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

Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob

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

This person is clearly not here to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Widr, Favonian, ToBeFree, and Spencer: Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

LightandDark2000, I'm afraid you need to give more detail and evidence for an indef block. Please link to previous discussions, diffs of disruption, etc. Fences&Windows 11:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at the numerous complaints/warnings on his talk page. He is *STILL* engaging in the exact same types of disruption. Also have a look at is SPI archives. This person has also evaded his blocks using IPs at least twice (one case isn't listed in the SPI). Oh, and he's editing on 86.0.200.183, his IP, in order to evade scrutiny. This is clear socking. This person is a clear net-negative. And I think that we should show him the door out. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Destroyeraa, Mattythewhite, TSP, and Lee Vilenski: You've dealt with this guy before and you're more familiar with his behavior than I am. What do you think? This guy hasn't changed at all, and given the messes that he's made again and again (along with the socking), I think he should be indeffed. And also blocked on his IPs for a while (since he WILL sock on his IPs if he is blocked). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of much useful to add here beyond what's self-evident from the user's talkpage. WP:CIR and this user lacks it, sometimes deliberately and repeatedly making erroneous edits in spite of plenty of warnings. Sometimes enough is enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support an block for this user. There are CIR issues which can be shown by the many flounces they have done after receiving warnings, as well as the very clear sockpuppetry by using IPs to edit when under scrutiny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've only had the encounters you can see on his talk page; but the pattern is fairly clear. He makes inexplicable, unsourced and unjustified edits; when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia ("Goodbye Everyone who tells me to stop Good Riddance I will log out", or similar). He returns a few days later (with his account or as an IP), and repeats. He has posted comments containing the words "good riddance" to his own talk page at least fourteen times.

He does edit a lot, and not all the edits are malicious (though most that aren't still seem to be unsourced); but there's a consistent pattern that he has no willingness to even attempt consensus, and reacts to any criticism of his edits by saying he is leaving Wikipedia - then returns a few days later to continue the same behaviour. As this cycle makes it fairly clear he has no plan or willingness to address his behaviour, I can't see any way forward other than a block. (I do expect that he will evade it.) TSP (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@TSP: ... when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia... Well, even though he did that on his own talk page (see diffs below) this may eventually amount to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (4) if he persists in relevant article's discussions. I encourage you to provide diffs showing disruptive content editing.

• 10:14, October 13, 2020 - «‎October 2020»
• 10:13, October 13, 2020 - «‎You have been reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents.»
• 07:49, October 3, 2020 - «‎October 2020»
• 10:31, September 11, 2020 - «‎September 2020»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the user's talkpage contains sufficient evidence, it doesn't need to be ported over here. If that's not enough, then just allow the disruption to continue. This isn't a bureaucracy, if you can't see the problem clearly enough then, well, meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that providing more evidence of the behaviour would be a waste of time in this case. Either we agree that the general record of disruptive editing, followed by flouncing aren't needed on wikipedia, and give a WP:CIR / WP:NOTHERE block, or we say it's not enough and move on. I would be on the side of a block, but feel I'm a little too involved due to the history to pass this without prejudice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Well I would agree that intentionally logging out to continue disruptive editing would violate the WP:SOCK but this doesn't seem to be the case. Related investigation also didn't find relationship between the two: ip 86.0.200.183 and Sportsfanrob. Admins should not blindly ban a person for making silly replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the very clear use [1] and [2] when specifically told not too? They have been told multiple times, see User:sportsfanrob#Editing while logged out, User:Sportsfanrob#July 2020 et al. Also see Special:Contributions/82.20.190.222 for where they edit their own responses after being told about not doing specific things, and edit the same way. I think even if for some reason you aren't inclined due to the sockpuppetry concerns, there is a very clear WP:CIR issue, especially that they are unable/unwilling to communicate without flouncing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: In fairness these edits are from the August 2020. Only 2 out of total 8 he made for the whole year in that article. He was banned in October later. Is this even relevant now?

• 19:38, August 26, 2020
• 19:36, August 26, 2020 - «‎2020 cancellation»

The latest 82.20.190.222 contributions are from September 2020.

• 21:18, September 2, 2020 - «‎Changes of network affiliation»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBenassi WP:NOTHERE: edit warring/intentionally disruptive edits

User:SteveBenassi made several disuptive edits in the past few days. He was blocked for 36 hours for edit warring, but has returned and claimed/admitted to have purposely broken Wikipedia policies to make a scene, with the intention of pushing a POV (stating that it was "worth it").

First he edit warred, adding disputed material (then under discussion at WP:RSN) at/to the Eran Elhaik, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Genetic studies on Jews, and Jewish history pages while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed WP:UNDUE. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion [[3]]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted again. Though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). He then added the disputed material to another page (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. He later added the same disputed material to two other pages, Genetic studies on Jews and Jewish history (along with other somewhat controversial material, to the leads), and misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), he continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, despite being asked and warned more than once.

He then continued to edit war even more at Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry and was reverted and reported by User:Shrike at the edit warring noticeboard (I had made an earlier report here before that). He was blocked for 36 hours.

After SteveVenassi's temporary block, I thought my earlier ANI report was no longer necessary, and said as much. But User:NonReproBlue informed me that SteveBenassi, far from having erred from an innocent ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, as he claimed at WP:RSN (here [[4]]), had, by his own admission elewhere, used edit warring and refusal to discuss as a calculated tactic to push an agenda (by purposely "making a scene"). On his own Talk page, SteveBenassi admitted: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue." [[5]], see it also here: [[6]]. That was in direct contradiction to another claim he made around the same time that his policy violations had been the of honest unfamiliarity (being "a newbie" and "not knowing how to use Wikipedia") (here again, as linked above [[7]]), which since he had been repeatedly warned while at that time, seemed unlikely, and given his admission quoted/linked above, now seems less than dishonest.

This is troubling and seems to show that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. (knowingly breaking policy because the punishments were "worth it"). This seems to show that he entered Wikipedia (or at least that section of it) with a battleground mentality, a lack of good faith, and a WP:TENDENTIOUS orientation.

I initially filed a report here ([[8]] In response to the edit warring. Due to this new information, I am filing this new report.

Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And now he has gone right back to re-adding the same edit with the same summary [9]. Hopefully an admin takes a look at this soon as there is no sign that he will stop the tendentious editing. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ohnoitsjamie:, the admin who issued the block, they should probably be informed. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: and @Ohnoitsjamie:, I noticed here [[10]], though SteveBenassi claims he will no longer edit (because he accomplished what he wanted by "making a scene"). But also again states his WP:TENDENTIOUS/partisan/WP:BATTLEGROUND intentions, when he says, speaking of his earlier edit warring, that "I did this for you and Elhaik" (Elhaik being a highly controversial researcher). It is concerning. Not surprisingly he is edit warring again. Skllagyook (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: @Tritomex: @NonReproBlue: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Skllagyook:

See ...

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User%3ASteveBenassi_persistent_disruptive_edits%3A_edit_warring%2C_refusing_to_discuss%2Fengage.

@Tritomex: I respectfully disagree. I haven't used Wikipedia in years. I felt I was being bullied unfairly, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours. Openly admitted twice in public what I was doing. I apologized. And will not do it again. See bottom of this post, I asked @NonReproBlue to make an edit for me. I have learned from my mistakes. Note: 3 people are bullying me, twisting my comments and lying about me. Thank You SteveBenassi (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See ... search Benassi https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eran_Elhaik

Also ... See ... search Benassi https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Eran_Elhaik

SteveBenassi (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@SteveBenassi: What you say above does not seem to be the case. Your statements and behavior speak for themselves. You clearly stated that you broke the rules to make a scene (despite saying the opposite at the WP:RSN noticeboard. No one (as far as I can see) is bullying you. You (in your own admission) knew what you were doing and intentionally broke rules for WP:TENDENTIOUS purposes. Your statement again was: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked."

You had been warned about edit warring (by me and others) at Eran Elhaik and asked to use the Talk page and you refused/cobtinued to edit war. I don't see how any of it could have been an honest mistake. (In addition, you said you were not interested in editing again, right before reinstating the same disputed edit re Ostrer to the Elhaik page.)

Again, please see WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Skllagyook (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Stop bullying me, stop twisting my comments, stop lying about me, and stop repeating your lies over and over. Leave me alone. I have been on Wikipedia for about a week now, for the first time in years. I am still learning. I will not post again until someone tells me I can on the Palestine-Israel pages. I asked NonReproBlue to make an edit for me recently. Leave me alone, you are a Bully. SteveBenassi (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your words are right there quoted (and here [[11]]). Nothing's being twisted. I'm not sure what lies you're referring to. It's there for anyone to see in the links I added above. Skllagyook (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: That was 3 days ago. You are Bullying me, twisting my comments, lying about me, and repeating your lies over and over. Leave me alone, you are a Bully SteveBenassi (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you are not being "bullied". You are being held accountable for your behaviour on an appropriate noticeboard, for the attention of admins such as myself. Your editing by your own admission was deliberately disruptive and you were rightly blocked for it. The block has expired, you have apologised, and you have not resumed disruptive editing, so I do not believe we need to take further action against you for now - but if similar problems resume then you may expect further sanctions. However, your accusations of others lying and bullying counts as WP:ASPERSIONS and you need to stop making such groundless assertions. Fences&Windows 14:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thank you for your feedback, I agree with you 100%. Finally I get a third party opinion. I can't tell who is an Administrator or not. Is @Huldra or @Nishidani an Administrator. And why are Administrators also allowed to edit? An administrator can abuse a new user whose POV is anathema to them, which is happening here, and let slide those they agree with. They wave flags like ARBPIA and it is not clear to me if really does apply to me. So I will work to get 500 edits on other subjects, so no one can wave that flag at me ever again. I do two things really well, Israel and Archaeology. I am on Israeli news sites every day for the past 10-15 years. I am very knowledgeable on this subject. See ...

@Alaexis: Yardumian and Schurr are Reliable Sources for the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page. I made two edits to the Eran Elhaik page, one on Ostrer "will not defame Jews" comment, and another on The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis paper, causing this debate. The point I am trying to make is, in layman's terms, are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. I think we should modify this to reflect the above "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews. " SteveBenassi (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zerotalk 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History here, again by Skllagyook.

It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Wikipedia; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Wikipedia because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Again. SteveBenassi (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you can tell who an admin is via https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Fences%20and%20windows or equivalent. Neither Nishidani nor Huldra are admins. Admins are also editors, we just have community trust to use tools like blocks, protection, and deletion. However, admins may not use their tools or close discussions when they have been involved in a dispute. See WP:INVOLVED.

Please don't repost long extracts of talk page discussions - your point is unclear and this is not the venue to discuss article content.

