Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

NPA and CIVIL issues with user Adamant1

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

---

Exception (underlined) added following a discussion at Adamant1's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [1] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have sadly seen the same pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
            • "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

            It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them, Mako001, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Carla Yules, Miss Indonesia 2020.jpg

Miss representation

• • I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺

    As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"

    And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!

    Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find". ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,

1. 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.

1. 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.

1. 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?

As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, "Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit _(blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Post hawk justification

-EEng

It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed

I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Support tban from all deletion processes. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite tban from any deletion process, broadly construed, to be effective when the block expires. This is on the strength of the remarkable timesink and demonstration of incompetent battlegrounding which the editor treated us to below, subsequent to my original vote, and the bizarre revenge filing and flurry of talk page barbs. I get that they were upset at the looming tban, but they were surely given enough clues to back off and stop digging. I'm not confident this would not be a permanent, ongoing problem and resource drain, and I'm concerned about the good faith users it might hurt or drive away. I'm going to say that I also concur with those questioning general competence after this command performance, so if someone suggests something stronger and sensible the closer may interpret this comment as tacit support for that too, if it helps. Begoon 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: "battleground approach" 1. ["No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]

2. ["Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it."]

3. [Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]

4. [now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. ]

5. [voted deleted and then mentioned a potential redirect target - "It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect."]

6. Me conceding that I was wrong about something not being a controversy - "Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy." So hostile of me.

7. [for deletion/Bill Workman|Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it.]

8. "Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed."

9. ["Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward."]

Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place. But this is not helpful. It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!" I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One. Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future. Having done that, never look at this thread again. I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before. I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it. But I honestly think that would be the optimal move. Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My behavior has improved a lot since the other ANI complaints as the examples I provided show. In no way is how I acted in the Combermere School AfD comparable to what got me banned before either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not "have long standing issues that he [i.e. me] is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss". We simply have differing opinions. The problem is, you get hostile and aggressive whenever I state those opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but your constant attempts to bully editors who disagree with you and your increasing hostility and aggression to those who don't cave in are getting out of hand. You seem to have the impression that no one has a right to state a contrary opinion, and that is not acceptable. You even wrote that you hoped someone would report me to ANI for stating those opinions and implied that I was a vandal and/or troll, which is really beyond the pale. You then made claims that were patently untrue about editors being sanctioned at ANI for stating opinions such as mine. You need to learn that anyone (you, me, anyone else) is entitled to express their opinion at AfD without facing a barrage of condescension, unpleasantness, aggression and suggestions that they should not be allowed to say it. But it is quite clear from your comments thus far in this discussion that you really do not understand why your behaviour is concerning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement. Miniapolis 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote I don't know if this will do any good in the long term, but once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it, and it seems pretty certain that Adamant's behavior does not help foster a collegial atmosphere. It is possible that a next time we should consider a topic ban from that area, perhaps, but I really hope there won't be a next time. And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction: The block was in December, 2020. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you were blocked for condescending edits and continued badgering, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors to brush up on their colonial history.

What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

i that read wrong. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Adamant1's behaviour has been extraordinary. Support GirthSummit's proposed TBan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Appears to be a pattern here. I've found this user to be repeatedly dismissive of valid sources. NemesisAT (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBan due to long-term disruption and failure to learn from previous sanctions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'd support a total XFD ban, but the initial proposal to be banned from education-related AFDs is at least a start. Adamant1 has a CIR issue, or they are being willfully obtuse, or deliberately ignoring when evidence to the contrary of their initial presumptions is presented. Any of those is an anathema to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY in AFD discussions, where new evidence is often dug up, and we require intellectual honesty when assessing that evidence. The WP:BLUDGEON issues at AFD as well seem a major problem, coupled with the tit-for-tat ANI report below, I think Adamant1 needs a formal ban of some sort. --Jayron32 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support for proposal at hand. Would also support a complete ban from deletion process, as it has been shown the BATTLEGROUND attitude is long term and not improving. It isn't out of range, per his behavior in this very thread, to consider a CBAN for CIR. It's seems that he's not grasping how Wikipedia works. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD? That's enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban from AFD discussions - this reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but even without all of the hostility and WP:BATTLEGROUND, this and this are good examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Adamant1's replying to everyone s/he disagrees with and arguing endlessly (rather than trying to find common ground and/or know when to let an issue go) and refusing to withdraw an AFD (even after having been shown multiple sources) is just more work that needs to be done for both the admins and non-admins closing AFD's. The writing large amounts of needless material and being a timesink at AFD makes it to where (as of right now), Adamant1's participation in AFD's is of little to no use versus the amount of disruption being caused and Adamant1's contributions to the project would be better served someplace else other than AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full ban from AfD - I've never seen sustained worse behavior - a combination of dishonesty and WP:CIR issues - than this editor has demonstrated at AfD. When I looked back at prior issues with this editor, this is a persistent problem. We can't build the encyclopedia when we have to spend so much of our time dealing with a disruptive editor who is not here to build it.Jacona (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support T-ban A break from AfD is definitely necessary for Adamant1. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I won't support a complete ban from deletion related topics as some have offered here. That is a ban that would potentially keep an editor of this encyclopedia from being able to defend an article they have created from deletion should that day ever occur. However, the T-ban that was proposed that targets the specific area of concern might be the answer to stem the immediate disruption while giving @Adamant1 the opportunity to redeem themselves and have the topic ban lifted one day. After all, short of a sitewide block, isn't that the goal of these types of sanctions. Stop the immediate disruption but allow the offending editor the opportunity to correct their behavior. Sanctions are not meant to be punitive but they are a powerful tool of the community to help correct the trajectory of an editor that is acting in good faith but has lost sight of the overall goal of the community and the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  A topic ban is also to protect the good faith users who the hostile behaviour might hurt or drive away. It's not just a rehabilitation exercise. Since new or relatively inexperienced users can frequently end up in an AfD, and already feel disoriented by the mass of new rules and jargon they need to navigate I don't think having an editor so hostile and pointlessly aggressive in the mix is in anyone's interest. (Nor do I think experienced editors should need to be exposed to it...) You do make a good point that they should be permitted to defend their own creations though, should the need arise - that's a simple exemption to incorporate in the topic ban. Begoon 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you are saying that you honestly believe that Adamant is such a threat to new and inexperienced editors here on the encyclopedia then why not propose a site ban. Look, Adamant's behavior is unacceptable and I agree that this isn't a rehabilitation exercise but when sanctions are not punitive the hope is that the editor does rehabilitate themselves and correct their actions otherwise, if there is no element of good faith in their being here, then why are they allowed to remain here? Adamant has brought about a situation, of their own making, in which they are either here in good faith but are misguided in their approach or they are not here in good faith and should not be allowed to stay. A full ban from deletion related discussions won't stop the disruption if you honestly believe they aren't here in good faith and are a threat to the ability of the project to retain new or experienced editors through Adamant's interaction with them. But if you believe there is an element of misguided good faith then, regardless of whether it is a full ban or a topic ban of deletion discussions, the point is to stop the disruption, protecting the encyclopedia, and, in doing so, hopefully give Adamant a break to learn from their mistakes. We may differ in opinion of which ban is appropriate but once we start going into the realm of editors being a threat to other editors then we stop assuming good faith and move into the question of why we allow an editor to stay here. If you believe that then a full ban is of no use to support. --ARoseWolf 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wow. I didn't propose a site ban, because, like you, I don't think the user is a complete net-negative. I'd have done so if I did. I'm not sure quite how to respond to the rest of your long (and, to me, quite unclear) post - you seem upset about something I said? What's the confusingly emphasised "threat" thing about, by the way? That, I confess, utterly confused me. Begoon 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not upset, in the least. It was in response to you saying that new and inexperienced editors frequent AfD discussions, which is true. But they also frequent other areas of the encyclopedia, obviously. You did not specifically use the word "threat" but it was implied in regards to Adamant driving away or hurting good faith users which is also an implication that Adamant isn't acting in good faith, albeit misguided. We are not as far apart in our positions as my words may have given the impression. Just having a discussion about the subtle differences. I apologize if it came across otherwise. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's fine, and I accept your apology. I'm not sure if it "came across otherwise" because I'm still trying quite hard to understand it, if I'm honest. It felt like a bit of an odd post which kind of threw me - but this is the internet, after all. Begoon 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support T-ban Many problems here, battleground, cir, just plane rudeness. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal for education related T-Ban, at a minimum, along with th a formal caution not to continue the issues elsewhere, at risk of a full AfD ban. Whilst I was initially somewhat neutral regarding (or even slightly supportive of) Adamant1, their conduct above has erased any objection I might have had to the proposal. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBan from all of AfD. This comment is beyond the pale. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support For all the reasons listed above. Temperment seems to be an issue here. Nemov (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1#Block. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure needed

Can someone please close the topic ban section one way or another before this gets autoarchived? Fram (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Another bump here, discussion has stalled out & we need a admin to make an assessment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and subtle vandalism

RafaelHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subtly vandalising fight records for a while now and/or replacing sourced information with that which isn't sourced. In [edit], RafaelHP goes so far as to completely alter a entire fight record in contrast to all reliable sources. They have changed a no contest to a loss and adapted the entire page to make the change. This is subtle vandalism and a big problem in MMA pages. The MMA fighter infobox contains a link to Sherdog, which is what we use unless stated otherwise by RS. The most common alternative is ESPN.

To return to the vandalism example, please see the two prominent RS on the fight Sylvia vs Arlovski, which have the fight as No Contest.

