Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikihounding (Proposal:IBAN)

Okay, I hate bringing things to ANI. Not sure when the last time I did was. However, at this point I seem to have no other choice. Approximately 2-3 months ago, I had a disagreement with another editor, NemesisAT about something which I honestly do not remember what it was over. However, prior to that, I had very little, if any interaction with that editor. Since that time, there have been numerous interactions, the vast majority (if not all) of which are negative reactions to edits I made by this editor, see this report. I’ve asked them to desist in their obvious wikihounding, first in an AfD (which I actually can’t find the diff for), then on their talk page 2 weeks ago, User talk:NemesisAT#Wikihounding. I took their response there in good faith, however, since then, they have continued their behavior, although in a somewhat subdued fashion. The most recent interactions being, OKI Common Lisp, Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician), London Buses route 242, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination), I Am a Lot Like You! Tour. Finally, there was Salem Local Planning Authority, which led me to send it to AfD, where I again asked him to desist. He refused to admit that what he was doing was wikihounding, which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority. This was followed up by their interacting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenderDoc (2nd nomination). Finally, there is the interaction at Changde railway station, where once again, the editor in question had nothing to do with the page until I edited it. And what makes it interesting is that they did not revert my edit, which would have alerted me that they had reverted me, instead doing it in a way to evade letting me know. Same thing with Koonendah railway station, Huaihua railway station, and Nanyang railway station, Even after that, I was hoping they would go away. However, there was this just today, again done in such a way as to not alert me unless it was on my watchlist. At this point I’d like the community to impose an interaction ban on this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems the disagreement started from this - [1] [2]. The interaction timeline is indeed shows a large overlap with many edits being within hours or days of each other. A common pattern is Onel prodding an article and Nemesis removing the prod. Or Onel redirecting an article and Nemesis reverting it. However in Koonendah railway station, Onel redirected the article in 18 August and reverted by Nemesis 12 minutes later. Nemesis had edited the article before in June 30 [3]. Similarly Onel's redirection of Changde railway station in 14 August was reverted by Nemesis an hour later later, with that being their first edit to the article [4]. But Nemesis had edited the talk page in 26 June [5]. At least in these 2 cases it reasonable to believe Nemesis had watchlisted the articles. There are also several cases where Nemesis was the first to edit an article by reverting others' redirects and Onel tagging it for notability in the next edit - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. This can be explained as Nemesis patrolling prods and new redirects, and Onel tagging for notability and redirecting while doing New page patrol. So I am wondering whether this overlap is simply because the two editors have opposite editing patterns? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, me and Onel did have a disagreement (again, I can't remember what it was over) but if I remember correctly it was a message on WikiProject Trains about deletion discussions regarding bus content that opened my eyes to the amount of content being redirected and deleted here.

I watch a large amount of articles, the railway station ones I was watching the article or watching the talk page of a user notified by Onel. The bus route article was also on my watchlist. I've also been using automated reports and categories to find new PRODs, deletion discussions, and redirects.

In response to Onel, I don't think it would be fair to impose an interaction ban due to the wide number of pages they edit. I am not picking on them, if anything, I feel I'm being bullied here. They asked me why I was editing pages on topics I wasn't interested in, so to see them bring up articles on buses and railway stations (my core interests) is incredibly frustrating. NemesisAT (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I also completely disagree with Onel's suggestions that I was trying to hide my edits, and find it rather hypocritical after they made accusations in an edit summary, and later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority, without pinging me. I did not realise using the undo button gave a notification, and am not aware of any guideline requiring reverts to be made using the undo button. To be clear, I do not wish for any action to be taken against Onel. I would simply like them to stop accusing me of wikihounding whenever I edit a page they happen to have edited previously. NemesisAT (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Onel5969 makes PROD nominations frequently – their log indicates that they do this more than once a day. Such activity will naturally attract attention from the same small pool of prod patrollers. And if you nominate a string of topics of the same type, such as railway stations, you will naturally attract attention from editors who watch that sort of topic. The same applies with AfD nominations and draftifications, which Onel5969 often does too. Such actions are not low profile – they are, per WP:BITE, hostile and high-stakes. The recent case of John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel5969 prodded and NemesisAT deprodded, is a good example as this generated a huge furore which attracted many editors. The outcome indicates that this was not an appropriate topic to prod as the process is just for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". If Onel5969 follows these PROD rules more carefully, this will tend to resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew here. I also contribute to railroad related articles, as you might guess from my username (I have the WP Trains article alerts page watchlisted and frequently comment on the AfD notifications I see there). As two editors who frequently work in the same area, they will frequently encounter each other and that does not mean it is Wikihounding. I participated in several of the most recent AfD threads the filer mentions, not because I had any interest in Wikihounding but because I ran into them on AfD and felt I could comment on them. Editors have the right to object to PROD nominations. The few examples of Nemesis nearly immediately reverting actions other than PRODs that Onel takes are a bit concerning but do not justify an ANI thread. Nemesis should give Onel a bit of berth and should communicate via the talk page instead of reverting when appropriate. Onel should recognize that editors who are interested in a certain topic will likely be interested in PROD nominations on articles on said topic. If the two of you really can't resolve this, I would recommend another form of dispute resolution besides ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying that I Oppose an interaction ban at this point. Nobody needs to get sanctioned here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think NemesisAT has a ways to go in their understanding of GNG, (see their vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-Mockery (2nd nomination)) but they appear to be editing in good faith. Suggest maybe leaving One's PROD's for another user as a temporary solution? Star Mississippi 17:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly more generous than most when it comes to what should have an article. I'm just trying to save as much content as possible, using the guidelines available. I'm happy to give some time before declining Onel's PRODs to allow someone else to do so first. Am not really sure what else I can say or do here. I'm more concerned about reverting redirects, and that I'll be accused of wikihounding if I do so. I believe it is okay to contest the redirection of a page? Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached a point of sanctions being necessary, but it does look to me like there is a degree drive-by deprodding going on. Unlike Onel, I'm not terribly active when it comes to proposed deletions and yet have had all of my PROD's this month contested by NemesisAT. I can only echo Star Mississippi's comments about them adequately understanding applicable notability guidelines. The handful of de-PROD's of theirs that I've seen in subject areas I know well have been made without much regard as to what is and is not significant coverage in that subject area. Perhaps most striking is GiantSnowman's comment on their talk page earlier this month having to explain to them that the rational behind a prod they had contested was taken from the text of a notability guideline. All told I'd say NemesisAT would be well advised to slow down, not just with respect to Onel's PROD, with their deprods in general, and ensure they are aware of the relevant notability guidelines and how they apply to a given subject before involving themselves in the deletion process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The article in question was Jed Abbey (now deleted, but I'll detail the history here) - a PROD was added by another user stating "Hasn't made a 1st team appearance for a team in the football league", NemesisAT removed the PROD stating "Decline prod, not sure why reason given is grounds for deletion", I took to AFD, the article was deleted. This shows a fundamental and concerning ignorance/misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. GiantSnowman 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Another comment of concern is here - "If I'm reading it correctly, WP:GNG doesn't require coverage to be more than routine". That is, again, fundamentally incorrect - GNG requires "significant coverage", not routine coverage. GiantSnowman 21:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors have differing views over what is significant coverage Vs what is routine coverage. You're always welcome to nominate for deletion at WP:AFD if you disagree. I have declined PRODs for various people that have subsequently not been nominated for deletion, or have survived deletion, so I feel what I did was beneficial. I am happy to try and explain my actions better next time. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, GiantSnowman, but you're quite wrong on this point. For the GNG, "significant" is generally synonymous with "non-trivial", not "non-routine". Otherwise most of the many, many biographies of athletes you've created should be deleted, because they're sourced/sourceable only to routine statistical reports, transaction notices, etc. The "non-routine" standard pretty much applies to only two types of articles: under WP:CORP, a variety of routine business-related announcements/reports don't count toward notability; and for some events, like sporting events, coverage of individual competitions doesn't establish individual notability. For the latter, a simple example is that individual NFL games are very, very rarely individually notable, despite widespread detailed coverage. Most notable people live unexceptional personal lives and we base our bios on routine coverage. For most US state judges, for example, our bios are based on routine coverage of their selection and the occasionally newsworthy case they preside over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• NemesisAT, I imagine it's People's Choir of Oakland you're talking about. AfD will settle that as I disagreed that it was notable. If you're going to suggest AfD, I don't really see the point in reverting the redirect to Frederica von Stade. Neither you nor, Onel was wrong in your edits, but discussion is more helpful than reverting one another. Gwen Goldman is one really looking into as it's that and I-Mockery where I think you were incorrect in your argument, but we'll see where consensus shakes out on the former. If PRODs are clearly contentious, someone else will take care of it Star Mississippi 01:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've reverted redirection because I feel discussion should take place prior to a deletion. This is also why I generally dislike PROD for anything but the worst offending articles. There have been multiple times I have restored an article and it either hasn't been contested or survived an AfD. It is easiest to have a discussion by bringing to AfD, as it catches the attention of other editors. NemesisAT (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with discussion, but AfD is so backlogged I don't think we need to add more when the solution could be resolved otherwise. I think if you take your time in finding potential sources and leaving them on the Talk could also be a help. Star Mississippi 01:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• After going through the above, I almost inclined to support this interaction ban. It is frustrating for one editor's work be undermined with determination by another editor. I think NemesisAT has to assume good faith by respecting that One's edits and others' edits are as valid as anyone else's. NemesisAT actions seem to be invalidating others' work based on stringent general beliefs about Prods and redirects. I think NemesisAT should be aware that their judgement is not necessarily keener or better than other editors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have to say that AFD is seriously back logged and the contentious AFDs take more time and energy. AFD is not the golden destination for determining notability. Redirects are a very acceptable form of WP:ATD. PRODs help take the burden off of AFD. I think it is OK to trust an experienced editor's judgement most of the time, that a PRODDED or Redirected article may not fulfill the notability criteria.---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• If a fair %, say 40% or more, of the articles being deprodded aren't sent to AfD or are kept at AfD, I'd say the prods are the problem, not the deprodder. If it's more like 10%, well, it's the other way around. Do we have an easy way to get numbers? I'm not liking the "well, you should trust people to make good prods". The whole point of prodding is to have a lightweight way to delete clearly NN topics. If they aren't getting deleted after deprodding the vast majority of the time, well, the deprods are likely reasonable. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have any numbers to hand, but the page John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel mentioned above is an example of a PROD that proved controversial, and the page was eventually kept. Though I appreciate that (while not necessary) it is good to justify the removal of a PROD in the edit summary, and I will try to explain my intentions better in the future. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I remain a little confused as to why the discussion is tilting towards methods of deletions or ATD's when Onel5969's entry is expressly stating they want an IBAN(I presume a one way IBAN preventing the other editor from interacting with them). The diffs does show a pattern that I’m uncomfortable with. Hounding or any form of Wp:Revenge / stalking is unacceptable and within my capacity I try to put a stop to it whenever I encounter editors seemingly doing so. I believe the editors involved can continue to edit and co-exist in peace if the IBAN is implemented. So yes, I’m supporting One1's proposal. He possesses a track record of productivity and (for lack of a more proper term) disturbing high volume productive editors is a disservice to this project. Celestina007 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be fair to implement a one way ban, or any ban at all. Pages that Onel mentioned above, like the bus route and railway station articles, appeared in my watchlist which I usually check frequently. Having to check every page to see if Onel previously edited it would cause me additional stress when editing. Onel can simply ignore my edits, or nominate said pages for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  We've seen evidence that they edit in the same area. We've seen evidence that sometimes one is the first to a given article, sometimes the other. And I'm not sure PRODing articles is something that counts as "productive" any more than dePRODing them is. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is nonsensical. If anyone has earned an interaction ban, it's Onel5969. Their accuracy rate in AfD nominations lately, per their XFD log, is about 50%, and appears to have been falling over months. For a highly experienced user, a supposedly "high volume productive editor", this is appallingly bad. This is God-awful quality, and it would justify singling out Onel's nominations for particular scrutiny. It is extremely inappropriate for Onel's wikifriends to come here in his defense and smear NemesisAT as a vengeful "stalker" without providing a shred of substantive evidence.It's disgraceful. AFD has become a cesspool of internal politics, and is increasingly dominated by nominators who don't care about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, treating it as a notability game.
  

Short version: Onel's nominations fail at a rough 50% rate. NemesisAT argues effectively against Onel's bad nominations. So Onel wants us to forcibly silence NemesisAT. That is crap. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Hmm... That is correct. Their track record for AfD !votes is a bit better — their total accuracy is about 70% when no consensus closures are included, but they also tend to nominate multiple pages in one day (up to 7 on 3 July 2021). NemesisAT has a so-so !vote record as well (about 60% including no consensus), although they overwhelmingly !vote keep, and from a brief spot-check most of these are not on articles nominated by Onel, unlike with PROD. The evidence presented by Andrew Davidson shows that Onel's recent PROD nominations are hit-and-miss, which is largely consistent with their AfD stats regardless of whether most of the deprods were by Nemesis. Which suggests that the solution is not an interaction ban, but to ban Onel5969 from initiating deletion processes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Utterly ridiculous. I am not one of One's "wikifriends" although I have interacted with them in AfDs and random other ideas. There is zero evidence here for banning anyone from a deletion process. If that was even under consideration, we'd need more than a "hit-and-miss" record, which I'd say most long term editors have since discussion brings new info to light. Star Mississippi 17:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe using the phrase “wiki friends” was also directed at me. If or not is rather immaterial to this discussion and bringing that up is a digression and a major disservice to us all. To bring peace and probably close this discussion altogether, @NemesisAT, From current consensus it is unlikely any IBAN would be implemented. Am I right to say that in summary you want to exist in peace and edit productively with all your co-editors here? If yes, then it is quite easy, moving forward try as much as possible not to overlap with One1 and of course there’s no telling where and when they’d edit but you might find removing them from your watchlist helpful and until some sort of mutual understanding is present avoid de-prodding articles that they prod. It is hard but there’s always a compromise to be made. Furthermore @LaundryPizza03, I believe One1 to be a prolific new page reviewer but as with anything you do quite often you tend to make mistakes and the perfection bar is next to impossible to reach. Lastly @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, calling Onel’s proposal “nonsensical” is impolite, furthermore Wikipedia isn’t a competition, you see, Stats and whatnot distort reality and make Wikipedia appear as though it is black or white, whereas it isn’t so. For example an editor may nominate a non notable entity for deletion and they are correct as the subject of the aforementioned hypothetical AFD fails to meet GNG or the relevant SNG. If the creator of the article strategically campaigns/canvases for !votes off-wiki, the article may end up being “kept” even when the reviewer who made the nomination was correct. I hope this analogy helps, really, the bickering isn’t worth it, it is unfair enough that multiple websites, blogs, podcasts other entities consider us (genuine editors) to be “losers” , we don’t need to wrestle against one another we are on a big mission here, let’s not forget or keep our sight from what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. This back and forth isn’t part of the mission. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a display of bad faith. NemesisAT, says Celestina007, if you don't want to be hassled and having your editing disrupted, then stop disputing Onel's dubious edits. Do you work for Tony Soprano or Michael Corleone? Because that's that's, metaphorically, the kind of threar they make. "Polite" threats are still threats, after all. As for the suggestion that somehow article creators systematically "strategically campaigns/canvases for !votes off-wiki [so that] the article[s] may end up being “kept” -- the absence of evidence in suppot of your silly claim is thunderous. You're claiming that actual evidence like statistics "distort reality" and your fantasized narrative is what matters. Attitudes like this demonstrate why so much of AFD these days is a cesspool; we have a cadre of self-ordained arbiters of notability standards who deny the legitimacy of disagreeing with them and reject the participation of those who do. As for the "true purpose of Wikipedia," it's clear you're one of those editors who reject the "sum of all human knowledge" aspirational principle, and want to limit it, in practice, as much as possible tp "stuff otaku care about". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hello once again, I’m not particularly sure I understand what the phrase “polite threats” mean because no threats have been made by me, I merely trying to offer a solution here and see that all editors here edit and co-exist in peace, if you don’t understand this which is quite easy to comprehend then I guess I’m short of words, once again you have just called my attempt at mitigation/mediation “silly” which I believe I corrected you when you called One1's proposal “nonsensical” by telling you it’s impolite of you. At this juncture I’m recusing myself from this discussion. Thank you for your input thus far, do have a wonderful week ahead. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - There seem to be some fundamental points being missed here. Onel's redirects/PRODs/AfDs are of articles that have significant problems. The majority of these are from the back end of the NPP queue, and in all probability have been passed over by other NP patrollers, including myself, who have been unsure of the best way of dealing with them. Nemesis seems to be trying to save as many articles as possible from deletion or redirection. I actually have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint; somebody has put a lot of effort into some of those articles (but in other cases the minimum effort to create an article). However, rescuing a crap article still leaves us with a crap article that may or may not be improved by others. WP is an encyclopaedia with a set of minimum standards, rescuing everything often conflicts with the minimum standard requirements. Restoring articles from redirects can be problematical: WP:BURDEN, and in the case of BLPs, WP:BLP, are applicable to restored content, so just restoring the article isn't acceptable in many cases. In other cases there seems to be lack distinction between something existing and it being notable.

Obviously if you send articles to AfD because you think they don't meet notability guidelines then you should expect a high percentage to result in delete. Where notability is marginal then it's not unreasonable to send to AfD to gain a community consensus. In these cases where notability is 50/50, a 50% delete rate shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.

NP patrollers seem to constantly come under attack, usually over individual articles. I'm sure mistakes have been made (anybody here who claims not to have made mistakes are either deluded or a liar), but I don't think that is applicable in the majority of cases. Id like to issue an invitation to those who think NP patrollers are doing such a poor job to take over the role and show us how it should be done. --John B123 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think where we are seeing disagreement is pretty much the classic inclusionist/exclusionist split. As someone on the inclusionist side, I think that PRODs are fine thing in moderation, but I expect to only see PRODs on things that really need to go. If a large percent of your PRODs are making it through AfD, you're doing it wrong IMO. Others argue that there are a lot of "crap articles" and so trying to get rid of them is an important and good part of the ecosystem. I agree with that, but they'd better really be crap. If the AfDs aren't resulting in deletion, maybe they weren't as crap as they seemed.

My suggestion would be that Onel5969 try to get a better hit rate on their PRODs--only prodding things they are sure the community would support getting rid of (which is inline with WP:PROD and NemesisAT only dePROD articles from Onel5969 that they feel really have a chance at AfD. If Onel5969 is finding more than 20 or 30% of their PRODs are ending in no deletion, they probably should at least continue to refine their decision making process. If NemesisAT is finding that they are dePRODing articles that are getting deleted more than 60-70% of the time, they should also reevaluate. Yes, I'd expect PRODs to have a higher "correct" rate than dePRODs because PRODS are supposed to be for clear cases.