ARBPIA is not a weapon used against editors, it is a formal restriction to prevent newer accounts, who tend to cause more disruption, from editing relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. ArbCom introduced this to reduce problem editing after years of disputes. You will have been made aware of this so you do not inadvertently edit contrary to these general sanctions, because you have edited in adjacent areas. Fences&Windows 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: It is not clear to me if I have violated ARBPIA. I can't find much about this topic on Wikipedia. The impression I get is that it is not so much the pages that are out of bounds, but what you say on the pages. For example, the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page, is that a page I cannot edit on, or I can edit on it as long as I don't say specific words or phrases? What are the "adjacent areas" you mention. Is there a specific page that has all this information. The ones I am finding are useless. Thank You. SteveBenassi (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you have breached ARBPIA, SteveBenassi. The genetics of Jewish populations are not per se related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - but if it were to spill into which modern people has a claim to Israel and Palestine based on genetic ancestry then it would be related. The latest ruling from ArbCom is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Remedies. They say "the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing a) the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and b) edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")." It's intentionally vague as we can't possibly codify all such relevant articles and edits. Fences&Windows 20:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows:The parts that seemed to me to break ARBPIA are the edit summaries, which say "Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect" and talk page comments like "Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA". Just for clarification, are things like this really not covered by the ARBPIA sanctions? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: The edit war involved 5 people over 1 edit, @Huldra and myself vs two administrators @Skllagyook and @NonReproBlue and user @Shrike, over the following edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Eran_Elhaik&type=revision&diff=1023216318&oldid=1023185193 . @Huldra asked @NonReproBlue to "Please take it to a RfC if you disagree", @NonReproBlue refused and continued to edit war, shutting down the debate, which is not allowed according to your words above. @NonReproBlue and @Skllagyook object to my edit comments "Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect. See ... https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms" Did I violate ARBPIA, and why am I solely blamed for this edit war? What we have here are two administrators with unknown backgrounds, objecting to a new paper, The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis, that goes against their POV, while also protecting Harry Ostrer who refuses to share his data with Eran Elhaik, because it endangers a major justification for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. SteveBenassi (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, NonReproBlue.

So, SteveBenassi, you were indeed in breach of the ARBPIA general sanctions. I had missed that connection of your editing. You weren't aware then but you are aware now and yet you've literally just breached the ArbCom ruling again with your latest post here. You are not extended confirmed, so you do not get to discuss this here. You were already blocked for edit warring and we are not going to block anyone else for that dispute. Drop this now or I will block you again. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GREATWRONGS; we do not need this kind of approach to editing. You need to learn to be collaborative and not adversarial. You can consider this a final warning. Fences&Windows 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

46.97.170.0/24

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[12]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[13]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[14]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[15]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[16]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[17]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[18]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[19]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[20] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[21]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[22]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[23] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[24]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[25]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [26] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[27]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[28]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Diffs

. Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [29] "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[30] " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[31] " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[32] " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [33] "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[34] "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[35] "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[36] "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[37] "Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"[38] " Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"[39] "Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"[40] "This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."[41] " Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Wikipedia's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"[42] "This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"[43]

I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

• To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
• Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
• On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
• The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
• Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
• Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[44] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A relevant comment[45] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

"Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [46] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [47] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [48]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [49], Joe Rogan[50], Elon Musk[51], Larry Sanger[52], and Jacob Gardner[53]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for close ( 46.97.170.0/24 )

It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:KrishnaVastav

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

---

KrishnaVastav (talk · contribs · count) – Continuous disruptive editing on a mass scale (over 90 articles and counting). Keeps sticking "Delhi NCR" everywhere or other location-focused nonsense. Warnings left unheeded, including level-4 warnings. Does not engage in discussion. Temporary block requested. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He/she always leaves the edit summary "added content" irrespective of what he/she did. For example, 07:40, 14 May 2021 to Delhi Metro where he/she deleted wikilinks and added a mistake to the punctuation. As far as I can see, the only point to his/her edits is an attempt to build up an edit history in the hopes of becoming as extended confirmed user.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree their contributions are highly problematic, but they haven't edited since the latest warnings, so I guess we'll wait and see. I'll try to keep an eye out. Feel free to alert me on my page if I miss any more disruption. Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

Blocked for one month. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC).

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

Cheryl Fullerton

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

---

Cheryl Fullerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cheryl has mainly been focused on editing Craig Chaquico and Jefferson Starship, and caused various disputes, which I summarised in this thread. Since then, we've tried to resolve things, including a COI noticeboard thread. To cut a long story short, we can't prove Cheryl has a COI with Craig Chaquico, but there seems to be continual disruption, ignoring other people's advice, and just trying to insert a POV into these articles that I can't see anyone else wants.

I have said before that Cheryl is civil and polite and has tried to learn policies and guidelines, but she has taken up so much administrator time now, than I think our collective patience has run out and we need to do something else. So I am proposing that Cheryl Fullerton is topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as I stated at the COIN discussion, I just am not seeing CF as being able to edit neutrally surrounding Craig Chaquico, and based on her interactions with other editors at various talks and noticeboards, I think Ritchie is quite right. Enough is enough. This has been a time sink for too many editors at too many articles surrounding Chaquico for four years now. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This has gone on way too long, and it is crystal clear that Cheryl Fullerton is 100% devoted to inserting Craig Chaquico's idiosyncratic view of the history of Jefferson Starship into Wikipedia articles, instead of neutrally summarizing what reliable independent sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support because the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource and Cheryl Fullerton is squandering that resource. I noticed in particular Ritchie333 writing at the COI noticeboard yesterday that he "ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion".[54] I've never noticed Ritchie being particularly prone to exhaustion, and he could have used the same amount of Wikipedia time and energy for so many much better things. It's totally unacceptable to wear out editors through sheer stubbornness and bludgeoning. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
• Support. I missed the recent COIN discussion but I already knew from contending with her in 2017 that Cheryl Fullerton is here only to promote Chaquico. Before Fullerton was PilotRock61 in 2015 who signed as Chaquico's "artist manager"[55] "Dara Crockett".[56] Cheryl Fullerton has been active at Commons uploading a bunch of photos taken by Dara Crockett, and citing a book by Crockett and spouse, so it appears Fullerton has been hired as an assistant to Crockett. At any rate, both of these people worked very hard to represent Chaquico's point of view which is not the way he has been described by independent sources. Classic WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  (Redacted) —valereee (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. I’ve been banging my head against this wall for four years regarding Jefferson Starship. I feel like it’s taken up all my available editing time. I think this is the best course of action. AbleGus (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't natter exactly why this person is acting like this, it is clear that lesser measures have been tried and have had basically no affect. A tban is a way to try and keep the editor while getting rid of the disruption, I hope they come to understand that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Cheryl Fullerton has indicated she wants to respond. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Editors, since this may be the last opportunity for me to make my case here on Wikipedia, I will give it my best shot and defense and go on record with this:

All I can say is not guilty on all charges, including the latest by someone going by Binksternet. I’m repeating myself, but I have edited the articles according to the guidelines of Wikipedia and have respectfully followed the advice of other editors and administrators. I have supported my edits with the best available sourcing. I have reached out to Dispute Resolution, as is suggested, after repeatedly and consistently not being allowed by AbleGus to edit the Jefferson Starship-related articles with good facts and verifiable sourcing. I do not have a COI—including not having been hired as anyone’s assistant. These accusations are going beyond the pale at this point. I am not the one with a conflict of interest. I believe further investigation of other’s motives is warranted. I haven’t done anything wrong.

I have done my best to add to the quality of the articles I have edited over the years. When I first started editing, I helped clarify the difference between Starship and Starship featuring Mickey Thomas; I worked diligently to get permissions from photographers to use their concert photos and edited the articles with facts for more NPOV and balance and attempted to include all members instead of a select few. I have fought to establish that, while having some band members in common, that Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, and Starship were separate bands, with their own musical catalogues, histories and eras, and have backed this up with verifiable sourcing going back to the 1970s. If that constitutes COI, then I misunderstood.

In the Jefferson Starship article, it now states that the band evolved from solo albums, which simply is not true and the source cited has nothing at all to do with this edit, but it has, so far, been allowed to stand? And in reference to the Craig Chaquico article, the article has recently been edited so that important notable facts have been deleted such as that Chaquico was a founding member of Jefferson Starship ( note that I provided reliable sourcing at Valeree’s request which she refused to read) and adding inaccuracies such as that he “joined the band” in 1974 when he was actually a founding member, along with others. While invalidating her edit, Valereee inadvertently attached a source to it which verified Chaquico as being a founding member; it’s an article by an Airplane and Starship historian named Jeff Tamarkin. Here it is in the first sentence; https://bestclassicbands.com/craig-chaquico-jefferson-starship-lawsuit-5-4-17/ if you are interested. The article now says “In 1993 he started a solo career,” when, in fact, he has had a solo career in an entirely different genre since 1993 which includes a Grammy-nomination. Are these facts not notable and interesting enough to be included in the lead, let alone the article itself? The fact that as a guitarist he has had two signature guitars is notable but has also been removed.

Someone refers to me as argumentative or taking too much time; however, I believe I have been simply honoring and respecting Wikipedia as an important reference and that these errors and omissions should be corrected, or at least added in balance with other reputably sourced points of view in these articles. I also recommend that editors with no interest or familiarity with music should not attempt to edit articles about music and its creators. That would be like me trying to edit an article on quantum physics. :Thanks to Vivimanti for trying to correct the errors. I think it’s important that I continue to edit these articles about which I have knowledge and interest. I provide a valuable resource.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) —valereee (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, Valereee, I am. I used to work for Guitar Player magazine, several decades ago, and Ms. Crockett is the daughter of the owner/publisher of that magazine in the '70's and '80's. I do know Miss Crockett though we are not close personal friends. This is how I am interested in guitar and music, in general, and in factual journalism. I have had contact with Crockett, and others, to ask for help in getting permissions from photographers for historical photos to enhance and balance the articles I've worked on, but I'm not working for Miss Crockett, nor am I paid by her, nor is this a conflict of interest. Now, please stop these personal attacks and attempts to 'out me' in some way which is against Wikipedia policies. If I had something to hide, why would I use my real name? No, I would hide behind a pseudonym like others do. Thanks Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support time-limited topic ban – If Cheryl Fullerton can get more experience collaborating on Wikipedia, while avoiding topics that she is too close to, she might get the experience and editing behaviors to work better with these editors. If she keeps thinking she can have it her way without actually convincing others, that could be a problem. Six months? Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Dicklyon, there's a problem with time-limited topic bans: people can wait them out and then continue as before, having learned nothing. The advantage of indefinite bans is that the user has to appeal them (coincidentally, waiting six months to appeal is usually recommended), and that appeal needs to contain examples of good editing in other areas and/or other projects, and what they undertake for the future, or else they won't be granted. IOW they have to demonstrate that they get it. Very relevant here, I think. Where do you see the advantage of CF not needing to get it? Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

Cheryl, I'll redact that and get it oversighted (which removes it altogether), but I'm not sure I outed you. Person A, who has the same name as a person mentioned in a book by person B, who once represented person C, who is also in the book, starts coming into the articles about person C and changing what they say to what person B and person C prefer, using the book as a reference. You've been systematically denying you had any relationship to Chaquico other than being a fan of his music when your behavior for the past four years has been that of a person with a COI. —valereee (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Revision-deleting the two edits where you added information you no longer wish to be visible (deletion log) doesn't accomplish anything when the content still exists in the dozens of revisions after it (up to the point where you remove it). Anyone can still easily see the edits ([57], [58]). And I don't really see the point of rev-del if you don't also redact Cheryl Fullerton's statements plainly saying the same thing... Modulus12 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

doh! —valereee (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"I also recommend that editors with no interest or familiarity with music should not attempt to edit articles about music and its creators." I sympathise with this point to some extent, and in my case you can judge my knowledge of 60s and 70s music by the articles I have taken to good article status listed here, including The Who, Genesis and Blind Faith. However, as I have said before, the amount of time and attention I have taken to try and get this dispute resolved so all parties walk away satisfied, or at least coming to terms with differences, has been extraordinary.