Sherdog: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tim-Sylvia-1061 ESPN: https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/2354048/tim-sylvia

Now see RafaelHP's edit, which undoes the correct result and adapts the entire record to accommodate the vandalism:

[NC becomes a loss and the article is changed]

In another example on a different page, RafaelHP here changes an extraordinary 8 different pieces of sourced information and provides not a single source to back up the changes. Please see here for the source: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329

[8 sourced results without a single source]

Attempts by other editors and me to address this include:

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

Their responses, other than to delete the comments, tend to be petulant, as [[7]] and [[8]].

It's enormously frustrating having to identify subtle vandalism in fight records, and this editor's disruptive editing has, in my opinion, gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[9]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This response does not address the issues raised in the complaint. NEDOCHAN is not saying that Sherdog is the only source that can be used; their complaint says that you changed it from something that was supported by both Sherdog and ESPN, and you provided no source when doing so. If you have explained that change somewhere, feel free to post a link to that explanation rather than typing it out again - I don't see anything on the article talk page, or on your own talk page (although you seem often to blank that, so it's not easy to read through older discussions, so I might have missed something). Girth Summit _(blether) 22:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the issues in the complaint and what I did. I changed the result because I was sure there was a source somewhere that would corroborate my edit, but there wasn't and that's my mistake for making the edit in the first place though. I also found it interesting that NEDOCHAN reverts edits that are supported by Sherdog without any sources given, essentially removing sourced content for strictly no reason. See here: [[10]] [[11]].

I'm also pretty positive that this ANI post was made in revenge. Notice how after he reverts my edit for the third time (without any proper explanation given) 20 minutes later an ANI post is made about me. [[12]] [[13]] [[14]]. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See the above example of vandalism on Tim Sylvia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tangentially, not having looked deeply at the MMA edits above, I'm concerned by Rafael's non-response to a query about a disruptive move. I'll credit that Rafael moved the article back, but I would have liked to see an explanation for why the edit happened in the first place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RafaelHP can you expand a bit more on why you made a change before you had checked to see whether it was supportable by sources? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that I have tried on many many occasions to discuss Rafael's problematic editing, as have many others on many, many occasions. I have linked to five attempts above. This is not an isolated incident and the Frank Mir edit is just as egregious as the Sylvia one. Although Rafael chooses to delete their talk page, a review of it will reveal a litany of posts seeking explanation and cessation of these editing habits. I'll let admins do their thing but I would suggest that Rafael no longer be allowed to edit fight records. This would allow them to continue their other work and encourage them to stop with the kind of edits their talk page shows cause disruption.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The problematic edit I identified is outside of the topic of fight records; IMO the pattern of problematic editing doesn't seem to be subject-driven. A topic-ban from BLPs could maaaybe address the issue, or at least move it away from sensitive subject matter, but my sense is that unless we get a good explanation and about-face from Rafael here, escalating blocks may be the only adequate response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say removing my ability to edit fight records would solve nothing, considering only two of the examples you've brought up are in relation to fight records. I'm honestly not sure what to say at this point, I've tried cooperating with nedochan but they continuously revert my edits with loose explanation given half the time. Personally I'd say we should both be blocked from editing for a week to cool off, but that obviously won't happen. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosguill above has brought up another example. Rafael's unwillingness to address the actual issue either here or on their talk page is worrying. Deletion, obfuscation and whataboutery seem to be the only response. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Above, I asked you to comment on why you changed content without checking to see whether any sources supported the change. You haven't responded to that - I'd appreciate an answer. At the moment, I tend to agree with Rosguill that someone who is willing to change content on BLP articles because they are sure that sources would support a change without bothering to actually check the sources first needs not to be editing BLPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I was sure I had seen a source that corroborated my edit beforehand. There's no deeper story, I just made a mistake. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also funny that you agree I shouldn't edit BLPs because of that mistake, yet when OP changes sourced content for no reason [15] [16] or even overrides a talk page consensus to change a result to one used by ESPN [17] [18] [19] (ESPN has a business deal with the UFC, making them not independent so why are you using that for UFC results in the first place?), there's no issue apparently. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is that everyone seems to be disregarding nedochan's disruptive editing, which I don't think is very fair. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the first one of your diffs. Pride 32 had said since 2006 that Esch defeated O'Haire by TKO. Here, an IP editor changed a TKO to a KO, without mentioning why they did it or referring to any source. Nedochan reverted that unexplained change here. I don't necessarily see it as disruptive to revert an unexplained change to long-standing content - sure, it's better practice to check the source, but if people don't provide an explanatory edit summary they will often find their changes get knee-jerk reverted. You reinstated the IP editor's change here - your edit summary makes reference to a source, but looking at the article I can't actually see which source is supports any of the content in the table so I'm not sure what you were referring to there. I put 'Pride 32' into Google; I don't know much about reliable sourcing in this topic area, but I clicked on the first two results I got: Tapology labels it 'KO/TKO' and MMA-Core just calls it a TKO. so, my question to you: what source currently in the article supports the change you reinstated? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Source is Sherdog, aka the placeholder source we're supposed to be using case by case but nobody in WP:MMA actually does and alot of people seem to think is the standard for fight results and can never be wrong. But the reason I changed it back to that is because to change fight results you need to actually prove that the majority of independent reliable sources have that result. And I have zero problem with changing fight results as long as they're properly sourced, I don't like the idea of Sherdog being the only source people use for fight records and results. I should note too I've been guilty of changing fight results in an improper manner in the past, but this isn't judgement, it's only to bring attention to fellow disruption. (source btw: [20]). ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand - you say the reason I changed it back to that is because to change fight results you need to actually prove that the majority of independent reliable sources have that result. The IP editor changed the result, without proving anything at all or even leaving an edit summary; NEDOCHAN just put the outcome back to the way the article has been since 2006, but you reverted them to reinstate the IP editor's edit. I can't square what you just said with what you did. I'll add that the source you linked to doesn't appear to be cited anywhere in the article; it would have been better to cite it when you made the change. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'll explain further; Sherdog is a database for mixed martial arts shows, news, and fighters. We use Sherdog as a placeholder source for fighter records (even though Sherdog is technically considered to be less reliable than ESPN and other reliable sources). I'm not sure why we do this but the WP:MMA community seems fine with it, even though it causes tons of mishaps and edit wars. The IP editor changed the result to one that is used in the Sherdog databases, meaning it's technically the right move since there was no source in the article with the previous result. I'm not actually sure if the IP editor meant to change it because it was used by Sherdog or if it was just a random edit, no explanation was given. Also Sherdog is always linked for MMA fighter pages. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As much as I understand BOOMERANG and it's part in ANI, I think I should make clear that this ANI is a long time coming and is not only the result of the edits linked above. If you look at Rafael's talk page, you'll see dozens of warnings and requests. It is not simply a case of subtle vandalism of fight records and taking issue with sources. Sometimes it's just plain vandalism, such as [edit, which also contains an inappropriate edit summary]:

Here is [editor's warning]

Undeterred, Rafael continued with outright, unsubtle vandalism, this time with a misogynistic edit: as [[21]]

Amazingly, in spite of the warnings, Rafael once again goes back to another page and mimics the same gross misogynistic hate speech in his next unsubtle vandalism effort, [[22]].

The point is that we have tried to discuss this editor's habits on many, many occasions. They deleted the comments and/or ignore them. As stated at the beginning, this has gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RafaelHP, you've given two completely different reasons for reverting NEDOCHAN at that Pride 32 article. If the first reason was accurate, then your revert was inappropriate because you were reverting to a new, unsourced version, rather than to reinstate long-standing content; if your second reason was accurate, it was inappropriate because the source you used to support the change was not cited anywhere in the article, and you failed to add it when you reverted. As such, especially since you raised this as an instance of someone else being disruptive, this incident gives me serious misgivings about your ability to source content appropriately.

The first diff that NEDOCHAN posted above - which I have just revision deleted - was a serious BLP violations, of the sort that I would block you for on the spot if they had been done recently. You must never post content of that nature to our articles without citing a reliable source. I don't just mean that you need to think that the source exists somewhere, I mean you need to have read it, and you cite it immediately, ideally in the same edit as adding the content. The edit summary you used, which I have also rev deleted, is ridiculously inappropriate in all circumstances, even if the content were to be sourced. The second two diffs are obvious vandalism, which again would have resulted in your account being blocked from editing if they had happened recently. I am going to post some information on your talk page about discretionary sanctions and our WP:BLP policy. Please allow me to make this very clear: if your editing in the area of BLPs continues to be unsourced or poorly sourced, you may be topic banned from the subject area. If you ever make vandalistic edits similar to those that NEDOCHAN posted again, you can expect to be blocked entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Addendum - I actually think that you have been notified about BLP discretionary sanctions already, so I won't post the notice on your talkpage. If you aren't sure what I'm talking about, the BLP policy is at WP:BLP, and discretionary sanctions are explained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit You really aren't understanding, so I'll try to make this as simple as possible; The edit that the IP editor made WAS CORROBORATED BY SHERDOG, which is the place holder source for fight records and results. NEDOCHAN reverted the edit with no explanation. I reverted it back because its sourced info? How could that possibly be innapropriate? Sherdog is literally always linked in mma fighter pages in external links, because we copy the records straight from the site and make changes as needed to fit our article structure. To say my revert was unsourced is simply inaccurate. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

And I apologize if I sound mean or rude, it stresses me out a lot when I'm not properly understood. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RafaelHP I do understand that it was supported by the Sherdog source you linked to. However, that source is not cited anywhere in that article. It's not good enough to say that it's a standard source, or that it's cited at other articles - it needs to be cited in the article that you are making changes to, so that readers, and editors who are unfamiliar with your WikiProject's sourcing norms, can verify the information. Is that clear enough?