Finally, to Celestina007, I think HW's point (which could frankly have been expressed a bit less confrontationally) has some grain of truth--I'm seeing what looks like a fairly high error rate being kept in check by NemesisAT--that's not something to stop doing because it offends. At the same time, NemesisAT should realize that others are likely to catch the problems if they are real and it's fair for Onel5969 to feel like they are being stalked. So there is no great way forward, but I don't think asking Nemesis to commit to doing less of something that isn't wrong is ideal. Pointing out to them that it might be best for for everyone if they do less of it is a lot more helpful IMO. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hobit, thank you, I literally didn’t understand the aggression from them but I see reason with your rationale.Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• To expatiate on the final note of John B123 which is similar to a comment I made several months back, to an editor in defense of an editor with the NPR perm whom I can’t remember, I’d say it once more; please if any genuine editor sincerely believes or is of the opinion that new page reviewers aren’t “holding their own” or “pulling their weight” you are more than welcome to request for the perm and help out. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• I want to endorse what John B123 says. The rate of agreement at AfD depends on the type of articles one sends there or discusses, I like many of he more experienced editors tend to send there or comment on the really dubious or difficult cases, and will therefore have a low rate of agreement. It's rational to l bring things where one knows that the consensus is unclear, in the hope of clarifying it., The more bvious stuff is for people learning, or building up a record for RfA. As long as what they're doing is rational, anyone may reasonably bring an article they're unsure about to AfD; anyone may reasonably express a minority view at an afd discussion. Only the community makes the final decision. (Of course it's possible to make irrational or abusive nominations or comments, but the afd/Deletion review process can generally deal with this very effectively). DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment sorry for my slow response here, I have been working and on holiday so spending less time on Wikipedia. I want to be clear that I have no problems with the work that new page patrollers do, you're doing a good job. I have already reduced the number of PRODs removed and haven't reverted any redirects lately, and will take on the advice from users here. That being said, I think it's clear, and others agree, that my interactions with Onel do not count as wikihounding. As they haven't even commented on here (as far as I can see), I think this conversation may as well be closed. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:The Supermind

The above user falsely accuses me creating "Website spoofing" by saying used for deception to official website in here Talk:Oromia § Original researches while I am trying to explain the issue he/she raised. After user Above deliberately removed sources and content here[12],[13] by replaced by irrelevant source that doesn't reflect Oromia capital at all here [14]. I requested admin to protect Oromia page from Vandalism. Admin protect for a week, expires 12:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)). Now user threatening to vandalize again after protection of page expires here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia. MfactDr (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Again personal attack by Supermind in here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia by calling me "you're are so fool" MfactDr (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to say while I don't think it belongs at ANI in isolation the website spoofing accusation seems clearly false not to mention silly. Supermind is claiming the website was created recently by MfactDr. Except that the link in question is is a 2008 Internet Achive archive of a website. It's clearly not recent and frankly even ignoring the lack of evidence, the suggestion that MfactDr created that website on or before 2008 and for some reason is trying to use it on Wikipedia now is IMO silly enough we can almost dismiss it out of hand. This doesn't mean it's a good source or an official government website. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Supermind is so much Disrespectful and attack personally here [15] and other editor told supermind not accuse falsely here[16] after first accuse me creating sources that supermind have NO conclusive proof of my involvement with the web site coding[17]. After I let user aware of notice of incident the user response was discourteous here[18] This The archived Ethiopian Government website That Supermind claimed created by me and Newly designed Ethiopia Government portal website have same contents and both are Government Website. MfactDr (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page

Good advice from B. Kliban
One apple every 8 hours will keep 3 doctors away -EEng

Zefr edited improperly and violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines when three times he edited to deleted parts of a discussion and an entire section from an article’s talk page: [19], [20], and [21]. I attempted to restore at least part of the missing content to the talk page, but that was deleted. The talk page as it stands now (Talk:An apple a day keeps the doctor away) has been edited by Zefr to delete comments of another editor (me) and to retain his own comments. This misrepresents the discussion. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bitwixen. Are you familiar with WP:NOTAFORUM? Did you really cite Larry Sanger in support of your point of view? Are you aware that Sanger has been consistently incorrect on every aspect of online encyclopedias for the past 19 years? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen, yes, of course, and thanks for noticing my wondering about Sanger, which certainly was not meant to support my point-of-view here, it actually has to do with a different topic, and I think an important topic worth discussing sometime. You may know more about Sanger than I do. - Bitwixen (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't noticed about 19 years. Is there any event or observance planned for next year, to commemorate Sanger being wrong for 20 years? More srsly, it's generally counterproductive to delete other people's talkpage comments unless they're way over the top. If they're just slightly inappropriate (i.e. drifting towards FORUM, which is quite common and usually innocent) and persist, it's better to leave the comments intact but maybe hat or archive the section, and ask the commenters to cut it out. If they don't persist then don't worry about it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User talk:2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99, I see you’re a very new editor, and only began editing in late July. Welcome. (If you don't mind, I’ll refer to you as “2601”?) You’re very tolerant on this particular issue, 2601, when you suggest that there are couple of ways an editor can “delete other people's talkpage comments”, first: If they’re “way over the top”, then it’s okay — just delete. The second way to delete content (according to you) is to weather the objections from other editors, but to “persist”, and if you’re persistent the others should not be bothered. That advice would certainly give editors another tool they can use. However, it doesn’t accord with the policy (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), which is not so tolerant. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Bitwixen, I see contributions from this user on their /64 range going back to May, and if you widen it out to the /48 you'll see they've been active since at least January 2020 (I stopped looking at that point). Now, more importantly, what do you want to happen here? Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do - there was no need for you to clutter up an article talk page with warning templates, for example. Was there anything that was directly related to the content of the article and its sourcing that was removed? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit — I think the policy question is whether or not deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page is acceptable. Perhaps we need a consensus here on that question? It’s been suggested [above] by fellow editor 2601 that it’s okay to delete the comments of another editor if those comments are “way over the top”, and you, Girth, suggest that it might be sensible to delete comments by others if they’re not “on topic”. I personally think the policy that I linked to above should be followed, and the content should be restored, but I’ve restored the content, and it’s been deleted each time. If there’s not a word spoken here to stop it from being deleted again, it’s not just a question of restoring, but of voicing support for the Wikipedia policy. If on this notice board, we support disregarding the Wikipedia policy, and we accept that deleting others’ comments is a useful tool (in order to win consensus, for example), that makes a very strong statement. To respond specifically, Girth, to your point, when you said, “Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do.” In fact, Zefr deleted comments that were on-topic, but claimed they were off-topic. Here’s one example: Zefr deleted this comment: “It is not a bad idea to ask if there is any truth to the saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away,’ the article could then point out what various reliable sources say, whether it’s good or bad or whatever. There are a number of reliable sources out there that weigh in on the topic.” And this regarding a source that Zefr deleted from the article: “In removing contentious, unsourced, unverifiable, derogatory comments (in the section just above this one) about Bahram H. Arjmandi — comments made by fellow editor Zefr, I believe I am following the policy found in the article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons” - Bitwixen (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC allows for off-topic content to be moved to a more appropriate location, which I imagine is what Zefr was attempting to do. If a few on-topic comments got moved at the same time, you could just add them back on their own, it's not so big a deal that it needs reporting here. I've just read through the history of that talk page more thoroughly however, and I see you edit warring to remove part of Zefr's statement before any of that happened. You shouldn't have done that. If you have a concern that a statement by another editor is in violation of BLP policies, you should ask them to strike it themselves; if they refuse to do so, your recourse is to report it to WP:BLPN and ask someone else to review.

I also see you edit warring to add content to the article. You added material, based on what appear to be highly dubious sources (do I really see a 'wellness' blog there supporting content covered by MEDRS?); Zefr removed it and explained their concerns about the sourcing. You reinstated it, despite Zefr's explanation on the talk page, and you both then went back and forth a few times. If I'm honest, having read through the whole thing, I think you were the one whose editing led to the problems there.

The disruption has stopped, and I don't think there's anything that admins need to do here, but you should read back through the whole thing and reflect on what you could have done better. You're pretty new here, and you need to learn the ropes - you could learn a lot from an experienced editor like Zefr, if you were willing to listen to them. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Whatever the policies say about it being permissible to clerk other users' comments, Zefr is quite significantly in the wrong here. First, Bitwixen edited a portion of a comment by Zefr as a BLP violation, which they were not (BLP allows discussion of what may be contentious material when it is in the interest of article improvement, within reason) and Zefr reverted, but did so claiming that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages (it does). Bitwixen then tried to start a discussion about that issue, which was definitely related to that page (the incident occurred on that page, and started with a question about the article associated with that talk page), and Zefr just blanked the whole thing, declaring that it didn't belong there, right after having warned Bitwixen (on the talk page, again) not to edit other users' comments. After restoring Bitwixen's discussion on Bitwixen's user talk, Zefr replied to that discussion on the article talk page. Bitwixen tried again to start a discussion and Zefr did the same thing a second time. For one thing, Zefr needs to decide whether users are allowed to modify or relocate other users' comments or not; they can't get upset about a user modifying their comment and then turn around and modify someone else's comment. For what it's worth, I would treat this as BRD: Zefr attempted to redirect a discussion to Bitwixen's talk page, Bitwixen reverted and tried to start a discussion, and everything that happened from that point on very much should not have. I don't think either user behaved spectacularly here but it was Zefr throwing fuel on the fire. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: the way I read the history, Bitwixen's initial query was about whether or not to include specific information on medical plausibility to the article on the "apple a day" proverb, and that is certainly on-topic. There was no reason to move that off the talk page and Zefr shouldn't have tried. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  PEIsquirrel, fair enough - I came away with the impression that Bitwixen was being the more disruptive, but maybe I got lost in the back-and-forth editing of one another's posts. Edit warring is bad on both sides though, so you're right, Zefr wasn't blameless here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit — you misrepresent the policy found on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which in truth does not allow editors to move content that is pertinent to the article being discussed. You mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours. In your recent post you invent guidelines about how to handle a violation of WP:BLP, which do not agree with the actually guidelines–which in fact say "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." [The bold letters are from the WP:BLP guidelines.] Why have we gone so far off topic, anyway? (I ask that and include your free-ranging and uncalled for personal comments about myself, Girth.) This notification is about policy regarding editors deleting comments from an article's talk page, a practice that appears to have considerable support in this discussion–though not in the actual guidelines or WP policy. Your suggestion that anyone would follow the example of the particular editor you mentioned is, forgive me, way off. If you only knew. Girth, you are mistaken too often. To load up this discussion with a lot of extraneous issues has the effect of bloating and expanding potentially endlessly, and those editors who want to wander off in that way, have the advantage over anyone who would prefer to confine the discussion to the topic at hand. Giving support to rogue practices by editors, and mischaracterizing WP policy, does not support Wikipedia itself. - Bitwixen (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, you surely don't deny that some of the material was off-topic? Like a user page warning template? And commentary about Billy Goat Gruff? I have acknowledged that some of it may have been on-topic, and suggested that that could simply have been reinstated (without needing to come here).

Regarding the BLP policy, you are overlooking this part: Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. In other words - you need to be careful if you're going to get into an edit war citing BLP as an exemption. In my opinion, and that of Ivanvector above, that was not a BLP violation - Zefr was not writing defamatory material about the author of the source, he was criticising the source itself, and explaining why he felt it wasn't reliable. That's allowed. In borderline cases, you should get other opinions at BLPN, rather than refactoring other people's comments and edit warring about it. You were in the wrong there, and I can understand why Zefr appears to have become exasperated with you (while I do not think that entirely excuses their own edit warring afterwards).

I have made no personal comments about you yourself. I have criticised what you have done, and given you advice on how to do better. You were edit warring, and you were using unsuitable sources for the content you were adding, both of which you should not do.

So, if you want to get the discussion back on topic, I'll ask again: what is it that you want to happen here? What outcome are you looking for? You and Zefr engaged in a brief edit war, in which you both improperly refactored one another's talk page comments. It was over nearly two weeks ago. Neither of you are blocked, the talk page isn't protected from editing. What would you like us to do about it? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic here is stated by the section heading: “Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page”. The examples I offered include repeated deletions of material that contains comments that are very pertinent to the topic of that article. (No one’s denied that.) I’ve said that I thought it might be good to get some consensus on that practice (of “deleting…” etc) . It appears that some editors here are in favor of the practice and some are not. And no one else seems to want to join in to tip the balance. So, I would say that we’ve gone as far as we can go. Unfortunately this discussion has become so filled with comments that are off-topic and that meander every which way, I think it has the unfortunate effect of discourage a proper discussion. Because it would be reasonable for an editor that might have something to say to look at this mountain of off-topic stuff and say: I’d rather not. It also might be discouraging for an editor to find that this Administrators' Noticeboard has become such a personal back-and-forth. I would not blame anyone for not wanting to step into the middle of something like that. The prior post is been nothing but off-topic rehashing. I know I have been very critical of Girth, and to specifically answer his latest question (which has already been asked and answered), I would say: Let it go — please don’t expect me to encourage any more. Anyone who wants to go off-topic, or have a personal, one-on-one, is welcome to do so on my talk page. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I think that we can all agree that removing on-topic stuff is bad, and that removing off-topic stuff is sometimes permissible, but that people shouldn't edit war about it. I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal, but that it hasn't risen to the level of needing any administrative intervention, particularly since it was two weeks ago. So yes, I think that letting it go and moving on is the best thing to do.

I'm sorry if you think I derailed whatever you were hoping would happen when you started this thread. As I read back through the discussion, I see myself attempting to answer your question by directing you to TALKOFFTOPIC, and advising you that if any on-topic material was removed, it could be reinstated. I then pointed out to you that edit warring over content in the article and stuff on the talk page was bad, commented on the sourcing you were using, and gave you some advice on how to handle borderline BLP issues better. All of that, while perhaps not directly addressing the question you asked, is relevant in the context of what happened. When users come to ANI with a complaint about another editor (which is what you seemed to be doing), we don't just look at the reported editor - we look at the whole situation. I then see you criticising me for saying what I did, which you're entitled to do, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect me not to respond to that criticism.

So, yeah - happy to let this go. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth, you have said said [above]: that you understood that Zefr was deleting and moving what was [in his view] off-topic content, and you thought that was a “sensible thing to do”. It was pointed out [above more than once] that he in fact deleted on-topic content. [As I said above: “You [Girth] mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours.”]. Here’s only one example: This comment was deleted and moved: “It is not a bad idea to ask if there is any truth to the saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away,’ the article could then point out what various reliable sources say, whether it’s good or bad or whatever. There are a number of reliable sources out there that weigh in on the topic.” You have had many opportunities to correct your opinion, and it sounds as if you are finally trying to walk it back with your last post. I also cannot agree with you when you say: “I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal.” etc. If I may speak on behalf of Zefr, you are wrong [again, Garth] to be disparaging a person, when you have not had the opportunity to hear what Zefr has to say in his own defense. It is especially egregious on this particular page, which is a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It is not only disparaging, but it is off-topic. Girth you are “Mr. Off-Topic” — trying to keep you on-topic is like pulling teeth. You are goofy in that way. You degrade this page with your random poorly thought out rehashings and misunderstandings. Let it go. Take a hint. We [you and me] are both trashing this poor section. It could be so much better. Instead it’s become a mountain of repetitive verbiage, disparagement, personal comments, Girth. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I feel that we're going over the same ground again. Yes - I said that removing off-topic stuff like user warning templates from an article's talk page was sensible, and a good idea - that stuff had no business being on the page. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that I have also said that there was nothing stopping on-topic material being reinstated. So, I don't know why you're bringing that up again instead of just reinstating it (if that's what you want), or moving on if you no longer care.

I don't think that you can speak on behalf of Zefr, since you are the one who brought this here to complain about Zefr's actions. Zefr thanked for me the post above in which I said that edit warring is bad and that they weren't blameless, which tells me that they are aware the I've said that, and I interpret it as meaning that they accept the point I made there. Zefr is at liberty to speak up if I have misinterpreted them.

Now, above you have accused me of making personal comments about you - if you can identify any comment in which I am making personal commentary about you (as opposed to commenting on occasions where your conduct has not been compliant with policy), I would be grateful for you pointing it out. You, on the other hand, have directed two childish insults at me in your last post. I have a reasonably thick skin and do not plan on making a big deal of this, but you should be aware that calling people names will lead to your account being blocked. You are not allowed to call people 'goofy' or 'Mr. Off-Topic' any more than you are allowed to call them a 'fucking asshole'. You need to be a lot more careful in how you address people.

Here's some advice for future reference: you don't get to define what the topic should be here. If you come here complaining about someone else's conduct, you need to be prepared for your own conduct to be scrutinised. I strongly suggest that you move on to something productive before anyone starts talking about boomerangs. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth, I’m sorry for the things I said that bothered you. I don’t know what got into me. And I’m very glad you and Zefr have your ex parte communications. You didn’t reveal exactly what he said, but if you honestly feel he gave all that support to your side in all this, I’m glad — I’m sure a little appreciation must feel good, especially on a day when I was giving you grief. To respond to your comment about what topic we should be discussing: this is the Administrators' noticeboard, and the topic of a section here should be determined by the section heading, and though editors are of course free to discuss whatever comes to their minds, the Administrator’s Notice Board itself pays a price in terms of diminished purpose and diluting whatever good might be accomplished by not being sharp and on-point. Editors here are welcome to go into anybody’s past, everyone has access to everything anybody’s contributed, you can always find fault if that’s what you’re looking for. You can bring all kinds of things into this wide-ranging conversation, but it gives the impression that the Administrator’s Notice Board is not a place inhabited by policy wonks. Also (responding to you): I don’t think it’s right — especially on this page — to criticize an editor (Zefr, me or anybody) for doing “things”, when the mysterious “things” are not even named. I brought here an example of what I thought was a violation of policy. You and others (not everybody) in this section then justified (under certain vague circumstances) the deleting of talk page content. Girth, you say I accuse you of “making personal comments” about me. It’s not an accusation — it’s the only thing you and I do here. You make comments about me, and I make comments about you. If you want specific examples, as you say you do, consider the last sentence you posted, and the one before that (etc). Instead of personal comments, it would be better to stay “on topic” and talk policy, and not address each other directly at all. It can be done. Girth, you say I can restore the deleted content, and of course it can then be deleted again and again. But regarding why we’re all here: I saw editing that I thought was unacceptable (though that’s not for me to determine), I brought it here as an example. I appreciate all the discussion — which is causing me to reconsider. Perhaps Zefr is right. He's a strong, assertive, two-fisted, warrior-editor, having a big impact on Wikipedia and the articles he edits. And if he steps on a few toes, or bends a few guidelines — he gets the job done. He throws fireballs. Perhaps we should all aspire to be more like him. He seems not to give a darn about the fretting that’s going on in this section — no, he stands apart from the fray and lets the dogs bark. (I’m a bit disappointed though that he stooped to weigh in on your side — though I’m not sure he wanted to be outed for doing that. But never mind.) He may have a few unconventional editorial tools he likes to use. (I actually saw his latest weapon battle-tested, and by coming here — it seems I got it the Administrators' noticeboard’s seal of approval. Sort of.) Zefr, you go girl. Girth, you say that I shouldn’t speak for another editor, but any discussion of policy is an attempt to speak not only for other editors, but for all editors. We should consider the primary business of the Administrator’s Notice Board is to consider policy with a view for how it affects one and all of us. I hope I’ve answered all of your questions. And again, I’m sincerely sorry for the things I said that bothered you. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, briefly: There were no ex parte conversations, the 'thank' log is a public record. You haven't said anything that bothered me, you just need to be aware that addressing people like that is prohibited. No, the topic is not determined by the title, admins looking at an issue have broad latitude to comment on whatever problematic conduct they see. I have already been specific about what I think you did wrong, and what I think Zefr did wrong, I shouldn't have to repeat it in every post.