The problem is, I seem the same questions coming up again and again. For instance, the history between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship is complicated, in as much the first band didn't simply split up, and then the second one was formed. So, you cannot say there is a consensus for saying that Craig Chaquico was a founding member as presented by reliable sources. And if you keep saying that there is a consensus, people will start to tune out and ignore you.

Again, I've got to emphasise that nobody is doing this to be mean to you - we just think you're spending far too much time on this topic, and people are urging you to just write about something else for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Time-limited TBAN: Per Dicklyon, except the TBAN should be longer than 6 months, maybe 3⁄4 or 7⁄8 of a year? 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

I think now that she should be Indef TBANed per Bishonen and Valereee. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

• I agree with Bishonen that a time-limited t-ban isn't helpful. This is low-level but chronic. It has been going on for four years, and Cheryl averages only a couple of dozen edits a month, sometimes going for several months with no edits. A time-limited t-ban isn't going to solve this problem, as Cheryl can just wait it out and pick up right where she left off. We need to require an appeal. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I was unfamiliar with this situation, but after looking it over, I think Richie333's proposal is necessary and justified. (Note: I was big fan of the Airplane, and then -- decreasingly so over time -- of Starship. I've been familiar with Chaquico's work -- as a fan -- since his time with Jack Traylor and Steelwind.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder issues

The user in question here now has a very substantial sock history at this point, continuing to stalk/harass me across other Wikis.

For reference...

Wikipedia:

• confirmed
• suspected

Wikimedia Commons:

• Caidin-Johnsohn29912forrest
• Grap e29912
• Forrest29912
• CaidinJohnsohn
• Cadinnn Johhnson
• Caidddin Johhnson

Simple English Wikipedia:

• Zoom29912

Wikidata:

• Mjforrest29912

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:

• Messiah Forrest
• The Forrest 29912
• Tessssticle keep going up and down up and down - May 17

Wikiquote:

• Mjforrest 448484 - May 17
• Tessssticle keep going up and down up and down - May 17
• Forrestisback29912 - May 17

There may be some others I'm forgetting right now. At this point it seems like there won't be any stop to this. I've now just recently realized I can disable talk page notifications on those other Wikis, so I've turned that off. Other than that, what would the best solution here be? I'm familiar with SPI and stuff but don't really have much knowledge in the LTA area... would an LTA report be justified at this point?... Magitroopa (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Still currently going at it. Anything at all that can be done??? Also updated with the new accounts from today... Magitroopa (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Magitroopa, the cross-wiki activity should be reported to meta:Steward requests/Global. Fences&Windows 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Pmffl reported by Alexander Davronov

User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Alexander Davronov

Reviving this from the archive as Pmffl continues to remove my replies without due justification. ANI NOTICE DIFF

WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation

Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."

• 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
• 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
• 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"

• 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"

WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach

Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:

• 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
• 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
• 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
• 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

Here they remove my replies on the talk page:

• 14:28, May 9, 2021 "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind"
• 16:37, May 10, 2021 "exactly, MrOllie, which is why I'm removing this garbage"
• 12:38, May 16, 2021 - «‎Latest changes by Pmffl: removing the smear, as stated before; keep the specific items»
• 17:27, May 17, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023467424 by Alexander Davronov talk) No, not okay to say this as others have told you.»

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Request

• Warn Pmffl of his misbehavior and direct him to WP:HTBC essay and WP:EDITING (WP:PRESERVE/WP:DON'T PRESERVE) policy and impose WP:IBAN. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

There's a reason you got no comments last time Alexander Davronov: no admin thought there was any action to take. Someone using mild curse words in edit summaries is not the kind of dispute that needs admin attention. You don't need all the structure btw, this isn't Arbitration Enforcement. You need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and that does not involve trawling your opponent's old edits for supposed wrongdoing. Fences&Windows 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Am I correct that you're saying that I can remove other's comments, including yours? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Alexander Davronov. Pmffl restored your talk page comment, which is what I was aware of. However, this today was not OK. Pmffl, you must not remove others' article talk page comments. You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example. Pmfll, please promise not to repeat the removal of others' article talk comments unless you are strictly following WP:TPO and please correct your incorrect removals without archiving. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. His vaguely-worded post is merely a smear of me. As MrOllie and others have pointed out, it doesn't belong on the Javascript talkpage. So I keep removing it. -Pmffl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pmffl: Letting everyone to know that I disagree with your edits isn't a "smear" of you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide, Pmffl. Let others do it: don’t edit war with someone who is critiquing you. You didn't reply about your inappropriate removal of old talk page comments without archiving. Will you clean up after your earlier inappropriate edits to create an archive? Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you mean restore Alexander's original post, in which he literally added a support line to his own idea? No, it's better to not have ridiculous stuff like that in a talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. From my reading, the parts you highlighted in yellow are indeed Pmfll commenting on content, with some mild language like "sloppy", "crap", "weird", "garbage". The only thing that is nearing a personal attack might be "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind". Leijurv (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, when that comment is "I think the latest edits by Pmffl must be revised and amended. Feel free to notify me of proposals." It does indeed sound like someone who is just against another user's edits, because. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I wasn't able to elaborate because Pmffl has removed it the same day it was posted. The same thing has happened two times a day earlier (8 May) so I decided to fill ANI complaint instead of explaining anything. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: In all three cases he was either editing or removing my replies. In very first diff above he's removed a diff link pointing out to his edit. That's what kind of "content" he has called a "weird crap". All these highlighted summaries are only about my replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, The way you format your talk page entries, with all the subsections and templated diffs and such, is fairly unusual. People who mostly read talk pages by looking at diffs are going to be confused, and it does tend to make for alerts that are difficult to understand. "weird crap" isn't a very charitable way to describe it, but I do understand what Pmffl means. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The following should clarify why MrOllie is making remarks like that one above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Canvassing_in_Malassezia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a history of using ANI to try to win content disputes, thank you for pointing that out. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Request_to_enforce_WP:FOC_&_WP:NPA_in_Talk:Malassezia) However, the reason I'm commenting on this dispute (and on Talk:Javascript) is that I have had the Javascript article on my watchlist for years. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Just saying. I don't want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, bit late for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Kpmm198495

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

---

Kpmm198495 (talk · contribs) keeps violating the BLP policy at James Charles (Internet personality). I'm not saying that these events didn't happen as the article has them written in a neutral tone in the body. I'm saying that Kpmm198495 is deliberately calling Charles a "child predator" despite he was never arrested nor sentenced for such charges. What's even worse is that Kpmm198495 not only added the link of the "Photo taken by Charles and sent to minors on social media platforms", Kpmm198495 decided to upload it as "JailbirdJC" and leave it there ironically doing what Charles did in the first place, but instead of sending it to specific minors, Kpmm198495 decided that anyone reading the article had to be a spectator of his naked photograph. Kpmm198495 is not explaining his actions and as a fact, his account remained inactive for 18 months until they autoconfirmed it yesterday in order to edit the page. The inclusion of it in the lead is already being discussed here, where of course, has to be done in a neutral and due way. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Given their... response... here, an indef for disruption and BLP violations seems appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Their contributions include a revdelled response to this AN/I section, so one can't help but wonder if they're WP:HERE. Much to think about. jp×g 02:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

p-blocked from the article in question as an emergency measure, no objection to anyone increasing the block to a complete block for blp vios, so consider this report not closed. —valereee (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've increased this bloke to indefinite site-wide, that was some of the most heinous BLP violations I've seen in a while. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Ethnic slurs

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

---

What is our tolerance on ethnic slurs? The more I looked at this, the more I thought there should be zero tolerance.--- Possibly (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly when used as part of a vandalistic edit they should not be tolerated. I suggest a block is in order, and rev-del. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have revision deleted the linked diff and indefinitely blocked the editor per WP:NOTHERE. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

98.200.8.248 claim to engage in criminal activity

In this particular diff an IP editor 98.200.8.248 (talk · contribs) has claimed that he has engaged in an off-wiki criminal activity. While he has been reported to AIV, and I am sure that he will be blocked, I think his multiple claims of his crime should be rev-delled. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need to do more than revert and block for edit warring, as has been done. The IP is not saying they did it; they could be retelling some legendary story about the software (involving a hacker allegedly doing something at the request of a friend of the hacker). The material does not reveal anything that needs revision deletion IMHO although if someone wants to do, that's fine. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Check out all of the IP's contributions: they are indeed claiming ownership of the misdeeds. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Might want to check this one it may cross that line. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but it looks like a rant to me. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Other admins are welcome to have a look and rev-delete the IP's edits/comments if wanted but I don't see a need. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I revdelled two edits as serious BLP violations and the rest as purely disruptive: "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations...". Fences&Windows 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletions of operators

In a series of 3 edits User:FOX 52 has performed mass deletions of operators in the BN Islander article.
Of the previously listed 243 operators, a mere 36 were left in place in the current "List of Britten-Norman Islander operators", equalling a deletion of 85% of all operators.
Apparently, he feels that this might be justified by his "remove un-sourced content" comment.
However, it appears somewhat ridiculous to me to demand one source for every one to four words (= one operator) in a long standing article. Using this method, one could delete some 90% of the entire Wikipedia contents.
An attempt to solve the problem in Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators has failed.
The previous content has to be restored, possibly by adding the note "citation needed", and efforts might be continued to raise the percentage of sourced material.
Wholesale deletions like those having been done cannot be tolerated, they would destroy a huge percentage of WP contents. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: In the meantime, he has deleted the entire list as such and downgraded it to a section the main Britten-Norman Islander article. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Uli Elch, this is a content dispute. Please seek input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. The old list is still in the history for you and others to verify: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Britten-Norman_Islander_operators&oldid=1018241843. These are the relevant guidelines: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Fences&Windows 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Uli Elch: When you asked him to discuss the matter with you, what were the results of that discussion? --Jayron32 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(I did respond on the talk page) I only removed the un-sourced content per: WP:PROVEIT, - further I added citations to others I could find - Also the list contained a huge amount of non-notable operators WP:GNG - Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 13:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Fences and windows, this is fundamentally about content not behaviour. Uli Elich opened a discussion at Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators#Mass deletions of operators, which is a redirect page's talk page - curious place, but never mind. Notifications have been posted to the odd associated WikiProject. FOX 52 and others have engaged in the discussion, including me. As far as I can see it is very much live and ongoing. I'd suggest closing this issue as far too soon for ANI involvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jr Tahun and repeated additions of unsourced content

Jr Tahun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been repeadtly warned for adding unsourced content to various articles related to the 2020 Summer Olympics. However, they continue to keep adding this information per WP:SYNTH and without adding any concrete sources. At this point, I cannot continue reverting this user's edits as that would violate the 3rr rule, but something needs to be done here to stop the addition of the unsourced content. The user has even admitted (on their talk page) to as such, I am lazy looking for it, but you can find it yourself on the BWF website and tomorrow, May 18th, the ranking will be published. Here are some examples [59], [60]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User is not labelling reverted edits incorrectly as vandalism. [61] and [62] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is an important part of Wikipedia, and this user seems to be blatantly ignoring that. And knowingly so, per the message highlighted on their talkpage- FWIW, I couldn't find it on the BWF website, which is the whole reason why we add sources on Wikipedia. They're a good faith editor, but they really need to agree to add sourcing to every edit they make. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced content. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sychonic

• Sychonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerning the Republican "audit" of electoral votes in Maricopa County, Sychonic believes that Media sources, the exact ones you refer to, are no longer credible on this issue (and most to others), they have consistently shown bias in their reporting and this is further indicia of it. As distinct from the numerous elections before, they squelch any mention of possible fraudulent activity in the 2020 election even though there is voluminous material indicating possible malfeasance.. As a result he is edit-warring to a version of the article that treats the "audit" as a legitimate exercise, in defiance of sources including one of the sources he prefers, "Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on", but also reintroducing Vision Times, a Falun Gong newspaper indistinguishable from Epoch Times. diff, diff, diff, diff. Three editors - MjolnirPants (via MPants at work), MrOllie and I - have reverted.