You have not commented on the obvious vandalism you added to two BLPs last year. Do you understand that such edits can never be acceptable under any circumstances, and undertake never to make edits like that again? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright I guess I'll put the source in the article, I always just assumed it was fine since readers can scroll down the page to see the sources and external links. I am aware of my previous edits from last year (quite embarrassed actually), and have zero intentions of continuing vandalism. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the sources and external links: as I said, it wasn't in the sources. It's not OK to be taken from an external link - that's not what ELs are for, information in the article should come from cited sources (which shouldn't then be duplicated as ELs). This is particularly important when you're reverting another editor - they need to be able to check your source for themswlves to understand why you reverted them. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit. This is now turning into BATTLEGROUND. Rafael has immediately gone back to changing STATUSQUO and sourced info without consensus or talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081602240&oldid=1079427575&title=Fedor_Emelianenko

They then throw some not CIVIL comments at another editor who has noticed their disruptive editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1081959229

This doesn't bode well and for me shows clear intent to continue to disrupt and treat editing as battle.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If I was treating editing as a "battle" I wouldn't have said "if you'd like to continue that discussion i'm open to it, but even that talk page showed an obvious majority from RS for my edit" in my editing note. We HAD a discussion about this exact dispute, that let to a compromise that WE BOTH REVERTED, not just me YOU did as well. No idea either why you're playing the victim because I included myself in an ANI post regarding AFDs, I brought up a concern regarding the editors views on GNG, it had absolutely nothing to do with previous edit discussions, and it's quite annoying that you're trying to twist my attempts to work with you as "an intent to disrupt". ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

While this ANI had been taking place, here are some of your edits:

Here, you return to an article that we have discussed and disagreed on. Your edit summary says you have 'proved' something, although the talk page doesn't suggest that at all, and you're still changing sourced info without discussion or WP:CONSENSUS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081602240&oldid=1079427575&title=Fedor_Emelianenko

I reverted the edit, with what I think to be a clear edit summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedor_Emelianenko&diff=1081914646&oldid=1081602240

Without recourse to further discussion as I would expect via WP:BRD, and again while an ANI is taking place, your next edit is to revert again without discussion, saying that you're 'open to discussion' while reverting a sourced edit and not discussing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081944137&oldid=1081914646&title=Fedor_Emelianenko

It is my understanding that sourced/stable info should stand while discussion is ongoing per WP:STATUSQUO. More to the point, a majority of your edits since I opened this ANI have been either to revert my edits or criticise Cassiopoeia, the other editor who has regularly called your conduct and edits into question. That, for me is BATTLEGROUND behaviour and I'm not sure that's going to change.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion ended, it's been inactive for several months, how can WP:STATUSQUO apply here?. Furthermore, I did prove what I claimed; "the majority of independent reliable sources have it as KO" with then a table of sources establishing a clear majority. Your points in that discussion pretty much boil down to "you don't have consensus to change these edits". The claim regarding "a majority of my edits have been either to revert my edits or criticize Cassiopeia" is just plain false. I made one post towards that ANI regarding a concern that Cassiopeia was wrongfully opening AFDs and dictating sources. All I did was shed to light that Cassiopeia has their own interpretation of GNG, and is using it to get pages deleted which I saw as problematic. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also I reverted your edit on Conor McGregor [23] (a page they were previously blocked from editing for a week for disruptive editing), because you directly bypassed an established talk page consensus [24] (which you even participated in), to put results from ESPN (a source that has ties to the UFC). Strange bit of hypocrisy considering how much you get on my case for not having consensus for edits. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@RafaelHP: WP:COI applies to editors, not sources. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 17:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

ESPN is a green RS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that for the Fedor Emelianenko edits, I already did attempt to WP:BRD [25](different page because the fight results were to be changed for both the Fedor page, and this page), and he eventually stopped replying after another editor (Cassiopeia ironically) agree'd with my edits. If that's not a consensus I'm not sure what is, but he seemed to pretty much ignore it and is now asking for yet another discussion where I will have to plead my case a third time, and he'll ignore it and continuously tell me "you need consensus for these edits". It's extremely frustrating, and I don't like to unjustly accuse people, but at this point it really seems like he has a vendetta. I'm more than aware that I've caused some disruption and I have vandalized pages in the past, but I'm doing my best to change here, and it's not helping that he constantly reverts my edits to fight results for essentially no reason other than he doesn't agree with them, and that's fine but I've engaged in the proper discussions and methods to get consensus, but it just never seems to work out with him. I don't know what to do here, it feels like I'm going in circles with this ANI post, at this point just block me or don't, I don't see a reason to keep this discussion going any further. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You are reverting the sourced info, not me. I am reverting your changes and restoring the stable version. This is ridiculous and a good example of disruptive editing.Girth Summit please can you address this and it's clear Rafael is not changing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It is utterly ridiculous to claim I have a vendetta when you are going back to info we've been over on pages I edit to impose your preferred version. I can't believe you appear to have escaped a ban and the amount of evidence I have provided and time I have spent appears to have made no difference, which in my opinion is an error on the part of the admin. You are literally engaging in disruptive editing while an ANI is open regarding your disruptive editing. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in disruptive editing, that's what you're doing. I already followed BRD, I already achieved consensus, and still you're fighting it. So what that the discussion took place on another page? That literally happens all the time on Wikipedia, people will discuss things on talk pages that can have an impact on other pages. I see absolutely no reason to have the exact same discussion yet again, just because it's a different page, it's the exact same edit. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. You think, in your own words, you have 'proved' something, but that is not the same as consensus. I would ask you to seek consensus on the talk page and stop making the edit, at least until an admin has taken a look. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

My difficulty here is that when I look at the history of the Fedor Emelianenko article, I see both of you reverting each other, and using edit summaries rather than the talk page to communicate. That is edit warring, and it's not OK to do that even if you're 'right'. If you care enough about this to be willing to hit the revert button, you need to be using the talk page. It seems apparent that sources don't agree on the matter, so you need to decide figure out what the article should say, and you might want to consider asking for a WP:3O. I will say that the next one of you to reinstate your preferred version without getting consensus to do so is likely to end up blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Way ahead of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quinton_Jackson#vs._Fedor_Emelianenko_at_Bellator_237 ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a discussion from January at the talk page of a different article, in which only three people participated. Since you clearly still don't agree on this matter, go to the talk page of the article you want to change, start a new discussion, and if you like, ping that third party. If you want wider participation, post a neutral message at the relevant WikiProject. Start an RfC, if you really want. Talk it out. But leave off on the reverting - whether you're right or wrong, edit warring gets you blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Rafael, that's a link to an old discussion on a different page. Girth Summit, I don't think this is 50 50 at all. Rafael started making this edit after this ANI was opened, which doesn't seem like as coincidence. I would also remind you that I am restoring sourced, stable info, which I think BRD and STATUSQUO is fair enough.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont like to involved in ANI but would say a few things here since I have posted many warnings and guidelines and comment on User:RafaelHP talk page.

(1) RafaelHP do know info changed/added should be supported by source for verification as per -WP:BURDEN and WP:PROVEIT, so not adding source and change the info is not the way to go or a mistake on his part. My take is RafaelHP edit the fight method as his liking/what he saw fit even he well known source need to be provide.

(2) To accuse me to having agenda or celebrated with other editor to against him is no unfounded, as I have warned literally thousands of thousands editors who harm Wikipedia (either vandalism, disruptive edits and etc) for the last 5 years and working with many mma editors to resolve mma issues. I have never have any communication with NEDOCHAN outside what you find in Wikipedia history log and all those refer to Wikipedia pages/issues. Giving a Banstar toward an editor has nothing to do with hidden agenda/secret editorship but provide an acknowledgement of editor contribution toward Wikipedia and I have given many banstar to many editors.

(3) RafaelHP unwillingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines and unwilling to discuss matter civilly and about issues is at times frustrating and problematic. I have advised RafaelHP to collaborate with other editors and work together many times but it seems the same behavior continue. This ANI starting from Tim Sylvia to many other pages and also the same long history of disruptive editing in other pages prior this one. I do hope RafaelHP would finally learn from this ANI, a part from there are many messages posted in his talk page prior, to edit constructively and work and collaborate with other editors civilly. I will leave it to the admin to decide the outcome of this ANI. Cassiopeia talk 02:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition's hostile edit history

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

I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[26]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[27] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[28]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.

I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [29] and here [30]

I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.

Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [31]: [32]

Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [33]

Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [34] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.

Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [35]

After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [36]

Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [37] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."

Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [38]

Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [39] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [40] [41] [42] but I know that's not the focus of this post.

It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.