It seems that you still think that Zefr was the one edit warring and throwing fireballs, and you somehow weren't? I do not think that you will succeed here as an editor if you persist in your apparent belief that the problems in that thread were all down to Zefr, and the problems in this one are all down to me, and your own attitude, which strikes me as belligerent in this discussion, has nothing to do with it. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no, Girth, I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood. I do not in any way consider that Zefr “did wrong” or was “edit warring”. In fact, it’s just the opposite, I think he may have been right about all this all along. And I was wrong to be concerned. Zefr is a good strong and active editor, and I only want to encourage him. I wasn’t sure of all this at first, but my experience here has helped me “see the light” so to speak. That’s what I was trying to tell you before. Plus — I had a prof. of English lit. not that long ago, and his way of complimenting people who made a comment in class was to say: I like the fireballs you’re throwing. He didn’t say it often, but it was always a compliment. And I didn’t mean anything awful when I used it. I don’t think Zefr would be bothered by it. Please don’t think I’m being “belligerent”, I thought I was very civil with my last post. I’m not sure why you said that. I’m being sincere. I would like to withdraw this whole post if I could. Because I see things like the deletions we were talking about in a new light. I’ve gone over to the other side. I don’t consider such things unacceptable anymore. All the very best, and thanks to all who contributed their thoughts. - Bitwixen (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Faster than Thunder and WP:CIR

I have some competency concerns about the user Faster than Thunder.

• Cartoon Network and CBS - - pretty obviously unlikely that the two entities would be confused with each other
• Sitar - [22] - this is the most common use of "sitar"
• Glossary of Carnatic music - [23] - unnecessary pronunciation guides; Wiktionary serves this purpose just fine

User has also created Template:Inappropriate and added it to Double penetration dildo ([24]) in violation of WP:NODISCLAIMERS.

I get that this user is trying to help, but sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Does this user's activity fall under WP:CIR? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

They've been here for 2 days, and have only made 15 edits. WP:Bite seems to apply here - I can't see anyone discussing these issues with the editor on their talk page but they've been dragged to ANI for a block? New editors are expected to make the occasional bad edit, it's when they don't listen to advice that it becomes problematic. As an aside their edit to Sitar looks completely correct to me, I don't understand why that was reverted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Grand Delusion, did I miss where you discussed this with the editor? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that WP:BITE is the relevant guideline here. It is currently way too premature to consider any kind of WP:CIR action, and I also agree there was nothing wrong with the edit to Sitar. As far as I can tell, this is a new editor making new editor mistakes. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd go further, and say that the edit to Sitar was excellent, and also showed advanced knowledge of guidelines. See MOS:HATNOTE#Linking to a disambiguation page (there isn't even a shortcut for that). Narky Blert (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(there isn't even a shortcut for that) – just a note as to not make Narky Blert look silly: I've taken the liberty... AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit was obviously incorrect. There is something ineffably strange about this editor's pattern and relatively advanced knowledge of Wikipedia templates, etc. They're certainly worth keeping an eye on. Graham87 05:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "Cutting" and "copying" are very different things in that context. Narky Blert (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean the template they made was a message box with some text in it, sorted into the incorrect category (which isn't noinclude'd out so the category will be added to articles too) which was a recreation of a template that has been repeatedly deleted over and over per WP:NODISCLAIMERS. I wouldn't exactly call that an "advanced knowledge of templates". Based on their userpage I assume that this is a younger editor making the common mistake of trying to move into technical and policy areas too quickly - it happens all the time. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That contributions list whiffs of dirty socks. Izno (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms

• 3Kingdoms (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• I. F. Stone
• Black genocide

I was edit-warring against 3Kingdoms, I admit it, but I will stop now. 3Kingdoms came into my view when they made some misrepresentations at Black genocide. I looked at other contributions and the same pattern emerged: removing text supporting legal abortion and adding text against abortion, to push the article out of balance. 3Kingdoms is very active in Catholic topics, and appears to use Wikipedia to push the Catholic viewpoint against abortion.

Outside of the abortion issue, at the biography page I. F. Stone, 3Kingdoms cited a primary source PDF from marxist.org which does not mention Stone at all. 3Kingdoms also cited the prize-winning book A Conspiracy So Immense by David Oshinsky who lists the name of Stone one time in passing, offering no in-depth discussion of Stone's knowledge or motivation. With these two very thin sources, 3Kingdoms pinned on Stone the false accusation that Stone knew about the Great Purge and other Soviet crimes before Stone signed a letter of support for better relations between USA–USSR.

We're both over the line of 3RR. I will stop reverting to restore peace. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

While I was reporting 3Kingdoms here, they were reporting me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Binksternet_reported_by_User:3Kingdoms_(Result:_). FYI. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of violating 3RR, when you were warned on multiple occasion to stop and I reverted your disruptive edits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: you clearly violated 3RR [25][26][27][28]. Binksternet’s edits don’t appear to be disruptive, although taken as a whole the same would be hard to say about your own edits... I think you need to do some soul searching here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Binksternet decided to just follow 3Kingdoms around and revert them on several pages. From what I can tell both broke 3RR on that one page which is not ideal to be sure. No one looks great. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I’m seeing just one page that it looks like they followed 3Kingdoms to. What do you see? Neither is an innocent party, I was expecting them both to earn a block from their little edit war but a merciful admin decided to protect the page instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So Black genocide, John Krol, We Charge Genocide, and I. F. Stone. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You would appear to be right, from the subject matter this would however appear to fall under the correct uses of another editor’s edit history per WP:FOLLOWING specifically "correcting related problems on multiple articles.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking through the edits of 3Kingdoms to see whether they were pushing the same POV elsewhere, which turned out to be the case. WP:Hounding is the intent to cause "irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." My intent is to keep Wikipedia neutral by removing POV. The hounding guideline says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what I was doing. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your POV is not necessary Wikipedia's POV. It is a stretch to say your views, that their POV is a problem, is an unambiguous violation of policy. So yes, you meet the definition of hounding it appears. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, WP:HOUNDING carves out exemptions for noticing a single editor has firm policy violations and noticing where else they violate that policy. That is, to my understanding, completely permitted, as long as the community agrees they were actual policy violations. In fact it's exactly what we do when an editor gets blocked for something like this: we go through their edits and figure out where else they violated that policy. I;'ve done it with plenty of SPAs. Not saying this user is an SPA, just saying it's not necessarily WP:HOUNDING. To be HOUNDING, it needs to involve harassment.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, That is correct. My comment was explaining why it was not a firm policy violation and thus grossly inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, I'm baffled that you would make four reverts at I. F. Stone in the space of 20 minutes and then proceed to report your opponent (also at four reverts) at the edit warring noticeboard. I did consider blocking you only, and not Binksternet, since you are the one with substantial form for edit warring. You have four blocks for it in the past nine months, while Binksternet has not been blocked, for anything, since 2015. In the event, I protected the article and blocked nobody. But what were you thinking? Another admin could easily have made a different call. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

I thought that reverting edits is not breaking 3rr, clearly not the case, my bad. Regarding the other statement, Horse eye, what you think is legit comes across to me as "hounding" [29], maybe not the case, but that is what it comes across to me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:39, 28 August 202

@Bishonen: ok, I was coming here to note their block records also. I probably would have made a different call. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms:, consider yourself very lucky. I'd have reached for this. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms please could you explain what you mean by I thought that reverting edits is not breaking 3rr - I'm scratching my head a bit. What did you think 3RR was? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I remember either reading or someone telling saying that restoring content that had been up for a while did not count, although likely they meant that more in the context of vandalism, so that was my bad. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting clear cutobvious vandalism is indeed an exemption as explained in the policy page. This is why by now you need to actually read the policy and not just rely on something you half remember from what someone told you who might not even be right. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) 3Kingdoms, we give some latitude to new editors not understanding the rules but as mentioned by Bishonen you've already been blocked four times (well I'd say 3 since one was a modification) for it. Ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse, you need to take responsibility for learning the rules especially around edit warring.

While there's clearly no excuse for Binksternet violating 3RR, they at least acknowledged they were wrong without any 'but' or whatever above. By comparison, instead of acknowleding you too were at fault above, you just said Binksternet shouldn't complain about you. As mentioned by Bishonen you even went as far as to complain about Binksternet to ANEW, and didn't mention you'd done the same thing.

At ANEW you've offered the silly excuse "I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr" [30]. This is coming about 3 days after someone warned you because you'd reached 3 reverts and you said "my latest edit that removed a part of the sentence for a different reason, with my previous revert. I do not consider that to be doing the same thing." [31]. I assume you didn't cross the bright-line after that, but it's still very concerning comment especially considering 3 reverts is not an entitlement.

The big red box in WP:3RR clearly says 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.' It makes it clear there are only some specific exemptions and none of these are for reverting someone who broke 3RR. If for some reason reading that still leads you to think that "removed a part of the sentence for a different reason" does not count as another revert or that "reverting someone who broke 3rr" is okay, seek clarification somewhere beforehand.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm just gonna stop reverting all together. Clearly I've been headstrong and in the wrong even when others have been, no point in me getting into anymore and wasting people's time. My bad to all. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for 3Kingdoms: 0RR restriction for 6 months

3Kingdoms has offered to just stop reverting all together. I think that should be a formalized restriction. In this series of comments from last December, 3Kingdom was unblocked after committing not to edit war and confirming that they read and understood the edit warring policy. Since then, they were indef TBANned in March from the Arab–Israeli conflict area for edit warring, and blocked for a month in June for edit warring an American politics article. Their ArbE appeal of their TBAN in July failed because they had been edit warring in other areas and making comments that demonstrated further misunderstanding of the edit-warring policy. I have no reason to doubt their voluntary self-restriction, but I think it's important that the community hold this editor accountable for that commitment. I am hopeful to see more collaborative editing when reversion is off the table. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support 0RR. Yes, accountability is important here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Honestly, I don't think that this gets to the roots of 3K's problems. They aren't particularly adept at handling controversial topic areas (which I mean, fair, there is a reason they get like that). If 3K focused their efforts on improving coverage of the nuts-and-bolts regarding theology and liturgy (stuff like this), rather than the intersection of Faith and politics, they certainly would have an easier time here. I know Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity could use the help! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, I don't know what the roots of the problems are, but edit warring does seem to be the stand out symptom. I am neutral for now on the idea of a more restrictive remedy, if that's what you're implying. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Firefangledfeathers: More like I want to see 3Kingdoms to voluntarily step out of such controversial areas. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying. I would advise the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
        • If allowed to edit, regardless of the decision that is my intention. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: 3Kingdom's just reverted again at Black genocide with this edit, re-adding content that is disputed by other editors. There is ongoing discussion and it is clear that 3Kingdom's does not have consensus for inclusion. Part of me is thinking that ArbE would be a better venue for this discussion, but the problematic editing is happening across multiple DS topic areas. I would appreciate some guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  My assumption is that 3Kingdom’s will once again claim not to realize that their edit counted as a revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  3Kingdom's recently self-reverted the above-mentioned edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: block 3Kingdoms

Proposal: block 3Kingdoms for the following:

• December 2020, Chetsford, in discussing unblocking 3Kingdoms, said: would you be willing to absolutely refrain from edit warring in the future if unblocked, as opposed to just trying to refrain? 3K responded: Yes I would refraim entirely. Chetsford then asked: can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? 3K responded: Yes here is the link. [32] I understand the three reverts rule applies in general. I thought it only applied if you were warned before.

• 3Kingdoms has said the following above:

• Do not accuse me of violating 3RR, when you were warned on multiple occasion to stop and I reverted your disruptive edits
• [33] I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr
• I remember either reading or someone telling saying that restoring content that had been up for a while did not count, although likely they meant that more in the context of vandalism, so that was my bad
• and finally on 28 August I'm just gonna stop reverting all together. Clearly I've been headstrong and in the wrong even when others have been, no point in me getting into anymore and wasting people's time. My bad to all.

• As Firefangledfeathers notes above, on 30 August, after saying all of the above, 3Kingdoms reverted again in this edit, re-adding content that is still disputed by other editors.

I feel as though the community is being taken for a ride here. And has been taken for a ride in the past by this user. User has edit warred/violated 1RR rules in multiple content areas (American Politics [34] (1RR-violation), Arab-Israeli area [35] (topic-banned), Evangelical religious figures [36], US-USSR relations (I. F. Stone) [37], likely more areas, including this most recent stint edit warring at Black genocide). User has also been blocked 3 times in the past year for this behavior [38]. If WP:NOTHERE does not apply (gaming the system), and the user really does have these broad and numerous misunderstandings of WP:3RR, WP:1RR, and WP:EW, even after repeatedly being notified about these policies and even asked to link to it to verify they have read WP:EW, then I believe WP:CIR applies.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: I prefer my proposal but do not oppose this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It was never my intention to lead the community "through a ride", but I see why you think that. While I would rather it not happen, I get why you think I should be blocked, actions speak louder than words and while I find the objection to the addition, which is "one sentence, with no POV in its wording, from a source published by Oxford" to be wrong, it still looked bad on my part which is why I reverted on second thought. I doubt this will convince you and I don't blame it for not, that is what I thought. I intend to just stick to "nuts and bolts" as one editor mentioned because it is far less likely to cause problems and is simply more enjoyable to do. Thanks and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked. I agree with Shibbolethink. After making all the promises Shibbolethink has enumerated just above, 3Kingdoms reverted again, re-adding disputed content. I'm not too impressed by the fact that they self-reverted after some hours, because this was only after Firefangledfeathers had complained above about 3K's new revert, and with the edit summary that "On second thought, I think people will take this as a revert", etc. Mhm. I'm starting to feel a bit responsible for wasting the community's time by not blocking 3K right after their AN3 report.[39] I was admittedly not then aware of their undertakings to Chetsford, which Shibbolethink describes above. Those were undertakings for the purpose of being unblocked, and they look pretty silly in relation to 3K's various excuses and professions of ignorance even in this very thread. It seems that either the user is too incompetent to edit in controversial areas, or we are indeed being taken for a ride. I have belatedly blocked them indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
• Support - Based on what Shibbolethink lays out above, this editor violated the agreement of their un-block discussion by continuing to break 3RR and then claim ignorance. When you agree that you understand the rules, as indicated above, you can not, then, claim ignorance of them. The time to ask questions and make sure you understand what you were reading was then. It is unfortunate that I have to support blocking but I see it as the only recourse due to violation of community trust. --ARoseWolf 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN or NOTHERE

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

---

Catchpoke (talk · contribs) appears to be playing by their own rules. At 2021-08-24T03:47:09, I reverted an edit and clearly pointed at WP:NOTBROKEN. Certes (talk · contribs) left a note at on the editor's talk page 2021-08-24 09:23:05 and explained the situation. Catchpoke's first edit back after the warning was not to acknowledge the error and seek clarifcation, but was to revert me. I reverted because of NOTBROKEN and left a second note on the editor's talk page. Catchpoke started Talk:Canadians#100, where it's clear the editor has no interest in acknowledging NOTBROKEN and believes that they are right in doing so. The editor then nominated the redirect for deletion and the rest of their edits have been to ignore NOTBROKEN and continue to remove the redirects. And now Meters (talk · contribs) has been drawn into the discussion because of Catchpoke's lack of civility toward me. The editor appears to be showing a general pattern of disruptive behaviour, treating editing as a battleground, has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively, and so is WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. I'll let Meters address the incivility if they wish to comment.

I also see @Drmies: and others dealt with the editor in July. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's time to show that fellow the door. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Several of us have attempted to collaborate politely with this editor, mainly in now-blanked revisions of User talk:Catchpoke. Sadly, we don't seem to be succeeding. Certes (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I see why this thread was started. There has been a few more posts at Talk:Canadians that I didn't realize appeared.

My first reversion of walter's edit had the edit summary "the canadian lists are the only ones that list 100 in the name. this is meant to match other lists.". He reverted me next with an edit summary starting with "Not the point. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop fisx ing redirects." so naturally, he was not specific so i did not understand the reason for the revision. I started a talk page discussion where I reiterated "the canadian lists were the only series of lists that listed 100 in their titles." Further paraphrasing myself: "It is true not all links to redirects need to be fixed ... This isn't the case for these links. For example, it is ok to leave the link for the binomial name of dog in instances where the scientific name is discussed." I also made another comment stating: But hovering over the link will reveal the "true" target for the page... which was responded with Not the point. The link is NOTBROKEN. If you get that changed, you may change this link. so it did not help clear my confusion. On my talk page walter suggests that i take the redirect to WP:RFD. I think this is a case of miscommunication. Catchpoke (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's be practical here. So far you've been out-numbered on this topic & so it's unlikely you're going to get your own way. So what's the point of doing edits, that'll be repeatedly reverted by different editors? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

And the reluctance to actually read NOTHERE? Possibly more correctly, not acknowledging any of the points in it. And arguing against complying with it? Or the action of nominating the redirect for deletion? Or "fixing" all of the redirects earlier today? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't really see the benefits to your edits either? NOTBROKEN isn't a blanket reason to revert. Let them know about it for the future but unless reverting actually makes things better, it's pointless and leads to unnecessary conflict.

