.--Catlemur (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – not that additional pile-on is needed, but there is yet another aspect: the article created for shits and giggles in order to work as a DYK hook was not only misrepresenting sources, but also violated WP:ENGVAR in a way that I don't believe was accidental. If The C of E is trying to show a change of editing behaviour, that's not the way to go. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unfortunately they are a net negative at DYK and have completely exhausted the community's patience for this behavior. (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on like this. I've only ever had positive interactions with C of E (at DYK or elsewhere), so I don't understand any of this utter nonsense. If they've shown a bit of an inclination for (occasional) bad jokes, then the solution would have been to address those bad jokes instead of banning them from an area where they have otherwise broadly disruptive. People have to remember that if this kind of stuff got on the main page, then at least one other person found it non-objectionable, so unless there's some old vendetta which I'm not aware of, this isn't particularly helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you'd read the first link, you'd know that his previous topic ban was not about "bad jokes". In the case, especially, of the Northern Ireland nationalist material, most people reading the DYKs would not have had the knowledge about the NI political scene to appreciate why the material was deeply offensive, which is why much of it flew under the radar for some time. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what world is "at least one other person found it non-objectionable" a valid defence against anything? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: The C of E is banned from creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content

    Alternative proposal closed per WP:SNOW
    • I understand where people are coming from on this, I understand the n-word hook was a terrible lapse in judgement and I formally apologise for that and ask for forgiveness. I also recognise that where my attempts at humour have caused disruption (intentionally or otherwise) and that I have proven over my many years of work at DYK, that I am able to create content without causing any drama.

    With that in mind, as{ @Valereee: above mentioned, I am prepared and willing to submit myself to the following restriction: "The C of E is banned from creating or proposing any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content and any hook may be vetoed by any editor". I hope this can be a fair compromise to allow me to continue working at DYK whilst ensuring an end to the disruption. I agree to be subject to this on the grounds that if I intentionally breach it, the original discussion above may take effect. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, the time for that was when it was obvious you were trying the community's patience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, you can start with reading the room practice by looking at the overwhelming consensus forming above, accepting your tban, and adjusting your behavior. It would make it a lot easier to get the tban eased up down the line if you showed self-reflection at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am willing to adjust my behaviour and I have shown the self-reflection above and apologised for past behaviour. The concern I had was that the original proposal was formed when I was not around and by the time I got online, a lot of people had already made up their minds without me getting the chance to put my opinion forward. As such, I agreed to submit to additional restrictions to show I have changed and I can be a productive member of DYK. This is why I am putting forth an official proposal to submit myself to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's clearly too late, look at the section above. It's about 75% support right now. If your topic ban were at RFA, it would pass. Rather than be subject to more restrictions, you need to see that you've exhausted the communities patience. Now, to show some respect for the community, you should just accept a topic ban and show you can edit in-line with community expectations and norms, and over time convince the community that easing your restrictions won't just cause more problems. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The problem is not with specifics, it is with the general approach to Wikipedia and to DYK. That is to constantly test the boundaries of what is acceptable in provocative main page content. And there's a chronic inability to judge what is and what is not appropriate. The existing restrictions did not solve the problem, they just shifted it to other topic areas. And apparently nothing was learned from the recent failure to have those restrictions eased. If someone does not possess the judgment needed for front page work, which is clearly the case here, they simply should not do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if such boundries, as those I have proposed, are in place. I will know what they are and will abide by them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • After seeing your DYK hooks over a lengthy period (deliberately or inadvertently) promoting sectarian, religious and LGBT bigotry, angling to get the n-word on the front page, mocking some poor bloke because he was called "Adolf Hitler", and the latest "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" attempt, I do not trust your judgment around DYK boundaries - and I do not trust you to be able to understand where the next boundary might lie. You simply should not need to be given multiple specific proscriptions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my support above. This would only make it so he keeps causing problems, and everyone is arguing over what is and isn't "sexual double-entendre" or provocative. Is Intergluteal cleft (butt crack) provocative? It's just a part of the body, right? Unquestionably, these issues would crop up, and his pledge to "do better" holds no value at this point, as it has been promised before. No thanks, this would be kicking the can just a bit further down the road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support giving this user one final chance. valereee (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, see above comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. History has shown any loophole left open will soon have two fingers thrust through it. Why not just save ourselves the trouble of going through this again later. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per what I said to Rhododendrites. C of E either intentionally or unintentionally exploits every loophole in sight. This is not compatible with the health of the DYK project or the patience of everyone else in it. Vaticidalprophet 13:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is not kindergarten. Edit without being disruptive or needing bespoke sanctions, or find a new hobby. Levivich 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose We are past the point of trying yet another restriction. There will always be another boundary to push at unless it's a complete topic ban. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Good grief. Because we can trust that this time you're not trying to put one over on us, really, honestly, for real you mean it? No. I would certainly not want to be the editor gauging whether your contributions are "too provocative" or not. Beyond which, The C of E is missing (or hoping we miss, as much to the point) the simple fact that this is not a negotiation, and we do not need to compromise. There are thousands upon thousands of editors who have never been blocked, never been put under any ban or restriction, never need more than one warning to take it to heart. Ravenswing 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No, sorry, not this time. I agreed last time, but we've had politics, we've had religion, we've had nationalism, we've had racism, we've had evangelism, and now we have double-entrendre and spurious swearing, and not only that, but in articles which have been made inaccurate to fit that stuff in. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But adding questionable stuff for DYK grist appears to be the whole point of the program, no? Perhaps a simpler fix would be not allowing anyone to put his own questionable stuff on the Main Page…

    To put it another way, yes, this particular wikiteur shouldn’t have gone so far, but it is merely a funhouse-mirror exageration of a wider problem. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh yes, there is definitely the wider problem! How to solve that is a harder question. But a "one offender at a time" approach might help us get there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Floral suffrage and WP:NOTHERE

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    Floral suffrage was confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of banned user יניב הורון (Yaniv) and indefinitely blocked by Maxim. (Non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Floral suffrage, after finding that the user may not edit-war in the ARBPIA topic area in October 2020, seemingly left Wikipedia until today to revert at Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. Given the substantial socking in the original RFC that deprecated the source, discussed here and deprecation since reversed here, I find a user showing up to revert multiple times on an article they had never edited as their first edits in over a year to be evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Can wait to figure out whose sockpuppet this is, but it seems fairly obvious that it is a sleeper sock activated now and as such I request a block. nableezy - 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now reverting three times, including the additional source provided. Seems to be asking for WP:RBI. nableezy - 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy is using CounterPunch, a webzine that holds 9/11 conspiracies like this https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/02/lies-about-how-the-attack-on-afghanistan-started/ that claims the CIA was behind 9/11, for sourcing information on Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal that prosecuted war criminals from the Saddam government. This is an awful source for 9/11 related material.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That source is not used, and that is not 9/11 related material, and how did you come across this page within minutes of me editing it having made no edits since October 2020? How is your 16th, 17th, and 18th edits reverts to a page you have never been on before? nableezy - 16:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious sock.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal is the result of 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is 9/11 related. Anyone can see Wikipedia edits, I saw this awful edit and removed it.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of 9/11 conspiracies ... nableezy - 16:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see you were created after a batch of Icewhiz socks were blocked. Huh. nableezy - 16:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This one's Yaniv. Maxim(talk) 17:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracias, nableezy - 17:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x

    I've been observing this for a while - User_talk:216.8.164.86#January_2022. They never respond to any user talk queries AFAICT. All of the IPs belong to the same ISP based on WHOIS, and it's clearly the same person. The topic of singular interest seems to be Serbian history, and they've added a huge amount of new articles, some of which are relevant, but a lot of it is of dubious notability and veracity, as I've seen them fabricate various nationalist-related details. The IP ranges seem random within the ISP's address space, so I'm at a loss as to what to do, other than block anonymous editing from an entire ISP... right now the obvious candidates are 216.174.64.0/18 + 216.8.128.0/18 + 216.252.208.0/22 + 216.8.164.0/24 and that's already over 33k IP addresses, so I'm wary of that. Thoughts anyone? (Please ping me back.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No other suggestions? I'll throw in a few pings of other people I saw on the same talk pages who noticed these kinds of problems: Diannaa Greenman Aseleste Jeromeenriquez
    If there's no other solution, I will go with an anon block on these netblocks so that at least we force user to register in order to be able to not lose track of them so easily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion 203.210.138.186

    Returning disruptive editor with multiple existing blocks. Same geolocation (Hanoi, Vietnam) and ISP (VNPT), and the same sort of edits to the same topics (warships, missiles, etc.) Some older IP ranges are under 3 month blocks. 203.210.138.186 received a 31 hour block on January 6, and has come right back.

    See most recent reports:

    - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vũ Hà Anh - any Vietnamese speakers out there?

    Vũ Hà Anh was recently subject to egregious BLP vios by IPs. I have semi'd it and, when the violations moved to Talk, also semi'd the talkpage. There remains a problem of a lot of promotional-sounding stuff, not to say guff, in the article. All the sources are in Vietnamese. Could a Vietnamese speaker take a look and, if the sourcing is as poor as I suspect, remove the promotion and cut down on the gushing detail? If not, I hope I'll have the time myself later to stubbify it by removing a lot of breathless blather as undue (whether properly sourced or not). Any assistance appreciated. Bishonen | tålk 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    • Looking briefly at the talk page, I think they are trying to do a good thing, in a very bad way. The article is more than a little fluffy, for sure, and yes, it probably needs to be trimmed with a chainsaw. I don't speak Vietnamese, so not a lot of help, but yes, the current article looks like a really bad, early draft and there is reason to doubt much of that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an hour job and I just don't have the time right now. I feel I would need to at least translate a few diffs, make a determination if the sources are RS (which is tricky with foreign press when you're just a dumb southerner like me). I don't want to cause more drama than I solve. If no one has by tomorrow, I may take a look, but I'm hoping someone else does because it really isn't my strong suit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is some hugely pressing urgency to do it in the next 24 hours. I'd suggest we wait for a few days to see if someone familiar with Vietnamese is willing to do it, at least. Theknightwho (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen Me. I can help, what should I do? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, the sources are actually pretty reliable, but I need to spot check to see if they do match up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of them are dead, archiving and rescuing them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr: Sourcing is not stellar, but alright. Dan Tri, VnExpress are more reliable than the bunch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vietnamese people love to write really fancily, which can explain partially IP's behavior. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Kavanaugh continues to publicly attack Wikipedia editors