Pulitzer is a colourful character (see CueCat) but the sources here appear unambiguous: his input in the Arizona "audit" is political activism, not a genuine contribution to electoral integrity. Sychonic sees it differently, and that seems to be a fringe view under the circumstances, and certainly not one supported by the sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the diffs, I feel an AP2 topic-ban for Sychonic is necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

____

The issue related to this article is not the subject involved, J. Pulitzer, but rather the characterization of the audit being conducted in Arizona by the State Legislature there. The contention is between my edit, which I believe is neutral, and the edit proposed by the person bringing this request. My edit proposes to use primarily information from the Wikipedia article on the 2020 election in Arizona as a general matter, and its reference to the audit being conducted while the that replaced it is pure partisan politics, using language such as "Big Lie" as if this were an appropriate and common term rather than a talking point. I believe that Wikipedia should remain above the fray in issues like this, and insist on strict impartiality on all aspects of politics and simply report as an encyclopedia should -- factual matter. It is being increasingly used by editors for their own personal agendas, seeking to change the world of their point of view, and Wikipedia should not allow itself to become that.

I have added references from sources that are both hostile to the audit (USA Today) and one that contained an interesting quote from the subject of the article -- purely as a reference for that quote, which is real. I do not particularly care for either publication in my personal reading, but neither is particularly reliable when it comes to reporting facts, and this has become a large problem, a broader problem when heretofore reliable news sources have clearly shed their impartial nature and litter their "news" section with unabashed opinions. One has to read everything with a grain of salt, and perhaps more, to get at the truth.

If Wikipedia becomes indistinguishable from the Huffington Post, or another of the online, low-brow political rags, then it will be a great loss to all concerned. This is a small matter about a minor figure, one who can best be called, in American idiom, "flaky". On this topic, though, the references to "big lie" and "partisan" and other rhetorical matters should be minimized, and I believe my edits have done that, and done so in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to arguments that minority or even fringe viewpoints be accurately described, but that isn't what we have here. We have one person making truly ludicrous claims that are being sourced to a site with severe credibility problems. When there is reliable commentary on ludicrous claims (looking for bamboo in ballots to detect a Chinese conspiracy), it may be worth discussing in some detail. When there is not such commentary, the details aren't relevant to any page on Wikipedia, as multiple editors who have reverted you have already stated. You cannot keep edit-warring and accusing everyone else of being biased. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

力, I think that sums it up well. The core of the issue here is that sources Wikipedia considers reliable, do not accord the Arizona fraudit any credibility at all, but Sychonic repudiates their reliability because they don't. I'm not sure there's anyway of forming a consensus between reality and what is described in reliable sources - including some of the sources he himself cites - as nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

While this conversation is ongoing, it is probably unwise for you to continue edit warring at the article, as you just did in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Sychonic for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, alas, I think he is unlikely to take the hint - but thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, longer blocks are certainly possible if disruptive editing continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to close an RFC

Hi. An RfC on article heading was opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 13 April, and it has had no additional input since 9 May. Could an uninvolved admin drop by and close it, please? Thanks in advance, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please use WP:ANRFC and please request an uninvolved editor, not administrator, unless you have a specific reason why an admin is needed. Politrukki (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad - thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Incivility By Admin User:JzG

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

---

According to WP:ADFAQ#CONDUCT "You can report problems with admins misusing their privileges at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." To editor JzG: response to closing response to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#When_WP:BLPCRIME_does_and_does_not_apply do not seem to appear to be consistent with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:CIVIL. The user's response was condescending, passive aggressive, and presumptive. Since "Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." this issue is more appropriately brought here as opposed to the normal course.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for the behavior you're discussing? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG is not currently an admin, and a link to the specific diff where the offending comment was added would be helpful. The comment I think you're referring to doesn't seem objectionable. The concern that Yousef Raz may be tendentiously ignoring consensus was a valid one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, I've checked literally every post by Guy (JzG) currently there, and I'm not seeing a conduct issue, even if JzG were currently an admin. They might be a little short with people, and certainly I saw posts that were not neutral. Can you provide a diff to show us what you're complaining about? —valereee (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&oldid=1023512666 Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context. To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist. Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Yousef Raz (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I accept a consensus with no objections. I'm an adult, if my view is not accepted I move on. Being uncivil is not appropriate. User:JzG page identifies him as an admin.Yousef Raz (talk)

More specifically Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way.20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I get that I'm new here, but that is considered a civil response, a respectful response, of an administrator? If it is, then so be it. But it appears to be condescending, passive aggressive, and presumptive.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

They're not an admin. The userbox you've taken as saying they are links to Wikipedia:Rouge admin, which identifies itself as a humorous page that is not official policy. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Trey Maturin. That's a little misleading.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if he had been an admin, participating in a content discussion is not an admin action – admins have no special privileges or powers when it comes to content questions. In any case, I fail to see anything inappropriate in that response. Exasperated, yes, uncivil, no – apart from the fact that the part you quote specifically isn't even directed at any of the participants in the discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no incivility in the reported remark, simply a little justifiable sarcasm concerning recent American political events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a little misleading. @JzG used to be an admin, and they probably put that userbox on their user page then and forgot to remove it when they resigned the bit. Guy, you probably should take that off your user page. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe also the banner about reviews of your admin actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And this (About Me paragraph): “... I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to...” — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think that Yousef Raz is an insurrectionist. I do think that many of the people who were sucked into the insurrection exhibit some or all of the qualities of cult victims - not an especially controversial view given the prevalence of QAnon belief in this group. I have sympathy with people who genuinely believed that they were going to save America from democracy, restore Trump to his throne, and be feted as heroes. It's easy to see how those who live entirely within the bubble of conservative media might come to that conclusion, delusional though it so very obviously is to those of us that consume a diet of facts and reality. I have sympathy. But that sympathy stops short of whitewashing the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea does incivility need to be overtly directed at a specific person? My understanding of passive aggressiveness, which is inherently uncivil, is that it is commonly directed at a person or group in a manner that is not overt.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to call passive-aggressiveness "incivil", then I guess this report itself is an example of incivility. But Guy's remark? Not so much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the title of the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken nothing I have stated was sarcastic nor passive-aggressive. My statements have been concise and assertive. There were quite a few people that responded in that feed, and not one other person was mentioned in my statements because no one else was uncivil.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Please protect poor defenseless little me from the big bad admin who said something mildly critical about my political beliefs." Sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

...and its uncivil, so I reported it here in accordance with the rules.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's uncivil. YR is a newish editor who is trying to figure out our ways. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, I'm trying to understand your complaint here. IMO yes, incivility probably needs to be directed at a specific person? I'm open to your argument that it doesn't, but you need to convince me. What exactly are you complaining about? I see what you linked to above: Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context. To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist. Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. While it's not particularly kind, I'm not sure I'm seeing uncivil. Are you talking about "one editor doesn't seem to like the answer"? What are you objecting to? —valereee (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee The comment, I interpret as directed at me with This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer...} and then Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way.. As if me wanting to use a legal standard set by WP:BLPCRIME puts me into a cult or that I'm disappointed in the results of the 2020 election. I view this as condescending, passive aggressive, and uncivil. I looked at his profile, and it appeared to be an admin. I felt this was inappropriate behavior for an admin.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, FWIW, I tend to err on demanding civility, and particularly from admins. That said, even if JzG were still an admin, I probably wouldn't see this post as uncivil. It's as I said not particularly kind, but it's not outside the standard of vigorous debate we engage in here on WP talk pages. I don't want to discourage a newish editor, but there's debate here, and it sometimes includes criticism of opposing viewpoints. IMO this would fall into that category. —valereee (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee Thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I came here looking for any incivility, no matter how mild, by "The Other Guy". We have a good working relationship, I would welcome it if he told me I was going too far, and I am sure that he feels the same about me. What I am not seeing is even a hint of actual incivility. "Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way" isn't incivility. It is an accurate description of a group of people without saying that any particular person is or is not in that group. Should I be punished for saying that people are idiots if they believe that Covid-19 can be cured by taking medicines full of poisonous mercury and lead after they have been "purified" by baking them in cow shit?