From NOTBROKEN: It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading and Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. - considering that the redirect is an inaccurate title for the page, it could arguably be bypassed under both of these. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the may be reasons, but when the link is piped and the reader cannot see it, there's no reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: did you read what I quoted you? A reader can hover over the link to see the page that is linked to - and if that is misleading, it can be appropriate to bypass the redirect. This has been written at WP:NOTBROKEN for a while, and this looks like one of those cases to me. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, but not valid here, because it is not misleading in any of the cases here. Feel free how the link is more accurate when changing from [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada|major urban centres]] to [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada|major urban centres]] as was done here or changing [[List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population|12th]] to [[List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population|12th]] as was done here and other edits this over the past several hours? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

One title accurately describes the linked article, the other does not. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. So to be clear, which is more accurate: list of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population or list of the largest municipalities in Canada by population? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Catchpoke's behaviour. This seems to be the same sort of WP:IDHT (or rather "I don't agree with that, so everyone else is wrong and I'm going to do what I want") behaviour that resulted in the restriction from any edits relating to etymology enacted at ANI on July 23 by user:Drmies in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Catchpoke. Since being made aware of other editor's concerns over his removal of redirects Catchpoke has attempted to get the redirect in question (List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada) deleted, and has made something like 70 additional removals of that redirect. That's WP:POINTY to the point of disruption.

My involvement in this was simply to warn Catchpoke for personal attacks made on Talk:Canadians [40] [41] [42] [43]. Catchpoke immediately blanked their talk page and asked me which comments I was referring to. Not much more I can say than I did on my talk page (Your last four edits to Talk:Canadians. You accused user:Walter Görlitz of being disingenuous and of WIKILAWYERING, and now you have progressed to calling him a troll and a hypocrite. You are well into personal attack territory now.) and on the article's talk page where Catchpoke's edits were being discussed (Already warned Catchpoke for personal attacks. User immediately deleted warning and showed up on my talk page to ask which comments... I would say there's some irony in calling someone else "disingenuous" too.) I find it very difficult to WP:AGF here. Meters (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Elli for pointing out that "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading" per WP:BRINT as I wasn't aware of this part of the WP:REDIRECT policy! Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised that you still do not accept that your behaviour may just stray into the problematic, and instead cling to the word may in one editor's response to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess the problem is my using "bypass redirect" instead of "WP:BRINT" in the edit summary. Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRINT certainly justifies the three template edits. I support them; they're the sort of change I make myself whilst editing a navbox for other reasons. A perfect editor might cite BRINT in the edit summary but most of us don't bother, and I would never criticise anyone for failing to do. However, most of this thread is about article edits, to which WP:BRINT doesn't apply. Certes (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw that Catchpoke made an change to a link in a see also section, and I did not revert because it was in-line with BRINT. We could eventually commission a bot to convert all links in see also sections to {{annotated link}}, and most redirects do not have a {{short description}} to list there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify my previous comment. BRINT presumably stands for "Bypass Redirects In Navigational Templates", a navbox-only exception. But the section to which WP:BRINT redirects also recommends bypassing certain redirects in articles, such as some "See also"s and those with misleading hover text. The latter could well cover the "100 largest" changes. However, it would have been helpful to cite this guideline earlier, rather than making terse replies such as "hypocrite". It's also fair to say that we usually seek consensus before making a bulk change verging on WP:COSMETICBOT. Certes (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was unfortunately igrnorant of WP:BRINT. However, if Walter was aware of BRINT, why didn't he explain that to me instead of saying "Not the point. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop fisx ing redirects."? Is this an attempt to decieve and feign ignorance? Catchpoke (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• My psychiatrist says Wikipedia might not be a project to which Catchpoke can effectively contribute at his or her current level of maturity. EEng 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not every Wikipedia task is accessible to all of us, but I've suggested a few activities which may be suited to editors who focus on link improvement. Certes (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate User:EEng's sarcasm. He's been reported before for condoning murder.Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  And that, dear friends, is everything you need to know about this situation. (Be sure to click on murder in Catchpoke's post -- good times! -- and see the definitions of the word rebuttle elsewhere on the linked page.) EEng 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I kind of like the MOS: pseudo-namespace tho... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing that brouhaha as "condoning murder" is either egregious bad faith or a stunning lack of familiarity with commonplace idioms. Just for the record, it makes me doubt everything else such an editor might say. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well murder and suicide are very serious. I find this banter between the 3 of you very selfish. Catchpoke (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You're doing an excellent job of convincing me that I don't need to care about your opinions. I don't say this to be mean or insulting; I think the fact that persuasion is how Wikipedia works often gets lost. You could have made your point without a mischaracterization like "condoning murder," which has now made everything you say seem suspect to me. Do you see what I mean? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you shouldn't be telling other editors to gets lost! But you're right, if he hadn't made a fool of himself on the question of whether I condone murder, we could instead be concentrating on the more important question of whether I should go see a psychiatrist. EEng 20:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I felt WP:HOUNDED and the vitriol you wrote and admitted by saying that you are inherently unforgiving and vicious exhausted my patience.Catchpoke (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I do vaguely remember saying that. Any chance you could provide a diff for context? EEng 05:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

-EEng (with thanks to Atsme)

@Catchpoke: Besides the fact that I take both of those things seriously (and don't appreciate the accusation that I don't), I also take the topic of mental health seriously. I was not impressed when I saw how you told EEng to "go see a psychiatrist" here. As someone who actually does see a psychiatrist, I found that very offensive. If you have a problem with EEng, that's fine (take a number there lol). Making this about the status his mental health is where I draw a line. If you had said that to me, then I guarantee you that I wouldn't be taking it as lightly as EEng has. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well ya know, it's all a matter of what you're used to. If I had a buck for every time someone told me I should see a psychiatrist, I'd have a million dollars -- which would then go into the pocket of my psyciatrist. So you really just can't win. EEng 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

[44] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the argument that in some cases (such as an {{R from misnomer}}), a working redirect linked in articles should be replaced. As the target page here isn't a list of 100 things, having a better link could be better. There are also other working redirects which for various reasons should probably be fixed (I note the frequently-targeted Her Majesty's Government).
That said: YOU MUST FIND CONSENSUS BEFORE DOING MASS CHANGES. This is not negotiable. There's a good chance Catchpoke gets a block here, but this must be a final warning. Some form of bot request or WikiProject discussion or policy discussion regarding when redirects should be fixed is the way forward. Doing more of these mass-changes as WP:Fait accompli is unacceptable, and an immediate block is necessary if it continues without discussion or against the consensus of a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: medium term block for Catchpoke

As a totally uninvolved non-admin user, I propose a medium term block for Catchpoke for WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA as documented above. Length perhaps a week to a month? User has never been blocked before, but has been brought to ANI in the past (where he was given a restriction against editing the word "etymology"), and has committed many policy violations above despite warnings, in fact flagrantly in spite of warnings. This is despite having only been a registered user since March 2021 [45]. Interestingly, their second ever edit was to CSD another user's page [46]. That makes me suspect an SPI/CU may be in order... But I don't personally have the time or energy to file a case. If anyone else would like to, be my guest.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC))

Thanks for the warning, and yes, I thought block evasion was a possibility. At the very least, it's an alternate account for this editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NOTHERE applies. It seems to me that Catchpoke is making these edits in good faith, because they think they're improving the encyclopedia. And multiple editors have actually agreed with the edit under discussion (namely: Elli, above; Tavix, at the RfD; and me - I chimed in at Talk:Canadians#100). Their approach to dispute resolution has not been ideal, but I do think they're WP:HERE. Colin M (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

At that RfD, User:EurekaLott, an admin, states "but we should also tag it as a {{r from incorrect name}} and replace all incoming mainspace links". Catchpoke (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the provinces had this link but someone removed the links in agreement. Catchpoke (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's rare for a proposal like this (medium term block) to be enacted because we don't do punishment. Catchpoke needs to change to reduce the amount of disagreement with other editors (even if everyone else were wrong, you would still need to collaborate). If Catchpoke performs any further mass changes without prior consensus or violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, a number of admins including myself would be prepared to issue an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block that could be lifted after a convincing explanation is given about how they would avoid further problems. Debating whether NOTHERE is technically the correct term is not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, It's rare for a proposal like this (medium term block) to be enacted because we don't do punishment. I guess I was hoping for it to be preventative so that they wouldn't be indef'd down the road. Because I would hate for Catchpoke not to get a chance to correct their behavior. But I do understand what you're saying (if there's gonna be a block for stuff like this, just indef), and I think El_C's indef with a theoretical unblock if/when firm and substantial assurances there will not be a repeat makes sense. It also matches the severity of the NPAs. I think in the future I'll just say "block" when it's clearly to the level of a block, and not propose any durations in situations like this. Thanks for the explanation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef. There are too many personal attacks coupled with little awareness (still) of there being too many personal attacks. Will need some major assurances that this behaviour will not be repeated. "Condoning murder" — wow. El_C 09:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Seeing as the subject of this report is now indef banned. Perhaps closure should be applied to this report. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Dragovit violating topic ban

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

---

User:Dragovit was indefinitely topic banned by the Wikipedia community from editing "in the areas of flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, broadly construed" back in May, and yet barely 5 months later (before they were even eligible to appeal the topic ban), Dragovit is back to combing through Wikipedia articles at will, editing coats of arms and flags as if this entire discussion had never taken place.

What's more, after being invited to do so, Dragovit is now voting in a new RfC on the status of what flag should be used in the infobox for Austria-Hungary, despite being topic banned from the issue at hand. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for one month for obvious topic ban violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What about the editor that invited Dragovit to participate? Is that actionable? Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, is there any evidence that editor knew about the topic ban, as opposed to knowing of their interest in flags? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - I'm going to assume that there isn't. Maybe worth a general warning re canvassing though. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, the summary of the policy is When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. In this case, the notification was complety neutral and it was sent to six editors. I do not know enough about flag controversies to conclude that these six were selected for biased reasons, so I am not going to warn this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

spooky IP editor

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

---

Perhaps this is nothing, but I was spooked, so I wanted to get some guidance.

Today, 109.79.160.61 (talk · contribs) came to my talk page to discuss an edit I made (this isn't about our discussion per se). I rarely encounter IP editors who are so verbose, and after a couple of back-and-forth replies, I checked their contributions out of curiosity and saw a lot of purple links there. In the single day they've been editing, the IP editor hit a lot of the same pages I do. It weirded me out, and so I checked what our recommended process was for something like this. WP:HOUND pointed me towards this tool where I found that in a single day, that IP has overlapped at least six pages I've edited in the last two months (not including—for examine—where I edited WUKY and they then edited the talk page). Furthermore, this apparently experienced IP editor just appeared from the æther and began following my edits? In addition to the prima facie unsettling nature, I wonder if I've upset or annoyed an otherwise registered editor who's logged out to unnerve me and/or create a "second voice" to agree about their original grievance.

In the meantime, I'm going to stop interacting with the editor at my page because I don't want to introduce confusion by having two (albeit wholly different) discussions with/about them. I'd really appreciate any assistance offered. Thanks! (I'll drop the {{ANI-notice}} after saving this page.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth, given the IP editor's reply below, I just want to reiterate that I'm not here about our discussion regarding my edits; that has no need for an administrator that I can see. I'm just asking for input regarding the eerie confluence between pages I've edited and an IP editor with less than three hours of contributory history. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a banned evading editor. Otherwise, how could he/she learn so much about the project, in less the 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have encountered Fourthords before, yes. I've also edited the Popeye (film) article before, and a lot of other film articles and recently Star Trek articles. He has made a mistake, one that could have been easily avoided if he had read the article before deleting.[47] There was also a previous note on his talk page that questioned his deletes. My comments were critical of his actions, his deletes. I can understand his frustration at text not being properly verified and his reluctance to use {{citation needed}} tags but asking him to read the article before deleting is not asking much. Maybe I could have handled it differently and let it go but the response from Fourthords was as if he did not see he had made any kind of a mistake, pointing to the specifics of the rules rather than the principle of trying to improve the article.

If you believe I'm a banned editor you should report me, but I am just a user who chooses to edit anonymously and I have done so for a long time. Sometimes I get annoyed by editors not following the rules, or in this case interpreting them in way that does not seem to be about making the articles better. I have tried to follow the rules and I have tried to be polite. Perhaps there are some rules I am not aware of or should reread but I don't think it was unreasonable to criticize a large delete that could have easily been avoided. I don't think there is an need to escalate this further. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay (talk · contribs) just made a huge revert to Popeye (film) without even an edit summary to explain why.[48] This reverted back to and repeated the big unnecessary deletes that Fourthords had made. Please explain. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Because your edits weren't necessary & you still haven't told us who you are or were. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained each of my edits with an edit summary I hope was clear enough. The edits seemed necessary to improve the sourcing and address the issues that prompted Fourthords to delete those paragraphs, rightly or wrongly.

I was not under the impression that there was any requirement to disclose who I am, and you did not ask. More importantly I cannot disprove a negative, if you believe I am a sock puppet and I point to one account it will not prove anything, you will just think I have some other hidden account. 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You've only been on Wikipedia for less the 24 hrs. There's no possible way you would have learned the project's inner workings, so quickly. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: 109.79 has made it clear that they have not been on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours.^[49][50] In fact, I took a look at their range and saw hundreds of edits just from this month.
What we have here is a medium-term experienced anonymous user checking the contributions of a longer-term experienced user because the anonymous user saw the longer-term user made a few of the same mistakes.
@Fourthords: You're fine. This is just a case of an anonymous user acting just like a user with an account, and you probably aren't as used to that? They are on a dynamic range, so if you want to see what the rest of their contributions were (which go back at least a few months from what I can tell), you have to visit Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61/16 (it'd be /64 for an IPv6 address - to oversimplify things). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Something is amiss & it's only going to get worst, until it's corrected or the IP reveals his/her registered account. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I really doubt they have one. There's too much activity on their range that is obviously coming from a single individual (like somewhere near 500 edits in a single month.. that's quite a lot). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My intuition about these things, are rarely wrong. Meanwhile, suggest somebody encourage the individual to create an account, if we're assuming he/she doesn't already have one. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourthords inserted a P.S. note above (after I made my reply) so I will try to explain further. I do not think you can separate the actions from the problem here. I was responding to the deleting the good faith work of other editors without due care.
I was looking at pages I had edited before and I looked at Popeye and noticed a big delete. The deleted text seemed to be probably correct but the was not a reference at the end of every paragraph but it could have been clearer and from even a brief skim read it seemed like the book references were the source.[51] Reading the article more again more carefully it was clear the books were the source.[52] I reverted and made improvements, I worked on the article for about an hour, improving other sources too. I considered if it was worth saying anything on Fourthords talk page. I edited some other things too. Then I looked at Fourthords recent edit history for other large deletes, there were a few, and I saw a complaint on his talk page about deletes. It looked like a pattern and it did not look like he was being careful. I decided that the editor was not taking a reasonable amount of care and that it was appropriate to point out that his delete was a mistake.
I had hoped I would not need to escalate this any further or accuse him of careless disruptive editing. I had hoped he might acknowledge that a mistake was made, people are tired, mistakes happen. I had hoped that in future he might read the text of an article and when the things on balance look like they are probably true, use a {{citation needed}} tag next time instead.
Deleting things is very easy, too easy probably. Improving articles is a lot harder. I don't think it is asking much for editors to take care before making large deletes. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. IP blocked for hounding using a suspect account. El_C 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61

Moved from User talk:El C

I just commented at AN/I, but I only now just noticed you blocked 109.79. I think this was a misunderstanding because from what I can tell since 109.79 is actually an experienced user (not a sockpuppet) who had a pretty legitimate reason for doing what they did (certainly weren't ever warned against it at least). I really don't think blocking them was the right call here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they were a sock. But if they are an experienced user, how do you justify their logged out editing that hounds another user? El_C 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

MJL, please feel free to refactor this exchange onto the ANI thread. Probably better we discuss it in that wider forum than split the discussion over here. El_C 17:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) All of their experience is logged out editing. They've been editing Star Trek articles for at least more than a month (it's all on their range)

(2) editorinteract.py showed me two diffs: [53] and [54]. Besides the explicit mention of Talk:WUKY, those were the only examples I could find of following.

(3) All three show the same exact pattern of 109.79 simply trying to restore removed text, and I can't see in that as anything nefarious. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked with apologies. Again, sorry, IP, for having misread the situation. Thanks for being quick on the draw, MJL. El_C 17:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. But, it's in administrators hands, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, as I noted on my talk page, when in doubt, I'd rather err on the side of good faith (i.e. before going the WP:PACT route). El_C 18:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be worth having a brief read of these essays. There has been no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the IP user is anything other than simply an IP user. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, this isn't the first time in the last few days that you've assumed an IP was a sock without any reason. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. But you've got no proof, as you're not a CU. This time, you reverted them and actually made the article worse. I'd strongly suggest you actually look at the edit you're actually making first, and not assume that an IP is automatically wrong - or perhaps, y'know, leave it to the administrators to sort out. This is even worse in this case because you don't appear to understand how IP ranges work. ("You've only been on Wikipedia for less the 24 hrs. There's no possible way you would have learned the project's inner workings, so quickly.") We have blocked editors in the past for such repeated displays of bad faith. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've not repeated 'said' revert, since & sincerely hope I'm incorrect about the IP's identity. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Black Kite is referring to these reverts: [55][56] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was/am aware of that. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the block personally, I expected that I'd have to pause until this was talked out. As an anon IP user I accept that I am frequently going to be judged with suspicion, but frankly named editors should be judged with skepticism too. After editing this way for years I prefer editing as anon and it think it helps put the focus on the edits and not a person. (You might note that I've an old comment on the Popeye article talk from 2017 as I have long standing concerns about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic making it look like reviews for the film were mixed, but I've only recently managed to find decent source making it clear it was panned after I went reading more about Robert Altman instead of trying to directly find sources about the film.)
I accept I could have handled this better and done more to to avoid even the appearance of WP:HOUND but again I don't think you can separate my actions from the careless deletes that prompted them. I hope others will admit their mistakes and be more careful before deleting in future. If we weren't living in plague times I'd make more of an effort to go outside and do something else instead.
Note to user GoodDay, maybe you know this already but if you add /16 after an IP address Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61/16 you can see other edits from people in the same range, and quite a lot of them are mine, especially the one that attempt to provide clear edit summaries explaining what they are trying to do. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@109.79: I'm just glad you're in good enough spirits and have not let this deter you from continuing to contribute. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

People carelessly deleting the good faith efforts of other editors is more likely to discourage me than people calling me out for making a mistake or administrators trying to keep order and enforce the rules. I didn't quit the Wikipedia habit even after I quit having an account, it has been many years since then. I edit only sporadically anyway, it might be tomorrow, it might be next week. I will try to check this thread again tomorrow in case there are any follow-up questions from administrators, or any advice about how I might have better dealt with the disruptive deletes. We disagreed, we discussed, we go on. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Somebody should either close or archive this report. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Fanman01

• Fanman01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Closing Time (Semisonic song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Fanman01 has been introducing uncited information to Closing Time (Semisonic song) for some time now, most notably that it is Semisonic's signature song. I have left them multiple warnings on their talk page that they need to cite the information they introduce to the article, but this user is unwilling to respond and continues to make these disruptive edits. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 21:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ResolutionsPerMinute, please take a look at List of signature songs which includes a reference to a source verifying this claim. A quick Google search produced half a dozen other sources as well. Verifiabilty says a claim must be verifiable (which it is), not verified now. Instead of placing those warnings and writing an ANI report, why not just add a reference and move on? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading the editor's talk page, I see that you have accused them of vandalism. Adding correct but unreferenced content is not vandalism. Please do not make false accusations of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Accusing them of vandalism was a mistake; I forgot to selected the appropriate field with Twinkle, which I just started using. At any rate, I see your point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 18:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe ResolutionsPerMinute would have accepted the source in List: "You need to find a source that explicitly says "Closing Time" is the band's signature song." [57] Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

nm, that's wrong of course, I was reading the wrong source. Apologies, RPM. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Sheredeccan and disruption

Sheredeccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for about a month and nearly all of their contributions are disruptive usually involving original research and disregard for reliable sources. Despite multiple warnings and explanatory messages they have neither changed their behavior nor engaged in communication. They also seem to be solely dedicated to the topic area of Hyderabad State, maybe some form of Pakistani nationalist pov pushing? Some diffs are as follows but honestly if one clicks any of their edits it'd stand as an example, date and time are in IST.