    Ryan Kavanaugh has tweeted calling out specific editors, Popoki35 and me, again accusing us of having some sort of connection to and being paid by a third party. After the tweet was published, there have been multiple attempts by people to log into my account and one attempt to change my password. Is there anything we can do about this sort of harassment, like perhaps imposing a sitewide ban on RK777713 and his sockpuppets, who I think we now agree to be Ryan Kavanaugh himself (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086, topic "Ryan Kavanaugh appears to have filed a lawsuit implying Wikipedia editors [unarchived]"), to at least stop him from repeating these defamatory accusations on Wikipedia as he's done again recently here? Throast (talk | contribs) 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Throast: RK77713 is of course indefinitely blocked as have several sockpuppets, and he is effectively banned. @Mz7, TheresNoTime, and Tamzin: have you anything to add? I see legal has been contacted and replied. I'm not sure what more we can do, sorry. I know from my own experience that this sort of harassment can be stressful and again from personal experience that Legal can be very helpful if someone actually is made the subject of a lawsuit. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He can still edit his talk pages. Is there a way to prevent him from making new accounts, if appropriate? Throast (talk | contribs) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Shadow edit conflict there. I'd had the edit window open a while. So to add...) On a technical level, yes we can block without talkpage access, but has a need been shown for that? It's always preferred not to, because there's always the nonzero chance you've got the wrong guy, and so leaving open an avenue for block appeals is ideal unless a sockmaster is known to abuse their talkpages. As to a block from making new accounts, there are already several such blocks that should apply to RK, but there are ways to get around those, especially for someone with means. CUs could look into hardblocking IPs but that has a risk of collateral damage and I usually trust the CU team to have made any hardblocks they can safely make. So another "Sometimes only so much we can do", but this time with the responsibility being a mix of the limited anti-vandalism tools the WMF gives us and... well the basic way the Internet is set up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, Doug. In the last ANI thread I posted a summary of Legal's reply to my inquiry, and I can forward that email to anyone who'd like to read it in full. Throast, Popoki, et al., I'm sorry to hear you're having to deal with this, and I admire your courage continuing to work on the article—although please do remember to put yourselves first. If you don't think it would be safe to continue editing an article, Wikipedia will survive, and there's always other articles to edit. As to what can be done... As Doug alludes to, even if RK is technically still one strike short of a 3X, Special:Unblock/RK777713 might as well be a redirect to WP:A/R/C; that is to say, we could ban him, and if that would make editors active in this topic area more comfortable I'd probably !vote for it, but he's already de facto banned. (We used to have an actual policy section called "de facto bans", which evolved into modern-day 3X but I would argue was never truly superseded by it... Anyways...) Other options: You can report the tweet. Might do something. Arguably y'all are being defamed, and could try to do something about that, but personally I'd just as soon not go on the offensive against someone with Kavanaugh's net worth. Sadly there are some "Wikipedia problems" that aren't so much Wikipedia problems as societal problems. The ability of the very wealthy to use (or threaten to use) the court system to suppress critical speech... Well, I have plenty to say about that, but not on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If anything, Kavanaugh (via his behaviour) has managed to get more eyes on his own bio article, much to his likely frustration. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. And I don't see this stopping anytime soon. There's two more recently filed lawsuits regarding Ethan Klein which should at some point be included on the Ryan Kavanaugh page, and should Ryan lose both of them, I'm sure he'll fight against including that information, or at least to twist facts about the lawsuits to make him look better. --Swift502 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swift502: I've already warned you for BLP violations regarding Kavanaugh and for antagonizing Garen67541. The above speculation about whether someone will twist facts seems to border on the former... on its own not that bad, maybe, but not great to see after a previous warning. But while looking at the wording of that warning, I noticed that you are again in conflict with Garen. While their conduct at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Ryan Kavanaugh wikipedia page is not great, two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm disappointed to see that you're back to antagonizing them. At 12:59 yesterday you wrote at COIN, I regrettably did make inappropriate comments in the past for which I apologize, it won't happen again.. 10 minutes later, with your next edit, you addressed Garen, Good try Rya- I mean Garen. Another edit confirms that you've read the SPI archive, so you are aware that Garen has been checked at least twice and returned as unrelated to both RK and Thetruthisthere13. As such, please stop accusing Garen of being Kavanaugh unless you have some new evidence. Unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry are personal attacks. More broadly, you have made 30 edits to Wikipedia outside your userspace, and I only count one that wasn't about Ryan Kavanaugh. May I politely suggest that you find something else to do here? There are more experienced editors doing a perfectly good job finding RK sox without causing drama, violating BLP, or making unfounded (or already mostly-disproven) accusations. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin explained pretty fully what the options are in terms of preventing someone from editing--they are simply not great, but we'll survive. As for Swift502, I think that maybe a topic ban from editing anything related to Kavanaugh is in order; what was in here was actually already blockable, per NOTHERE and per BLP. Swift502, please consider this a final warning. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I'm done. Sorry for all the trouble. 👍 --Swift502 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User Dwanyewest

    User:Dwanyewest has been editing since 2005, and made nearly 90,000 edits since. In 2007 they were twice blocked for copyright violations. Over the years, they had occasional bot messages about copyvios and unattributed copying within enwiki (and a truly massive amount of deletion notices), and human messages from e.g. User:Moonriddengirl in 2015[5] and User:Diannaa in 2017 ([6] and [7])

    In 2018 I noticed them making poor, unattributed translations, which I raised on their talk page[8]. A month later I warned them about copy-paste moves within Wikipedia (same issue the other editors already warned them about, but which still continued). In 2019 User:JJMC89 also warned them about cut-and-paste moves[9].

    Now, I noticed a new article by them during new page patrol. Bureau Nationale Veiligheid (Netherlands) is an unattributed translation of nl:Bureau Nationale Veiligheid (Nederland). Checking further, it seems that all there recent creations are unattributed (machine) translations again, e.g. Tu mourras moins bête... (comics) from fr:Tu mourras moins bête... or Franky Snow from fr:Franky Snow (with clear signs of unattributed, unchecked machine translations like "In 2020,the coronavirus pandemic, brings together all the cartoons, including those of Zep (Titeuf) and Buche (Franky Snow),intended to raise morale at the height of the health crisis, hosts several posters to recall the elementary gestures to live together without putting one's health at risk." or "Auntie: Franky's great-aunt whom she finds too stubborn and irresponsible. Despite this, she has a lot of attention to him even despite his old age. " which gets very confused about who is referenced by what part of the sentences), Pif le chien (comics), Les Frustrés (another good example of the poor quality of these machine translations, e.g. "Sixty-eight people on the decline" refers to wikt:soixante-huitard...)... IP 81.105.134.195 seems to be the same editor with the same issues (am I still allowed to post IP addresses? Or has the WMF already outlawed this?). They have received quite a few warnings for unconstructive editing last year, see User talk:81.105.134.195.

    I don't believe warning this editor once again will help, and the cleanup of these will be massive (above, I only listed some creations, but they did the same while expanding articles, e.g. here; and looking at e.g. creations from 2019, I still notice unattributed translations galore). If, after 15 years, 90,000 edits, blocks and warnings, they still either don't know or don't care about these basic requirements, then there seems little hope that this will ever change. Any proposals to deal with this are welcome. Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TLDR version: user has been informed about copyright and attribution issues for years, but all their article creations and expansions are still unattributed, often poor machine translations like Franky Snow or Les Frustrés. Please block or topic ban as appropriate. Fram (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Fram. That is a truly remarkable career. I was looking over the user talk page and it's very concerning. But I also saw a DYK so I'm like HEY THIS IS GOOD, The Trials of Shazam! looks fine--and then I see in the history that this is what User:Dwanyewest managed to produce, and the article in its current state, and the version that made it to the front page, is all User:Argento Surfer's good work.

      I'm kind of at a loss. It's hard to block longtime editors and I have not looked closely enough at their career to see whether they are indeed a net positive, as their 90,000 edits suggest, but I can tell that they require a lot of work, and if the Shazam article is representative, it doesn't give me confidence. Can we ban a user from using machine translations? (Can we always recognize them as such?) Can we ban a user from translation in the first place? (I think we can, but how draconian is that in relation to their total article creation?) Can we simply block them as a net negative? (I can't say right now that I could support that, and it would take a deep dive--but I am not opposed to it in principle.) Can we simply block for a week next time there's a copyvio problem? (We can do that, of course, and that's probably a kind of minimum sanction.) What else can we do? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, the absolute minimum seems to be the removal of their autopatrolled status, and preferably a ban on machine translations: while these aren't always easy to prove, it is clear enough when you look at e.g. Nederlandsche Unie, which even though it discussed a "Unie" (Union), it still succeeds in translating it as "University" multiple times, just like Google does[10]. And some clear warning that any recurrence of these problems will lead to swiftly escalating blocks? The knowledge that their edits will be scrutinized, and transgressions dealt with, may be enough to get their enthusiasm finally directed to policy-compliant edits. Fram (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked one, Agrippine (comics), and it's almost a word-for-word Google translation (unattributed) of fr:Agrippine (bande dessinée). Levivich 17:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have attributed the translation. No complaints intended, but it would be great if all of us would would develop a habit of automatically attributing translation / copy-paste editing from other Wikimedia articles/projects as soon as we detect them. This makes life of the next generations much easier and, in the long-term perspective, will save the planet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you; this is an excellent point. Levivich 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the autopatrol, the issues seem to be too serious so that we may want to have a look at the edits. I kept the pending changes patrolled flag, I do not see any abuse of the flag, and the removal must be discussed separately (if at all needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dwanyewest has returned to editing, but doesn't seem interested in joining the discussion (here or at their talk page) or dealing with the issues. Fram (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also editing as IP 80.1.188.112 it seems. Fram (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats and disruptive edits from 182.211.189.80

    IP blocked for 31 hours for WP:NPA violations by Ymblanter. One edit also revision deleted, closing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    182.211.189.80 is sending death threats. They only made two edits so far, but I think they require attention. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for 31h, even one would be enough in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Torterra Ketchum 5999 today created a page, that he moved to main space, even before it was fully developed. I saw it when a notice came to me, that a link was made from Draft:Guddi (2022 Tv Series) to Aalta Phoring (the page that I have created). I draftified the page, as it was not fully developed then. Then he again moved it to mainspace after developing it by adding many information. Now, the problem is not so much is know about the Tv series, and its promo has not been out yet. So then how does he know so much? And here comes the idea of paid editing. The editor must have been paid to create the page. Or else, such detailed information (like screenplay by, executive producers, directors, and a huge list of cast) is still not known to any of us, except the author of the page. It seems like he is being paid by Magic Moments Motion Pictures to create articles for their TV shows, as can be seen from his page creation list. He only creates pages of TV shows that are being produced by Magic Moments Motion Pictures. So, there could be COI or paid editing involved. So, seeking advice of senior editors. Please look into the page, and is it possible that the editor has WP:COI of the subject or if this page made by undisclosed payment. Thanking in advance. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether this is paid editing or some other COI, unsourceable commercial advertising doesn’t belong here. This is supposed to be a trailing tertiary publication, not a repository of press releases. Qwirkle (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guddi (TV series) Nominated for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn Well, I said that there might be paid editing involved. But, I did not seek deletion. Why did you start a delete discussion? Please, I with no COI of Magic Moments Motion Pictures request you earnestly to drop this out of nomination. I had created this this thread to bring attention on the editor, not on the article. Deleting articles like this means deleting all the articles created by the user. But that is not what I want. The articles are of good quality and well developed. There is no need to delete them. Thats all. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Itcouldbepossible:, I didn't start the deletion discussion for your benefit nor does deleting one article mean that all the articles by an editor are required to be deleted. Please read WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:GTD, both of which are linked at the top of the deletion discussion, for more explanation about how deletion works and why articles are nominated. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Itcouldbepossible:: beyond Eggishorn's comments, you may be mistaken in thinking that what happens at ANI is that we discuss and deal only with your complaint and only upon the terms you set for it. This is not the case. I expect that Eggishorn filed that AfD for just the reasons cited in the nomination. Ravenswing 06:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn@Ravenswing OK no problem. But, I will also try and prevent the article from getting deleted. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly your privilege to make your opinion known, on the AfD. Ravenswing 13:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lamnotpres repeatedly adding unsourced speculation to election articles and refusing to communicate