I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [43][44]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [45]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [46], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [47] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying that "racism = bad" is an unacceptable stance. Where your behavior is objectionable is that you seem to presume that you're editing on the side of the angels, and therefore those who disagree with you must be doing so out of foul motives. And that just simply is not the case. To put it bluntly, no one elected you the arbiter of what is or is not a "racist" edit. We are all the arbiter, collectively, and we arrive at those decisions through consensus. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're on the losing side of the argument, and when that is the case, the onus is on you to lose gracefully and move on. What best resolves this conflict is for you to get that. The patience of the community to wait for you to do so is finite, if not already exhausted. Ravenswing 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

D received an indefinite block that was lifted with WP:ROPE as justification. Then the editor was blocked a few days later. It's the same pattern. Hostility, accusing everyone, and then begging not to be blocked again. I can understand lifting the block the first time. The editor was given two more chances after the last chance. The editor has proven why they were initially blocked. It's not going to get better. Nemov (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It was two months later, not "a few days". The block was for edit warring, I was not paying attention to my reverts and broke the WP:3RR. I readily admitted and accepted that. Desertambition (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[48]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't an accurate summary of the situation. Toddy1 warned you that you were at five reverts, but despite being aware of that you chose to make a sixth. Then, when they opened a AN3 report you said Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring. After you were blocked you accepted you were edit warring, but the fact that it took a block for you to come to that conclusion is not good. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made an allegation of racial bias since I was blocked months ago. I do not think I am perfect and not all of my edits are helpful. I will readily admit that. I have not said anyone is making "racist" edits. I have said repeatedly I will not make allegations of racial bias in any capacity, that was made clear months ago. I am fully aware of the need for consensus and I do not believe two users deciding amongst themselves constitutes WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take my concerns to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests. I have a desire to include information on Wikipedia that accurately reflects reliable secondary sources, not push an agenda. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests also is not accurate, as can be seen with your habit of making repeated move requests for articles whose discussions produced a consensus against you with minimal time between them. For example, Mafikeng was moved to its current title after a discussion on 3 December 2021. You disagreed with that consensus and opened a new request on 7 January 2022, and then another on 31 March 2022. While consensus can change, and it is appropriate to open new move requests after a suitable period of time, three move requests in four months is far too many and an example of refusing to get the point. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [49] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [50].

Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [51]

Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [52] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That list was created four months ago and was collapsed by an admin. I have not made allegations of racial bias since the block and do not plan to. No one would be able to tell what was in there without opening it and I didn't think about it. Deleted it the second a user requested me to. Desertambition (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition wrote above: Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith?^{5 April 2022}

• When he wanted to be unblocked, he/she wrote: I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing^{16 January 2022}
• But after he had been unblocked, he/she wrote: I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal.^{19 February 2022}

That is not showing good faith. The second statement is completely untrue. The first statement was from his unblock appeal (the one he/she says that he was not given a chance to make).

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

• BilledMammal 1 March 2022 29 March 2022
• Nemov 25 March 2022
• Spekkios 1 March 2022 25 March 2022 4 April 2022
• Toddy1 1 March 2022 2 April 2022
• Ymblanter 19 February 2022 23 March 2022 23 March 2022 24 March 2022]

Maybe he/she cannot help doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal?

There seems to be a fair bit of support here to do something. What should we propose as a path forward? On WP:ROPE basis the editor should be banned, but maybe a topic ban at the very least? Nemov (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The editor seems to seek conflict. He/she gets it through move discussions, articles where racism is an issue, and ANI. It is not reasonable to ban him/her from ANI, because it would make him/her vulnerable to bullying. But topic banning him/her from (a) undiscussed moves, (b) move discussions, (c) deletion discussions, and (d) racism broadly construed for nine months might bring out a more positive side to this editor. (As far as I know he/she had not misbehaved in deletion discussions, but we do not want to move his/her conflict-seeking behaviour from move discussions to deletion discussions.) I think a year is a bit long, and 6 months too short, so 9 months sounds right to me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't take pleasure in banning users and D has shown an ability for research. I support your idea. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with time-limited bans. I think that if a ban is imposed, whatever it is, then it should be indefinite - otherwise, the editor doesn't need to improve, and instead can just wait the clock out. Further, an indefinite ban might be shorter than a nine month ban; they might demonstrate sufficient improvement in three months for an appeal to be successful.

I would also suggest something similar to "racial issues broadly construed" rather than "racism broadly construed", as I feel the latter is slightly narrower than the area their behavioural issues exist in. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of what sanctions I do or do not deserve, it hardly feels fair for editors I have active conflict and disagreement with to decide on my sanctions. Desertambition (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I have not had any prior involvement here, and so have not had any active conflict or disagreement with User:Desertambition in the past. So, this should feel fair when I propose this:

User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that a significant amount of my edits are concerned with move requests and discussions, that does not feel like an appropriate sanction. It is also unclear what "racial issues, broadly construed" would apply to. Desertambition (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issues with your editing are also in those areas. Let's just say that you aren't going to be getting out of this without a restriction on your editing of some sort. You can appeal in three months, which is relatively soon, often such bans last at least 6 months or more.

"Racial issues, broadly construed" would involve any topic related to race and racism, since that is where the issues lie.

Basically, the advice is, if you aren't sure if a given edit would fall into that category, don't make it, without at least asking an admin if it would contravene your TBAN. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I will take whatever sanction admins feel is appropriate. It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here. Are the other editors completely faultless in these interactions or am I the sole problem user in your view? Desertambition (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here.

Yes, that's appropriate since you're the editor under discussion. There's also a long list of editors who have provided numerous examples of your conduct. This is why some are not hopeful that any temporary measure is going to work. You are seemingly incapable of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your actions. Nemov (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time I have come to ANI the discussion comes back around to me so it seems frustrating that there is no critical evaluation of other users. What I have done does not excuse this conduct from Nemov: [53] [54]. We are in active disagreement so there is an obvious COI with Nemov recommending sanctions for me. Desertambition (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's the way ANI works; Nemov is no more debarred from commenting here than you are from commenting here ... surely by your own stance you aren't a neutral party either, right? (And seriously, you think that Nemov asking for a citation to be rendered properly is inexcusable conduct? Really?) With that being said, I support the sanction as Mako001 set it forth. Ravenswing 07:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They were not just asking for a citation. They were 1. Saying I was arguing in bad faith and 2. Refusing to discuss the issue and come to consensus. Seems to be a very uncharitable reading of the diffs I provided. Desertambition (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning the constant WP:BADGERing from BilledMammal.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desertambition#Deprived_of_context

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_April#Queenstown,_South_Africa_(closed)

3. Following me around on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_London_Airport#Requested_move_10_April_2022

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Makhanda,_South_Africa#%22Also_known_as%22

These are only a few examples of many. Desertambition (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is OK for Desertambition to reply to BilledMammal's comments, but it is not OK for BilledMammal to answer back? But if BilledMammal does, then Desertambition MUST have the last word. Who is badgering who?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: And that right there is why you are here in the first place. Whenever issues are raised with your editing, you promptly go on the offensive and engage in what-about-ism, casting aspersions, and such. The "it wasn't me it was everyone else" route will not lead anywhere good. I sincerely caution you not to keep pushing your luck on this, as you are lucky to get off with just a TBAN. A siteban wouldn't be completepy unreasonable, given how many times you have been told not to engage in combative behaviour, and still continued to do so.

Of course, you can always just double down, never admit that you have ever done anything wrong, and keep casting aspersions without substantial basis, but if you do, just let us know that you intend to do so now, as it will save everyone's time. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Support indefinite ban This last exchange has exhausted my faith that this editor will ever learn. Every prolonged exchange ends in hostility. This user will be right back here once a temporary ban is over. The first ban didn't work. The second ban didn't work. A threat of a topic ban hasn't worked either. I see where this is eventually heading. It's just gonna waste other editor's time getting there. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite ban after reviewing the examples below. I don't think a topic ban is going to solve the temperament issue. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to repeat again that we are in active disagreement and there is a blatant COI here. Desertambition (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Comment I found this thread after encountering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora (currency), an AfD that followed this PROD attempt. In both cases, the rationale does not appear to be based on notability, but on the editor's opinions of the topic at hand ("non-currency... non-English sources, and the article seems to exist largely for WP:PROMOTION...one step above monopoly money"). They have also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council following a similar PROD attempt, the deletion rationale of which appears similarly based on opinion on the topic rather notability. Concurrent edits to first article feel problematic as well, with the user removing sourced text apparently because the source is dead (the text in question is trivially sourceable too, eg.), while adding unsourced text that reflects the AfD rationale. Particularly concerning is that the AfDs and edits occurred after this AN/I discussion was opened, where the PRODs mentioned had already been brought up, which makes it hard to understand Desertambition's assertion above (also before the AfDs) that they "don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point". If an AfD nomination citing the use of non-English sources is not meant to disrupt to prove a point, then there is a lack of understanding that would appear to warrant a topic ban. CMD (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  You should probably wait a bit before making an WP:ANI complaint as the Ora request has been withdrawn and I have added citations to the article. Hardly seems blockable to make an WP:AfD request that may have mistakes. I also stand by the Orania Representative Council nomination. Again, none of this seems to break guidelines by any measure. There is also nothing wrong with creating deletion discussions after a PROD attempt has failed, in fact that is the entire point of deletion discussions. Someone asserting that they disliked my AfD/PROD requests is hardly grounds to stop editing in good faith. You may have misread my request for the Orania Representative Council as it was absolutely based on notability, I'll repost it here for your convenience:

  Article about a non-notable pseudo-governmental body that was created in 2017. Article is replete with false information that is not supported by sources. Many of the sources are misleading, not in English, or just not relevant at all. Nothing about this council necessitates an article of its own. Anything that is of note is mentioned in the Orania, Northern Cape article. Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001 from what I can tell. Information on the council was largely added by one user and fails WP:GNG. The article is extremely misleading and filled with WP:WEASEL words that imply Orania is a separate municipality. In fact, residents of Orania vote in local elections along with every South African. Strong suspicion this was created with WP:PROMOTION in mind. Desertambition (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Could you explain how that rationale relates to WP:Notability? CMD (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  After I posted the above, Desertambition reached out on my talkpage under a section titled "‎Reaching out in good faith". After I replied, they stated they did not feel I was acting in good faith. I find it hard to read the intention behind this, as if it was deliberate trolling given this AN/I it could not be more on point. CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Despite everything above, Desertambition is now edit warring their changes I mentioned above into the Ora article, with an edit summary opening with "Stop edit warring" to boot. Given that and the previously mentioned items, I have shifted my comment above to support, as explicit sanctions appear to be needed. CMD (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am not breaking any guidelines. This is a weak attempt to get me sanctioned because you personally disagree with my edits. First you recommend I be blocked because you disagreed with two of my deletion discussions (???) then you refuse to discuss article related issues on the article talk page after failing to thoroughly examine what sections of the article were changed/removed and why. Brute forcing your preferred edits with no arguments rooted in existing guidelines/policies is edit warring and "no u" is not a cogent argument rooted in existing guidelines and policies. I have created a section to discuss issues with the article if you would like to begin discussing your specific grievances in depth. Desertambition (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are edit warring, again. You have accused me of bad faith, which seems to be another pattern. There does not appear to be an understanding of notability, along with misunderstandings of sourcing policy. On the content, I have noted issues above, on the AfD page, and on my user talkpage. Your new post on the article talkpage does not appear to have taken any of those into account, and I do not see why raising issues in a fourth location is productive at this point. CMD (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I literally did not accuse you of bad faith, I said "It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH." Very uncharitable way to view what I said. I was trying to WP:BENICE and reach out. Article issues should be raised on the article talk page. I see no reason why I need to track all of our discussions and tie them back to the article talk page. Desertambition (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now, pretty much all recent contribution of the user is edit-warring and removal of the warnings from their talk page. Could we please put them back to the indef block they belong to? I think it is clear that they are incapable of collaborative editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  "All" is a bit of an exaggeration when I have not broken the WP:3RR and am engaging in extensive discussion on the talk page. You have made it extremely clear that you feel like I should have never been unblocked and trust me, I hear you loud and clear. I do not believe I am incapable of collaborative editing and have engaged in discussions extensively that have lead to improved articles and stronger consensus. Clearly users have nothing positive so say about me but I am not vandalizing or editing for the sole purpose of being disruptive. Many times consensus has been opposite my position and I have complied. Desertambition (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am afraid what you believe is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is what the closing administrator believes. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Desertambition, you appealed your indefinite block on the basis that you understood why you were blocked, and were sorry. It was NOT on the basis of the block being unjustified. Yet some time after you were unblocked, you posted on your user page to the effect that you were wrongly blocked. That statement on your user page more-or-less says that you were wrongly unblocked. If I were you I would ask that the statement on your user page should be revdeled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Drama at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

There's a thread Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Stuartyeates which I have been advised to bring here by other experienced editors. In a nut shell, User:Cleisthenes2, User:JezGrove and an IP SPA appear to believe that I'm pushing a racially-motivated POV with a series of biographies. I see these as part of a much larger series of more than a hundred biographies of New Zealand academics I have written, some of whom have been in the news for racially-charged reasons. A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article. For the sake of completeness, there is also a pending merge request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests related to this work. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've copied my original notice below so other editors can view my concerns in full. I am not raising any complaint about Mr. Yeates' many other biographies (and his many other contributions to Wikipedia). My concern relates solely to the fact that he has declared an intention to write Wikepedia entries for a number of academics with a view towards damaging their reputations (as I see it), and because he views them as 'villains' (his word). That must raise some grave doubts about his ability to deal fairly with entries about those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, doubts which may well not affect any of his other editing. I think him recusing himself from entries on this topic would be the honourable course, and I for one would see it as sufficient.

Hi there, I'm unsure how to proceed with this, but I'm concerned about some of User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements concerning the Listener letter on science controversy and in particular about a number of NZ scientists involved in that controversy. The problem is that recent Twitter comments suggest that he is about to create entries for a number of people as a way of attacking them. On April 3rd, he wrote (with regard to a number of academics who signed an open letter to the Royal Society of New Zealand, 'You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist ...' (https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1510566667990237185). On September 21st last year, he asked 'Which other Kiwi villains should I write about?' and 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' (https://mobile.twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440244134715932676) before listing a number of entries he created on the signatories to the Listener letter. (I also have screenshots of these tweets by the way, if anyone needs those.) My concern is not only that this may violate Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, balance in creating BLPs, and perhaps conflict of interest, but also that we may soon have a flood of some purposefully negative entires on NZ academics. I'm not aware of any other issues with this user and I appreciate he has done lots of work for Wikipedia, but I wonder whether he might recuse himself (or be removed from) editing entries on NZ scholars involved in the Listener letter on science controversy and those who signed the letter printed here (who he has pledged to create pages for 'just so I can include the fact that they're this racist'): https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/04/02/fellows-of-new-zealands-royal-society-demand-apology-and-full-review-of-the-society-after-poor-treatment-of-two-members/ If this is not the place for this concern or if I've made some technical faux-pas please let me know. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to draw attention to this passage from the guidelines on BLPs. Note that in the case of the entries on Garth Cooper, Elizabeth Rata, Kendall Clements, and perhaps a few others, User:StuartYeates, as User:JezGrove has pointed out, appears to have created these articles solely with information about the Listener letter and criticism of it (both of which he apparently sees as damaging), without balancing it.

'Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below...Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleisthenes2 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned and NPOVN, there seems to be major WP:outing concerns with what User:Cleisthenes2 posted above. I don't see where Stuartyeates ever linked a Twitter account on Wikipedia. I'm not redacting the discussion because it's already been on NPOVN for a while but it's not clear this is something can be dealt with on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, the User:Stuartyeates page has "Authority control" links at the bottom, including something called ORCID. Would that cover the outing-question? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates made this edit to his user page linking to Twitter but I don't know if it is relevant. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Yeates links directly to his Twitter on his editor's page on Wikipedia, so there's no outing concern. I would be interested in how Nil Einne and others would address the ways in which Yeates has apparently strayed from Wikipedia's stated policies (e.g. on not creating negatively-loaded BLPs), as well as my concerns about his stated intention of creating a number of new articles in order to damage reputation (for more details, see above). As I say, my interest isn't necessarily to impugn any of Yeates' other work on Wikipedia, only to raise an urgent concern about his BLPs of those involved in the Listener letter on science controversy, where Yeates appears to have lost his cool. I think he thinks creating biased entires on these scholars serves a good purpose (anti-racism); I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Thincat, and Cleisthenes2: If Stuartyeates has linked their Twitter form Wikipedia, then that removes outing concerns. I'm not sure why someone didn't just demonstrate this earlier rather than talk about nonsense like the similarity of the account names, the fact that the Twitter account said they edited an article and the Stuartyeates account Wikipedia did so etc. These details are irrelevant when it comes to outing concerns. As I said both at NPOVN, if you cannot discuss something on Wikipedia due to outing concerns you need to take it to arbcom not here. To use Cleisthenes2 own words "I'm just not sure believing your cause is just means you don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies". You need to follow our outing policy no matter your cause. If you haven't established we can talk about something on wiki then don't talk about it on wiki, take it to arbcom. Now that it's been established we can talk about it then we can, but this should have happened before posting links etc. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

In his introduction at the start of this discussion,User:Stuartyeates says "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article".

As I mentioned in an earlier post before the discussion was moved here, Stuartyeates created BLPs for six of the seven academics who signed the Listener letter (the seventh signatory already had a WP article about them). Five were created in a single day and the remaining one the following day.

The page creations all differ in very minor specifics relating to the individuals' academic positions etc., but all are as lopsided as the Garth Cooper page creation example that I linked to and all but one include exactly the same text. (The text of the final one listed below differed from the others when it was created.) For the record, they are:

• Kendall Clements
• Doug Elliffe
• Robert Nola
• John Werry
• Elizabeth Rata. (Stuartyeates subsequently readded some of his material with this edit when it had been trimmed down.)
  

Note that in the case of John Werry, the fact that he was appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2009 for services to child and adolescent psychiatry was not included in the page creation or added later by Stuartyeates. I believe that this is a significant and publicly available piece of information that any genuine and well-intentioned BLP should have included, and that its omission is telling.

I haven't looked closely at all of the BLPs, but see that Stuartyeates's page creations similarly failed to mention that Cooper and Nola were both Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi at the time, a considerable honour which should have been mentioned in a legitimate BLP.

Addressing the Twitter issue, Stuartyeates hasn't denied using the racial slur "turnip slapper" to describe some of those he had just created BLPs about. In the same tweet he said he would soon be creating BLP articles about the others involved in the Listener affair. By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site. JezGrove (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"By referring to Wikipedia and those new articles in his tweets Stuartyeates has brought his off-Wiki behaviour to this site". Exactly. More specifically, off-Wiki behaviour that made it entirely clear that Stuartyeates was creating biographies about living individuals (prominent academics) for the sole purpose of including material which cast said individuals in a negative light. While I'm not naïve enough to believe that biographies aren't created for such purposes on occasion, to do so in such a systematic manner, and then announce proudly on Twitter that it had been done, while referring to said academics in derogatory terms, can only harm the reputation of Wikipedia, as well as that of the contributor concerned.