• 00:48, 31 July 2021 Removal based on original research on the article of Mir Osman Ali Khan.
• 23:20, 16 August 2021 Plain disruption on Deccan. I think they were trying to create a fork of Deccan Plateau but gave up?
• 02:38, 17 August 2021 Same as first on Ravi Narayana Reddy. There are a lot of other similar ones.
• 01:47, 30 August 2021 Addition of Template:Pakistani cuisine on the page of Hyderabadi cuisine, an IP added the Hyderabadi cuisine to the template on 01:45, 30 August 2021. Pretty much original research, note that there is no reference of Pakistan on the page, the region is not even disputed territory.
• 02:05, 30 August 2021 Addition of three lines; one unsourced, one fails verification and a poorly sourced one on Telangana Rebellion. There are persistent with this one, I left multiple messages on their talk page but they didn't bother to respond.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the edits might result from confusion between Hyderabad, Telangana (southeast India, pop. 6.8M) and Hyderabad, Sindh (south Pakistan, pop. 1.7M); both regional capitals, but 853 mi (1,373 km) apart. It's not an uncommon mistake, and I've made a note to check the WP:PTOPIC for bad bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected 29 links I was certain of. Narky Blert (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I see they have been blocked for sockpuppetry, anyways thank you for that cleanup. It does appear to be an issue though I don't think it could have explained the actions of Sheredeccan in particular. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you for bringing that PTOPIC to my attention; it needed looking at, regardless of this thread. 29 bad links to a PTOPIC is nowhere near the record, which to my knowledge is in the high three figures (see also WP:BPAT). Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert against consensus

• [58]

User:ATS, is clearly not happy that their preferred version does not appear on the page. ATS posted about the close on my talk page. I responded on their talk page and they shifted through their comments to apparently try to create a straw man argument in order to justify reverting the close result.

If the community would like to examine the closure, I'm fine with that, but reverting a close for one's preferred version is simple WP:DE. - jc37 05:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Response by ATS

1: the claimed "consensus" is false—see article talk;

2: editor's change is an effective revert to the first unstable version that led to the discussion—article was stable with the exception of minor changes from 2 March to 13 March, well after attaining GA status, and the false assertion of a BLPLEAD vio by the editor who then insisted on further disruption.

As such, there was no straw man, only a complete error on the reporting editor's part that he appears unwilling to accept. —ATS (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment jc37 I can't actually see where there is a "weak consensus" to call her an actress. If there is a consensus, it's for "C", which is "actor and singer" (even more so, as one of the "B/D" voters was indeffed before the end of the discussion). Might you want to revisit this close? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a bad close. Consensus clearly favors Option C. User:ATS probably should not have reverted, however, and taken it to WP:RFC or another venue, instead. We should probably bypass all of that nonsense and User:Jc37 should self revert their close and let someone else close. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably; but, when a "sysop" tells you in so many words, "I don't believe you're acting in good faith, fight me", that means either fisticuffs, ten paces, or revert a bad edit—and only the latter was readily available. 🤪 —ATS (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent self-citing at Amara Sulya Freedom Movement of 1837

• Amara Sulya Freedom Movement of 1837 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anindith Gowda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4071:4d88:535d:a21:814:52d:8832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4071:4d88:535d:90d1:150e:8ec8:476c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent WP:SELFCITEing, beginning with [59]; [60]. After receiving warnings, Anindith Gowda switched to IPs, [61], and restored the same links to his independent research, but learned to be more surreptitious in self promotion [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; [66]. I'm dubious as to whether any of these are acceptable sources, but they all appear to represent a single purpose: a new user's determination to spam their research here. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The ES "‎Independent study by Anindith Gowda Kochi Baarike" doesn't inspire confidence, even if they've also made good minor improvements to ill-written English in other edits (along with the WP:SELFCITEs). Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire 'activism' section is composed of references to or events attended by Anindith Gowda. This was transparent in the earlier version, where he plastered his name on the heading as well as throughout the section. The same sources are still used; he's just made his presence more surreptitious. There are two dovetailing issues, COI and quality of the sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing after warnings and blocks

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

---

Special:Contributions/2402:8100:3840:0:0:0:0:0/42 is continuously adding disruptive material. Most of their edits bear the Reverted tag. Many of them bear ClueBot NG's warnings on their pages. There is already a partial block in place. It is a huge IP range but some form of block is required here. 2405:201:4013:80F3:B98D:9B26:5DD9:CBBB (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Really, there's no limit--personal attacks in Morse Code

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

---

80.233.44.43 (talk · contribs) is reverting a series of edits by Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are all in Morse Code, and translate to vulgar attacks on the editor. In addition to the inevitable block, requesting rev/deletion of personal attacks in edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Been taken care of--thanks, Primefac. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Though we still need to revoke editing privilege at their own talk page....2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Coming soon, the semaphore version of purely disruptive material!. (And maybe afterwards, personal attacks on an Aldis lamp.) --MuZemike 02:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to make my personal attacks using IP over Avian Carriers. Those birds can carry up to 70 grams of cargo! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You're thinking of the African Swallow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

User:USER19339393993

• USER19339393993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user really is up to no good if you ask me. I reported the user on AIAV, but I find their contribs highly suspect. Who is clearly bugging the hell out of Egghead06. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• USER19339393995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has shifted to a diff username, really need an admin to sort this out. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin, continued to troll via unblock requests which are, so far, being declined quickly. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Nehme 1499 and Dr Salvus - they make disruptive editing removing information, I restore it and they threatened to block me

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

---

I would like to report that the users Nehme 1499 and Dr Salvus, who have threatened to block me and accused me of disruptive editing while I have restored information on the Italy national team page that they both removed without discussing it before on the talk page or providing any kind of reason or source for their removal of stable information. The information removed by these two users is concerning the injured players that have been recently called up; this kind of information has is normally reported on ALL the national football team pages on Wikipedia. Their behavior is not fair and acceptable.--Bergenoslo (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how, instead of actually addressing Dr Salvus and I's comments on Talk:Italy national football team, you decided to open an ANI discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo, I must agree with Nehme1499. There's also a concensus who says that injuries should not be reported Dr Salvus 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I protected the page for two days to stop the revert/edit warring. If an un-involved admin feels this is settled sooner, feel free to unprotect without consulting me. This was simpler than blocks as folks were approaching 3RR Star Mississippi 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Closing - Bergenoslo, please explore other avenues of conversation before bringing this to AN. This seems like a simple content dispute, so you should assume good faith. If this isn't rectified on the talk / WT:FOOTY, then that would be a suitable time for a topic here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Baseball Bugs, stalking and harassment

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is stalking my edits following an earlier exchange on my talk page. Granted, I should have used a softer tone in that discussion.

After a lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants#Matt Amodio where two editors agreed to hide an existing section and only update it when the contestant loses, user then repeatedly created a duplicate, empty placeholder section. Later in the talk page discussion, the user WP:IDHT ignores requests not to create duplicate sections and to use cite templates per WP:REFB and WP:INTREF3.

During the edit issues at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants, the user engaged in another discussion on my talk page.

Now, with that backstory, following resolution of the Jeopardy! contestants article 13 August, the user has continued to stalk my edits, immediately editing an article the user has never touched following my previous edit. The user has continued to harass and threaten me on my talk page. The user has a lengthy block log, having been blocked four times for personal harassment. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions has three indefinite bans for user, one of which is harassment related for another user's talk page.[67] and [68] User is also indefinitely banned from AN and AN/I at WP:EDR.

User did not acknowledge my questions on his talk page about his stalking activity (1 and 2), instead simply archiving the discussion without acknowledging it. User again stalked my edits at RFD, replying as the next edit after mine. A fourth example is this edit to my talk page today, harassing me about my revert of content earlier added to The Mary Tyler Moore Show about dead actors, and again posting on my talk page after I've repeatedly asked to be left alone.

See also 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who may be a meat or sock of user, based upon three related edits user made.

At what point is action taken for an editor who has been given chance after chance following repeated blocks for stalking, and who continues that same behavior? AldezD (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone (with the knowledge to do so) will have to transclude BB's defence posts, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not necessary. The editing restriction banning BB from AN and AN/I permits responding to a section posted about them. See resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Seems to me to be more "content dispute" more than anything; ... which should be resolved on the article talk page. I do however think the sock puppet accusation is without merit, and I think it should be struck through. I'll also note that the AN/ANI ban was after Bugs vowed to stay away from those pages voluntarily. I can also understand the "ownership concerns that have been expressed. As far as the bickering between the two of you, I suggest it would be better if you both just avoided each other. — Ched (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ched:, the content dispute was already resolved before the stalking and harassment began. I've already asked the user to stop harassing and stalking me me, but the behavior continues. Following the edits at Jeopardy, I have not interacted with the user outside of responding to his recent edits on my talk page, asking why he is stalking me and leaving threats, and then notifying him I opened this ANI. You can view these threats which are still on my talk page. This is a long-term evidenced pattern of behavior for this editor when he gets in a content dispute, and it will likely continue with out admin intervention. The AN and AN/I bans were after he vowed to stay away from them 06 May 2018—only later to go against that vow and get blocked again for it 9 July 2020. Who's to say if this user "vows" to stop stalking and harassing me that he won't turn around and do it again? AldezD (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It looks very much to me as if you're trying to get him blocked for a block log that's mostly 6 or 7 years old. I'll also note that you're claiming stalking in regards to the RfD link - which seems a bit odd since he actually agreed with you on the deletion. When I read through the Jeopardy talk page, I get the impression that you are trying to force your preferred version through, often with "IDHT", which seems to be your go-to link when someone doesn't agree with you. You say 2 people agreed = consensus, and when one person shows up and doesn't agree you claim they're being disruptive. As far as the Mary Tyler Moore question, while I agree there wasn't a "ref" for that, I do recall several of the articles in the last couple days that would support the text, so I can't really see the need for deleting Since the deaths of Leachman, MacLeod, and Asner all in 2021, White is left as the only surviving member of the show's main cast. - which is actually verifiable. Maybe a tag at most. In the end (and IMO), there's nothing to sanction Bugs for here. In fact, I find your approach to be needlessly aggressive. So personally, no, I'm not going to sanction Bugs. — Ched (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (edit) and as far as "threats" .. I really don't see that in the slightest. — Ched (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Meddymarl and Never Say Never (Brandy album)

For a year now,[69] Meddyman has been changing the sales of the album Never Say Never (Brandy album). The most modern sources say 16 million[70][71] to 18 (but were deemed as unreliable), but Meddyman has been saying they are less, with sources published more than 15 to 20 years old.[72]

Every edit performed vary the total sales: 8.2,[73] 9,[74][75] 11,[76] or 14[77], Meddyman has inconsistently and individually determined the real sales figure. Meddyman tried to explain their point at Talk:Never Say Never (Brandy album)#Worldwide sales for the album, and the discussion never went beyond that. The last time they changed (from 16 to 11) I told them: "Furthermore, the text says: 'Since emerging with her 3x-platinum self-titled debut album in 1994, released when Brandy was only 15-years-old. The trail-blazing pioneer has sold more than 40 million albums worldwide (including the 5x-platinum selling “Never Say Never”) and is ranked one of the best-selling female artists in American music history by the RIAA, having sold over 11 million albums in the United States.' This is talking about Brandy herself. I think this is the point where you WP:DROP the stick." A month later, however, Meddyman returned and did it again, now saying it had sold 14 million copies (as of July 2004). I don't expect Meddyman to discuss as they edit inconsistently here, but this is beyond the WP:IDHT point. The user simply doesn't want to discuss the changes. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Beaverton IP range resumes disruption

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

---

• 2601:1C0:6902:64D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we re-block the Beaverton, Oregon, range Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:6902:64D0:0:0:0:0/64 which has been vandalizing music articles with wrong dates?[78][79] The previous lengthy blocks expired. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Improper conduct of a user

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

---

The user @GoodDay: has just reverted an edit containing well-sourced content, see history here: [1]. This user has reverted the exact same changes multiple times (excepting one time) without providing explanation as to why well-sourced content is unacceptable here (there was no edit summary, bordering/adding vandalism).

Note: I was blocked due to a dispute with this user; where I wasn’t given a single warning notice for edit warring, and where they could’ve just informed me that they were entitled to clean their own talk pages. Even if not so, I was just being polite and asking them to retract their uncivil and offensive comments.

They also try to demean me by saying in article talk pages under sections I create by saying “the editor who made this proposal is blocked for edit warring/entertaining me” or so to paraphrase. See here: Talk:George_VI#Title_of_King , whilst also being uncivil and making the same offensive comments.

Also, they do not seem to be open for discussion without being uncivil as noted here (they were on the border of gravedancing) [2].

They are yet to retract their uncivil comments here: [3], and in other places too, such as my own talk page for example on both my IP and my registered user KosomPolskii. They do not respond to a polite message to retract their uncivil messages and cease their improper conduct.

I wish to seek a resolution which would result in their uncivil comments being retracted from all incidents, which I can provide if this path is being elected.

In addition, in light of their recent and even older questionable behaviour as evidenced in recent ANI topics and their almost-consistent battleground behaviour in that they reply with uncivil comments or warring behaviour when someone is mistaken in good faith, or makes edits which are well-sourced but may not be as recognised (one should consider the bold edits and break all rules policies too here, and editors who come under that category are not entertained politely by this user), and in light of this user’s assuming bad faith in other editors and casting aspersions, I would recommend more stricter or serious action. I would also recommend that WP:NOTHERE , not here to build an encyclopaedia be applied to them. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You had no consensus to make those additions to that article. But, I don't care anymore. Go ahead & re-add them. But don't complain to me, when one of the other editors revert you. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I’ve waited an entire week for consensus, and considering they are well-sourced, I added them. Your being normal and civil with these additions does not excuse you from your conduct issues.

Who are you that I would even think of coming to you if someone reverts me? Please don’t maintain such a high-handed behaviour. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering their edits here: Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_George_VI#Proposal_to_add_German_titles, it might be rationale enough to conclude that instead of explaining policy or warning me, they are more interested in not recognising good content additions and more interested in getting action taken on other editors. They might not be here to build an encyclopaedia, @GoodDay:. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ask @Peter Ormond: & @DeCausa: if they've changed their minds, about your additions. I don't want anything to do with it, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

They we’re only concerned with the article George V. Not on George VI’s titles article. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What are your views @HighInBC:? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want nothing to do with this, then RETRACT your uncivil comments, don’t think you can scare or intimidate me. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ask @KosomPolskii: advice. I'm done with discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am KosomPolskii, I edit with IP as I prefer this more. If you’re done, then be normal, don’t behave like you were innocent and are being unfairly questioned. Respond, don’t react.@GoodDay:. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This, the manner of their interaction here on this thread, warrants battleground behaviour, I believe, refusing to retract their uncivil comments, high-handed behaviour and playing the victim card. @GoodDay:. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please note their baseless allegation here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography&diff=prev&oldid=1041545205 , I always said I am KosomPolskii, even to administrators during my unblock request, that I created an account to edit way before I got blocked. I was unaware of the person block theory and thought I could edit from my account. Stop your accusations, @GoodDay:, you should revert this too. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked as an IP. Then switched to your account so that you could evade the block (which you openly acknowledged on your talkpage). When you were unblocked, you blanked your user talkpage, announced you were "retired", and then immediately resumed your edit warring with the IP. After which you opened this thread. GoodDay probably isn't assuming good faith with you because you're not acting in good faith. Opening this complaint was a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think making uncivil comments and then getting objected to for that counts as reason enough to not assume good faith. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone is free to come back when they want, I am now semi-retired, and please, before I opened this thread. Me making an edit and GoodDay reverting means they are edit warring. I was blocked for edit warring on their talk page. And again, I was being polite in asking them to retract their comments, just that. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

TBH Grandpallama. I'm more bewildered then angry, at the moment. Also, I've lost count as to how many times I've been pinged here. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I only want those uncivil comments retracted, @Grandpallama:. I was unaware, but when I was told, I did not oppose that I violated policy. Please help. I only escalated due to the comments, nothing else. I want resolution, which is why I opened this thread. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I won’t ping/inform you, will do it just once, if I must. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil comments: Are you talkin' about "This is gonna shock the pants off of ya" comment, at the George V article? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I mentioned what my objections are more than necessary for a lay man to find out. Please be constructive in bringing about your own version. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got me confused. Meanwhile, please indent your posts, properly. They're too difficult to read, when you don't. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I’ll try, but I’m using an iPad without the keyboard and pencil, and my objections are solely to you comments; and to when you, after I waited a week for consensus, added content that was well-sourced, you removed it, and without any edit summary, bordering/actually violating vandalism rules. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, there’s no vandalism and no incivility. Demands for retractions are going to go nowhere. Use your account, since you have one, even if it was created t o evade a previous block for the same kind of things that you’re doing now. Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I created my account way before any block, not to evade block. I just prefer IP editing. “Shocking the pants off of ya” is not something someone says to make their point. It is uncivil. Reverting a well-sourced edit without edit summary does border vandalism. KosomPolskii (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll let @DrKay:, @DeCausa:, @Peter Ormond: & anyone else, who's got expertise in the British monarchy, to decide if your edits were constructive & required consensus. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, but your conduct issues will be pursued here. That is the point. This is not a content dispute, this is a conduct dispute, see the title of the thread. KosomPolskii (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Removal of well sourced Content