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

    Lamnotpres first added speculation that Ralph Northam would be a potential candidate in the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election, without providing a reference (despite a note in the article source noting that references are necessary). I reverted as unsourced. They reverted me, calling me a "Conservative hack" in the edit summary. I reverted them again, explaining that a source was necessary. They've now reverted three times, still without any source, and despite me leaving multiple warnings on their talkpage. They've also added unsourced speculation to 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election. Since this user refuses to WP:COMMUNICATE in a constructive manner, I think a block here is unfortunately necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    EC protected the pages. See if they now decide to communicate. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Lamnotpres just tried to blank this section. On his talk page, he has implied he will not follow direction from ANI. And has vandalized CambridgeBayWeather's page. Not exactly the communication the community was looking for. Suggesting an indef block at this point. Singularity42 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, given that this was his response to a final warning and that he vandalised Cambridge's user page I'm gonna say he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another attempted blanking. — Czello 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A user who used an alternative account

    애국심 존중 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    They said they(singular they, It refers to '애국심 존중') would use a '흑마' account later if they lost their password. However, a user name '흑마' cannot be identified except that it is written in Hangeul. and although they said it is a bot account, there is no evidence that it is a bot account. --유미사카 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: Also, they was blocked in Korean Wikipedia for same reason. '흑마' account was created relatively recently. --유미사카 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, their main account '애국심 존중' is not bot account. but they marked themself as a bot in their signature. --유미사카 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Think WP:CIR applies here as no indication the user can currently be productive to this project.Slywriter (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @유미사카:

    흑마 Is not bot. It is person like me. But I will Editing like a bot. You can Block 흑마 Account. Because It is Unneed Account. But,Please I want to Editing Wikipedia To this Account. Thank you

    — 애국심 존중
    --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the information. but It is wrong to mention that you are a bot even though you tried to look like a bot account. --유미사카 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @유미사카: Ok. --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (DICUSS)

    Additionally, a quote from treewiki(Namuwiki?) was found on your user page. But, licenses of Namuwiki and Wikipedia are different, and it is not known which article was cited in Namuwiki. ---유미사카 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, when looking at a user talk of '흑마' account of Korean Wkipedia it seems that it was created for purposes other than the fear of losing a bot or password. --유미사카 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @유미사카: Oh. TreeWiki is Namuwiki. --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @유미사카: In Namuwiki There Article Named 'Crtisism of Wikipedia' There Is Quote Of My User page. I will Delete. --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (Talk to 존중)
    @애국심 존중: Can you tell me the url of the article Namuwiki? --유미사카 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @유미사카: [12] --👻💻🤔Wikipedian!!! (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pixelninja2000; most edits are to hoaxes/fantasy pages in userspace

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    Pixelninja2000 blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE by NinjaRobotPirate. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ran across User:Pixelninja2000 while doing a cleanup of television pages. I tagged some of their userspace pages (which are mostly fictional sports and television items) for speedy with G3/U5, but there are just so many that I wanted to bring the matter here. They also are the vast majority of their edits on the project (93.8% in userspace), so they might be NOTHERE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Came across this discussion while scrolling through ANI. As it's about hoaxes, I thought I take a look into this especially as it involves sports. In terms of hoaxes, I've found a fake NHL All Star Game, a fake FIFA World Cup, and several fake Olympic ones as the 1940 Winter Olympics and 1944 Winter Olympics never happened. The medal count also does not match 2020 Summer Olympics medal table while including historical countries Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Otherwise, I've found content of false information of real events. Examples include these three drafts that suggests imaginary content from NHL (video game series), making WP:NOTWEBHOST apply. I'm mostly concerned about the hoaxes as the oldest one I linked is from 2017 and the newest one is from 2021. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I indefinitely blocked the editor and deleted all the user pages under U5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Second Chance

    The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.

    In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and have stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.

    More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.

    I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.

    Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have briefly addressed the past and my plans for the future above. As stated, I have little time to edit and don't wish or plan to engage in disputes. It's one of the reasons I have not, and will not, respond to unfounded speculations about my motives elsewhere in the thread. I just don't have the time or the inclination. Likewise, I don't see a back and forth re-litigating the circumstances of my ban as being productive. I am sorry if what I said already is not enough for you as it seems to have been for everyone else.
    The community has the opportunity to give me a second chance. If they do, and I abuse it, the ban can easily be reimposed. If nothing else, I think I have shown that I will abide by the terms of a T-ban, as it seems you have abided by the terms of yours. If the community decides the standard offer does not apply to me then nothing will change, including, it seems, that reference error now in its third year. Either way, I am more interested in looking forward than backward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears to me that you have misrepresented the simple question I asked and failed to post any substantive response. From my experience at the Knights article, this is exactly the kind of uncollaborative engagement that resulted in your ban. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking Slugger's recent activity, I see lots of the same old problems here. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    discussiom

    IP adding wrong date formats

    This IP has around 50 edits recently. They seem well-intentioned but, whenever they find the construct "Month Year", they change it to "Month, Year", which is clearly wrong per MOS:DATES. I've put a message on their TP, but they haven't seen that (or have ignored it), nor have any of the reversions of their edits altered this. We need to get their attention somehow. They are improving grammar, but probably also adding personal knowledge - the edits are mostly to railroad related articles in New York. I've fixed some of the dates, but it would be better if someone has a script they could run to do it more thoroughly. It's hard to find a single comma. MB 05:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that their edits are tagged as made by the iOS app, so their lack of communication may be a Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU case. Neiltonks (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of archival bot for talk page vandalism

    Vandals have been experimenting with altering archival bot settings for talk pages in order to force them to archive the pages away to nothing. See this diff for an example, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.205.97.0/24 for successful attempts at this from multiple addresses within a /24. What to do about this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A hard minimum for maxarchivesize would be sensible. Other than that it seems easy enough to deal with. CMD (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Σ: I'm going to ping Σ, who was operating the bot in question, to see if they can help. I could also potentially add an edit filter to stop non-autoconfirmed users from making talk page edits that modify these templates. -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This attempt also looks like an ingenious attempt to cause chaos. I don't know whether it would work, but the intent is clear. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Anome: Based on the focus on vandalising articles related to chaos magic and the targeted articles this IP range is almost certainly being operated by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat, look at the overlap in the history of Playback (technique) and Jim Bob Duggar for example. I would be tempted to stick a much longer block on the range since a lot of the contributions since early October seem to be the same block evading troll. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've extended the block on 166.205.97.0/24 to three months. -- The Anome (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What's about hard prohibition of non-autoconfirmed users to change config settings?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you enforce it? The settings are just stored as a template on the talk page and mediawiki doesn't have any way of protecting only specific sections of a page. Monitoring millions of talk pages isn't really a practical solution. As an IP editor I've set up archiving on long talk pages in the past, and have fixed a few cases where archiving has been broken by page moves so not all modifications by non ac editors are disruptive. If a specific IP range is being used by a block evading troll the solution is to block it, rather than adding more restrictions cross the entire project IMO. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With an edit filter.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good idea, I forgot about edit filters, sorry. I'm still think that a sitewide ban on non-ac accounts editing archive settings is a bit of an overreaction to a known troll messing around on some talk pages. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we put the anti-vandalism settings in a protected template that is itself transcluded through to the main template? Would need to be done in a way that would simply break the main template if it were to be changed, which I have a feeling is possible with Lua's hashing functions, but this may end up overcomplicating things for negligible benefit really. Theknightwho (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why block all IP edits to archival settings with an edit filter? This is one person screwing around. Make it a tag or something and we can easily identify new socks of this person until they get bored of screwing with archival settings and move onto something else. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Venkat TL and WikiCleanerMan

    User:Venkat TL, today has sent what could only be seen as a threat on my talk page falsely accusing me of bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council stating that I should "Be prepared with your defence." The discussion is over the merits of the article I nominated and noticed that all who are voting keep are not providing sources that can be seen as reliable nor help with the article's notability. After trying to explain the GNG guidelines he didn't even respond as to how the article basic the notability requirements, but instead he diverts from the topic and goes off on tangents, not addressing the actual concerns presented in my nomination. He's even gone on two different Tfd's discussions I started where he launched PA's accusing me of "making my own rules", "and enforcing them through mass AfDs without getting any consensus", "Everytime you get such strange ideas, please get them vetted from the community at the WP:VP or other relvant place, before enforcing them and wasting everyone's time." One those two Tfd's I warned about launching personal attacks but as seen on my talk page, but he doesn't care. I warned him on his talk page about such behavior. Tfd 1 and Tfd 2.

    And at another Afd I started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society, he voted keep simply because it was started by me. This has become some sort of personal vendetta against me for whatever reason. Pinging Adamant1 who was on this Afd and informed him of the former discussion to show why Venkat TL only voted keep. Both Admanat1 and I have become convinced that Venkat TL and another user is the one who is bludgeoning at the Indian American Muslim Council Afd, but elsewhere as in the case of the Tfd's. For full disclosure, I posted the edit summary of Venkat TL telling me to shoot myself in the foot on Admant's talk page due to Venkat's concerning behavior.

    Bear in my mind, I didn't want to take this to ANI but he left me no choice as a result of his message on my talk page. He reverted my warning on his talk page with the edit description of "Yes go ahead. Shoot yourself in the foot." This only implies he doesn't care and is only looking to be combative. This type of behavior can't go ignored. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment clearly said it is "warning". Not my fault if you consider it a threat.
    On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council WikiCleanerMan has already made 12 comments, and the entire AfD page has been bludgeoned. He was harassing Ngrewal1 and confusing the participants by making unreasonable demands about sourcing, (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Does Reliable source need to follow WP:NPOV
    on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society WikiCleanerMan has already made 9 comments, His buddy Adamant1 has made 8 comments, and the entire AfD page has been bludgeoned by these two. He has a history of bludgeoning. Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not bludgeoning. It's called having a discussion. Two Afd's is not a history as you say. Making comments is not a violation of any policy regarding Afd or any other discussion format. And claiming that it wasn't a threat when you say that I will be reported and be prepared to with a defense can be considered a threat. That wasn't a warning. What I posted on your talk page which you reverted was a warning and your edit summary revering it sounds like you wanted to go to ANI to begin with. And no I was not harassing any user. And I never made a demand. So please stop distorting the truth about what really is going on and that is your behavior. And Adamant1 is not my "buddy" as you claim. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why then have you pinged Adamant1 here? Where is the evidence of Personal Attack? Commenting about your frivolous bad quality nomination is not personal attack. Dont participate in AfDs if you cannot face such comments. No where have I made any personal attack and you are making false allegations, in the section title. Venkat TL (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bludgeoning by WikiCleanerMan

    I will let the numbers speak for themselves. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bludgeoning by WikiCleanerMan
    Discussion
    (Recent on Top)    		 Edits by WikiCleanerMan
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council 12
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society 9
    Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11#Template:WikiProject_India_essays 6
    Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11#Template:India_quick_links 9
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate of Rajasthan 8
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict 5
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Yu (2nd nomination) 4