The topic of discussion here then needs to be what has to be done to ensure that further blatant violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies are prevented. If this were a new contributor, I have little doubt that an immediate block would be the outcome for such behaviour. And even for more experienced contributors, blocks and topic bans aren't rare, even when the individual concerned has acknowledged that their behaviour was inappropriate. If there is any good reason why such an outcome should not be the result here, I can't in all good faith think of it. At absolute minimum, before anything else is decided, we need to see an acknowledgement from Stuartyeates that such behaviour was inappropriate, and a commitment that it will not recur. Failing that, Wikipedia will have little option but to ensure that Stuartyeates is prevented from doing so. Attack biographies do not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, and long-standing contributors who appear to think otherwise, and then boast about their activities on social media, do not deserve immunity from sanctions that would have been applied without question to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I share the concern by other editors that some of the articles created by Stuartyeates violate our WP:NPOV policies. Not only that, some of those veer way too close into attack page territory, with the majority of some of these articles being about the signed letter and its reactions by society. Had the articles not been improved, they sould've been deleted. If Stuartyeates is unable to see why other editors are worried about those creations, and their vow (outside Wikipedia) to create articles just to highlight those people as racist, then a topic ban should be in order. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see how the community has any option other than to topic ban Stuartyeates. They have publically stated a personal mission contrary to Wikipedia's mission. There is no going back from there.Slywriter (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that we've established we can talking about this without OUTING, IMO Stuartyeates needs to completely stay away from those articles. I have not inspected if those articles are biased as I think it doesn't matter. While editors often have personal views of subjects that they've expressed and we allow that, they shouldn't create articles in part because they feel we need to mention something negative. And Stuartyeates tweets gives the perception this is what they did. which means their involvement in them has troubling implications. Even if those articles were perfect I'd say the same. Heck even if Stuartyeates ended up not including the material I'd still think it's problematic for them to be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, with the key word being and. If the article subjects are notable to the point of meriting an enWiki page, and if they are not attack pages per se, and if the pages' content is supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources (i.e., the articles are likely to be retained and, hopefully, expanded over time), then calls for the articles' creator to be banned/blocked seem wholly punitive and disproportionate. Inappropriately crowing off-Wiki about their suspect motivations certainly merits a warning, and it also requires an explicit commitment from the editor to not repeat that behavior. But a ban or block as the initial sanction? No. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

How can multiple biographies created "just so I can include that fact that they're this racist", each consisting almost entirely of the same content, not be attack pages? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. And apart from the totally disingenuous "A single diff has been held up as evidence (the creation-edit of Garth Cooper), which I maintain reflected the secondary sources on the subject I found when I created the article" remark in his introduction to this discussion I have seen nothing from the contributor involved to explain or defend their position in creating the series of connected BLP articles involved. JezGrove (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Attack page, not the short summary in the BLP page that only discusses poorly sourced BLPs. These pages are textbook examples of articles that were created to disparage or threaten its subject, the comments on twitter make that clear. Stuartyeates needs a topic ban from BLPs at a minimum 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't get how anyone can defend this. "Looks like I'm on a roll writing @wikipedia biographies of kiwi villains ... Which other kiwi villains should I write about?", and on the same day, I'm finding at least five new BLPs: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. Each of these is a cookie-cutter attack page, completely WP:UNDUE in its coverage. Just look at them! Now this was September 2021, but it makes the recent tweet, "You know, some of those folks will be getting their own stub wikipedia biographies, just so I can include that fact that they're this racist" demonstrate that this problem is ongoing. Barring some assurances from Stuart, it's time for a BLP TBAN. We do not use Wikipedia to write attack BLPs, even if the LPs deserve it. This is the core of WP:BLP. What Stuart has done is the worst thing an editor can do: use their editing privileges, and this giant Wikipedia microphone, to attack another living person. Levivich 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW I just looked at the ~six articles Stuart has created since creating the five problematic ones I linked above [60] and I don't see the problem repeated, which is good. I'm still looking for assurance, in light of the tweet from a couple of days ago, that this won't happen again. Levivich 16:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mass-creating articles about all the individuals involved in a controversy and copy pasting the exact same ~250 word boiler plate criticism of the controversy on each of their articles, with the self-professed motivation that he creates these pages just so I can include that fact that they're this racist, is unacceptable. I don't think we can move forward from this without a topic ban from BLPs at the least. Endwise (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from non-admin: This may not be obvious to editors outside NZ, but "turnip slapper" is not a racial slur. Its difficult to take anyone who claims it is a slur seriously. -- haminoon (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to say that by editing under my own name and tying my wiki identity to my real-world identity I have exposed myself to a level of scrutiny that I had not anticipated. No one else in this discussion appears to be open to the same level of scrutiny. This certainly feels like I'm being held to a higher standard than everyone else. I apologise for the confusion caused at the start of the discussions apparently caused by by my hiding of information on my user page. Is there a better place to put this information? User:Cleisthenes2 has said, without evidence, "[For the uninitiated, "turnip slapper" is a racist slur for a white or non-Māori New Zealander.]" This is not true. (a) A racist slur is a derogatory term applied by a relatively advantaged person/group to a relatively disadvantaged person/group. Pākehā / white New Zealanders occupy the relatively advantaged position so this cannot be a racial slur. (b) I'm a Pākehā and I use the term to include both myself and other Pākehā, as evidenced by the tweet "Us turnip slappers also need to get better at slapping other turnips when they need slapping..." https://twitter.com/stuartayeates/status/1440418741750145026 When writing the biography I was unaware that Garth Cooper was of Māori descent. His university profile doesn't appear to make mention of it and this article https://www.nzcpr.com/maori-professor-under-investigation-for-views-on-matauranga-maori/ was published months after I published the draft. The template I use for writing these User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio, assumes the subject is Māori and I would have included that info if I have been aware of it. The articles I wrote reflected secondary sources I found at the time. They were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced. As pointed out above, they don't rise to the level of WP:Attack pages. I didn't edit war (though there has been some robust back-and-forth on related Elizabeth Rata article). This is 100% my off wiki behaviour that I'm (potentially) being censored for. I note that my primary accuser here has greatly reduced coverage of these issues (whitewashed even) in these biographies when they have previously been sanctioned for whitewashing in relation to twitter. SeeWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#User:Cleisthenes2_and_Toby_Young_-_topic_ban. Not sure whether there's a connection there. If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, (including racism / anti-racism work, broadly construed). If not banned I undertake not to talk about / plan BLP creations on social media. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC) See below. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• For now, I just want to clarify that I didn't say anything about the phrase 'turnip slapper.' That was JezGrove. I'd never seen that term before, so I can't really say if it's racist or not, although Yeates' argument that it can't be racist as it's used of white people doesn't seem right to me (and in any case, as a user below points out, it's out of line with Wikipedia policy). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Virtue signalling + deflection = bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• C'mon, you literally threatened, publicly on Twitter, to use Wikipedia to label 70+ people, fellows of the NZ Royal Society, as racist. And you're surprised at getting a reaction? The problem isn't primarily announcing your intentions, the problem is the intentions!

  I gather you were once paid by the Royal Society to write articles about NZ scientists, and this is part of how you developed a record and credibility at the site. Then you wield that authority against people who have day jobs & and don't have time to sit around editing Wikipedia in order to defend themselves or their colleagues?

  Note: I am a white New Zealander. I think "racist" is a bigger slur on someone's character than "turnip slapper", but, yes, "turnip slapper" (a) refers to white people and (b) is easily read as insulting. It's basically saying "dumb uneducated rural person/farmer" (to use the most polite translation I could think of). It's therefore racist. But, seeing a white guy deploy some hierarchy-of-privilege argument about who can be racist to whom in order to defend himself from the accusation of using a racist slur is an interesting tactic I hadn't seen before. 222.153.123.28 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I have never been paid by the RSNZ to write for wikipedia; if I had, I would have had to do the COI processes, which I haven't. Despite the text of one of the tweets it was never my intention to use the word 'racist' in any of the putative biographies; BLP requires neutral wording on wikipedia. "Turnip slapper" is a folk etymology of the word Pākehā, until I read what you wrote above I didn't know it had a farming connotation. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Meetup/Wellington/Women in Science appears to be the event being alluded to above. I received no funding for this event, was not involved in the organisation or spending of any money; I just turned up and helped people on the day. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't know whether turnip slapper is a slur or not, but A racist slur is a derogatory term applied by a relatively advantaged person/group to a relatively disadvantaged person/group. Pākehā / white New Zealanders occupy the relatively advantaged position so this cannot be a racial slur is problematic, and out of line with Wikipedia WP:NPA policy which makes no distinction about whether an individual or group is relatively advantaged or disadvantaged. Whatever the result of this discussion is I hope that Stuartyeates will agree that racial slurs are unacceptable regardless of the target, and commit to not using them in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a fairly dopey translation of "pākehā" (see also pākehā), first alluded to by John Liddiard Nicholas in the early 19th century is his account of accompanying Samuel Marsden, albeit that Nicholas merely compared it to the word for turnip rather than saying that that was what it meant. (Smith 2020, p. 17) Do not expect Wikipedia to explain any of this. Uncle G (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Smith, Ian (2020). Pākehā Settlements in a Māori World: New Zealand Archaeology 1769–1860. Bridget Williams Books. ISBN 9780947492496.
    • Jones, Jenny Robin (2004). "Three Men in a Boat: John Nicholas, Samuel Marsden, & Thomas Kendall". Writers in Residence: A Journey with Pioneer New Zealand Writers. Auckland University Press. ISBN 9781869403027.

Yes, although Cleisthenes2 first (and accurately) quoted Stuartyeates's tweet 'Here is a series tentatively entitled "Slapping Auckland Turnips"' it was myself who attempted to explain the term "turnip slapper" to those unfamiliar with it. Since Stuartyeates admits it can only be applied to white New Zealanders and given that it is used in a derogatory way it certainly sounds like a racial slur to me. His "white privilege" defence that you can't be racist about white people is both itself racist (since it attributes a characteristic to people purely on the basis of their race) and an insult to the intelligence.