On the other hand, edits such as this one[63] make me think that a topic ban from US politics for Yousef Raz would be an appropriate solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Care to elaborate why that one diff makes you think a AP topic ban is a well thought out and good choice? Because I am not seeing it. PackMecEng (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I wrote too hastily. I should have looked for a pattern of edits, which I have not done. One of QAnon's talking points is calling the riot/insurrection/sedition a "demonstration" but just because QAnon says that doesn't mean that all who say that are QAnon. My apologies for sloppy thinking. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon if you want to relitigate the discussion on that edit, then lets do it. My basis was in accordance with the US Attorney. The oppossing basis was largely based on pundits. Pundits won.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So, @Yousef Raz, if that edit was based on (maybe the language used in the court filings by the US attorney?), then that's not actually how we do it. That would be original research. We use what reliable sources say. And, yes, that means pundits, and yes, before you say it, many reliable sources do have a likely liberal bias. If you'd like to dive into why we follow them anyway, read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and all the links and "See also" links from that guideline. —valereee (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee My interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME is that if no one is convicted of the crime, then we should use more neutral language. Since the US Attorney did not indict anyone nor convict them of the crime of insurrection[[64]], then it would be improper to label people as insurrectionist.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, which is a fair question, based on how we refer to deaths (death/killing/murder) based on legal rulings. It's something you can argue at the article talk, but it's not something that is going to be decided here at ANI. We focus on behavior, not on content. —valereee (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee I wasn't trying to revive that discussion here. I presented my perspective in the talk page, the consensus wasn't with me, and that's ok. I came here to discuss the behavior of someone that appeared uncivil and I thought was an admin. You time is much appreciated, thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and I thank you for your civility. —valereee (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason for any administrative action here directed at either party at this time. We've got one diff of a user phrasing something in a manner that only one user sees any problem with, and one diff of the OP making a POV edit that was reverted one minute later. For the record: you can see if a user is an admin by clicking "change user groups" in the left hand column. You won't actually be able to change them but you can see the logs. In this case we can see that Jzg voluntarily tunred in their admin tools five months ago, there's even a link to the request in the rights log. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox Thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  You can also see them if you enable Nav Popups in Preferences>Gadgets. —valereee (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox: for us ordinary editors, that's "View user groups". Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I too believe that no administrative action in either direction is required, but I did want to express my view that Guy's comment (fully quoted above) was indeed uncivil. The statement that insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist [...] those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade is difficult to place in the context of the preceding discussion, since that very long discussion contains nothing at all about the insurrectionists themselves being baffled at being called that way. The comment is, in fact, very hard to understand in any other way than as an underhanded suggestion that the editors opposing the use of the word insurrection in the article are the ones protesting being called that way, which of course equates them with the insurrectionists. The comment also makes it personal by stating that one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, while there were at least two other editors taking Yousef Raz's position. Though I personally agree with those saying we should use the word insurrection in as much as RS are using it (and the underlying view that neutrality is to be determined by what sources say, not the other way around, which is basic WP:NPOV really but not often well-understood), I find Guy's comment completely unacceptable. I also feel that this comment was enabled by the other editors opposing Yousef Raz's position, who rather than explaining the intricacies of WP policy were being condescending from the very start (e.g., We are summarizing what sources say. If they said magical flying unicorns scaled the walls, we'd also include that). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Apaugasma, it was a general reflection on the numerous (indeed incessant) demands that we reframe our articles around the insurrection to support the Trumpist narrative that only Trump supporters were injured in the insurrection, that it was an exercise of free speech and not an insurrection, and so on. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is going to be the creationism de nos jours, I reckon. And I was here for the OG creationism disputes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody said only Trump supporters were injured. A few correctly noted that the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter, as was the officer previously and baselessly said to have been killed. Hard to have an insurrection when the insurgents gave up in hours, having killed nobody, toppled nothing and captured nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Failed criminality is still criminality. EEng 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not even talking criminality, just the act itself. Insurrection did not occur. That's basically why nobody was charged with inciting, engaging in or assisting in one. Other crimes, sure, alleged in the hundreds. The guy from Iced Earth is already guilty of two. But nothing related to insurrection. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Just like failed attempt of uncivility is still uncivility. Politrukki (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Guy, I totally get that patience can wear thin in such circumstances, but behind every username on WP there's a different person, whose intents and motivations are always more complex than it is possible to imagine through the WP interface. In such situations, it's important to not lump people together, which can in part be achieved by structurally exaggerating the AGF-thing. When you find yourself incapable of doing so, it's probably a good idea to take it as a sign that a wikibreak may be in order. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As a guy who's disagreed with Guy and been indirectly lumped in with a lot of allegedly bad types for it, I reiterate I'm thinking for myself, influenced by Hogan (as accepted in the '80s). I supported Trump (in spirit) over Clinton, but chose Harris the next time. There are pedophiles in high places and The American Dream has died of cancer, but QAnon didn't figure those ones out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Picture Ivanka and Hillary right now in a bar somewhere, sharing a tall cool glass of adrenochrome, with two straws. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what that is, so I replaced it with cocaine and pictured a well instead of a glass. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's a well they'll need hoses instead of straws. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• When I closed the discussion in question I reminded the participants to drop the stick. Disappointing to see that Yousef has instead picked up a bigger stick. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  So has Hulk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Ninve67

• Ninve67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Owl House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Constant WP:DE behavior, also making an ongoing edit war to make others frustrated. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan, p-blocked from the article for 31 hours, but do take into account this is a very new editor who may have a language challenge, and be kind. Try to figure out what it is they're trying to do. They don't seem ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, this user wanted to make changes to article because he thinks that it would look cooler, but it is not the page users are used too, and is inserting WP:FAN. In fact, he was making inappropriate MOS:BOLD to the overall columns in the episode list. He did make discussion on the talk page, but shortly after, he continued to edit the article by adding a third season cell in the series overview, but no known episodes of that season was confirmed officially. This user was also discussing how he prefers the use of bold on overall columns to episode lists of any show, but he has to read WP:OTHER.

This is what the user was trying to do, I understand that he maybe new here and isn't well-intentioned, but he needs to follow the guidelines. That is what I got so far, if you want more, I will try digging deeper. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

revdel needed for racial attacks

• 2603:8001:400:2:4032:DBCD:8A15:6999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:8001:400:2:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This person put terrible messages in their edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like it’s all been done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, all done. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Shahaneh's persistent unsourced additions and edit warring

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

This user was blocked indefinitely on December 24, 2009 by NuclearWarfare. On April 16, 2021, Maxim unblocked them. Since April 17, 2021 (Special:Diff/1018352013), the account's edit are almost exclusivley related to 3D-film. Their whole list of contributions is a series of unsourced additions of a film being released in 3D and/or IMAX 3D. After being reverted, citing the unsourced nature of their edits and the lack of notability for the inclusion of the information in the lead section, they repeatedly edit warred with the different editor that reverted them.

The user was notoriously persistent at Black Widow (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Their first edit to this page (diff) was reverted by Adamstom.97 (diff). Shahaneh repeated their edit a total of seven times, some of those comprised of two or three consecutive edits ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]). Another case was The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([73], [74], [75], https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Suicide_Squad_(film)&diff=1021506444&oldid=1021502658), but there's also Venom: Let There Be Carnage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([76]), Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([77]), and Mission: Impossible 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([78]) to name a few. Virtually all their edits are like this.

After seeing the editor's actions nature, I consulted a fellow editor, the aforementioned Adamstom.97, on what to do about the editor (diff). The editor changed my comment, trading his own name for IronManCap (diff), who was the first one to place a warning at their talk page (diff). After InfiniteNexus put a final warning on their page (diff), only one last edit was performed by the user (diff).

Then, 64.183.125.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appeared, making identical edits to articles such as Mission: Impossible 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff) and West Side Story (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Shahane diff, IP diff), where Shahaneh had also edited, and to many other pages where they hadn't, such as Untitled Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse sequel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff), Untitled third Fantastic Beasts film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff), and most recently Jackass 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff).

I guess that, being a recently unblocked user who almost immediately after being able to edit again started mass-adding unsourced information and edit warring, changed another editor's comment and then apparently resorted to sockpuppeting (WP:QUACK) after receiving a final warning, this editor should be blocked again. —El Millo (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is pretty bad. I have blocked the account indefinitely and the quacking IP for a month. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

  That's a reasonable approach. For the sake of context, the original block from 11 years back was for creating nonsense pages, although it was a Futurama-related page written in-universe and without actual reference to Futurama—not quite vandalism, but a nonsense page at first glance. We received an appeal at arbcom-en, and I unblocked as individual admin action on the grounds that 11 years is long enough for a second chance. Maxim_(talk) 12:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to Facu-el Millo and Bishonen for sorting this, it is much appreciated. IronManCap (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Run n Fly have are connected with Khorkuto serial

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

---

I was observing Run n Fly since some days. And i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute. So after my observations i am sure Run n Fly have some connection with Alivia Sarkar. Apart from this Run n Fly is edition much about Khorkuto cast. So there is some connection with Run n Fly with Khorkuto Serial as well as Alivia Sarkar. Bengal Boy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:JakeyPaul123456

• JakeyPaul123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a persistently—and now exclusively—disruptive user who ignores all warnings. The vast majority of their edits gets reverted—repeated unexplained content removal, adding wrong information, unsourced changes, repeated unconstructive changes that get repeatedly reverted, replacing valid images with their own dubious or obscene images that always get deleted for copyright violation (example). On top of that, the user also received a warning for username violation. The user refuses to communicate and keeps making disruptive edits after a final warning, after a 31-hour block and after yet another final warning after the block (like another copyright violation in Apple Inc.). The next block should be either much longer, or preferably indefinite.—J. M. (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not ask an admin to indef block him, if he is so clearly a persistent vandal? You should probably report him to AIV and say that he is a vandalism only account and he will probably be indef'd. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

AIV is a place for reporting obvious vandalism. This case requires more than 5 seconds of examination.—J. M. (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

True, we should discuss more here. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

We does not include you, as you are now blocked for using an IP to evade the blocks on your accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

P-blocked from article space. Maybe that'll get their attention. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit War at The Voice (American TV series)

An edit war has been going on at The Voice (American TV series) for a few days and seems to be escalating. Is there something administrators can do to defuse the situation? Instant Comma (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not report the users edit-warring to the Edit Warring Noticeboard and if that doesn't work, request page protection? 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC). sock chatter-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this about the colors in the table? Perhaps you should ask for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear; I don't think protection is warranted at this time, the dispute seems to have moved from article space to the talk page, and could use more input from affected populations. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The edit war continued, so another admin blocked the two editors from editing that page. Instant Comma (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism: User:Umsunu Wabo

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

---

User:Umsunu Wabo Persistent vandalism. See talk page for repeated warnings, with this recent activity [[79]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland

• 37.248.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland

Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland has returned to disrupt music articles. Two IPs have been blocked recently: 37.248.171.152 and 37.248.168.89. As a preventative, can we block the /21 or /20 range containing these two? Lengthy rangeblocks have been made in the past, including a one year block of Special:Contributions/31.0.0.0/17. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked for three months, no objection to an extension if another admin prefers that. Fences&Windows 23:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Virulently racist comment at Talk:Black Lives Matter

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

---

Venalhype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The comment speaks for itself: [80]. Seems to be a clear candidate for revision deletion.