    You are misstating and cherry-picking what discussion and what bludgeoning is. Your repeated comments don't count as bludgeoning? Very odd that you are not addressing your own behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am going to WP:AGF here, but I feel like I should make some brief points:
      1. Bludgeoning does not have to be intentional, and we need to be self-aware of our own behaviour. When a discussion reaches more than a few comments, yet you find yourself responding to each and every person who disagrees with you, then you're probably in danger of bludgeoning. If all you're doing is just repeating something you've said already without adding anything new, then you're definitely bludgeoning. Don't.
      2. Even if someone's a bit rude, calling it a personal attack doesn't give you a free pass to just ignore everything they've said. You do seem to be misinterpreting policy, so even if Venkat is a bit out of line, that doesn't mean they're wrong about that or that you should just carry on in the same way. FWIW, Venkat just seems frustrated with you more than anything else, and I think a lot of that comes from the way you're ignoring most of what they're saying.
      3. Users are entitled to delete most things on their own talk page, including warnings from other users.
      4. Nobody (and this goes for both users) should be using ANI as a threat. It feels like this is a case of the best defence is a good offence, with WikiCleanerMan getting the first strike in. It's not collaborative, it's not assuming good faith, and it's a great way to make both of you much more stressed than you need to be. Apart from anything else, it also wastes everyone else's time when it inevitably gets here in a flurry of emotion, instead of being dealt with sensibly.
    Both of you a step back for a bit, then come back to it with a fresh head tomorrow. Don't get into another spat here.
    Theknightwho (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theknightwho you are right, I was indeed frustrated by his behavior on AfD and comments. I will abide by your advice. I don't have any grudge against WikiCleanerMan nor do we have any ongoing disputes other than 2 AfD and 2 TfD. I request admins that the Baseless accusation of "Personal attacks and threats" should be removed from the section title as WikiCleanerMan has failed to provide any evidence for these accusations. Venkat TL (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The idea he hasn't launched any personal attacks is another baseless claim when he makes accusations at the Tfd's, where I provided a link to his edits on there, that I'm "making my own rules". This counts as a personal attack and the actual baseless accusation. But I want to know as to why Venkat is not addressing the claims against him and has not provided evidence that what he has done doesn't count as threats or PA's. Evidence of which I have provided. And frustration doesn't give you the right to do what you did. However, I'm fine with the discussion being closed per the recommendations of Theknighwho, but I suggest Venkat stay away from any discussion I start. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment First of all me and WikiCleanerMan are not "buddies." As far as I'm aware I haven't interacted with them outside of this incident. I take the fact that Venkat TL says we are, as if we are working together or something, to be a rather spurious and paranoid accusation which I totally reject. In no way are me and WikiCleanerMan "buddies." People be able to have discussions without being accused of working together or whatever. People don't need to look any further then that for evidence of Venkat TL attacking people. If that's not enough though, they said in the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council "clearly WikiCleanerMan you need a lot of policy reading to do, before you could participate in AfDs and confuse other participants with your misunderstandings, misreadings, ignorance about policies and guidelines." Calling WikiCleanerMan ignorant, and trying to gate keep them participating in AfDs by maligning their intelligence and knowledge, can't be interpreted any other way then a personal attack. Also, while WikiCleanerMan did write 9 messages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society, most of them were in response to me and a civil discussion we were having about the topic. Which I don't considering Bludgeoning. It seems like Venkat TL is doing some extreme cherry picking of mostly good faithed conversations to justify the accusation that bludgeoning is going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This escalated way too fast and you need to at least make some kind of attempt to work this out diplomatically before invoking ANI. I can see why WikiCleanerMan decided to come here first. Venkat TL, you left a message on this person's talk page that is somewhat based on WP:4IM given that you said "This is your only warning" and followed by an "if you do x again I will do y". This isn't a 4IM situation so to speak and your talk page message could've been far less confrontational. And yeah, you kind of did threaten WikiCleanerMan. You threatened to take them to AN/I unless WikiCleanerMan ceased the action in question. Threats aren't banned on this encyclopedia by any means. I threaten people all the time when I give them vandalism warnings that they will be blocked unless they stop vandalizing. Describing this as a "threat" is an accurate assessment of the situation. This is more or less the kind of thread that could've been avoided had both parties tried to work out their differences beforehands rather than proceeding "I'm going to ANI" -> "Not if I get there first" -> this thread. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have addressed this. @Chess no comments on bludgeoning? Is that not a concern for you? Are you only concerned about 4IM? WikiCleanerMan is not listening or addressing this despite a few admins telling him above. Venkat TL (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think said person may have been more receptive if you phrased your concerns more politely from the start, and do to the highly confrontational way this thread has begun and bad behaviour on the part of both parties, nothing is really going to happen since people don't want to wade through this and try to divine who's right and wrong on individual issues. Perhaps WikiCleanerMan spent too much time arguing with others at AfD, maybe not. But what do you actually want out of this thread? A firm warning? You could've and did give that yourself. Do you want a block? That would be overkill here. Do you see a t-ban from AfD passing? Do you want an elaborate display of ritual contrition? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not going to comment about coulda, woulda, shoulda. I warned him about WP:BLUDGEON and instead of acknowledging, he responded by filing this frivolous case without substance (the best defence is a good offence, WP:BATTLE?) . The point, @Chess that you are missing here, is that even now Wikicleanerman does not accept that there is any problem with his conduct, despite Dennis Brown and others telling him in clear words. I did not ask him to start this thread, but now that we are here, it would be a tremendous waste of our time, if this ANI thread does not have any effect on the issues raised. Venkat TL (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Chess, Venkat is still not addressing his own behavior which resulted in this ANI discussion. It does seem he wants some form of extreme action against me. He only warned me about bludgeoning on my talk page that was in the form of a threat. After which this discussion started. However, he has still not admitted what he did was wrong such as the PA's on at the two Tfd discussions where I left a warning in reply, either of which he didn't read or care to follow. And yet, even after providing evidence of PA's, he's acting as if he hasn't done such a thing. Evidence of PA's: Tfd 1 and Tfd 2. He seems to be on a crusade where instead of addressing his actions, he's cherrypicking examples, not from the Afd which resulted in the dispute to begin with but providing so-called evidence from unrelated discussions. Let's not forget that the title of this discussion was only changed to both of our user names only because he wanted to act as if this was about me and not him. I think you and Adamant1 are the only ones who have fully acknowledged Venkat's behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But in any event, I think it's best we bury the hatchet and move on. If what I did was considered bludgeoning, then fine. I accept it and won't do it again. Simple as that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Both User:WikiCleanerMan and User:Venkat TL have been out of line, but neither of them should be sanctioned yet other than with a warning. User:Chess is right that User:Venkat TL should not have given a Level 4 warning, but a Level 2 warning would have been in order, and a discussion, such as they have provided here, would have been even better. At the same time, it is neither necessary nor useful to dispute every editor in an AFD. It does sometimes happen in AFDs (and sometimes gets repeated at DRV), but that doesn't excuse it. So, yes, WikiCleanerMan, you were bludgeoning, and your willingness to move on is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I be warned? I saw an inappropriate behavior and I warned the offending user to not continue the same. Now you may have given a level 2 or whatever you may like to call that warning, but my act of warning WikiCleanerMan is not an offence, much less a sanction-able offence. WikiCleanerMan may be acting like a snowflake, but why are you engaging in such false equivalence? Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Venkat TL should receive a warning. Otherwise, it's just one sided. Since there was clearly fault on both sides even if Venkat TL isn't willing to admit it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And for what offence milord? I am not responsible for massive over-reaction of snowflakes. WikiCleanerMan has already made a fool of himself by starting this thread over a non issue, and now you are following his footsteps with this ridiculous false equivalence. Venkat TL (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frank advice: You'll probably want to shut up and walk away from this before you dig yourself into some kind of hole, Venkat. There's nothing for you to gain here. AngryHarpy‍talk 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here for digging or gaining anything, I was dragged here. I am just pointing out the ridiculous false balance, after OP threw a tantrum. Remember (1) Warning someone is not an offence (2) My warning was not without a valid cause. That's all I have to say. Venkat TL (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tinkvu

    The user User:Tinkvu has a disclosed conflict of interest with Darul Huda Islamic University. While that's not a problem on it's own, they have been repeatedly reverting multiple editors of the article to add back bad references and content that is clearly advertising the institution against the clear consensus. While I could care less about them editing the article, they should do in a way that doesn't go against conensus of regular editors, without reserting to reverts, and should discuss their edits on the talk page ahead of time. Their behavior has been brought to their attention already multiple times and they haven't changed it. So I am bringing them here in the hope that an admin can deal with things. For reference there is also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy which partly has to do with them, but it seems to not be going anywhere, and I'd like their WP:OWNERSHIP behavior to be dealt with in the interim anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Adamant1: is WP:COIN a better venue? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so because COIN is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest and they already declared their COI. I could be wrong though. I'm not super up on the differences between the noticeboards. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yellowdune456

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    Yellowdune456 blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE by RickinBaltimore. Wikipedia is not an exorcist. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yellowdune456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I think it's time for Yellowdune456 to be blocked from mainspace—or possibly just blocked. They created Draft:3D stop motion game in December and submitted it 5 times in 2 days; it was declined every time. Yellowdune456 requested feedback at the video games WikiProject and the consensus there was that the article wasn't ready. Undeterred, they went on to recreate 3D stop motion game 3 more times, all of which were moved to draftspace: Draft:3D stop motion games, Draft:3D stop motion game 3, and Draft:3D stop motion game 4. 3D stop motion game is now protected, so Yellowdune456 created it as Clay animation game, which was moved to Draft:Clay animation video games. They've now created the article again with the same name. There are other bad creations, like Draft:Curse of Hanshin Apartment and now Curse of Hanshin Apartment, which is mostly a copy and paste of the 3D stop motion game contents.