Contrary to what he claims, Stuartyeates is not "being held to a higher standard than everyone else", he is simply being held to account for his own behaviour on Wikipedia. He also claims that "it is 100% my off wiki behaviour that I'm (potentially) being censored for"; again, not true. But his off-Wiki behaviour certainly shed a useful light on what he was doing at Wikipedia. If he never tweeted again that still wouldn't make his editing of BLPs acceptable, because absolutely nothing he has written here explains how he justifies his belief that the BLP articles at issue "were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced", which is the problem that needs addressing:

Why, if his intention was to create balanced and neutral biographies, did he omit honours such as Werry's 2009 appointment as a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit and Nola and Cooper's Fellowships of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi from their respective BLPs?

The BLP articles were hugely unbalanced. They included a brief description (one sentence in the leads and another in the main text) of the subjects' academic positions etc. and the overwhelming remainder of the articles discussed a single open letter that they had co-signed. This latter part quoted at length from critics of the Listener letter, but not at all from the one source he cited supporting them. (Indeed, he devoted a single perfunctory sentence to any support for the subjects.)

Unless and until he acknowledges this particularly troubling aspect I don't see how he can be allowed to create or edit BLP pages. To be crystal clear, it is the creation of the unbalanced BLP articles that I strongly believe he should be sanctioned for; his tweets are relevant simply because they serve as a perfect illustration of his motivation in doing so.

If/when sanctions are decided it is important to remember that Stuartyeates also has other Wikipedia accounts. JezGrove (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

With a cooler head I can see that this group of biographies was a mistake; completely unbalanced, and the cut-and-paste was just poor editing. The twitter comment about writing biographies for the signatories of the most recent letters was just a train wreck. It was meant in jest, which notoriously social media is bad at. I'm sorry. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to leave your Twitter followers unaware that you have had second thoughts about this 'jest'? Because as it stands right now, they might well conclude that a major contributor of Wikipedia biographies on academics not only engages in the creation of such content for questionable purposes, but can apparently do so with impunity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Not the "I was only joking" defence, surely? I'm glad to see an acknowledgement that "this group of biographies was a mistake; completely unbalanced", but what is lacking is any real admission that 1) the series was purely created in response to the Listener letter, and 2) the lack of balance of the series, when compared to the contributor's other BLP articles, was deliberate. After all, while Stuartyeates now says that "The twitter comment about writing biographies for the signatories of the most recent letters was just a train wreck. It was meant in jest, which notoriously social media is bad at", this doesn't address the older and obviously non-jesting tweets he posted contemporaneously with the actual creation of the BLPs that he now accepts were unbalanced. For me at least, a (very) belated "I'm sorry" and a woefully incomplete acknowledgement of his past behaviour at Wikipedia doesn't cut it. JezGrove (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I've got to agree that I don't think Stuartyeates' response is sufficient here, under the circumstances. We seemed to have a clear consensus for a WP:BLP topic ban, and nobody supporting it seems to have changed their mind after his last comment. 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Three month topic ban from BLP

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

---

I propose a three-month topic ban to protect Wikipedia. Whether this is a literal violation of policy or not, it is harmful to Wikipedia's mission, and threatens the neutrality of the encyclopedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there is really much room for doubt that WP:BLP policy was violated. I'd go further and suggest that a topic ban is more or less essential unless and until Stuartyeates acknowledges that such behaviour was improper. The problem won't go away after three months, it will go away when it becomes clear that Stuartyeates won't act in a similar manner again - any topic ban should be indefinite, with its lifting contingent on an appropriate appeal, based solely on a commitment to abide by policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Insufficient - the topic ban should be indefinite. These were flat out attack pages - articles on academics that contained next to no information on their academic work, had a massive undue focus on recent controversies and per the comments on twitter were deliberately created to try to portray people as racists. I don't see an editor of 17+ years changing their behaviour on the back of a 3 month ban. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• opppose 3 month ban, strong support indefinite BLP ban solely because this should be an indefinite BLP ban (honestly, a site ban is preferable given the WP:POINTY and highly inappropriate editing by Stuart.) CUPIDICAE💕 16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'd also change this to an indefinite site ban given their behavior. Grudge editing like this, where they've made their intent clear on and off-wiki to smear BLPs [61] is reprehensible and not conducive to a collaborative environment or creating an encyclopedia. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support 3 month ban or longer Strongly support indefinite BLP ban - I've got no experience from which to judge what the eventual decision here should be. Is there any even remotely similar occurrence that serves as a precedent? In the absence of any acknowledgment of contrition from Stuartyeates I struggle to see how anything short of a total ban on creating or editing BLP articles will have any effect whatsoever, though. And even then there would be serious problems relating to the sincerity expressed, given that any such acknowledgment could have been offered at an earlier stage in this entirely dismal saga. The initial deflection of claiming that "A single diff has been held up as evidence" in full knowledge of the other almost identical BLP articles they had created (and publicly gloated about) on the same day suggests that this contributor has no shame. JezGrove (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)ban

Have amended my vote in light of further failure by Stuartyeates to confront the problem. JezGrove (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose as disproportionate punishment, assuming that the editor unambiguously admits to their mistake, affirms that said mistake will not be repeated, and takes both of those actions soon. @Stuartyeates:: if you fail to respond appropriately, this oppose !vote is likely to be changed to a support. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • JoJo Anthrax this tweet by the editor in question (from yesterday!) should give you an indication what they're intentions actually are. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from BLPs Three-months is insufficient, given that Stuartyeates has failed to acknowledge that what they did was wrong. The ban should apply to all accounts operated by this person (noting that their user page says they "own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy") and those accounts should be revealed to ensure compliance with the ban. Their actions in using Wikipedia to attack individuals were wrong. They've had time to acknowledge that and haven't. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Anyone have any evidence of problematic behavior other than this very specific issue? Stuart's been around here for a while -- is there any other cause for some of the severe actions floated above? I think we should be content if he just expresses understanding that it was really bad judgment and pledges to voluntarily stay away from any BLPs related to the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is why I proposed a time-limited topic ban. Get away from the current event that triggered their current actions and let them then demonstrate that a lesson was learned, and in the meantime allow them to contribute in other ways to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: it is my understanding that an indefinite ban is for an unknown amount of time. It may be lifed after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, etc, depending on the circumstances. --Spekkios (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite does not mean infinite", as they say. Editors are usually recommended to follow the instructions at WP:STANDARDOFFER when considering to appeal their block or ban. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support three-month topic ban Support indef BLP ban - seems to be no sign of an apology, an explanation or even any acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour. Quite unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Have adjusted my !vote in response to what others have written here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed Yeates's conduct on Twitter brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Given that they have displayed zero contrition for this behaviour or understanding why creating attack BLPs is wrong, I don't think that there is any reason to make the ban temporary. Temporary bans are just kicking the can down the road if the user doesn't fundamentally understand why what they were doing was wrong, as many admins at AE have come to conclude. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed I should note first that I was the one who raised the original concern about User:Stuartyeates's public pronouncements, so others are welcome to take that into account as they see fit. My intention in raising this wasn't to cancel Yeates or to get him kicked off Wikipedia. It was to make sure he didn't do what he said he intended to do, and create negatively-loaded entries on even more NZ academics involved in the Listener letter on science controversy. Whether he's violated Wikipedia policies or shown bad faith to a sufficient extent to merit harsher measures I'll leave it to more experienced editors to work out. He seems to have done good work on other sections of Wikipedia and I see no evidence that he won't be able to contribute positively outside of this topic in the future. When it comes to the topic of the Listener letter, though, and perhaps to NZ academics in general, he does seem to have a particular axe to grind, to an extent that he's no longer able to restrain himself from writing negatively-loaded BLPs with the declared intent of harming reputations. So, I would support preventing him from editing BLPs of NZ academics, especially those involved with the Listener controversy (which, at this stage, is a lot of NZ academics, since it's become a major debate among academics in NZ). Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support three-month or longer topic ban. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from BLPs Its up to Stuart to demonstrate why he should be allowed to edit BLP's again. Not us to assume that in 3 months time his attitude has changed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Indef ban from BLPs & Weak support Site ban The fact they have yet to respond on this thread but felt Twitter was appropriate outlet to make light of the situation brings into question whether they have the temperament to edit here at all but at minimum they can not be allowed near BLPs while a cloud hangs over their motivations and as a ban is preventative, not punitive, they need to convince the community that such trust can be restored down the road.Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Slywriter: am I missing something? AFAICT, Stuartyeates hasn't done anything publicly on Twitter for over 16 hours which was a retweet of this [62]. Please note that this thread only really blew up in the very early morning NZ time, indeed by the time of JezGrove's comment "In his introduction at the start of this discussion" it was already 2320 NZ time. It's currently 1318 so Stuartyeates may be at work or otherwise lack the time to deal with this since it blew up. Note that this [63] was posted over 30 hours ago, well before this thread was started by Stuartyeates. It concerned the NPOVN discussion which was frankly a mess with no one even establishing that Stuartyeates had linked their Twitter account until after this ANI AFAICT. I mean if you want to blame Stuartyeates for not responding adequately to the NPOVN whatever, I don't want to get in to that. But blaming Stuartyeates for not responding yet to this ANI they started seems to be some combination of blaming them for not living on Wikipedia, and blaming them for living in NZ and keeping normal hours (unlike me). Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Nil Einne,I did indeed misread timestamp and which noticeboard was referred to in the tweet, though disdain for the NPOV thread isn't much better. I've stricken the weak support for site ban pending their response, my views on a BLP ban remain unchanged.Slywriter (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef ban from BLPs - this user's deliberate attempt to create what are in effect attack pages are absolutely unacceptable. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban from all BLPs The problematic article creation appears to have been highly focused on a topic which is mostly in the rear-view mirror. A topic ban from all BLPs would be punitive, not preventative. They've stated If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, which is a voluntary commitment to avoid a broader area than even has been found to be problematic. XOR'easter (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  N.B. The quote in green is from an edit time-stamped 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC), which is after all of the bolded !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  The quote above in no shape or form actually amounts to an admission that Stuartyeates did anything wrong. To the contrary, it appears to be trying to justify his behaviour, by implying that the academics featured in the biographies concerned met Wikipedia notability criteria for 'negative' reasons. Something that Stuartyeates, as someone who has created many biographies of academics knows to be false. The individuals concerned met Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria, did so prior to the letter incident, and would have fully merited the same sort of careful, balanced coverage that Stuartyeates seems to have put into other biographies. A balanced coverage that by his own public statements involves taking time to do proper research, rather than churning out 'biographies' in a couple of hours each, consisting of nothing but the briefest summary of the individuals actual notable academic work entirely dwarfed by the boiler-plate material placed to draw attention to individuals alleged 'racism'. The biographies were created to cast the individuals in a bad light. They were grossly unbalanced. They should not have appeared on Wikipedia in the form they were in. Unless and until Stuartyeates is prepared to admit that creating such negatively-motivated 'biographies' is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a violation of trust put in someone who seems to have done much genuine good work on coverage of academia, it is my opinion that he should not be permitted to make further edits concerning biographies of living persons. Whether others who made similar suggestions above still hold the same opinions, after reading Stuartyeates' statement is for them to say - but what they wrote cannot simply dismissed because Stuartyeates has made an equivocal statement that fails to address the issues raised in any proper manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that several biographies were created in a bad state, and with a motivation that crossed a line. (I don't think that "I created this article to tell the world that so-and-so is racist" is necessarily a bad act; sometimes, what makes a person notable is that sources of indisputable reliability document them being a huge racist. That's not the case here, per your point about WP:PROF.) What I'm failing to see is the step from "they shouldn't create articles about New Zealand academics involved in one recent dispute" to "they should never edit any BLP of anyone, New Zealander or not, academic or not, embroiled in a controversy or not". The former seems pretty well justified; the latter still strikes me as punitive. No adding categories about where someone graduated from university [64]? No tagging deadlinks [65]? No trimming CV-spam [66]? Maybe I'm being a total milksop here, but I'm OK with that being my reputation. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  'Indefinite' doesn't mean 'never'. It means (in this case) 'not until you acknowledge that WP:BLP policy applies, and that editing to score political points in such a manner is entirely inappropriate'. If Stuartyeates is unwilling to make such an acknowledgement, it is unfortunate, but given the centrality of WP:BLP policy, I simply don't see how we can just act as if there is no longer an issue. There very much is one - a major contributor to articles who refuses to concede that policy applies to them. As I noted in this thread some time earlier, if this was a new contributor, they'd likely have been blocked immediately. Contributors with significant experience have been subject to similar broad topic bans before, and for similar reasons. The problem isn't just with specific edits. It is with a refusal to accept that he was in the wrong, or with a fundamental misunderstanding of core policies. Either of which is more than adequate grounds for a general topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Having reviewed the articles that set this off, I didn't see a failure to recognize that WP:BLP applies, but rather, poor judgment as to what sources are suitable and how much weight to give a topic within an article; in other words, they were a motivated attempt to create pages that would follow the letter of WP:BLP but failed to do so. Most of the sources in the boilerplate text being called "attack page" material would be acceptable in principle (there's a Google Doc that fails WP:UGC). Indeed, Listener letter on science controversy preserves them. The opinions are properly attributed. The wording is "neutral" in the sense of fairly summarizing the sources cited. It reads like effort was made to present the various opinions responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (WP:BLPBALANCE). The problem is piling them all together without regard for the rest of the material that such biographies ought to contain (thus imbalancing them) and repeating this across multiple biographies. I don't see a "fundamental misunderstanding of core policies", but an attempt to get one's way within the lines of those policies, driven by a topic-specific axe to grind. Problematic without doubt, but a different problem. Call it topical WP:BLP gamesmanship, perhaps. I'm not a fan of it, to say the least, but I think any ban imposed for it ought to be targeted. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  The ban proposed is targeted. It is aimed directly at preventing a contributor who has (in Levivich's words below) been "weaponizing Wikipedia" from doing so again. Given Stuartyeates refusal to admit wrongdoing, this targeting is entirely appropriate, since we don't know where such weapons might otherwise be aimed in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  By that logic, why limit the ban to BLPs? That sounds like an indef siteban argument to me; if we assume that an editor is willing to "weaponize Wikipedia", surely they'd weaponize any part of it.