Need Administrator attention, there is a constant removal of well referenced content from Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi by User:Owais Al Qarni and User:TheAafi despite warnings on their talk page. After checking the edit history of the article it seems that they had also removed content from very same article previously which was reverted. Possible duck or meat puppetry case. please check this for evidence, where Aafi was reverted for mass content removal by @Faizhaider:. Pilotforfuture (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Well, this section was discussed a year ago. A discussion was imitated on Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi#Requesting a review by TheEagle107. The user who then reverted my edits, didn't respond at the end of discussion. I must ping Toddy1. If that content is made neutral, I would have no problems. For that, you have the article's talk page. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  when the discussion didn't reach any consensus, it was kept as FaizHaider added it until Owais Al Qarni removed it on 2 February 2021‎.as "False Information". It was re-added again and TheEagle107 removed it again on 26 July 2021 saying "Removed POV section that was added by a topic-banned user..". I reverted Pilotforfuture twice on the article and asked them to discuss the matter on talk page. Instead of doing that, they have come here. Quite interesting. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is an already available lengthy discussion at the article's talk page where Aafi was suggested to not remove the well referenced content until they can have a better content but still they are removing the content. So I think it is better an admin should end this year long content dispute. Thanks. Pilotforfuture (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

the one who added this non-neutral content, ScholarM is blocked indefinite. FaizHaider couldn't answer doubts expressed by Toddy1 on the talk page. You must be reading half-comments. No? Read the whole discussion. He was asked to produce a correct version, which he didn't, neither did he clarify the doubts. Well, in that case, I support removal of this content until it is made neutral and doubts raised are clarified. If you can copyedit the section, propose a neutral prose on the talk page. That's it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Pilotforfuture has not contributed to the article talk page - though there was a discussion a year ago about an earlier version of the disputed section at Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi#Requesting a review.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Trypophobia Lead Image

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

---

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that anonymous editors were vandalizing the page Trypophobia to remove its lead image. I went to the page with the intention of protecting it. The contention is, from one point of view, that the lead image has been used by scientist to stimulate a reaction that may induce panic attacks, and may cause similar reactions in visitors to the page. From the other point of view, the picture's presence in the lead is informative. In the time between my first visit, I saw posts by non-Wikipedia users suggesting that the page is indicative of ableist bias on Wikipedia. In response, I looked at other articles, and users had added images to leads which seem to graphically show the subject of phobias, contrary to some Wikipedia conventions (see WP:SHOCK and arachnophobia talk page, in the latter I mention that 'censoring' the article with a cartoon spider has been the practice on that page since 2007 when a picture was first added). I became suspicious and began investigating the Trypophobia talk page, and found that active users there were repeatedly referring an RfC that happened three years ago. Reading the RfC, a wikipedia user who wished to remove the image in the lead, because, they said, it caused them significant distress to see, called an RfC, which drew many opposesed users, 32 out of 33 of which agreed to keep the image in the lead, mostly because of concerns about censorship. However, some users, such as one editor called Tryptofish, took the time to mock the concept of the disorder, and tried to have the image enlarged. Some users seem to have been attracted to the RfC by 4chan, mentioning that website as if they were an active member and using its internal norms to inform discussion. I began thinking that a serious bias had occured in the proceeding. Talking to users in the page, they mostly tried to assure me that the Democratic processes of Wikipedia were sacrosanct, but, in my opinion, mostly did not address several paragraphs worth of points that I brought up, calling doing so "a waste of time." I reached out to the one user who disagreed with the RfC decision to keep the image, User:Pengo, and they seem to believe that the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty. I agree with that. I'd also note that this is not the first time the article has been the object of ableist bias, where in 2009 the page was deleted because users did not believe that the condition (the recent subject of a study) could exist.

I think users are inappropriately using the RfC as some sort of binding arbitration, seemingly telling one user not to discuss the subject because it was already settled in RfC. They seem to have implied in a talk page topic called 'Picture appropriate?' not to use arguments which had been used in the RfC by the single opposition vote or the non-consensus movement to collapse or blur the lead image. I was told I could use WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to reopen the RfC, which I don't think is an appropriate use of Close Challenge, and I think was an attempt to reinforce the binding nature of the original RfC. The same user emphasised that the number of people invovlved in the consensus is indicative of the RfC's "success", despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I also think there's a significant imbedded bias in the article's maintenance, with users actively maintaining and discussing the conclusion of the RfC years after it was closed. Indeed, the lead image is still controversial, yet I find it odd that users who came to the page from uninvolved editor emails are still actively maintaining and fiercely debating in favor of that RfC's consenus three years later. Maybe there's a lot of moving parts involved, but I think Wikipedia's mailing list is by its nature more likely to contact users who would either not believe this condition is real or who would see it as a sideshow type curiosity. In any case, I think the page needs to find a balanced point of view which takes more into account than concerns about perceptions of censorship.

I'm not sure what to do about this. I don't see a lot in Wikipedia resolutions that deal with inherent biases, which are harder to suss out, instead focusing on individual bias. I feel like some of the users involved don't realize that their maintaining the image leads to real harm among some readers. I think the suggestion that there are so few Trypophobia sufferers that their harm or avoidance of the page is justified because some people might become "educated" through seeing the picture, an argument which was a leading contention in the RfC for 'keep photo' supporters, seems inappropriate and downright barbaric. As the single 'remove' user said in the RfC, putting a picture in an article lead which is meant to induce the condition which the article describes is very similar to adding a flashing strobe gif to the wikipedia article on epilepsy. I would add that we avoid shocking material on Wikipedia very often as is, and have done so since the website's inception. I think removing the image would not constitute censorship as intended by WP:CENSOR. It's obvious to me that the photo should at least be moved out of the lead, if not removed entirely. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of words to say "I'm involved in a content dispute on Trypophobia." I suggest you go through the normal route of dispute resolution, as this is not an incident that administrators need to resolve. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This situation has been going on between 3 and 12 years, how is it not a chronic problem? I don't think taking it to DRN would be appropriate, as there is no active dispute beyond users directing new members to the discussion to the RfC from 2018. Other conventions of dispute resolution seem untenable, as the most active user involved on the page said that they didn't want to discuss any of the points I brought up and directed me to administration. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have no doubt it's a chronic issue and one which must be immensely frustrating, but at the end of the day it is still a content dispute—admins in this regard carry no more weight than any other editor and so no admin intervention would be any different to an individual voice. I would suggest perhaps raising the concern at the Medicine wikiproject if you haven't already (WP:MED); it seems within the project's remit and from my experience their members are reasonable and well-read in both the field and wikipedia practices. No RFC is permanently binding, and consensus can change, but this is a community process and not an administrative one. Best of luck. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that referring people to an overwhelming consensus from a few years ago is really a situation, as much as common practice. If you believe that consensus has changed you can open another RFC, or continue with discussion. Without having another clear consensus to point to the RFC stands as a pretty solid guideline to how the article should be presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's why I didn't want to try to open a DNR. But I think that consensus itself indicates underlying problems, which is why I thought describing my experience with the page in detail was appropriate. I think I'll try the avenues mentioned by Grapple and Masem, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I know I've participated at one point about that article's lede image, but in a general sense, if the last RFC was 3 years ago, consensus can change and a new RFC with substantially different arguments about why it should not be used there is fair. I think we as a community have matured to recognize a bit more sympathy for such type of content to argue for a new RFC. --Masem (t) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I would hope a chance at fair review exists there, but many of the opposed users are still very active on the page. One of whom made the only comment to the dissenting opinion, saying with brevity and indignance, "So you consider a feeling of disgust to be equivalent to an epileptic seizure...." That the only discussion directed at the opposed was sarcasm, in my opinion, indicates a gross violation of good faith. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"... article has been the object of ableist bias..." So you consider yourself disabled by this phobia? Had you ever considered removing the article from your watchlist and never looking at it again? Or am I just being ableist here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have this condition. Yes, you are being ableist. For one thing, it's not like users are asking for an offending image to be removed from a non-relate page. It's ridiculous that we even have to discuss whether users should be able to visit a page for something with which they identify without being physically repulsed, have a panic attack, or, according to three distinct users, vomit. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You believe that "the RfC decision was made out of bias and cruelty"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think several of the editors had good intentions which did not fully take into account the welfare of Wikipedia's editors and readers. I think some of the users deliberately expressed their bias and showed a spirit of cruelty. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That quote was in response to someone saying We might as well have a flashing gif in the lead of the epilepsy article. It's hardly a sarcastic, bad faith reply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The user who made the quote didn't directly respond to the to the comment but implicitly made a moralistic criticism of the user's judgment and feelings. If that's not in bad faith, I don't know what is. Frankly, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for you to continue weighing in on this because, and I'm sure you probably don't know this, but you and another involved Trypophobia editor, User:Soap, are also currently involved parties in an RfC on Talk:Caucasian race. You may know each other, and I think it's clear that you both share similar interests, and possibly cynicism for the subject. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I'm pretty sure they haven't taken part in the RFC on Talk:Caucasian race, nor do we really have any interactions[80]. You really need to lay off the bad faith accusations against pretty much everyone you've interacted with surrounding this topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

They were invited to participate because they've participated in that section before, making them an involved user in that RfC, as far as I understand. I'm sure you understand that your edits "haven't really" coincided doesn't explicitly tell me you don't know each other. You're in the same arbitration and you move in the same circles. That's enough to justify a conflict of interest. This is not meant to be a value judgement of faith. But, its fine, continue participating here if you would like. If you're disturbed by my calling the other administrator an ableist for assuming I have this condition and asking why I can't just -never visit the page-... Well, I think that one's justified in my understanding that an ableist within the realm of mental health includes people who deny scientifically understood conditions and disorders or their impact. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I linked you to a report showing we don't edit the same articles or talk pages, or interact. I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing them?" It's true, I do live in a treehouse in their back yard, stealing their wifi and subsisting solely on the leftover food they put in their compost, but they don't (I guess didn't, now) know that, so we don't know each other. I don't know what "arbitration" we're involved in together, or which "circles" you're talking about. Does this mean I'm in the WP:CABAL now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, an RfC not an arbitration. More to my point, and sorry that I was hostile in presenting it, was that if this 'ANI' is just a discussion about what I can do, I'd like to hear some more varied perspectives than ones I've already heard. I do appreciate you chipping in here, but I hope we can get back to more constructive conversation if at all. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, what you can do is

• A) Continue discussion on the talk page
• B) Start a new RFC

This is a bog standard content dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What ScottishFinnishRadish doesn't know is that I actually live in the wheelie-bin in the alleyway behind their back yard, and I live off his food scraps.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish. In addition, if you are still confused or unsure this isn't the right place to ask. There's nothing here that requires administrative action, unless you continue your comments bordering on personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and earn a boomerang. Try WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse if you can't work out from our existing guidelines how to resolve a WP:content dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Calling what I've said here 'borderline personal attacks' isn't really justified. User:Martinevans123 asked me if they were being ableist, and I replied relative to my knowledge of the subject. Administrators ScottishFinnishRadish and Soap do have hundreds of edits in common, are both administrators, were both called as involved users in an active RfC, and have hundreds of edits on the same pages this year alone. If we were in a dispute, I should think that would be enough to be considered a conflict of interest. I found the user's tone to be hostile from the first and didn't say anything until several replies into the discussion, so that if I respond in kind it may not be helpful but it is fair enough. I find it interesting that my tone and various sentiments of incredulity is the bulk of conversation here, besides the helpful comments by users Grapple and Masem. Can we just close this discussion? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, nor do I have "hundreds of edits in common" with Soap. Soap is also not active in any RFC I am active in, nor was I "called" to the RFC you're talking about. I answered an edit request on the page a while back. My first reply to you suggested you use the normal methods of dispute resolution. This is the kind of bad faith accusations and borderline personal attacks people are talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to distinguish an administrator. It looks from your talk page that you have helped block people in the past. I'm not sure calling attention to a possible conflict of interest is bad faith. Is that thing on the Caucasian race talk page not an RfC? It's a request for comment on a move that you were both(?) invited to. And, your first reply to me suggested that I was too wordy and that I should "pursue the normal means" when I had stated in my post that I wasn't sure how to continue pursuing the dispute. That's why I said what I did. Accusing me of bad faith in return doesn't make it better. I appreciate your edits, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks, my advice is to call for a close to this discussion and proceed with the content dispute resolution methods recommended to you already. The users who have informed you that this venue is inappropriate for your issues are correct, and further discussion is more likely to hurt your cause than help it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Firefangledfeathers: and everyone who weighed in. Whoever is able, please close the discussion. I suggest the reason for closure is that the nature of the problem isn't appropriate for ANI.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Long term disruption, children's animation articles, WP:BLPs, etc

108.17.152.6 (talk · contribs) has earned long term sanctions before for disruptive editing and block evasion. Is there reason to think the most recent spate of edits are different? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

IP was previously block evasion of 98.179.157.211. That IP is no longer blocked, but this definitely seems to be block evasion of recently-blocked 100.6.157.91. Now reported at AIV. Magitroopa (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Andddd blocked. Magitroopa (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Magitroopa and Yamaguchi先生. This is whack-a mole territory, of the sort we've all seen. Now it looks like 45.162.178.54 (talk · contribs). may be the same. It could be that a bunch of articles just need to be locked. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Tban enforcement and clarification

This TBAN of August 2020, subject editor Davidbena appears to prohibit: (a) any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed and (b) edits relating to geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute.

Background

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.
• August 2020 - Appeal of second TBAN at ANI :TBAN narrowed in scope
• August 2021 presently ongoing at AE

Beginning of engagement, Name at City of David. At this point, I was not aware of the tban. As recently as 29 August in response to a specific question about the tban the editor responded "Once again, I reiterate, I am free to make edits on all Wikipedia pages, including those with the I/P tag, and I can assure you that I have not breached any imposed topic ban. Be well."

The editor appears to be interpreting the tban to mean that he may edit any conflict related article and engage in formal discussions as long as there is some biblical/historic aspect, when in practice, as is very clear at the City of David article (and similarly, although less so, at the related Silwan/ King's Garden articles), the biblical/historical is completely bound up in the present. The tban close noted "The benefit is that the topic ban can be narrowed, but at the cost of a restriction that is in tension with itself."

I think any editor would find it difficult to easily separate the historical/biblical aspects from the present conflict on the pages I mentioned. At a minimum, I would like the tban to be clarified such that it expressly disallows editing of articles within the arbpia sphere where there is any doubt at all as to it's applicability. That is, the mere presence of a biblical/historical aspect to an article does not of itself mean freedom to edit, discretion should be the better part of valor. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, you've already opened an ARE request concerning Davidbena. That seems to be moving towards the resolution you asked for. Why open another thread here about the same issues? Did I miss some point of difference here or does this not look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, there is some commentary in the ArbE that the TBAN was community-imposed and that ArbE won't touch it. They explicitly recommended AN or ANI, so this isn't forum shopping. That said, Selfstudier, it may be prudent to wait until the other discussion closes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you should have explained about that, Selfstudier. Eggishorn, this is actually not forumshopping. The situation is that the AE admins don't want to address any T-ban violations, since the T-ban was community-imposed. Several admins have advised Self to take it to AN/ANI. At the same time, those admins (certainly including me) want to sanction Davidbena for a matter that's not related to the T-ban, namely canvassing with aggravating circumstances. Confusing, I know. But think of it like this: Self's AE report is in two parts, one T-ban-related, one not. On advice, Self has now moved the T-ban-related issue (=the T-ban violations) here. The other issue (=the canvassing) is being taken care of at AE, and Self does indeed not mention, or diff, it above. Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

I apologize to Selfstudier for missing that and withdraw the comment. I obviously did miss the point of difference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

My fault, I wrongly thought the "ongoing at AE" diff was enough, I should have explained clearly that it was two different things. I was originally going to wait to file this, however, I think the editor should be permitted a response prior to any outcome at AE.Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm unclear about: is davidbena editing disruptively at City of David (or elsewhere that's at least arguably within the tban), or just editing an area that's arguably within the tban? I haven't followed the canvassing issues at AE, so perhaps that is the example of disruptive editing? Because if City of David is considered to be a post-1948 topic, then everything is a post-1948 topic (including topics like all of Jerusalem, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Second Temple, etc.). This is the comment I made in last year's appeal discussion: it's hard to draw the line, but the community decided to draw it anyway, so it must mean something. There must be some topics that davidbena is allowed to edit, or else last year's appeal would become meaningless. But I don't care to wikilawyer over tban boundaries: I want to know if there's disruption or not. If there is, it should be dealt with, frankly irrespective of the boundaries of the topic ban; and if there isn't, then we needn't deal with the boundaries of the topic ban. Levivich 17:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  I sympathize with your position, I spent some amount of time picking apart the tban. Staying with the specific rather than the general just for the moment, if someone is not permitted to edit in an area and they do, then that is disruption, isn't it? Else tbans are pointless because breach of them can't be reported unless there is "disruption" as well? The problem here is the difficulty in practice of separating the conflict from the historical/biblical if both issues are important to a given article. A recent edit by Davidbena to Solomon's Pools, a West Bank area and therefore theoretically a conflict area, caused no concern (to me, at least) because there the bibilical/historical are much more the thing for that particular article. But that is certainly not the case at City of David where the conflict is inextricably intertwined with settlements/history/biblical and pretty much amounts to the conflict in miniature. My interpretation of the tban as written is that it was not intended to allow editing (and participation in formal discussions) for that sort of article. So what I am asking for is enforcement if my interpretation of the tban is correct or clarification of the tban if something other than my interpretation was actually intended and as Davidbena appears to be maintaining.