    The warnings are piling up at User talk:Yellowdune456, both templates and custom messages. The user has a poor grasp of English and sourcing, so none of these drafts are suitable for mainspace. There were also concerns about promotion in one of the comments at Draft:3D stop motion game because of Yellowdune456's focus on specific non-notable games. Maybe they'll become a great editor some day, but I think they lack the competence to contribute at this time. Woodroar (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved Draft:Clay animation game to draftspace just now, and then noticed this discussion and the various mentions of Harold Halibut, which I think the user may be promoting. If that's the case, the drafts should likely be deleted as promotional. ASUKITE 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like we should just have an MfD or AfD to determine notability at this point, because I don't really feel comfortable with this level of punishing a user for repeatedly resubmitting a draft if there isn't actually consensus that the draft is notable. You say that they got feedback the article "wasn't ready" but that implies that with improvement it could be ready at some point. That would sound like an encouragement to keep trying. I'm also pretty sure that in disputed cases, repeated draftification isn't supposed to be used to avoid AfD which is what's clearly happening here. A full protect salt of a page title for not being notable when there hasn't even been an AfD seems illogical imho. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to turn ANI into AfD, but based on the sources currently in the draft, I think this is very likely a notable subject. The two Korean sources just look like dictionary definitions, which wouldn't help establish notability, but the English-language sources are better, and a quick Google skim through up quite a few more (and I'm really bad at video game stuff). The title is wrong - the '3D' bit is redundant, it should probably be something like Stop motion video game, in keeping with Stop motion. The text in the draft, however, is very poor - I'm going to hazard a guess (based on the Korean-language sources) that the contributor is not a native English speaker. What this draft really needs is help from an editor with better English-language skills, and a familiarity with high-quality sources related to video games and/or independent cinema. Best Girth Summit (blether) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello I am Yellowdune456 the reason why i am trying to remake the post is because i got a mental disease that is similar to OCD. feels like to be relaxed from this disease. i have to make post like Stop motion video game. the ghost in my brain actually threatens me to keep remake post...ghost in my brain said if you make a post like Stop motion video game i will free you from threat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdune456 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's enough for me to show that they are WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ... they may well BE here to help build an encyclopedia, but as the OP asserts, lacks the competence to do so. Wikipedia is not a theraputic clinic. Ravenswing 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple edit warring notices, non collaborative user, requesting review of user edit history and edits

    I'm gonna opt to close this. At this early point in the dispute, the preferred place for discussion is the article's talk page, escalating to WP:DRN if the dispute remains following an extensive talk page discussion (I note that EaziGH opened a DRN thread today that was promptly closed as premature). (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am contacting you regarding a section on TX state representative Todd Hunter, particularly the section on the 2021 redistricting process. The section as drafted by Snooganssnoogans expresses personal and political opinions, rather than facts about the individual or links to the redistricting maps in question. I have attempted to address this via the user's talk page, and the page's talk page with no progress. To ensure the integrity of the information currently displayed, I would like to ask for attention to 1) open a dialogue with the user 2) ensure the section is generally free of personal opinions or speculation. Please elevate this issue so that it gets the attention it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaziGH (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an edit war, and you need to bring it up on the talk page per the bold, revert, and discuss method. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unsuccessful Articles for Deletion attempt

    This is regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock which were created recently by a new user, 333Trey333 (talk · contribs). They weren't created properly, and I don't think they have any reasonable likelihood of success, so I think it would not be of benefit to anyone to promote them to a full AfD process ... and yet I am not sure they fit WP:G6, since deleting them might not really uncontroversial maintenance, as clearly at least this user thinks they should be followed. Anyway, administrators, this is why you make the big bucks: please take appropriate action, whatever you consider that to be. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) They also just tried PROD-ing the article, which I have disputed. Suggest G6 deletion, and linking the editor to the instructions of creating an AfD if they are so inclined. Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have now provided 333Trey333 with instructions of how to properly nominate an article for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: Sorry, but your deletion rationale 20:29, 14 January 2022 Floquenbeam talk contribs deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: erperiment or test or confusion; also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock which argues the opposite) (thank) is not correct. They didn't one argue to keep, the other to delete. Both were created with the same text, one of them was then edited by a defender of the article, who removed the original deletion rationale (which wasn't very detailed, granted). --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. My bad, misread the history of the "do not delete" page. G6 is still fine, but I'll revise my message on their talk page. Thanks for catching that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) If the discussions were not created properly then deleting the discussions seems to be the obvious thing to do. We don't keep such mistakes as some sort of badge of shame against an editor who didn't know the correct procedure. It is still obviously the case that anyone, including the original nominator, can nominate this article for deletion properly if they feel that it should be deleted, something that I have not looked into. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer + IP sock

    User:Afghanis suffa and his/her sock User:105.8.3.176 has been spamming the same website (which I have nominated for blacklist) for the past few days, and has sometimes added false information ([13], [14]). The user has so far continued to spam and add the fictitious "United Nations Roman Empire" to the same articles, despite the three warnings I gave. The user has not communicated so far. Veverve (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty clear vandalism, blocked both--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV backlog

    There's currently 20 open reports at AIV. --Sable232 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty sure this would belong at AN, but consider leaving it here for the sake of visibility. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Section blanking

    I'd like a review of a blunt instance of section blanking by an editor with admin privileges that appear to have been mis-used. I do not know if there is a pattern of similar abuse. Their lack of responsiveness is frustrating. Praxidicae, who finally responded in a single line on the Talk page (using the user name Santadicae), arbitrarily cut content out of the page Alpha Psi Lambda without offering improvements, then protected SIXTEEN YEARS of edits to make previous versions unviewable, and cited an unclear rationale that "WP is not a directory". Perhaps their point is to push others to offer citations; I responded to this on the Talk page, attempting to show good faith, but the cryptic and unhelpful lack of engagement ended there. This person had deleted a list of founders, a short bullet list of five historic milestones, and a short mission statement and purpose statement. --Pretty standard stuff for the 1,400 articles on similar societies that the Fraternity and Sorority Project works to improve. I have no connection with the group. I wouldn't mind helping find citations for this page, but this arbitrary and bullying deletion wasn't helpful in any way. I will immediately notify Praxidicae that I have opened this ANI. Jax MN (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like he did not protect 16 years of edits to make the previous versions unavailable, the edits in question were apparently revision deleted for violations of the copyright policy. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: You were apparently the one who executed the revision deletion, can you offer some insight here? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I asked Primefac about this on their user talk a bit earlier today. I’m pretty sure they’re just WP:BUSY at the moment and will respond when they get the chance. As for the OP, they might want to take another look at this talk page post, some of the edit summaries they left at Alpha Psi Lambda as well as WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:CONTENTAGE and maybe even WP:Namechecking. The OP’s first edit summary and their initial article talk page post have a WP:BATTLEGROUND feel to them which was probably not going to lead to constructive discussion for what appears to be a disagreement over unsourced content and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If copyright violating content was found in the article (as per the page’s log), it’s going to be removed most likely no matter how long ago it was added, and all the relevant diffs in between which contain such content are going to end revdeleted. Perhaps nobody bothered to check the article for copyvios until the recent bunch of reverts started attracting attention. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Marchjuly. It appears that the protection of the past 16 years of edit history was indeed done by Primefac, but of course their user name didn't appear as making that change, which happened at about the same time. A couple of us assumed (in error) it was Praxidicae. Copyvios are certainly serious, and I would have jumped to find citations or to paraphrase where needed. Now, I would rather quote and then cite in the case of a mission statement, so as not to distort the words with a bad paraphrase. I do not have rights to view or investigate the copyright claim now that everything is hidden. But twice, the short edit summary given when section blanking said nothing to warn of copyvio. Only an odd comment that WP is not a directory. Unhelpful/unclear.
    I'd note that listing founders is standard for these society articles, and isn't a case of WP:Namechecking
    I first noticed these edits to this article while looking at recent Project activity. I saw the significant amount of blanking and thought it appeared to be vandalism. Had Praxidicae noted a need for citations or potential copyvio, this would have taken a more helpful course. I prefer to help rewrite, where I can. Jax MN (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the information added in 2006, remaining in the article since, and restored by yourself, is a copy of this page, or wherever that came from. It's basically word for word and a pretty clear-cut copyvio, assuming that page came first, which looks likely. Any subsequent modification is going to be a derivative of a copyvio. I don't think the same is true of the other stuff you were adding, but then as already pointed out, that's unreferenced. No comment on the list if it's properly referenced, other than to say I don't find a list of original founders, or a mission statement particularly offensive. You may want to split out each of the different topics for discussion here (well, at the article's talk page). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate this can be confusing for new editors, if you want to see why something was revision deleted you should always look at the page log [15] or the deletion log subset not the edit history of the page. You should not expect to seen an explanation of revision deletion in the edit history. Sometimes there may be, sometimes there won't be. And while I can't speak for Praxidicae, it seems quite likely what happened here is they saw content they thought was unsuitable for a Wikipedia article and removed it. After removing it they started to investigate more and found it was a copyvio and so asked for revision deletion. This happens quite a lot since when removing content which is clearly unsuitable, sometimes you think 'you know what, this sounds like it probably came from somewhere else'. There was no reason to annotate the edit history and while I guess they could have mention it on the talk page, frankly there was no reason. The page logs adequately explain the reason for the revision deletion and an uninvolved admin has to agree with them it was a clear copyvio justifying revision deletion for if the revdeletion to happen. Also please remember that citations cannot fix copyvios except when there is a CC BY-SA compatible licence (in which case we normally do not revision delete) and for content re-written in your own voice you can just look at what RS you're getting the information from. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I see Praxidicae did specifically note their copyvio concerns on the talk page [16] and that was before this thread was started, so I'm very confused why this thread was started and made it sound like the reason for the revision deletion was "WP is not a directory" when there was nothing to indicate that was the case when this thread was started. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jax MN said "...I would have jumped to find citations or to paraphrase where needed." However, the copyvio material would have remained in past versions of the page. These could have been reverted to at any time. Copyvios must be removed. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #1. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this thread was started in good faith, because that's pretty much what Prax told the OP to do. However, there is nothing to see here. Prax isn't an administrator, and she didn't use any advanced privileges to remove the content so she can't be accused of tool misuse. She did respond to the very first talk page message, so she can't be approved of refusing to communicate. Standard practice when COPYVIO is discovered is to remove it, and to remove all revisions that contain it. I have trust in Primefac (and in zzuuzz, who also looked) to check whether something is a copyvio before applying revdel - it looks like everything has been handled normally, and that nobody has done anything wrong, except perhaps Prax could have mentioned copyvio in her original edit summary, rather than the NOTDIRECTORY stuff (which may have been accurate, but is the less serious concern and wouldn't justify edit warring). In short: there is nothing to see here. Girth Summit (blether) 07:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what more information I can provide; as mentioned there were some copyright violations and I RD1'd the offending revisions. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Primefac. Would you mind letting me see the offending material, so I understand what the authors were trying to convey? I only came in to review this when I noticed the section blanking. I'll rewrite. Jax MN (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax MN: I don't know if Primefac will do that or not, but I can save the time and effort - the content is literally on the page I linked above. Update the 'Today:" bit, add something about co-founding NALFO and that it's the first and largest Latino whatever, then quote and source the mission statement, and that will be that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did, but yeah, pretty much. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. I just posted a revision of the article. I'm sure it will be highly scrutinized. All of us encounter so much page vandalism; this is a reminder to me, at least, not to over-react. And of course, it is a reminder that helpful edit summaries, though they may be tedious, help to teach new editors and to moderate emotional responses. Jax MN (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I no longer have the time to dedicate to ANI responses or WP in general but my edit summaries (mostly) adequately explained my removals based on policies and established community norms. I invited the OP to take this to ANI because they accused me of tool abuse, not for any other reason as this is ultimately a content dispute. My response about not reading their 3+ paragraph soliloquy still stands, it's bludgeoning at best. If my action is undone, so be it but otherwise, I have very little to do with this as has already been established. SANTADICAE🎅 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also have to appreciate the irony of being reported here while op decided to reinstate their original edits here after accusing me of abuse and re-instated a copyright violation. Lastly, while I know this is an essay, I'd like to point out Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements, which this in no way qualifies. This is a run of the mill frat and is not notable in any manner and does not speak to how or why it's notable. SANTADICAE🎅 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:56FireLeafs - questionable edits

    56FireLeafs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been removing a significant amount of content without leaving much, if any, reason/explanation in an edit summary. Seems to feel justified because, as 56FireLeafs said on their talk page in November (diff #1 below), "What am saying IS right". Much seems to be based on own option / wp:OR.