The account is apparently single-use, but could of course be blocked as a precaution. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Revdeled and indeffed. Nothing else to see here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Dehumanization/racial attack

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

---

Is this comment by BilCat really all that appropriate by Wikipedia standards even though it was written on a talk page? Notwithstanding the non-neutral point of view, this seems more than a baseless racist attack as compared to a valid criticism of a country's government, by assuming that everyone from China is a "skilled hacker", are "citizen-slaves", and when they make contributions to China-related topics, it's "shilling for their masters", and that do "they" really think "we can't tell", and ending with "LOLOL". I'm not Chinese but it did rubbed me the wrong away as such comments dehumanizes them. I'm sure there are many well-established Chinese Wikipedians who aren't any of this. Many civilians are not their government (or as BilCat considers them as "Chi-Com"), and they just have to make do with what they have. PluggedOzone (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this complaint, which IMO misrepresents what BilCat said. Their comment isn't even a little about "everyone from China". It's explicitly about the "skilled hackers" which are (in BilCat's view) used by the Chinese government to 'shill for their masters'. I too am sure there are many well-established Chinese Wikipedians who aren't, and don't do, any of this. It doesn't look like you read BilCat very carefully, PluggedOzone. Bishonen | tålk 13:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

And I'll go one step further. Brand new account, who's first edit ever is to ANI. Who's sock are you? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I was just going to add that it was very clever of PluggedOzone to find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with their first edit. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

Doesn't really matter whose sock, does it, RickinBaltimore? Blocked as a trolling-only sock. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

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

WP:CIVIL and personal attacks by IP

I was hoping to avoid coming here, but there's an IP who is insistent on getting the last word and engaging in uncivil behaviour and low-level personal attacks. At Talk:Scottish National Party there was a dispute about one of the sources (now resolved, mercifully) where 88.104.60.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) became fairly uncivil in his instance about how WP:BRD works. This didn't bother me too much; I tried to explain to him how it works and direct the conversation back on track, and fortunately it was resolved thanks to two other editors contributing. However, the IP took to a lengthy discussion on my talk page where he eventually made this post where he said, I realised you were an εejit and waited for better users to join in, thankfully they did. Please think about confining yourself to vandal swatting or something at your level, for the sake of the encyclopaedia. I wasn't wholly appreciative of this so I placed a warning on his talk page for personal attacks, and I removed this from my page. He then posted another uncivil comment on Talk:Scottish National Party here. By this point I simply wanted the arguing to end, as I could see he was more interested in having the last word and being belligerent despite my insistence that he WP:DROPIT. Consequently I removed his personal attack and hatted the discussion to prevent further useless arguments continuing. He posted on my talk page a few more times, even though the content dispute had long since finished [81][82][83], and then unhatted the discussion and re-added his uncivil comment, suggesting I bring an admin into this, so here I am. I'd appreciate if someone could restore my hatted version of the talk page (sans his uncivil comment) and maybe give him a talk about what WP:CIVIL behaviour looks like. — Czello 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk by the IP, in particular these comments: [84], [85], [86]. The IP is also giving off the vibe of an experienced user, not an IP, either evading scrutiny or a block.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

He does indeed claim in one edit that he has been a Wikipedia editor "for almost two decades" and also knew of certain policies (such as WP:BRD). So yes, I agree with your assessment. — Czello 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Too many users like yourself see anons as some sort of low level user on a MMORPG Wikipedia with yourselves just above, but anonymous editing since Wikipedia's dawn is just as legitimate as any other form of editing; there is no default requirement for anyone to edit under an account, and editing outside a registered account does not justify accusations of subversion. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I am glad Czello has brought this here, calling more attention to himself, I hope that if he every pursues adminship this thread leads to a thorough reconstruction of events, not as he chooses to represent them but as they were. My side, sorry don't care enough to go digging for diffs, I was randomly reading the article on the Scottish National Party a few days ago and I noticed that an organisation founded in the 1970s was being described as 'proto-fascist'. This is impossible as a historical description since they post-date fascism and thus can't be 'proto' in any historic sense, so I attempted to improve the entry. The page has restrictions on anons, and Czello used those to make improving the article on the point unnecessarily difficult. He ignored the semantic problem, insisted without knowledge of the references that they supported the offending text, insisted I didn't have any right to change the text and continually reverted any attempt I made to improve the article. I even investigated the reference in question (I own the book), supplied the page number, but even that was reverted despite his rhetorical commitment to a 'don't remove cited material' stance t. I brought the matter to the talk and he largely ignored the issue and focused on trying to explain his understanding of certain wikipedia guidelines and principles and how I hadn't been acting right. As I showed, the reference did not even support the offending description, and thanks to the assistance of two uninvolved users the issue was resolved. Talk between Czello and I then did continue due to his apparent wish to get the last word. His insistence on talking down to me as an anon, dropping phoney hypocritical 'warning' templates on my talk page, and explaining guidelines he doesn't really understand was extremely irritating. Based on my own experience he is obviously not an editor who is fit to make advanced content decisions, I would normally have kept a thought like that to myself as it is quite impolite and it's not as if he's going to take me seriously, but I had no incentive to build a relationship with him by that stage and I found his petty, repetitive ritualistic personality so annoying that I didn't care. I realise my comments will be taken as unnecessarily uncivil by some, but I actually don't think 'civility' is the be all and end all of behaviour, this is an encyclopedia, he was making it difficult to improve it and he was frankly trying to bully me because I was an anon. He combines edit-warring and policing of behaviour, does the latter when he is involved, hypocritically, without any awareness of the issue; he responded to my concerns about his 'warnings' by dropping another 'warning' template on my talk page, he then deleted a comment I made on the article talk page on the grounds that I had been rude to him and 'closed' the discussion; and now he shows up here pretending to be the straight-playing mature actor. One of you can explain the issues with his approach if you like, but I doubt it would be worth earning his enmity, just please file this down mentally in case he every tries for 'promotion'. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, so far as the insertion of the term "proto-fascism" is concerned, as the sources did not so much as mention it. However, you have embellished certain aspects of this dispute, such as Czello's alleged administrative aspirations, disrespect towards you for being an I.P. editor and the extent to the value of civility. Had you not lobbed incessant insults at Czello, this would not have been brought up here and your sound reasoning on the article talk page would have stood. You weren't just tort with Czello; you took a series of unnecessary jabs that violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is a policy and not a mere essay. You're obviously a good contributor, so I won't ask anything of you, other than perhaps keeping focused on the content dispute and not on amateur hour insults. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I explained the 'jabs' & I understand that not everyone will like them, but do you seriously think he would have reverted any of these changes if I weren't editing as an IP? I mean, it's counter-factual obviously, but when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you No, long-term editing as an IP does not grant superhuman powers that allow you to "know" the motivations of another editor. That is textbook bad-faith assumption. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh gie's peace, I didn't either mention either knowledge or motivation. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This reading is, of course, very one-sided. I won't get into the nuances of the content dispute again, except to say that 1) During the talk page discussion I happily conceded that the first source was wrong (the IP neglects to mention that the "proto-fascist" label actually had two other sources attached to it, which they failed to address) and therefore could change, and I'm glad we found a good compromise for it; 2) contrary to what they say, I explained in careful detail how BRD and QUO work, but it is they who seems to have misunderstood them entirely to continue edit warring; 3) I find it rather ironic they accuses me of wanting to get the last word when I directly asked them to WP:DROPIT more than once, and so when they didn't I hatted the discussion to do it for them, which they undid (even though the discussion had ended). Furthermore, in their attempt to get the last word they even restored his uncivil comments, which I think demonstrates their rather poor attitude in this situation.

This could have ended very easily once the content dispute was over, but instead this IP seems insistent on wanting to WP:WIN the argument and engage in personal attacks. I really wish the'd have just let it end when we achieved a consensus, but they seems intent on continuing a pretty useless argument. — Czello 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Czello I'm not aware that the person behind the IP above has specified any gender preference. Please do not place emphasis on an editor while seeming to presume their gender. If they have indicated a gender preference, I apologise. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair, changed to they/their — Czello 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Czello, for all intents and purposes, everything you replied with has already been edified. Just as is the case while I address 88.104.60.179, I think you should take a step back, acknowledge your mistakes and move forward beyond this dispute. Both of you misstepped in different ways, so this can be settled just with the both of you agreeing to work more collaboratively and kindly with one another in the future. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to do so; the reason I started this report is because the IP doesn't seem willing to. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong on this: I've now re-hatted the conversation and removed the uncivil comment -- if the IP leaves it at this (as I think is best) then we can all go our separate ways and get on with our lives. — Czello 21:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to remove their comment? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to undo my edit I won't revert; but given that I found it going against WP:CIVIL (not to mention it contributing nothing and largely being a bit disruptive), I feel justified in removing it and hatting the conversation. — Czello 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It very well might, but it's not egregious, and it's kinda rude to remove someone's comment, especially when you are already having a dispute with them. I think it'd be easier overall if you hatted the discussion while letting the comment stand. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he couldn't resist doing that during an ACTIVE AN/I thread tells its own story. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason I did is because there is a clear agreement above that you crossed a line. However, if you’re insistent on having the last word then go ahead and re-insert your comment — just do me a favour and leave it hatted. — Czello 21:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason I did is ... However, if you’re insistent on having the last word ... This pairing calls for some self-reflection. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not. Having active ANI threads about oneself does not stop one from anti-vandalism. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest I'm happy for an admin to close/hat this thread now; the IP has been reprimanded by several editors and I can't see this going any further. I think we can both go our separate ways and call this ended. (I actually tried to close the thread myself but apparently you're not allowed to close your own reports, which I was unaware of!) — Czello 10:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Attack page

This page which I had created earlier was recreated to insult me. Can you delete it please because its content and also edit summary consists swear words. Also could you block the IP for violating WP:CIV. Thank you.--V. E. (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Liz at 16:30.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense being spammed across multiple pages by User:Bubwater

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

I'm really a bit confused here, I'm not sure if this is intentional vandalism, CIR issues, or something else. They seem to be adding some story involving NFTs, scams, and harry potter (that I haven't quite worked out yet due to it being a bit incoherent) to every article they can find. Quick selection of diffs: Special:Diff/1024012470, Special:Diff/1024015815, Special:Diff/1024014668, etc. I think I've reverted all of it, but some help here regarding what the right course of action going forward for this user might be would be appreciated. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty incoherent, but going through the (actually quite long!) edit history, this looks like a near-SPA who edits about artist Hajime Sorayama and his legal dealings in the united states, particularly as regards to a company and website that seems to sell Sorayama prints in the US, "Artspace Company Y" / sorayama.net It looks to me like another company has been selling some Sorayama related NFT items in the US and there is some feuding between this new company and Artspace Company Y. I think it is a likely WP:COI with a side helping of CIR. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this editor. I think 12 years of obsessive disruption is enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Frank042316

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

---

Edit war created at: University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Continues to post information he originally posted in November 2019, even without a Talk consensus. Seems like Edit wars are something he engages in normally as he has been warned on his talk page before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdman882 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Have you brought this to the edit warring noticeboard? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

They were probably too busy making their fifth revert to the article. Or maybe they were too busy reverting Frank042316 a half-dozen times at User talk:Frank042316. Or maybe it was their long stream of personal insults on that talk page that kept them busy. --JBL (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

NPA-Oyond

A few weeks ago there was a vandalism going on due to the wording "ethnic cleansing" on the article Turkish War of Independence which is now locked. Due to this and refusal of using denailist sources in the article I guess based on what he wrote, the user Oyond called the situation as a "bad intent from users" which I warned him to be a PA since it was a baseless accusation.[87] Then he called me a demagogue although I have warned him of NPA policy.[88] Best regards --V. E. (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear admins please review the whole conversation mentioned above in the discussion. I will not edit anything i said. Edit: however same thing cannot be said about other people. Right now there is strong purge in the discussion form on all of the issues i pointed out in the paragraph. Please review the history of the discussion. I want to contribute to this topic but it needs to be fair. I saved the screenshot, I can provide it if necessary Oyond (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oyond has also been disruptively undoing archiving: [89][90][91].--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

IP editor 67.235.210.179

Looks like they have been vandalizing Wikipedia since February and have been warned over three times. Edits here. Wallnot (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Most recent edit is not vandalism. No action needed here for me. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969

Backstory: On May 16, ‎DrChuck68 did a really good job of creating an article for KWDC-LP. In less than 24 hours, Onel5969 came through and restored the redirect to the college that owns the station claiming "does not meet WP:BCAST". This is incorrect, but I will get to that in a moment.