  Returning to the general question, I linked our initial engagement above, a talk page discussion after having tagged the article for non NPOV title. There then ensued a spirited defense of the title on the grounds that the article is about the historical/biblical "City of David" (for which there is no real evidence of existence) and not the Elad-run "City of David" tourism site (for which there is an abundance of evidence of existence). It is perfectly clear from reading even the article lead that it is not just about a historical/biblical CoD. Resulting in a ridiculous situation where I cannot speak about the actual situation on the ground because it is not about that, it is only about a biblical/historical matter. In hindsight, it seems to me that Davidbena knew well what the tban entailed and was tailoring his commentary and editing to fit what he thought would be permitted if challenged. Is that disruptive? I think it is/was, as was dancing around a direct question of whether or not a tban was in force.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe that every tban violation is inherently disruptive; if someone is tbanned and fixed a typo, who cares, it's a harmless improvement to encyclopedia. But in some situations, like coming straight off a block, it can be a problem. So it's always case by case.

  As for this case, participating in a discussion about whether "X" is "historic" or "modern" would seem to violate a post-1948 tban because at least half the discussion (the part about "modern") would obviously be about post-1948 stuff. Participating in a talk page discussion about something one is tbanned from is of course a violation. In my view if the participation was otherwise productive/non-disruptive (other than being prohibited by the tban), a warning should suffice. But if there are other aggravating circumstances, more than a warning may be needed. (Btw I'm assuming that Elad in some way relates to Arab-Israeli geopolitics and thus would be covered by the tban, but I'm not specifically familiar with it.) Levivich 19:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena's rejoinder: I beg most cordially your undivided attention as to the events that led up to this, and after I have fully explained myself, I submit myself to any judgment which you may deem fit concerning me. First, I, Davidbena, wish to stress the urgency of the situation. The seriousness of the situation presented before us precludes a more mild response that would have, otherwise, been given by me. I am urgently calling admins to consider the following pattern of behavior displayed by our fellow editor Selfstudier, and to see whether or not his actions warrant a censure. As big as Wikipedia is as an organization, with thousands of volunteer editors at its disposal, there are actually very few who have either the acumen, the expertise or the adeptness to know when good, educational articles about biblical sites are being challenged by one editor who pushes his own POV against the accepted consensus, and if left up to his devices, he would fain expunge those articles from the Wikipedia Main Space, as I shall shortly explain. In so doing, he wishes to diminish, as it were, any sign of ancient Israel in the historical land of Palestine. This is plainly wrong, and, thank God, there are other editors who can detect this cunning and what can rightly be termed a "dishonest display of editorship." My accuser, Selfstudier, has sought to bury the articles City of David and King's Garden (Jerusalem), well-known biblical sites and themes mentioned throughout biblical and scholarly literature, into the relatively little-known and obscure article Silwan, and as a mere side issue, because, in his own words, he doubts their authenticity. I will cite a few examples here to prove my point, first the ancient City of David:

• On 17 July, the archaeological sites currently being excavated there [and which even the archaeologists unanimously claim are in the ancient City of David], Selfstudier makes the assertion that they have nothing to do with the ancient City of David, as one can see in the diff here.
• On 19 July, Selfstudier asserts the outrageous claim that the City of David does not exist, as shown by the diff here.
• On 23 July, Selfstudier makes the claim that the City of David does not exist, so we need some re-name [of the article], as shown by the diff here.
• On 29 July, once again, according to Selfstudier, the City of David does not exist, as shown by the diff here.
• On 29 July, I duly warned Selfstudier not to engage in POV with respect to the article "City of David," as shown by the diff here.
• On 1 August, after submitting a request to merge the article "City of David" with Silwan, it was rejected, as shown by the link here.
• On 3 August, undaunted, Selfstudier tried again to have the article's name changed (as if there was no such thing as the "City of David"), as shown by the diff here, and, it too, was declined as one can see by the link here.

Even though Selfstudier was warned against promoting his own POV, he repeated his folly by, this time, trying to expunge the article treating on the biblical site, the King's Garden, from Wikipedia's Main Space, under the feigned attempt to have that article "innocently" merged with the article Silwan.

• On 17 August, Selfstudier submitted a merge request for the article King's Garden (Jerusalem), as shown by the link here.
• Earlier, on 29 July, Selfstudier made the outlandish claim that "the KG" (= King's Garden), although mentioned in several biblical texts, is only "part of a supposed historical / biblical City of David" (End Quote), as shown by the diff here.

While this last activity led me to request a broader feedback by editors on the feasibility of a merge, I admit that I went beyond my duty and was cited for canvassing. I accept responsibility for that and will correct my errant ways. Still, the conclusion to which this vast documented evidence irresistibly leads is that admins ought to take action to prevent future disruptions of this sort by Selfstudier. It not only hits smack in the face against Wikipedia:Gaming the system, but is also a furtive means of promoting one's POV and ignoring what Wikipedia's free online encyclopedia is here to do, namely, to disseminate knowledge.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the topic ban broadly construed? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not broadly construed.Davidbena (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is. Part (a) of your TBAN reads "any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so it is. It looks like it would be useful tell people here what the T-ban is, before we get further into the weeds. Here's the complete wording of the ban currently in place, as described at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community:

Davidbena is indefinitely banned from (a) any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page, (b) promoting fringe theories especially those that relate to post-1948 Arab-Israeli politics, and (c) casting aspersions or questioning the motives of other editors. These restriction should not be construed as prohibiting: (i) the uploading or addition of historical photos or multimedia of or about pre-1948 Levantine subjects, (ii) verifiable and reliably sourced information regarding Levantine archaeological research, (iii) edits relating to geographical features of the Levant (but not geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute).

Updated after appeal and posted by Wugapodes.[81] I believe (a) is the most relevant point for this discussion. As you can see, it is broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

Correction: I thought the question was on the topics on which I am permitted to edit (historical, etc.); these ae not restricted, excluding the areas of I/P conflict after 1948. My mistake. Of course, I never meant to say that I would edit in those areas that directly involve the I/P conflict.Davidbena (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (which may not be much) I think it's important to consider what's not part of the ban to understand what is. The two points that are most important here seem to be (ii) and (iii). W/r/t (ii) we allow edits relating to archaeological research as long as it is verifiable and reliably sourced. I haven't dug into this report but if the only aspect is a dispute over the archaeological record (at first glance that seems to be the case) I believe that is outside the scope of the TBAN. W/r/t (iii) the clarification defines "geopolitical features" as "borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute" which many aspects of the article at City of David fall within. If Davidbena's were unrelated to archaeology or were about archaeology as it relates to post-1948 geopolitics (e.g., use of archaeology to support territorial claims) then I believe that would be a TBAN violation. Like I said, I haven't done more than skim the article history edit summaries and it seems more the former than the later, but that's my understanding of the restriction as I wrote it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Wugapodes : this topics ae not inherently political. Some aspects of some of hem may intrude into present day politics, but a discussion relating only. to the archeology is not intrinsically one of them. It the controversy were over whether particular monuments "belong" to the islamic or the jewish concept of Jerusalem, they might be under the topic restriction, but this seems to be whether particular monuments or their sites are real or not--it's essentially about the veracity of this part of the OldTestament, a sacred book to both religions. I should mention I'm personally interested in the question of the historicity of these sites also, and I'm somewhat aware of the recent literature. My opinion of course is that what I wish to be true doesn't matter, the archeology will hopefully resolve things one way or another--or else if it remains unresolved, the question will never be settled and in the absence of good data people can believe what they like, but not insist its the only valid position). DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• David's selective list also ends prematurely, the actual end of our discussions on 10 August here when I reiterated my proposal for progressing matters:

"As regards your suggestion I would prefer "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)", no mention of Elad at all (a new article can be created, Ir David archaeological tourism site or something of that sort), Silwan as a bolded aka given that the majority of respectable sources recognize this aspect. The legal aspects, Israeli and International law, need to be comprehensively explained. Criticism of the archaeology unrelated to Elad needs to go in as well......Before I forget we also need an agreed definition for "the area"."

• The only part of this on which we agreed was to rename the article "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)" which seems quite an odd thing for me to agree with since I supposedly don't agree that it exists. I agree that there is evidence for an area (of uncertain extent) generally referred to as ancient Jerusalem but I digress, the point remains the same, the editor again refrains from commenting on the parts of the article that are not historical/biblical so how can any progress be made? And how can the editor participate in formal discussions that concern the whole article not just a part of it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• I was asked by Callanecc to explain my post on AN: ... good, educational articles about biblical sites are being challenged by one editor who pushes his own POV against the accepted consensus, and if left up to his devices, he would fain expunge those articles from the Wikipedia Main Space, as I shall shortly explain. In so doing, he wishes to diminish, as it were, any sign of ancient Israel in the historical land of Palestine. This is plainly wrong, and, thank God, there are other editors who can detect this cunning and what can rightly be termed a "dishonest display of editorship." [End Quote], who wanted to know whether the "one editor" I referred to was Selfstudier. My reply to him was this: "There, I was referring to statements made by Selfstudier who dismissed the academic consensus about the location of the ancient City of David (in Silwan), and threatened to push a POV that would, in effect, mislead our readership on Wikipedia about the ancient site. In fact, I warned him that this could lead to him being banned from editing articles relating to ancient history and archaeology" (End Quote). Callanecc then asked me how I am able to judge a person's motives, saying that we here are actually prohibited from doing so. To that I say, yes, we do not fully know a person's motives, and we can only judge a case on the merits and basis of information that are available to us. By removing documented evidence of an ancient site's existence and its location, despite requests not to do so, suggests to me that that person wishes to portray a "different" aspect of history. It goes without saying that, here, we are discussing Israel's ancient history. That was my intention. Other remarks made by my disputant enhance this view, which I am not at liberty to speak about. I say this only because it is for admins to look at his history of edits and to question his deeper motives. But, for the record, let us take, as an example, Selfstudier's removal of the biblical site King's Garden (Jerusalem) from the list of places making-up the ancient City of David, in this diff here, made on 29 August, and which site has clear authoritative references telling of its location being connected with the City of David - albeit its precise location being a matter of dispute, although no one disputing the fact that it was still connected with the City of David, as shown by its mention in a primary source (Nehemiah 3:15 in the Hebrew Bible), and where it states matter-of-factly that the King's Garden is located near the Pool of Siloah (a place in Silwan), or where it is also mentioned in four secondary sources: the one by Gustaf Dalman in his magnum opus, Work and Customs in Palestine; and another source being that of PEF explorer Charles Warren, who wrote concerning the Kidron Valley and the intermediate section of that valley that passes through Silwan and called Wady Fer'aun. According to Warren, the name "signifies the valley of the king, and the region to which the name is applied is precisely that which the King's Garden of the Bible used to occupy."; and another by the Israeli historian and writer, Arieh Yitzhaki, who places the King's Garden near the Lower Pool of Siloam (known in Arabic as Birket al-Ḥamrah), besides the one mentioned in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, shown here in this link. Why then remove the reference of the King's Garden from a list of places associated with the City of David? If I were to give Selfstudier the benefit of the doubt, which I will try and do now in this particular case, it may indeed be that he simply overlooked the reliable sources. ---

References

--Davidbena (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Davidbena's participation in the two move requests at City of David should be seen as TBAN violations. The TBAN has provided a narrow avenue for participation in the PIA topic area, but RMs applying to whole PIA articles cannot possibly fit into that avenue. My preferred remedy here is to just clarify the TBAN, get some confirmation from Davidbena that they understand, and move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

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

---

ShitaMYS does not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it uses "shit" rather blatantly. This user has been blocked 2 times, once giving no reason, and another time not changing the username. It might be nessecary to do an indefinite block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship SN20 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This account has been blocked for nearly 11 years; no action is necessary here. Actionable username reports should go to WP:UAA or WP:RFC/NAME. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. However, it does seem odd that this user would just stop editing, out of nowhere because of the fact that the username was inappropraite, rather than changing username to a different thing (Potiently Sockpupiting if it is also an inappropraite name). I get that this, in it of itself, is not enough evidence for a CheckUser, but I do think this should be further investigated. @PEIsquirrel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship SN20 (talk • contribs)

Your ping probably didn't work because you didn't sign your post when you made the ping. You can sign using ~~~~ at the end of your message. As far as checkuser, I imagine as they haven't edited in a decade the data is stale and unusable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Shita ( a variant of Sita) is a common name given to women from a Hindu background. I sincerely hope no contributor has been blocked just for using their own name... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Starship SN20: as others have said already, users are allowed to abandon an account and start editing with another, as long as they're not doing it to evade a block, and users who are blocked just because their username is inappropriate are told they can create a new account with a permissible username, so really, nothing against policy happened here. They tried to move their user and talk pages to the MYS77 account themselves, which isn't how account renames are done, but that was fixed back in 2010. There is no reason to suspect sockpuppetry here, but even if there were, checkusers cannot check an account that hasn't edited in a decade (the data retention window is 90 days). Your report is appreciated but there isn't anything for admins to do here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the user's explanation that it was their nickname derived from their surname, and they are Brazilian, likely of Japanese descent (lots of Japanese-ethnicity people in Brazil, eg surnames like Matsushita), its likely they decided to just not bother given the anal jobsworths who have nothing better to do with their time than harrass other editors over usernames. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if they were editing as MYS77, who until early this year was a hard-working contributor to football articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Starship SN20:, Im glad to see that you want to help, but I think you're far too enthustiastic, and that's leading you to be trigger-happy. You need to slow down and look for alternate explanations before you come to a place like ANI looking for us to take action, or take action yourself. Personally I wouldve assumed Shita was a Japanese name, but whether it's Japanese or Indian or something else, it is clearly not an English-language obscenity, and as such, should not have been brought up at all. I think you have a potentially bright future ahead, and we appreciate your desire to help out, but I would recommend a step back from boards like this for the time being or else you will hear only criticism and not praise. —Soap— 16:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, on investigating further, Shita seems also to be a given name in Japan (presumably not having common derivation with Hindu usage). Either way, some Wikipedians evidently need to broaden their horizons a little before making assumptions about user names. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this user was renamed to User:MYS77 at some point. They had their user page and talk page moved to that name. [82] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

MYS77 has edited with that account since February 2021. I see nothing needing action here. GiantSnowman 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm reminded of the Scunthorpe problem (which article mentions a problem with shitake mushrooms). I could also mention the Burmese activist U Shit Maung (U is an honorific). A well-known soft drink, whose name used to be advertised in painted signs on the walls of houses in France, has never taken off in the Anglophone world for some reason. English isn't the only language on the planet. Narky Blert (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Excessive plot descriptions from Western Pennsylvania IPs

• 2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Excessive plot descriptions from Western Pennsylvania IP range. The range has been blocked before, but they are still at it. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, as someone who currently lives near there, I feel it is my duty to inform you that there just isn't all that much to do in Greensburg, PA— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of the plot descriptions and they seem fine to me. I'd leave them alone. They are not excessive. Excessive can't even start before there is more detail than we'd find in the plot summary section of a Cliff Notes book, and those summaries run to dozens of pages. We are theoretically aspiring to build every single one of our articles into a WP:FA, and those need details at least on a level of the ones you're complaining about. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:PLOTLENGTH. Adding 897 bytes to an already overlong plot (3,137 bytes) is not a good idea. Narky Blert (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Firearms obsession

I don't know if this is LTA related, somebody with a Springfield firearms obsession, long term trolling, OCD, or otherwise, but there's an editor creating endless sock accounts over on the Smithfield rifle series of articles (far too many to list here, check my own recent contribs for the articles concerned). I've blocked most of the accounts, protected the pages... they don't seem to be able to help themselves from editing. This has been going on for almost 6 months now. I'd appreciate some more admin eyes on this as it seems the more I look the more I am finding. -- Longhair\^talk 20:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A rangeblock may be effective here as a lot of their earlier edits appear to be coming from 2600:1000.x and similar. -- Longhair\^talk 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone has just plonked 30 requests for protection for Springfield firearms articles on WP:RFPP! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That "someone" is their latest sock. -- Longhair\^talk 22:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I’ll clean up there shortly. On the ranges, I see a lot of rangeblocks in the block logs for the 2600.1000.x range, e.g. 2600:1000::/32, 2600:1000:b000::/39, 2600:1000:b000::/40, 2600:1000:b000::/41. It seems to have been a problematic range for a long time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

AFAICS the only way to stop it would be to ECP all of the affected articles, or reblock 2600:1000:b000::/40 without anon-only, which may have collateral implications. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• I’ve put down a /43 rangeblock, 2600:1000:B040:0:0:0:0:0/43, which covers most of the IPs I see used today for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I just anon-only reblocked the /40 range as it's been alternatively checkuser and LTA rangeblocked off and on since 2018. Any admin can unblock or amend my block as they see fit as it conflicts with Malcolmxl5's smaller rangeblock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s fine, Ponyo. My block was intended to curb some immediate disruption while a longer term solution was figured out but you’ve done that! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That may slow them down - for now... again, they've been at this over on the Springfield articles for almost 6 months now. Recently they've spilled over onto American Civil War related topics as well. -- Longhair\^talk 23:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits any good? 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Deep5911

Deep5911 is a new user who is indulging in disruptive behaviour in caste-related stuff and has again blanked the sourced content even after the final warning. If that wasn't enough, they copy-pasted the whole article from this blog in the main space today: [83]. So revdel is also required at Jadaun rajput. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I revision-deleted the copyvio and warned the user. Let me know if there are ongoing problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, they have added an unsourced caste-related claim after your warning: [84]. So I have posted a relevant comment on their talk page. But I will let you know if they will continue this disruption. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait for something more substantive than that single edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dogar514

Dogar514 is a WP:NOTHERE SPA, who is continuously adding British Raj-era sources at Dogar. All attempts to discuss issues with them failed, as they are just interested in edit warring: see here & here. Note that there is a longstanding consensus on this project to avoid the Raj-era sources for caste/history-related details and they have already been notified about the relevant sanctions. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I issued a strong warning. Let me know if there are ongoing problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Dogar514 (talk · contribs) as a normal administrative action after they continued edit warring with no discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Doctor Seuss book

User:50.40.186.230 is blanking content he doesn't like on If I Ran the Zoo and making threats. I think action by an administrator is needed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reported now at AIV, which is the right noticeboard if anyone is watching there. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Standard WP:COI damage: persistent addition of of promotional content, with at least some of it a copyright violation. Requesting a user block and rev/deletion as needed. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 In progress: ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Hey IP - I've done a bit of tidying and revision deletion. The user hasn't edited again since your warning, so lets see what they do next ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you and cheers. 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range - possibly extended block needed

2601:201:4201:A4B0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP range in question was entirely disruptive on Raa Raa the Noisy Lion, mainly in adding entirely incorrect information regarding a series/season 4 of the show (upon searching, there isn't one). After being blocked from that article, they went ahead to try and continue the same disruptive edits on a new account, Joaqjoaq, who is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion.