    1. Diff: Discussion on own talk page Nov 2021 Appears not much has changed since then.
    2. Diff: Edit and reply on BhagyaMani's talk page
    3. Diff: "Reason" added to my talk page This is obvious evidence that Wikipedians hate Ligers.
    4. Diff: Same content added to 56FireLeafs'

    I did add two citations to Liger after reverting 56FireLeafs. They were easy to find.
    Pinging talk page owners: @BhagyaMani and Sandstein:
    This leaves me to strongly suspect that 56FireLeafs is WP:NOTHERE. Adakiko (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    S/he deleted ref'ed content at the Panthera blythae page a few times without giving a reason. And after I reverted their edits 2x, s/he posted ↑ talk. Y'day, s/he deleted the same content one more time, but after I posted a warning on their talk page, s/he stopped. I think s/he just did not understand NPOV yet, has lots of opinions but little knowledge. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon for not giving reasons. But you have to admit that many info in those pages is not necessary. And what am saying IS mostly right. The relationship between Panthera Blytheae and Snow Leopard and the fact that it has at least some basic Panthera features and also the fact that is NOT considered the oldest Pantherine already places it within Panthera. Although i admit this statement can be questioned, my Liger claim is objectively correct. Carol Baskin has little to no knowledge of biology. So before i continue am gonna debunk the arguments most Liger opponents use:

    "Their unnatural": Then don't shave your armpits, as that's unnatural. And also don't have a house either as that's unnatural. Natural and unnatural doe snot mean good or bad.

    "Their habitats do not overlap": A) At some point in the Pleistocene they did. B)So your telling me that an American man cannot date a French woman just because their from different places? Also, Brown Bears (Ursus Arctos) and Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) live in different places but after Polar Bears migrated do the south they started hybridizing with Brown Bears.

    "They don't exist in the wild": At some point they did. Plus, what does that have to do with anything of weather Ligers should exist or not?

    Now that ive debunked this claims lets talk about why does animal rights groups are wrong about Ligers (PS: Am not defending the practice of breeding Ligers for profit, am only defending their existence). This groups constantly talk about Panthera Hhybrids suffering from "diseases". This is inaccurate because:

    -Their studies are only based on Ligers (P.Leo x P.Tigris), not Panthera hybrids as a whole.

    -This studies say that Ligers suffer from "sterility". First off, what does being sterile have anything to do with health? Second, females are perfectly capable of breeding, males usually are sterile but there is a small chance for them to be born fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. Also, not being able to reproduce=\=being useless. By their logic, i suppose that then homosexuality should not be allowed either, since males cannot reproduce between themselves, right? This video explains everything: Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler: minute 2:10

    -This studies are only in reference to captive breed animals, but not hypothetical wild Panthera Hybrids. Animals breed in captivity =\= animals born in the wild. They also are only biased towards certain Ligers they supposedly saw but not ALL Ligers in Earth. They also forget that the reasons why they might suffer from diseases is due to zoo conditions (they same we could say about non hybrids in zoos) or inbreeding (There is evidence that white tigers are many times inbreed in zoos, and considering that zoos cannot afford having too many animals, lack of genetic diversity in Liger breeding is not that uncommon).

    -Many of the people who made this studies have very outdated information and many of them possibly work for or support PETA.

    -They gave a link to Carol Baskin's, who as i told you has little to no knowledge of biology, is a hypocrite who shames Joey Exotic for keeping Panthera species in cages despite her doing the same thing, using the same awful arguments against Ligers and also possibly killed her husband.

    There you have it. Feel free to debate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magnatyrannus

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

    Note the following was drafted with other editors at WP:PALAEO, and many more diffs can be provided: Ever since they joined Wikipedia last year, Magnatyrannus has made over a thousand edits to dinosaur- and paleontology-related articles. While some of his changes are valid, a vast majority are subpar; among other things, they have rewritten pages and templates to fit his viewpoints of how dinosaurs are classified, going as far as to delete statements they personally disagrees with, (diff 1 diff 2) and has WP:EDITWARed to keep them (see here). They have shown a strong preference for his "offical classifications" and a stern refusal to accept alternate viewpoints and seek consensus (see here, here, and here). They usually don't communicate, but when they do, it's usually a mocking remark (diff 3 diff 4). They have also written personal attacks on the user pages of those who disagree with them (diff 5). It has become tiring for WikiProject editors to sift through his changes to determine which are valid and which are not. Off-wiki evidence shows his combative attitude spills over to external sites, so we believe they are not WP:COMPETENT enough to build an encyclopedia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Statto1950

    Statto1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, dating back to 2014, who's almost entire contribution history entails removing properly-sourced content from the article on footballer Adam Farley. They have been warned multiple times for this, but persist (as do IPs). Statto1950's latest removal was accompanied with an edit summary [17] suggesting that I (along with User:C.Fred) am "a known Marine FC associate who is being investigated himself", which I hasten to add is untrue (though being accused of being of being a professional footballer makes a change from being accused of being a CIA agent, or a member of the Iliminati, and maybe I should be flattered?). Since Statto1950 clearly isn't going to play by the rules, I'd suggest sending off. Permanantly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have pageblocked Statto1950 from Adam Farley and semi-protected the article for a year. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikibullying by Agricolae

    Hi,

    This user, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Agricolae, has started following me around.

    It started with:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thursby

    I am not saying the article could not do with improvement, but a while after his first edits this user gutted the entire article. The user continued with:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thursby_(d.1543)

    Then:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_Flowerdew

    And now:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Aylmer_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gawdy_(died_1556) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aylmer