DrChuck68 posted on the WP:WPRS talk page and asked for help. At the same time, he created a DRAFT for the article as well. I saw the WP:WPRS post, responded, and set off to work. I made my edits to the DRAFT and reverted the redirect. My revert of the redirect happened 22:50. I was in the process of uploading a logo (which does take a minute) and did at 22:53. Onel5969 AfD'd the article at 22:54 before I made my improvement edits at 22:57. 7 minutes.

I asked Onel5969 almost immediately at 23:00 about the AfD. Even saying "you never let me finish. Next edit, fully updated page." In the the AfD Onel5969 claims it was "De-prodded without rationale or improvement". As stated, it was never a dePROD, it was unredirect. Onel5969 claims "nope. You don't simply revert without improving the article." Even though I did improve the article. I mention this (whilst breaking the new Beta "reply" feature) and mention the dePROD issue. They respond with the oddest reply: "yes I did notice, still doesn't pass bcast. And I never said it was a deProd, simply said you reverted without improvement." Huh?

So, they notice my improvements, but they still are stuck on I reverted without improvement, and my improvements don't pass BCAST. OK? I'm confused. So I post this, specifically asking for clarification. I receive no response, I change the timestamp to light up the talk page alert in case it was missed (it happens) and it is reverted. That lets me know my previous questions were seen and ignored. I even say this, even if, admittedly, a little snarky. With a "Bugs Bunny" insult (seriously, "what a maroon"?), that since I have nothing "cogent" to add to the conversation that Onel5969 "declin[ing] to participate" and I am not longer post on their talk page. Knowing full well it will be deleted, I respond with this, as I am still trying to engage the user in constructive conversation. It is, unsurprisingly, reverting with the edit summary "rev ignorance".

Crux of the Problem: Now, I have made further edits to the page, adding more reliable third-party sources, including some from local newspapers. This is my area of expertise. Onel5969 has added nothing to the article, added nothing to the conversation, and really added nothing but confusion.

This isn't the only time Onel5969 has done this. Just two threads down on his talk page from mine this user asks for clarification and Onel5969 responds almost the same way he did with me.

This is unconstructive editing with other users, not just myself, not playing well with others, just all around being cranky when you could be a little nicer. Flies/honey argument. Not sure what the answer is here, but something needs to be done else this user is going to wind up in some trouble....and soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at this as someone uninvolved, and I just do not think your summary of the events here is particularly fair. The only thing Onel5969 did that was wrong is the mistaken AfD statement that the article was de-prodded, rather than unredirected, and I'd encourage them to correct that. After that, the two of you seem to have had a very mild argument on Onel5969's talk page, but I can't really criticise them requesting you to stop posting there as it seems clear productive discussion between the two of you had concluded, and AfD is the correct venue for the content dispute. There seems to be some honest disagreement over the application of WP:BCAST here, and it seems perfectly correct for it to be discussed at AfD.

DrChuck68's creation of the article was fine, as a worthy attempt to demonstrate notability. Onel5969 waited for more than a day after it stopped being editing before, as is permitted, restoring the redirect per WP:BRD as they disagreed as to its notability, which is also fine. You, disagreeing with that, reverted - which is also fine, within reason. At that point, discussion is required if disagreements continue - and you hadn't improved the article when Onel5969 did just that, by taking it to AfD. Yes, you very shortly later did make some improvements, but you had given no indication you were going to. Process-wise there just doesn't seem to be a problem except for a mild talk-page fracas.

I don't think your interpretation of WP:BCAST is anywhere near as universally agreed as you seem to be implying. There is a valid notability dispute here, and I am not seeing admin actionable conduct issues. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KWDC-LP can solve what needs to be solved, and I suggest you disengage and avoid personalising this. ~ mazca ^talk 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Mazca, thanks ... have made the slight correction to the AfD as per your suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mazca: Just to answer the "[my] interpretation of WP:BCAST is anywhere near as universally agreed as [I] seem to be implying" upfront, please see: WP:BCASTOUTCOMES.

Now, while I appreciate that Onel5969 has taken the time to change AfD statement, even though I already mentioned that to them and they claimed it "never said it was a deProd". So, at least it's a start.

When shown the improvements made, though, regardless of the steps made to get there (let's not get into a semantics argument, please), Onel5969 refused to back down. When shown even more improvements, I was ignored, "insulted", then banished from their talk page. It is a little difficult to converse with someone who refuses to answer even the most basic questions and won't acknowledge improvements. That's not a "mild talk-page fracas", that's not even stubborness, that's just outright bull. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin closes by Buidhe

In a little over a week, Buidhe (talk · contribs) has racked up five challenges of her RfC and RM closes on her talk page:

• User talk:Buidhe#Improper Move for Pennsylvania German language (original discussion, now at move review)
• User talk:Buidhe#RfC Battle of Vukovar (original discussion)
• User talk:Buidhe#Your closure at DNSSEC (original discussion)
• User talk:Buidhe#Early European modern humans (original discussion, now at move review)
• User talk:Buidhe#Your closure of Elon Musk as engineer (original discussion)

Without getting into the specifics of each one, the frequency of these challenges on its own is a strong indicator that Buidhe is not following WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC, namely that discussions where the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial should be left to administrators. I also see two common threads to be found in the examples above. The first is Buidhe purporting to find a "clear" consensus in discussions with low participation and/or tight vote margins. The second is her not engaging with the argument that the close was incorrect: there is a quick response dismissing any fault, then silence, forcing the challenger to either drop it or go to move review etc. Indeed her response to the latest discussion seems to indicate that she does not think it is important to respond to those "dissatisfied" with her closes at all. This strikes me as Buidhe trying to have her cake and eat it too: if you're going to ignore the advice that non-admins should not make "close calls", fine, but you should then be prepared to be responsive and accountable for objections like an admin has to.

I haven't looked beyond the last week to see if this a recently-developed habit or a longer trend. Either way I think Buidhe's closes ought to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy pings for those involved in the above discussions: @Rosbif73, Kashmiri, OyMosby, Vaticidalprophet, TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, and Nardog: – Joe (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just a comment: the reason WP:BADNAC exists is that for deletion discussions, where a discussion is on the verge of keep or delete, the large number of non-admin eyes verses the relatively smaller number of admin eyes would bias the outcome to almost always be "keep" - since non-admins cannot close as "delete". Such is not the case in any of the linked RfCs, which are not XfDs, but content disputes. Buidhe is an experienced editor - and I'd rather hand her the mop than prevent her from closing such discussions - though as a technical user right, it shouldn't be relevant to her closing ability. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NAC and its subsection WP:BADNAC are an essay about XfD closes. None of the closes brought up here were made at XfD. The relevant essay-ish-thing (it's not strictly clear what tier it's actually in) at RM, if we are to treat essays with such importance, is WP:RMNAC, prominently bearing the line Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. RM is also essentially unworked by admins, giving it the significantly different NAC attitude to AfD seen at e.g. TfD. The community of active participants at RM, including its admins, are quite confident in Buidhe's closes (pinging Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, and Wbm1058 due to their interest in such discussion) and hold her as its pre-eminent discussion closer. Buidhe's primary issue, as it is, is that her closes are followed by {{nac}}; I entirely concur with Elli that they shouldn't be. Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• (ec) Buidhe is an experienced, excellent closer of discussions. This complaint reads like an attempt to forum shop because the move reviews are on course to endorse the RM closures. The solution to the issue raised is to make this red link blue. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two move reviews above. One I have absolutely no involvement in. The other I opened 30 minutes before this so it's probably a little early to call the result. I think it would be productive if we could focus on determining whether Buidhe's closes are correct, rather than making bare assertions of her good reputation amongst RMers, or casting aspersions about what ulterior motives I might have for making that request. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps I shouldn't have focused on the NAC aspect. I do agree that it's only the quality of the close that counts, not the closer's bits. The problem is that Buidhe does not seem to be making good closes. Five challenges in a week is an alarming rate for anyone. That said, WP:NAC is not just about deletion; it refers to just "discussions" and we have a separate policy specifically for deletion-related NACs (WP:NACD). WP:RMNAC also specifically says that NACs of RMs requires that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything to focus on here but the NAC aspect, realistically speaking. I think having that on her closes inspires challenges to them that wouldn't otherwise occur. (As for Black Kite's comments, she is indeed a highly prolific discussion-closer -- I keep planning out a close for (simple and uncontroversial) RMs to find she got there first.) Vaticidalprophet 10:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Indeed, WP:NAC is not only for XfDs - I'm specifically referring to The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. My interpretation of why this is the case is as I listed above. There is nothing inherent to admins about a better closing ability, the concern here is bias. As for challenges - anyone can challenge a closure, and seeing one is is a nac makes one much more likely to do so. Are Buidhe's moves getting overturned? Not seeing evidence of that. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If you've got five complaints in five days about your closes, this means;