However, even though the IP range is blocked from editing that article, they are still continuing with their bogus/disruptive edits elsewhere, such as Chapman Entertainment and even others' talk page comments. The IP range also recently added a whole bunch of disruptive empty edit requests on Talk:Rubbadubbers, which all had to be removed ([85] [86].

At this point, it seems further blocking is required, more than just blocked from editing one specific article, as they continue to be entirely disruptive, even now in some edits copying edit summaries of my own (such as, "Rvv.- clearly block evasion". Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Still at it. Any chance something could be done about this?... Magitroopa (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Now reported at AIV. Magitroopa (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:PoWaiFung

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

Hi admins, User:PoWaiFung has been continuously overciting on List of Running Man episodes (2021). I have previously informed user to not overcite in March 2021, April 2021 and lastly June 2021. User only replied to March 2021 thread and I assumed user already understand since they didn't reply after which but clearly not as user started doing the same thing in April 2021, June 2021, and most recently on 1 September 2021. Here are the diffs I have compiled: [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Their response here is not very encouraging, given the many explanations they've already had. I've made another attempt at explaining this to them, but there might be a language barrier preventing them from understanding. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea Hi, thanks you for the follow up. I'm not certain if there is language barrier preventing user from understanding the issues, user edits doesn't seem to have spelling and grammar issues on the article, other than overciting which is a big concern. I just saw the latest reply in user talkpage, where it is pretty much the same reason that was given in March 2021, which I have tried my best to explain to user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Troubling edits by Bullhuss5

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

Bullhuss5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't use the word racism lightly but there seems to be a tinge of racism in the constant edits to Kim Johnson (politician) by Bullhuss5, eg [100] with the edit summary yeah, those are sources are unreliable. one is her maiden speech written by her and both merely state she is black. there's no proof, and unless she's Melanasian its not genetically possible her hair could be blonde. or [101] with the edit summary she isnt black?. The edits seem to be at best WP:OR based on her appearance in the publicity picture on the page with her hair died blonde. They are also proving problematic at British Empire and Hong Kong trying to argue that the British Empire still exists. Bringing it to ANI as this seems more than a simple content dispute. WCM_email 11:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly OR, and contradicted by sources that described her as "Liverpool's first black MP" (BBC, Guardian).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bullhuss55, who unaccountably exists in a parallel universe where hydrogen peroxide was never discovered, has declared that they are now retired from Wikipedia. ◦ Trey Maturin 16:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My spidy sense is tell me there is sock puppetry involved but not sure who the master is. WCM_email 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Retired or not they were not here for constructive purposes based on their past contributions. Just taking a stab at it but they made 41 edits outside of talk pages. Of that 41, roughly 28 were directly reverted. The other 13 edits were mostly minor in nature and were seemingly constructive and almost all of them occurred before engaging in the disruptive editing. The other four were either insignificant or were possibly caught up in the reverts indirectly. I normally loathe the idea of blocking but in this case they are blatantly not here to build an encyclopedia through honest and open discussion while honoring consensus. Though their contribs might not be considered direct vandalism they were, none-the-less, pushing a non-NPOV. Heavily I might add. I would say that @WCM's spidy senses are spot on. A block is warranted in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done just to make sure they don't return. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Newish user creating dubious pages in template space

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

---

• Mgendy00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...has been creating plenty of dubious pages where the sole content is their signature. They've already been warned by Fred Gandt about this nearly two months ago. Any admin here mind A) speedily nuking every page they've created B) giving them a very final warning if not a block? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Systematic personal attacks by a registered users

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

---

Hello, I flag here these edits [102], [103] and [104] that are direct personal attacks against myself by an user that was already blocked on it.wiki due to edit-warring and personal attacks as well. I also point out that I took no actions at all against him and his edits here on en.wiki, and I am the administrator on it.wiki who blocked him. He's kind editing as stalking revenge.--L736E (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed for harassment. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Repetitive Editing re Claudia Sahm and Sahm Rule

These two pages (Claudia Sahm, Sahm Rule) have both had attempts to add material sourced from a non WP:RS (an anonymous messageboard). A single-purpose account, User:BernietheGGuy, has made several of these edits. Kwaks Mold (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And so it was necessary to go here without attempting to discuss it on their talk page first? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but it's a BLP and maybe you could have take a few moments to look for yourself before commencing the scolding of the messenger? --Calton | Talk 12:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Saturation of bios with military infoboxes by User:Ldavid1985

User:Ldavid1985 has added a massive number of military infoboxes to bios. About 99% of those bios have little or no commentary about military service, and usually without citations when they do. The editor has unilaterally with no support created additional careers for people when they had no such career. This military infobox saturation campaign happened a few years ago (see RfC,) and there was a consensus to remove them all, which had been done. Now they're back. I would consider all those a form of vandalism.

A few examples:

• Gig Young, "Young took a hiatus from his movie career and enlisted in the United States Coast Guard in 1941 where he served as a pharmacist's mate...", shown with a Career infobox;
• Oliver Stone, served for 1 year after enlisting, shown as Career.
• Sidney Lumet, "World War II interrupted his early acting career and he spent four years in the U.S. Army," shown as Career;
• Others: Eli Wallach, Clark Gable and Haskell Wexler. --Light show (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Light show is topic banned from "any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed". This looks suspiciously like an edit about a biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That may be true, but whatever the community does about potentially breaching a topic ban (although note that Light show has not edited the articles in question), User:Light show does seem to have a point here. The examples presented do seem undue although I probably wouldn't cause them vandalism.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a point here, just a tban violation. It's definitely not vandalism; the RfC only dealt with one article; some of the examples seem clearly due (e.g. Oliver Stone received a bronze star, Clark Gable was a major); this is for sure a content dispute. Levivich 13:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are topic bans really so broadly construed that raising a concern that you believe requires administrator attention can be considered a breach, if the subject is covered by your topic ban? Isn't this exactly what we want a topic-banned editor to do, rather than editing the articles in question (or even the talk pages)? St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes to the first question, no the second. A person topic banned from X should not be raising ANI threads about how other editors edit X. Levivich 17:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich. "Broadly construed" means exactly what it says. I would add one gloss: if an editor under a TBAN sees a problem in their forbidden area, they should be allowed privately, impartially, and only once to communicate their concern to the banning admin, without expecting a reply. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nationalist pov posh by 786wave

786wave is pushing for their nationalist pov on Zilan massacre and has been reverting at least twice now by different editors. This is their addition[105] which is simply an egregious attempt to change the narrative of the incident. Their talk-page is full of warnings from earlier this year to yesterday and I believe this is a clear case of Wikipedia:Not here. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider stopping POV editing yourself and stop blaming others. Assume good faith please. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks

81.64.12.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote nasty and egregious personal attacks in French at User talk:193.137.135.2. Please see the translation: Google Translate. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is the IP actually FC Porto6185? 193.137.135.2 seemed to think so based on their language on 81.64.12.21's talk page. Also left the same message on the user's talk page. I'm adding the notification to their talk page just in case they should be notified. It could be different editors but they like to both leave very nasty messages on talk pages in which they attack what they view as "Anglo-Saxon", "American" and "English racism" with uncivil remarks. It's almost as if they claim that European law mandates we state the players nationality, not sources, law or its a crime and therefore by Wikipedia not stating a players nationality it is some form of "English" racism. Both the user and the IP seem to feel this way.

Diffs for FC Porto6185

• [106]
• [107]
• [108]

Diffs for 81.64.12.21

• [109]
• [110]
• [111]

It appears to have been happening for a couple of years at various times. Is it enough to take action? I would say so but that's for the community or admins to decide. It think it goes against the very core values of our community. We can criticize each others edits but we are never to make it personal or attack another editors nationality as has been done repeatedly by both editors above. You may find other examples. I just picked the three from each I felt were the most egregious.--ARoseWolf 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Reporting possible Vandal/POV-Pusher

• Aquinasthomes1 ‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

User is reverting and editing many Articles regarding/mentioning the countries of Serbia and Kosovo.1 2 3 User seems to have his own POV on the issues of those countries, which are not based on neutral thoughts as it should be on wikipedia. User has been warned ones.4 The warning has been deleted immediatly and has been called a act of Vandalism.5 As such, more warnings would be just inefficient, because the results would be most likely the same. User has a history of possible Vandalising, in form of POV-Pushing, prior to the recently made edits.6

Requesting a review of the activities of the User by a Administrator.

--InNeed95 (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@InNeed95: you are supposed to notify Aquinasthomes1 per the edit notice displayed whenever this page is edited. At the time you posted, the editor in question was blocked, and is likely remain blocked until 5 September. I will remind that editor that removing a warning is taken to mean that it has been read and understood. If the behaviour resumes post-block, then another block can be imposed. It is likely to be an indefinite one next time. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Aquinasthomes1 notified of this discussion and advised re removal of warnings. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is vandalism. It might be POV-pushing. I'm a little concerned about what appears to be changing reference titles from English to Cyrillic? —valereee (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not appreciate Wikipedia libelling me.

When I add factual information to an article, I do not appreciate it being suggested that I am violating "BLP" or vandalising an article. Please remove this grossly inaccurate slur from my edit history. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreebleNeeble (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Where did this happen? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I assume you're referring to this [112]. I'm not familiar with the interaction of our WP:revdeletion policy with automatics tags, but removing an edit summary because of an automatic tag about "possible BLP issue or vandalism" seems completely unnecessary to me. If you're unwilling to except that automatic tagging about a possible issue will sometimes identify stuff that is not such an issue, then you only real choice is not to edit IMO. In this case as an autoconfirmed editor but one with very few edits and a fairly recent account (although I think the latter is irrelevant to any edit filters), you were adding something about sexual assault allegations and while the source is probably sufficient considering the people accused can't reasonably be identified and the victim decided to speak out about the issue, it's unrealistic to expect an automated system to be able to tell the difference between this, and a more serious issue were you're adding an accusation of sexual assault where the people accused can reasonable be identified and the sourcing is insufficient. Note that your comment itself is concerning. While this particular edit of yours was probably fine, something being "factual" does not mean it isn't a WP:BLP issue. If you believe that, you need to read WP:BLP before you edit BLPs any further. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should accept having abusive comments in my edit history suggesting I am a vandal or someone who violates your policies is an "acceptable price" for the privilege of editing here? Is that how things work? GreebleNeeble (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve tried to do this, just to test it, and it is not technically possible to remove the tag. I revdel’d the edit summary, but the tag remained visible. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC) update: I'm wrong, there is a way to change the tags, as General Notabilty says below. It just doesn't involve revdel. Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No one is saying that, because that accusation is not being made. Edits are frequently flagged automatically, even for the longest-tenured editors, as possible violations, because it's better to be cautious than to be cavalier when dealing with biographical articles. These edits are flagged on the basis of key words or phrases or the URLs of websites used, and it does not mean that there is necessarily anything wrong with your edit, only that it contains one of those key identifiers. It is not abuse to merely take cautious note of any edit of this nature; you are not being singled out for flagging, but the same token, no one will be singled out for exemption either. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'm saying an automatic tag about a possible issue can never reasonably be consider abusive, and it's silly to say it is. As a long term ECP editor, I think most edit filters include tagging ones generally ignore me and they only came after I started to edit (which was long before ECP existed anyway) so I myself am rarely affected by such tags. But while I sympathetic to it being annoying if an edit you make is mistagged or otherwise affected by an edit filter when it's unnecessary; if I were affected my first concern would be if it's overly sensitive making the edit filter somewhat useless. And my second concern would be the over sensitivity may discourage other editors. However especially in a BLP case since BLP is very important, my concern about being "libelled" because an automatic system said something was a possible issue, when it wasn't such an issue as explicitly already acknowledged by the word possible, is almost non existent as IMO it should be. I feel that's the best attitude to have here. To concentrate on how we protect and improve our articles, especially the living people which can be affected. In this case, as I said I cannot reasonably see any way the system could understand your edit was fine, but the plenty of other similar edits are not fine. If you're unwilling to accept that automated systems cannot be perfect, I don't think you're life here is going to be happy since we use a lot of such systems and they can never reasonably be perfect, and it wastes everyone's time if people make a big deal over times when such systems misidentify stuff when it's clear they cannot be improved, but are necessary to help protect our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record - anyone with managechangetags (EFMs, sysops, bots) can change the tags applied to a revision. It's almost never used, though, and "possible BLP violation" is hardly defamatory - all it's saying is that the edit could be problematic and may need additional attention (and it's a quite useful filter). Nobody's going to go after the OP for having that tag on one of their edits as long as the edit itself wasn't problematic. I see no need to change the tags. GeneralNotability (talk) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel I should point that there nowhere does it say "violation". The word "issue" is carefully used instead. Even with the best edits about sexual allegations, there is still a possible BLP issue, which means it is a prime candidate for review - not necessarily undoing or condemnation, just review. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Note also tags are only one issue. Editors or bots can revert your edit mistakenly or for editors simply because they have a different view from you. Editors can come to your talk page or the article talk page or WP:BLPN or plenty of other places including here at ANI and say something is some sort of issue. Even if the community consensus is that it's not such an issue, we don't generally even remove such discussions because of that if they're started in good faith (except for your talk page where you're free to do what you want), let alone rev-deletion. While we discourage people from using the term WP:Vandalism if it's not clear cut since the term has a specific meaning here, it's not possible to open a discussion about whether something is a BLP issue without implicitly raising the possibility it's a BLP issue and so the editor who added it violated BLP. Wikipedia would for apart if every time someone misidentifies something in good faith, we required it to be rev-deleted. Indeed, in the future, it would make it worse for people making similar edits or even the person who made the original edit since people could not reference or check out the conclusions of the previous discussions, so there may be continued such comments about how X is a BLP issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that it was asked for, but my inexpert opinion is yes, this is in fact a price one must pay for editing here. Adding factual information to a BLP can certainly be in violation of policy if it is contentious and not well-sourced. If this sort of mild, automated editing issue causes you this much distress, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the site for you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can only concur with those above, GreebleNeeble. Those are automated tags added to edits that contain particular words or links. They aren't conclusive, are often not accurate, and aren't the expression of any particular editor (in the form of libel or slur). They exist to allow other editors to quickly determine what needs to be reviewed and what is probably inconsequential. It could be a BLP issue (broadly, anything that might be contrary to WP:BLP policy) or it could be vandalism. Or it could be neither. In this case, for the record, it would seem to be neither, and a fairly routine edit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen this issue come up, and I think it's worth talking about. I could definitely see a new user noticing that label and being confused, embarrassed, etc. Figuring out how to remove or "resolve" tags would be a huge project, I think, but maybe there's a way we can just limit who can see those tags? It's not like someone with 20 edits is going to be doing recent changes patrolling (although I guess some IPs may). Updated: edit conflicted with someone pointing out I'm wrong about editing tags. Still, it seems like less work to limit who sees them maybe? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to remove the tag the OP was complaining about, and got a message "The changes could not be applied: The tag "possible libel or vandalism" is not allowed to be removed." —valereee (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Only tags that have been manually created via Special:Tags can be edited in that manner. Tags that are defined by the edit filter, or by the core MW software (mobile edits, visual edits, rollback, etc) cannot be edited at all except by a developer/sysadmin. The only way to remove tags applied by an edit filter is to first delete the filter, and then use the "revert all changes by this filter" feature, though that would remove tags from everything with no option to specify a particular user. 199.8.32.6 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

To my understanding, the appropriate pre-defined Special:Tags (e.g., possible libel or vandalism) are added to the created edit filters with no possibility of changing them, but their description and appearance on change (e.g., possible BLP issue or vandalism) should be editable by the admins; though I'm not sure how practical this is (even if justified) since the change will affect all tagged edits and, in this instance, 3 edit filters. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Harrasment

Hi

continues. He is a banned user in fr:wiki.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a year, having taken previous blocks into account.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Pushing unreliable sources and removing content from reliable sources

[113][114][115][116]

TheMightyGeneral had previously expanded the Armeno-Georgian War article to be built almost entirely on citations from a self-published article written by Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze. Andersen formerly had a Wikipedia article that was deleted because he was deemed not to meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Partskhaladze apparently teaches "mashinery engineering" and is not a notable figure at all. The source also makes no mention at all of the persecution of Armenian civilians both before and during the war, despite having citations for sources that include this information. I brought this concern to the talk page, and Alaexis agreed that Andersen and Partskhaladze are not reliable sources. I also rewrote the article based on reliable sources and added the previously unmentioned information about civilian persecutions. Despite this, TheMightyGeneral continues to revert back to the Andersen-Partskhaladze. He also removed all the added information about Armenian civilian persecution and then re-added parts of it with MOS:ALLEGED language, such as: "According to Armenian accounts", "According to the Armenian side", and "The Armenian government claimed". Despite both Armenian and non-Armenian sources confirming the persecution of Armenian civilians, TheMightyGeneral continues to insist that this is a POV claim, although he hasn't been able to provide any reliable sources giving any reason to doubt the information, despite being asked to more than once. TheMightyGeneral has been warned on both the article talk page and his own talk page, but continues to restore the version with unreliable sources and delete reliable sources that confirm things he doesn't like. Other things TheMightyGeneral keeps removing include the cited part of Armenians being the majority of the population, and the account of C. E. Bechhofer Roberts, easily the most significant third party account of the war. --Steverci (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Civility problems with EEng

I am facing Wikipedia:civility problems with EEng (talk · contribs).

When reverting one of my edits, EEng referred to me as "pilgrim", in obvious ways invoking how John Wayne would use the term in his screen persona to refer to someone who he felt was lesser than him in some way. I can certainly see how some might not see that as offensive, although it bothered me. However, when I made it clear that I felt that calling me that was obnoxious, EEng seemed to follow the bullying logic that suggests that once you've found a sobriquet that someone is sensitive to, you repeatedly call them that. EEng did so in this comment and in this comment, and when I raised the issue on their talk page that this treatment was a problem that I'd be willing to raise on this forum, they responded by doing it again.

EEng's block log suggests that this is not their first dance with civility concerns. In the course of the Manual of Style discussion where we were interacting, EEng says to another editor You've taken on with characteristic rapidity your familiar role of overwrought scold ("offensive", "appalling", "impose phoneticism", "sully") staking out some eccentric position. Whether or not RGloucester finds that particular statement objectionable is up to him, but stuff like that makes the discussion atmosphere acidic.

I am not sure what the best action here is. EEng is a very experienced user, they should know better by now. I'd like a one-way interaction ban at the least, but I don't think that's sufficient for addressing the concerns regarding this productive but problematic editor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)