    I have assumed good faith, but now this is getting creepy. This user is following me around, wikihounding me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like you have some major issues with your edits, your competence, and your attitude, and need "following around".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but what do you base this on? I do not think you and I have ever talked before. I have always used the talk pages to try to reach a consensus. I do not follow people around. I have thanked people here plenty of times. I have been thanked many times. Wikipedia’s rules clearly state that: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I am not saying that I am perfect, or that my edits are, but I do not deserve to be either bullied or harassed. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi BeatriceCastle. So, first off, I would say that you are not entirely blameless here yourself. Looking at the edit history of Thomas Thursby, I can see that you and Agricolae have been going back and forth on this since October 2020. I think that seeking a third opinion, or some sort of dispute resolution before this point might have been a good idea. This has now deteriorated to the point where I see you are accusing them of vandalism, an accusation which itself constitutes a personal attack. So, we are not in a good place.
    WP:HOUND makes it clear that, while it is not permissible to follow someone around to annoy them, it is permissible to review their editing if you perceive there to be a problem. It looks like Agricolae believes that you have been inserting original research into articles. I've got to confess, dipping into the history of some of those articles, I think I see you supporting assertions by referencing things like 16th-century wills accessed via Ancestry.com. While primary sources are permissible in certain limited circumstances, that kind of thing does look rather dubious to me. I haven't done a detailed review, but I do get an OR vibe from a lot of the stuff I looked at, and I suspect that there may be some issues with the content you are adding that do need review. Perhaps Agricolae should have got more people involved before now, so you didn't feel that it was personal - again, we're not starting from a great place.
    Would you be willing to engage in dispute resolution with them over these articles? Girth Summit (blether) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, first off, thank you so much for weighing on the issue. I am absolutely willing to try dispute resolution with the Thursby articles. I completely agree that they could probably be better. But after that I wish this user would just leave me alone. It has honestly gotten to the point where I feel that, and forgive me for again quoting from your Wikipedia:Harassment article: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I actually agree with you that I should have handled this situation differently (and much better), and I am sorry if I said something to this user that was against the rules. For the 16th century wills, they are also at the National Archive, and I add a link there also. Plus I try to transcribe everything relevant. I am sure a lot of this can be discussed, and I am not against that discussion. It is just this user does not engage in discussion, for the most part. They gut my edits, then, when I refer them to the talk pages they mostly ignore me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Thomas Thursby article appears to be an original research issue brought up on 6 Oct 2020 and after nearly 6 months Agricolae trimmed the article of original research. BeatriceCastle has been edit warring on this article since 17 April 2021 along with personal attacks.
    Temperance_Flowerdew, more WP:OR issues. This time Drmies has responded on the article talk page and explicitly told you to read WP:OR and WP:RS. You have been reverted by 3 different editors on this article.
    Richard Aylmer (politician), more WP:OR issues. I would say, that Agricolae has found an editor writing/creating articles using their own opinion/interpretation of sources.
    This revert(Undid revision 1063780106 by Agricolae) seems like an attempt to personalize the issue, since it was Drmies you were reverting not Agricolae.
    Two personal attacks,[18][19].
    AND, edit-warring on Temperance Flowerdew against Drmies,Theroadislong, and Agricolae. Even as we type.18:46, 15 January 2022‎.
    BeatriceCastle should be blocked for edit-warring,personal attacks, and clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not edit warring, if I am, I am sorry. But why aren't people using the talk pages? Raise the points there, and we can discuss it out. I would welcome that. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies and I did discuss it out on the talk page of Temperance Flowerdew. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you want is amply clear: to have your changes remain while others are compelled to discuss their objections with you. Worse, your discussion is replete with not listening to anyone but repeating yourself and accusing others of not responding to your concerns. You also have other problems, including WP:OR, using unreliable sources, and forcing material into articles that is not noteworthy, but because you find it interesting. You do not seem to grasp what this project is about, and for that reason, I agree with Kansas Bear that you should be indefinitely blocked as I don't see your approach to editing or the value of your contributions changing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But my changes (except for the Thomas Thursby d.1510 where I did let Agricolae’s changes stand for six months after I had left my last reply on the talk page before changing it back) was the standing edit. Should not other people be responsible for arguing for their changes? Should not someone who follows someone else around, hounding them, be responsible for backing up their views for what should change? Is quoting Wikipedia’s rules repeating? I have actually read WP:OR, and must allowed to refer to those rules when it is relevant. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Kansas Bear and Bbb23. What’s particularly ironic is BeatriceCastle complaining why aren't people using the talk pages. Agricolae tried that at Talk:Thomas Thursby. What a horrendous waste of Agricolae’s time. Beatrice needs to be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and probably a whole bunch of other acronyms. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely what about Talk:Thomas Thursby was a waste of Agriocolae’s time? BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me say that I don't think that BeatriceCastle needs to be indeffed, they need to be educated with regard to the norms of Wikipedia in a manner they can't simply dismiss as an involved editor trying to 'win' a content dispute. At that point it will be up to them. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Girth Summit, your comments were more conciliatory. Do you object to my indeffing the user (she has been blocked before)? Frankly, as I stated, the user's pattern of dispute resolution has not been constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't do a deep dive into the contribs and/or block history. I do think that an experienced and talented editor, dealing with a newb who doesn't really understand what we do, should have sought third party input rather than engage in a two-year slow edit war, so it's not exactly a great look all-round. That said, from my limited investigation, I do very much understand the OR concerns. I have no view of whether a block is appropriate - I wouldn't stand in the way if any admin who has satisfied themselves that discussion will likely be fruitless. Girth Summit (blether) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case of stalking, let alone wikihounding, as the complainant intimates. Over a year ago, I did, as I do from time to time, a search for specific text-strings often indicative of problematic content. That led to a page the complainant had massively expanded with original research, long quotations of entire unpublished primary records, material drawn from online catalogues and databases, and personal speculation - in short, using Wikipedia as a venue to publsh their personal research. I cleaned it up in a manner consistent with policy. I then followed links on that page to a similar page with similar issues - these were the Thursby pages. They sat unchanged for almost a year and then the complainant unilaterally reverted the changes. The Talk devolved rather quickly into pointlessness, but it is worth noting that another editor also found the material to be inappropriate. Yesterday I did another of the same periodic text searches, and it identified another pair of pages, the Aylmer ones, similarly rife with inappropriate WP:OR and unpublished primary sources. At the time I landed on them I did not even know the same editor was responsioble (though this became immediately obvious based on the type of material that had been added to them), and I cleaned them up. I did then consult the complainant's for the first time to assess the extent of the problem, and that led me to the Gawdy pages, where again, as I had on the other pages, I removed inappropriate material based on content and policy, not based on who added it. As to wikihounding, described by the complainant, above, as joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, that just has never happened. I only 'joined' a single discussion in which they were already involved, and in that case they pinged had me when they reinitiated a discussion I had originally started, but another editor got there before me. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You had never shown any interest in any of these articles until I edited them. I did not "massively expand" the page Thomas Thursby (d.1510). It was an article I had created. I was still editing and not done when you found it. I mostly agreed with your first edit, and left it alone after that. Then you gutted the entire article after six months. I wrote my counter arguments on the talk page, also waited six months, as you had, then reverted your last changes. Then you gutted the article again, almost immediately, not entering into any discussion on the talk page. And since then you have been following me around. After that original article (which I do agree originally had some of issues) you have followed me to six other articles. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is right, I never showed any interest in the pages before you edited them - they did not contain the problematic material before you put it there. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were wikihounding me. You were not interested in those articles before. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Of course I wasn't interested in removing inappropriate material from the pages before the inappropriate material had been added. In most cases, it was a simple generic four-word text-string search that originally identified the pages as needing a look, and the resulting look made the problems evident, all without even looking to see who it was who had caused the problem. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How strange then, that you kept finding me, reverting my edits without attempting to take it to the talk page first. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it did not occur to you during this string of coincidences that you might be committing WP:HOUNDING once you recognised my user name? BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page of Thomas Thursby (d.1510), where we discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Thursby
    Talk page of Thomas Thursby (d.1543), where we discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Thursby_(d.1543)
    Talk page of Temperance Flowerdew, where we discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temperance_Flowerdew
    The first two articles were created by me.
    For the four other articles you have followed me to that I have edited first, I have invited you to take the discussion to the talk page but you have yet to respond. That is three talk pages we are involved in a discussion on, going on seven. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) Your edits were problematic, and needed removing. There is an exception in WP:HOUNDING to allow editors to follow another editor's edits when those edits are problematic. This is necessary so that an editor who is editing problematically across articles can have their errors corrected. You're not listening to other editors here who are telling you that YOUR edits are a problem and whether or not Agricolae is behaving badly ... you need to change your editing to conform to wikipedia norms. Unless you do, someone is going to have to watch over your edits to make sure they aren't violating wikipedia policies like they currently are. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agricolae claims in his post above that he simply happened to find my edits, on seven separate articles, by pure coincidence. Are you now contradicting them and saying that they did follow me on purpose? And, how, precisely, are my edits problematic? Why not then go to the talk page and raise their concerns one by one? I am open to discussion. People have changed what I have written before, and I have received input in the past where I felt that they made an excellent point. When I am wrong, I say I'm wrong. Also, I have yet to see anyone being able to point out precisely why my edits are problematic. Of course they are not infallible, as I have said, but I think it odd that so many people seem to take the word of someone who had deliberately followed someone around, harassing them, breaking rules, over the word of somebody else without even looking at the edits in question. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "take the word of someone" ... I went and looked at the last few articles you've edited. And they are full of misuse of primary sources, repeated information, information that is trivial and unencyclopedic, information that isn't about the subject of the article and is not necessary background to understand the subject. I haven't had time to check if there is WP:OR in them, as that takes a bit more time, nor have I checked for use of unreliable sources, but if you don't believe that I did my own checking, I can find the time somehow to check for those too. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, then go to the last article you checked and raise the point on the talk page there. Let us this discuss it out there. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That’s not WP:HOUND BeatriceCastle, which is about tracking an editor to annoy them. Using an editor's edit history to correct the same problematic behaviour on multiple articles is not a violation. Your behaviour is a problem on multiple articles. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And again I say, what is this problematic behaviour? Because I keep referring people to the talk pages to raise their points there. If I am in the wrong, I usually say I'm wrong. Which rules have been broken? Of course some things can be improved on, they always can, and probably some things can have been written that were better stricken again. But to follow someone around, and remove all of their edits (most of them not problematic in any way), on multiple articles, is WP:HOUND. If you think I have broken some rule, go to the talk page of the article in question, raise the question there and let us discuss it out, by all means. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read through this thread again. Some of the most experienced and talented editors on the project are telling you that there has been a problem with your editing. You should be asking for their advice on how to fix it. Girth Summit (blether) 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for your input. I absolutely agree, and I am honestly asking for advice on how to fix it. I am happy to discuss any edit in question on the relevant talk page, and that is very sincerely meant. However, I do not wish to be wikihounded anymore, and I respectfully ask the community to keep Agricolae away from me from now on. I am always open to input on how to be a better editor, but not to being stalked. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your starting point should be to go back to the feedback Agricolae has given you already - for example the talk pages of the 2 Thurston articles. I have read them and looked at the edits you have made. (I did not "take the word of someone" either - I’ve looked at your editing.) Instead of WP:BATTLEGROUND arguing with everything that said to you, you need to take on board the comments that you have already been given, if you want to stay editing WP that is. You don’t seem to have understood that having looked at the interaction between you and Agricolae (yes, we can see it all) no one who has contributed to this thread thinks you are in the right. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It might surprise you, but I did take Agricolae’s advice on board at first. As I wrote, the first article benefitted from their first editing and I concur that many good points were made. Like I said, I assumed good faith at first. However, they kept following me around and there comes a point when listening to one’s stalker becomes undesirable. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a very large amount to look at to try to get a perspective. There is a possibility that an editor can follow another editor around and delete their edits based on imposing an abnormally strict interpretation/ implementation of the rules. I don't know if that is happening here but how about Agricolae just agrees to mostly let the other editors at those articles deal with BeatriceCastle's edits and not particularly "go to" articles solely because BeatriceCastle is editing them? (without saying whether or not such was occurring) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately - Agricolae is correct. This is an article as BeatriceCastle last edited it. (Note that Cullen328 has since cleaned it up to this which conforms to wiki polices and guidelines mostly. BC's version includes the entire will of the widow of the subject, which appears to be only "published" on FamilySearch (not a reliable source), and many many other primary sources ... some of which appear to never have been published as they are given merely as catalog entries from the various archives holding them. There's also OR in this - in the bits "If the birth date given for his son of the same name, 1487,[12] is correct, he cannot possibly be the son of Elizabeth, as she was still the wife of Robert Aylmer (d.1493) then." There's also unimportant trivia - "Elizabeth Thursby, the 15-great grandmother of Prince Williiam, Duke of Cambridge, is possibly Richard Aylmer's half-sister" ... Or another recent article - as last edited by BC. Here we have the repetition of Flowerdew's arrival aboard the Falcon - which is given twice. There's more WP:OR - where "The source of the date seems unclear. The year 1618 for their marriage seems to crop up as early as 1912." is sourced to the 1912 publication referred to, which is clear OR. There's likely unreliable sources such as http://www.cynthiaswope.com/withinthevines/jamestown/jtmuster1623.html#top%20of%20page as well as a plethora of primary sources, again some only listed as catalog entries from archives. And a bunch of sites, I'm unable to check because they give me errors - http://libertyletters.com/resources/jamestown/temperance-flowerdew.php or http://www.wellowgate.co.uk/Appleyard/Kett/kett2.htm. To be quite honest, unless BC's attitude towards someone trying to help them (see Talk:Thomas Thursby, where there's a lot of not listening to someone trying to help them.) there's not much point in going to the talk pages. There are SO many issues, I don't blame Agricolae for just wiping most of the article out. And the attitude here is one of not listening still. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate calls of STOP WP:BLUDGEON

    At this AfD an administrator Dennis Brown made what I feel were premature references to WP:BLUDGEON and became ad-hominem, both with threats of sanctions and "You don't understand what you are talking about". I'm keen to basically learn more although I have read and (attempted) to understand WP:NOTE, and while I know that such requests for clarification can go unsatisfied, it would appear WP:AGF was conspicuous by its absence.

    You can see from the revision history in that AfD that the replies that I had made at the time of the Bludgeon reference were one explanation, (not calling for a change of opinion) one request for clarification made to the administrator in question, and one comment was left as is. Not bludgeoning at all. A separate, later thread of interaction with another editor resulted in some good sources, and indeed (and quite typically) I changed my opinion based on that other evidence. Again, not bludgeoning.

    Subsequent attempts to get some resolution at WT:Don't bludgeon the process resulted in the administrator suggesting I raise an ANI, so here we are.

    I'm unimpressed by the tone and actions of the administrator.

    I'm considerably less inclined to participate much further. Chumpih t 18:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing inappropriate about Dennis Brown's comments to you at that AfD. He was a bit firm with you because of your behavior there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I don't see what kind of "sanctions" a user could get for BLUDGEONy behavior, as was threatened at the AfD. Bludgeoning and harassing people !voting at AfDs is both annoying and common. If there is a penalty for it, please let me know so that I can ask for it next time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it continues beyond what was seen, WP:DE / WP:TE applies, which is the core that the essay covers. We've all seen it go so far it is genuinely disruptive before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no great fan of WP:BLUDGEON, because it is often used to shut up an editor who has raised a valid point that has been ignored, but in this case, as with many, behaviour has fallen into that vast grey area where it is both valid to call it out and valid not to. Both protagonists here seem to have their heads screwed on right so the best outcome would just be for both to forget this issue and carry on editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see what specific actions of mine warranted Dennis Brown's comments. Can you tell me what lesson I should learn from this? Chumpih t 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to say that I agree with Chumpih's suggestion that Dennis Brown's initial comment about bludgeoning was inappropriate. It came after Chumpih posted a single response to Dennis's keep !vote. Dennis is most likely right about the notability of the subject, and Chumpih wrong, but being wrong about something, and then making a single further comment on the matter, apparently based around Wikipedia policy/guidelines, even if imperfectly understood, doesn't constitute bludgeoning as I see it. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but Dennis's initial response could easily be understood to imply 'don't disagree with me, that's bludgeoning'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The bit that stings is that threats of sanctions were made, from an administrator who has the means to carry these out. If some gross felony was being perpetrated - some continued disruptive editing, then fine, meter out the threat, and then later meter out the sanction. But in this circumstance such threats seem to be a significant abuse of power. It's toxic. It's unpleasant. Chumpih t 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the essay, it would answer a lot of your questions. And I couldn't personally have carried out any sanction, and that should have been clear. Saying I will "seek sanctions" clearly means I wouldn't be the one dishing them out, which I can't do if I'm involved in the discussion. The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions. It was not yet bludgeoning, but I could see that it was very possible, which is why I said " It is neither necessary nor desirable to reply to every comment", one of the bits of assistence from the essay. You went on to prove me right on bludgeoning. What is most disappointing is the fact that you later admit the topic is notable, yet were not willing to withdraw the nomination, something that is generally expected. When I said "You don't understand what you are talking about", I meant it, and is has proven to be the case. I didn't say until you had commented several times. And yes, I'm much more vigorous (less patient) as "an editor" than as "an admin", and have little patience with people who I think are wasting time because they don't understand what it going on but think they do. ie: you failed point about WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, for instance. I can't honestly apologize for that, as once again, I feel like time is being wasted due to you not understanding. I suggest simply moving on and learning from the experience, but I don't think you are likely to take advice from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and the essay was read.
    You stated: The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions. That's just plain wrong - please refer to your change and consider the state of what was there at the time.
    Re willingness after I admitted the notability, I'm happy to withdraw, and I'm also happy to allow the process to run to its conclusion, with those acknowledgements from me already there for the closing admin. In bold type.
    Apart from that, you expressed a vituperative tirade of WP:ADHOM. For your info, that's not an essay, that's a policy. Threats, insults, lack of civility. The works. Your conduct is poor. Chumpih t 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you don't know what you are talking about, and again, you are misreading policy. That isn't ad hominem, that is an observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption and edit warring by user:Pisarz12345