• (a) you're closing many dozens of discussions
• (b) you're specifically closing contentious discussions where there is more likely to be a large number of disgruntled editors, or
• (c) you're closing discussions badly.
• I'm not convinced by the two I've looked at so far, btw. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment All five of the listed closures provide not only the outcome but a brief and succinct explanation. This is good practice, and should be encouraged. Sometimes closes are tricky, and whether or not someone is an admin will not change that. Agree with many above that the number of raised discussions doesn't say much about the quality of closures, if they are overturned that would be another matter. CMD (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The examples above are from the last seven days, so it's too soon for any of them to have been overturned (unless Buidhe did so voluntarily, which is part of the issue here). However looking back just a bit further I found e.g. Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_January#Admiralty_(United_Kingdom), where there was a clear consensus that Buidhe's close was premature, found consensus where there was none (note the parallels to the complaints above), and should be overturned. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That particular close isn't really a cut-and-dry "bad nac". Buidhe closed the original move as (paraphrasing) "consensus exists that 'Admiralty (United Kingdom)' is not the primary topic for 'Admiralty'". Given that both commenters agreed, that's not an unreasonable close. She particularly said a further move clarifying the eventual location of the British admiralty may be filed if desired. Looking at the further discussion - while some people said it was closed too early (I disagree, seven days is the length of the process, and there was no active disagreement on the point Buidhe closed on), the next RM did lead to what she closed in favor of - that said article was not the primary topic of "Admiralty" - being kept. Should she have moved it to Admiralty (United Kingdom) instead of British Admiralty? Perhaps, but given that no one suggested it in the discussion, I feel like that would've been a more controversial close. If this is the most recent example of a bad Buidhe close, I don't think we have a problem here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Buidhe is, in my experience, one of the more experienced regular closers at RM. She's willing to close discussions that stay in the backlogs for a while, or are otherwise controversial and people don't want to touch. In the past, whenever I've reviewed one of Buidhe's closures, for example in the situation Vaticidal links, my opinion is that she closed the discussion correctly. First some general points: WP:NAC is just an essay and for good reasons. The closure of content discussions is not an administrative matter, and the community affirmed this here. WP:NACD is a guideline which applies to deletion discussions, because deletion (and some other areas, like conduct) are exclusively in the purview of administrators. Still, WP:NACD does not accurately describe practice at all XfD venues, for example it does not accurately describe practice at TfD. Another general note is that sometimes involved parties who are upset with the outcome (or believe the 'policy' wasn't 'weighted' correctly) like to appeal on the closer's talk by virtue of the 'WP:NAC'. I understand the temptation, having felt it before. Unfortunately, the reality one has to accept is that sometimes consensus just sucks. NACs can get a harder time over it than admins, and the solution for Buidhe is turning this blue.
  On this specific ANI: of the discussion Vaticidal links, I think it reflects more poorly on the involved parties than on buidhe. Of the discussions linked in the opening comment, I think the Elon Musk one was closed correctly, with almost 75% opposed to the perennial proposal on reasonable policy grounds. However, the Early European modern humans concern seems reasonable, and if it were me I'd unclose and relist. The DNSSEC concern seems to be a matter of semantics ("consensus for current title" vs "no consensus to move"). There is a distinction between the two, yes; the term buidhe used could be intentional, if Buidhe determined the discussion showed explicit consensus for the current title. But even if we assume it didn't then it's still a minor error, and admins make far more impactful errors than this and nobody bothers point them out or complain about them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I must echo the above sentiments that Buidhe run for adminship, and do it as soon as possible. Buidhe, my friend, you are disadvantaging yourself and this project by not running, as this ANI thread shows. So I will bold this: Buidhe should run for adminship. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am more concerned by the hounding of Buidhe and forum shopping exhibited both here and at WP:RM talk pages when closures don't go the way involved parties wanted them to go. Buidhe has far more experience than many admins in closing RM discussions so the idea that admin closures are better than NAC ones is wrong. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• I've looked through all five discussions. There's not a single close that I thought was incorrect, and there's no reason to avoid NACs in these specific circumstances (XfD is different), especially when the closer is clearly competent. Would support closing this discussion with no action taken. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NAC explicitly states that discussions should not be reopened just because the closer is not an administrator. I take that to mean broadly that only the quality of the close determines the quality of the close, not the status of the closer. So let's just look at the closures, shall we?
  • Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch language#Move to "Pennsylvania_Dutch"?: Personally, I would have relisted this, but Buidhe's close was well-reasoned and within discretion. The move review is informative here.
  • Talk:List of military disasters#RFC on Battle of Vukovar: There's at least one editor in here who is probably a VJ-Yugo sock (they haunt Balkans military topics) but Buidhe isn't expected to know that, and their comments probably didn't sway the discussion. I would have dismissed the main opposition argument that an event has to be described using the specific word "disaster", and not any of the supporters' noted reliably-sourced synonyms, in order to be included in the list, especially since the opposer who kept writing that comment clearly has poor grasp of English. But that's bordering on supervote territory. Otherwise I would have closed no-consensus rather than consensus against, but I can't call this a bad close.
  • Talk:Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#Requested_move_31_March_2021: This challenge is a good example of why counting the number of times an editor's closes are challenged is not good evidence whatsoever that the closes are bad, it's just evidence that our checks and balances work. The challenger's entire argument was that the head count in and of itself demands a no-consensus close, but that's not how closing discussions works at all. Consensus was clearly against the move and the close was excellent.
  • Talk:Upper Palaeolithic Europe#Requested move 9 May 2021: Personally I agree with Joe Roe here to the extent that the title should refer to the people and not the geography, but I did not participate in the discussion and he failed to convince a single other editor. I don't see how the discussion could be read any other way than "consensus to move". Joe hasn't really provided any valid rationale to overturn at move review, either, having commented only on the head count and closer's status.
  • Talk:Elon Musk#Should Musk be called an engineer?: How does one read a discussion with 22 opposes versus 6 supports as anything other than "consensus against"? The challenger again didn't cite any issue with the close other than the closer's status, and the fact that other challenges exist (which, as noted, is not evidence of anything).

I've noted some criticisms of these closes, but don't consider any of them to be inappropriate, nor do I find Buidhe's responses to the challenges lacking what we would expect from WP:ADMINACCT. Accountability requires responding to valid concerns; it does not require responding to endless gaslighting from editors who disagree with you. Good work, Buidhe, and I would also support if you choose to run the gauntlet. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. The simplest explanation here is that Buidhe is a prolific RM closer who shows an admirable willingness to tackle difficult discussions that have been languishing for a while in the backlog. If multiple of the cited RMs end up being overturned or relisted after making their way through MRV, then maybe there would be a case for asking them to cool down their closes. But until then, this feels premature. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• While I agree with those stating Buidhe should be an admin, I don't like the idea that contentious RfCs or RMs should be closed by admins at all. Buidhe has more experience with RM than I have, why should she not work on difficult closes? —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Two things 1) The NAC issue is a nonstarter for me. Only closures that require, or may require, the admin toolset (block, delete, protect) should have any restrictions on who can close them; for discussions where the outcome could be enacted by a non-admin closer, ANY closer will do, with no special preference to be given to admins. WP:NOBIGDEAL is apt here: Administrators were not intended to develop into a special subgroup. Rather, administrators should be a part of the community like other editors. Anyone can perform most maintenance and administration tasks on Wikipedia without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. (bold mine) 2) The five contested closures all fall within normal discretion, and none is particularly problematic. I'd go through and provide additional notes, but that would be redundant to the excellent analysis from Ivanvector's Squirrel above. I concur materially with every one of those results, and I found none of the challenged closures to be problematic. On the issue of Buidhe applying for adminship, I am going to buck the trend of the several earlier commenters and say that I find no reason to encourage them to apply. They are doing a find job as it is, and unless they want to be able to delete or block or protect, there's no compelling reason to get the toolset. I would support such an application, but if they don't want it, I feel no need to push them in that direction. Being an admin is only about access to tools, not about having more rights to have one's decisions respected. Buidhe is doing a commendable job, and I encourage them only to continue to trust their instincts and work in good faith to keep making Wikipedia better in their own way. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Largely per Jayron32 and Ivanvector. These being NACs doesn't matter here. I would not recommend anyone (admin or not) make 5 controversial closes in a week, but several of these should not have been considered controversial. I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe move discussion (the 3-1 vote being insufficient when several of Joe Roe's arguments had not been addressed). The other closes look fine; several of the objections seem no more substantial than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Looked at the diffs provided (guess I'll never get that time back). I agree with those above (such as but not limited to: Jayron, the Squirrel, and power-enwiki (sorry, that key's not on my keyboard.:)). I guess my response would be .. IDK Thank you Buidhe for all your hard work. — Ched (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Your keyboard doesn't have a tilde (~)? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NAC is an essay. It does not enjoy global consensus. I'm not the only editor here who gives that essay zero weight. If you want to make the case that an editor is making too many bad closes, show us five overturned closes, not five challenges in progress. Joe shouldn't have started an MR and then also taken the closer to ANI; at the least, wait and see if you win your MR first. My thanks to buidhe for her volunteer work. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeirjk

Please remove WP:TPA at User talk:Jeirjk. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)~

Disruptive editing by BrazilianNormalGuy

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

Despite being told multiple times and being warned[92][93] to stop, BrazilianNormalGuy continues to be disruptive by re-adding undue and unsourced material to Police rank.[94][95][96] Skjoldbro (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also personal attack. Given the 5 reverts in May (against multiple users), so far, this would be a fairly straightforward edit warring block at WP:AN3, but BrazilianNormalGuy hasn't been warned yet for edit warring (will place warning now). There was previous edit warring with the account and previously an IP (also charging "vandalism") on the same content in January and February.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've left a detailed message explaining, and linking, to what is expected. If he continues to edit war, then a block would be justified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

He commits vandalism and I'm on the wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrazilianNormalGuy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Terjen

Shortly after being unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, here are some of Terjen's constructive contributions: obvious needling followed by further needling and this dishonest bs; their contribution here is similar. Clearly unblocking was a mistake, as AmPol does not need this kind of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Awaiting a response by Terjen. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WpediatricEdit

WpediatricEdit is continuously vandalising Wikipedia pages despite being warned several times by numerous editors in his talk page. I think he should be blocked once and for all as he is not contributing anything useful at all. UserNumber (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that WpediatricEdit just tried to delete this report. — Czello 13:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

UserNumber, you are obligated to inform the user about this thread. As they tried to blank the thread, though, they are clearly aware and there's no longer any need for a notification. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

He just tried it again. Honestly should just be an indef at this point. — Czello 13:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For now, I've blocked them for 72 hours for blanking ANI reports. An indef block may be warranted for their other actions, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to determine if the article edits constitute disruption (though at a glance, it appears that several other longtime Wikipedia users seem to think so). I'm leaning toward favoring an indef block, but need to step away for a few hours and will leave for others to review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:The Banner

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

---

Coming here as advised by User:331dot.

I don't propose to reiterate the entire dispute, but rather link you to my initial request for admin assistance.

The summary form is the above editor has engaged in a truly stunning series of hostile edits... Because I asked them to explain why they preferred a comma over a semicolon. For real.

At present, all is calm. The editor above has received a 24-hrs block from editing the article in question. I have as well, full disclosure there. While this course surprised me, I can't deny that it's a straightforward way to stop this bizarre series of disruptions; I, for one, have no intention of appealing that block.

Nonetheless, the way this whole thing escalated over absolutely nothing does leave me wondering two things:

1) Could I have done anything differently? I considered ignoring them, but didn't really want to allow their disruption to continue unabated and in all honesty never in my wildest dreams imagined they would escalate in the manner that they did. If I had known, perhaps I might have ignored them. I'm genuinely interested to hear what their reasons are; for example, some rule of grammar I don't know? That would be helpful info.

2) Is anything else needed regarding the above user? I originally asked for a block, partly because when I checked their log I found they had previous blocks including references to WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I'm now wondering if the partial block may be enough, enabling them to cool off and reflect, but equally don't want to wake up tomorrow to further harassment. If they would just give a basic explanation of their edits, that would go a long way in my mind.

It might be too late but for what it's worth I apologise for my part in escalating it. I was trying to educate the user but I feel now the attempts were perhaps clumsy, and that likely didn't help. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting I didn't advise them to come here so much as I informed them that it was an option. I didn't recommend it. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @331dot: I've struck that part, apologies thanks for clarifying. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Could I have done anything differently? Yes, you could have taken the discussion to the article talk page instead of revert warring. Starting a new section there and explaining that your change fixed a comma splice, inviting The Banner to explain why he disagreed, would have stopped the escalation. The article is not disfigured and useless because it contains an unnecessary comma splice for a few days while you discuss it, and it is not a situation that exempts you from WP:3RR. --bonadea contributions talk 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. That seems reasonable. Also thanks for naming the grammatical error at play here, that gives me something to read up on now. On reflection I think it would be fair to say I got overly distracted by their attitude with the result my response wasn't all that helpful. A learning experience for sure. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Your third sentence above has a comma splice. And you've got a sentence fragment at the end there. EEng 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC) You can thank me later.

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