    Pisarz12345's talk page is full of many warnings and at least three blocks in increasing severity (which they have tried to blank every time). On the Guido of Arezzo article, which I wrote in almost its entirety, they are continuously adding a Saint Infobox, with useless information on the beatification and feast dates. I have made it clear to them that I am not for or against an infobox, but I am against a Saint Infobox as no source I cited on Guido stresses that he was a Saint or "Blessed" or whatever. They added it without an edit summary, which I reverted and reverted again once they re added it without an edit summary. They managed to sneak past and re-add it until I saw yesterday and there has been edit warring ever since. I have made it clear to them at Talk:Guido of Arezzo#Infobox that they need to find consensus and the onus is on them. I have linked to multiple policies there and in edit summaries. All I receive in response are largely incomprehensible comments and continuous reversion. Can someone please restore the status quo of 10+ years and perhaps do something about this user who has reverted me (and others in the past) 10+ times! Aza24 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, at least he's using the talk page ... badly, but using it. I have doubts that this editor will listen to any warnings but I suppose hope springs eternal? Ealdgyth (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    repeated personal attacks by Phil Bridger

    I reported User:Phil Bridger a while back here for repeatedly accusing me of racism. Unfortunately he didn't receive a warning or anything at the time, because he's back to insulting me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clare's Girls' School (2nd nomination) . Where among other things he accused me multiple times of "peddling lies" and treating the AfD like a battleground for mentioning an RfC, and he also called out my intelligence. I asked him to assume good faith, drop the insults, and stop bludgeoning the discussion, but he's seems unwilling to. So it would be great if he received a warning for personally attacking me and bludgeoning the AfD. At this point I'm extremely sick of him showing up in my AfD just to insult me. He should at least receive a warning about it if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I simply called out the lie in the deletion nomination, that the South China Morning Post had been "determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong", when it had not, and pointed out that Adamant1's quote of a guideline that "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools...must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both" was accurate, and that the words "all" and "or" should be interpreted as common English words with an obvious meaning. If we can't rely on people to tell the truth in discussions then WP:AGF is disastrously undermined. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I lying when I said multiple times that what I said was my own opinion based on my reading of the RfCs and that other people could ignore them if they wanted to? I told you I don't think what people said in the RfCs are the authoritative, be all end all, last-word on if The South China Morning Post is a reliable source or not. What's lying about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: Then open a new RFC. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 21:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I will. That has nothing to do with this ANI complaint or Phil Bridger's attitude toward me about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamant1, Phil was not bludgeoning. You were. From what I can tell, you interpreted an RFC incorrectly and continued to push those incorrect views instead of looking at the RFC again when challenged. The South China Morning Post is only unreliable when related to Chinese and Hong Kong politics, instead of anything related to China or Hong Kong as you seem to believe. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 20:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He left 4 messages where he criticized me and didn't even vote in the AfD. Two of which were made after I asked him to stop insulting me and assume good faith. I don't see how that's not bludgeoning. Maybe it would be different if he had of actually voted and responding to something I had said to him, but neither thing that he replied to had anything to do with him. As far as me "believing" he South China Morning Post is unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong, that is me belief based on the RfC discussions. Which I read through and participated in. I never claimed that it was more then my belief. Nor did I say people have to agree with me. In fact I was extremely clear that people could ignore the RfCs and vote based on other things. I could care less and I've said so more then once. How exactly is me saying multiple times that it was just my opinion and people can ignore the RfCs if they want to "pushing my view" on anyone? Let alone how does me citing the RfCs, even if I read them wrong, justify Phil Bridger accusing me of lying multiple times (including here) or commenting about my intelligence? It's not lying to wrongly interpret something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, I don't see any personal attacks here. I see Adamant1 proposing deletion arguments that stretch credulity, and Phil Bridger expressing his opinion that those arguments are invalid. That's what happens at AfD. Just because a single user made a comment in one RfC doesn't mean that that comment has consensus to become an enforceable rule or norm regarding the reliability of a source. And clearly, no school needs to satisfy both the GNG and a secondary notability guideline in order to be considered notable. These two arguments are simply wrong, and you're just upset that Phil Bridger called you out on them. Could Phil have been nicer in his efforts to point out the shortcomings in your reading of WP policy? Sure. But none of this is anywhere close to necessitating any kind of sanctions for incivility. In my opinion, this doesn't belong at ANI at all, this is just an editor who is butthurt about being called out on their misguided efforts to delete an article, and they're whining at ANI in an attempt to intimidate Phil Bridger and/or find other people that are sympathetic to their cause. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all it wasn't a single person. Secondly, he didn't just call me out on them. I could really give a crap if someone says I'm wrong about something. There's a huge difference between that though and saying I'm "peddling obvious lies." I can guarantee I wouldn't be right now if he had of said I miss-read the RfCs from start without making the needless insults in the process. Same goes for him questioning my intelligence. My guess is that you'd probably make the same argument if he said I was Autistic or something along those lines instead.
    Adamant1 I understand your frustration but nothing Phil Bridger said rises to a violation of WP:PA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can guarantee if things were reversed where I said someone was "peddling obvious lies" and questioned their intelligence that I'd be reported for it and Phil Bridger would jump on the indef block bandwagon like he did the last time I was reported for something. Either we all should be civil toward each and not attack each other in AfDs or it's OK to. I'm just asking he be held by the same standard that people, including him, have repeatedly told me I need to follow or be indef blocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to add one more example I asked for clarification of the notability guidelines for organizations on the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) talk page. Phil Bridger used it as an opportunity to accuse me of "arguing for a different position" then the guidelines, which is ridiculous I'm arguing for anything in that discussion (a different position or otherwise), and he also insinuated that I asked for the clarification because I don't understand very basic English. It's not that much of ask that he be given a warning about his clearly bad faithed, insulting behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User making repeated small edits

    N013i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just look at the edit history. In one case, they added a few sentences to an article on word at a time. Now it is mostly do their user page. Trying to get WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED? Besides this, they have created one article which is headed for deletion, MB 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The account was created in 2009 EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but still far short of 500 edits. MB 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Honestly mate, I'm just doing something till the fate of MetalJesusRocks is decided, so I'll know hot to proceed in the future. If you do browse my edit history all the way back till 2009, You'll see I often create one or two articles over the years as I can amass time. ~Nabeel~N013i 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jacob300

    Jacob300's edits are biased toward Somaliland. As far as I can see, that trend is likely to start around October 2020.

    The editing trends of Jacob300, it has a very much history of deletions. Almost all of them are designed to remove statements that are detrimental to Somaliland. Jacob300 gives reasons such as "unsourced + duplication", "stable version", "No relevance to article" OR "Removed as per WP:BOLD" OR "Irrelevant". But it is clear that they are afterthoughts. Jacob300 often do editing wars for the similar reason. For examples, Las Anod, Khatumo State.

    Somaliand has border disputes with its eastern neighbor, Puntland, in addition to the famous independence issue. (See also a BBC News.) This dispute involves the particular circumstances of the region, but is essentially a typical border issue. If we gather and compile information in good faith, we can find information that is favorable to Somaliland, and we can also find information that is unfavorable.

    Jacob300 recently reverted several edits that I took the time to go over, without adequate explanation (Bo'ame, Buraan, El_Afweyn.) I think it's unacceptable to remove information that other editors have taken the time to research just because they doesn't like it. If ever contributed to Wikipedia after doing some research, they can imagine how demotivating it can be to do this.

    I had several conversations with Jacob300 to resolve some similar issues, but his explanation was not logical.

    I think Jacob300 is not neutral in matters concerning Somaliland, I think he should not edit anything related to Somaliland.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct problems at move discussion

    Omegatron is an admin who notes "people are frustrating", at least at this version of their tlak page, which is a worrying trait for an admin; though no admin tools have been exercised in this event. I will suggest their contributions over a desire to move the article Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia have been disruptive and problematic, not of the standard to be expected of an experienced user let alone an admin where a higher standard is expected. A BOLD move of what might reasonably be expected be controversial at Special:Diff/1060932429, let alone issues because a move had previously been slightly discussed at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination/Archive 1#Adenoviruses only?, though the entire content of the talk and archive should have been. Following a somewhat assertive exchange correctly in my opinion raised a Special:Diff/1060938802 requested move on 18 December 2021. However per my comment at Special:Diff/1061542226 Omegatron had indulged in disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion and a Canvas, which while I can AGF he intended to be "fair", was, I would say, ultimately biased. Plus per WP:CANVAS good practice would have been to "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Ultimately the CANVAS issue is minor, change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter. Whether Omegatron's timing to challenge this today was to do with RL, which I can accept, although doing a CANVAS and then disappearing is not really great practice, but it can happen. However responding today a few days after the Special:Diff/1065055859 discussion was closed, half questioning my concern about discussion irregularities (and not owning the major part or the problems) at Special:Diff/1065826060 brings this here, plus Omegatron seems not to have respected closer Mike Cline's request to discuss a move review on his page as requested, but rather to continue on the article talk page dragging me into it first. This seems like behaviour that is unbecoming or any user, let alone an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE editing by Aydın memmedov2000

    1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[22]
    2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[23] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
    3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[24]
    4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[25]
    5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[26]
    6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[27]
    7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[28]
    8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[29]
    9. Warned on numerous occassions.[30]-[31]-[32]-[33]

    Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Mayfield

    There is something suspicious going on with these IPs, in which the user is gradually removing negative information about him (drug testing controversy, 2011 arrest). It began from [34] here and continued to the point all of his controversies were removed (except for his 2006 firing from Evernham Motorsports; furthermore, edits of both IPs tripped reference removal tag several times. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1065908517"