  As usual when I drop by ANI, I am genuinely failing to follow the connection between the observed behavior and the proposed response. And as usual, I can tell I'm going to be in the extreme minority here, so I'll stop now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Misery loves company, I suppose! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, my reasons for favoring an indef BLP TBAN and not a siteban in this situation are: the potential harm for BLPs is greater, and harder to reverse, than for non-BLP articles; it's been like six months since the attack BLPs were created; Stuart brought themself to ANI, for which some credit should be given; an otherwise spotless record; donated a ton of time to the project over many years; and, a TBAN gives Stuart the opportunity to go edit elsewhere for a while, reconsider this issue, and then ask for the TBAN to be lifted, which I think (and hope) is the likely outcome here. Levivich 21:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Biographies of living people need to be written with care and with upmost compliance to all content policies because they have the potential to cause serious harm to their subjects - for most people their Wikipedia page will be the first result in search engines and will be scraped across the entire internet. Stuartyeates has shown that they are willing to abuse Wikipedia to write attack pages on people they dislike, so I no longer have confidence in their ability to edit BLPs. Their response here is completely inadequate and to my eyes reads like they don't actually understand what they did wrong - they are making ridiculous points like "it's not fair that I got caught on twitter, if I hadn't used the my real name here no-one would have noticed the attack pages I was writing" and are still insisting that there was nothing wrong with pages they were writing, as if an article on an academic where their entire academic career is condensed to a single line and 80% of the article text is a rant about them signing a letter is a fair and balanced representation of their career. Since Stuartyeates doesn't actually seem to have made any acknowledgement of wrongdoing here I have no confidence that they understand their mistakes and won't repeat them in the future. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef BLP ban because Stuart's response does not assure me that he understands BLP or NPOV policy, so I don't trust him to self-police, as I don't think he gets what he did wrong here. Just today he wrote, The articles I wrote reflected secondary sources I found at the time. They were balanced, neutrally worded and well sourced. As pointed out above, they don't rise to the level of WP:Attack pages. That's alarming to me, because those articles were very obviously not balanced or neutral. In addition, given the very recent public announcement of an intention to violate BLP and NPOV policy, I want to assure the rest of the world that no, this editor will not be writing anyone's biography on Wikipedia. I meant what I said that using Wikipedia to attack another person is the worst thing an editor can do editing-wise. Using Wikipedia as a tool to attack others can accurately be described as "weaponizing Wikipedia". The public, our readers, need to have absolute trust in us that we take this seriously and that we can, and will, act to stop and prevent it. Levivich 14:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban Only in death says it perfectly above. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban, like with GeoSwan before, and Tenebrae before that; I take a very dim view of using our pages/processes to attack and harass people. This is contrary to the spirit of a collaborative encyclopedia. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban, much for the the reasons as Levivich above. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to attack living people you have a disagreement with, and their responses to the concerns that have been raised by the community do not inspire much confidence in me. Endwise (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP ban. I thought these were pretty blatant attack pages even without knowing the creator had made his intentions explicit on twitter. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban from BLPs, broadly construed: Delibrate creation of pages for the sole purpose of attacking their subject for whatever reason is unacceptable. They clearly intend to continue to do so, and refuse to admit that there is an issue with doing so. Unacceptable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Mako001: They clearly intend to continue to do so based on what? Four days before your comment, they wrote If not banned I undertake not to write BLPs whose coverage in secondary sources / notability is primarily or wholly negative, (including racism / anti-racism work, broadly construed). --JBL (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose indef ban per XOR'easter: there is, in all the posts above, no evidence whatsoever of a broad problem with BLP editing; there is at worst evidence of a very narrow problem with editing around a very particular incident. --JBL (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite ban There is so much intent being read into these tweets (which are being viewed as 100% the truth), and yet Stuart's responses are not being seen as honest or in good faith (despite him apologising and stating he has no intention to further edit or create any of these pages). I feel that an indefinite ban from BLPs is unnecessary and would, at most, support a three month ban around this specific topic.

My understanding of Wikipedia rules is limited, however a strongly question some of the arguments being made, particularly in relation to 'turnip slapper'. From what I can tell, Stuart did not use the word on Wikipedia, so whether it exists as a slur or violates WP:NPA is not relevant IME. Regardless, the meaning and origins of the term has been misunderstood (and has nothing to do with showing us Pākehā as poor farmers). The term developed widespread use among twitter after a now-deleted account (deletion irrelevant to slapping turnips) joked about the meaning of the word Pākehā, breaking it down to pā and keha. I believe this was in relation to the issue where some Pākehā feel that the term Pākehā in itself is a 'racial slur', citing our sensitivity (the response from which has made this Wikipedia thread all the more of a joke on twitter). 'Turnip slapper' became widely adopted *particularly* among Pākehā on twitter, and is often used fairly neutrally.

To be debating on wiki whether its use (by Stuart on twitter!) is intended as a slur is a bizarre attempt at portraying intent, and trying to bring culture in from the twittersphere requires a lot of understanding of what are very different dynamics. If he's banned from BLPs for an argument that relies at all on him using turnip slapper as a 'slur' on twitter, so should myself and various other Wikipedia editors (whether they are Pākehā, tauiwi, or Māori).

Stuart made a poor decision, and one where his intentions were not neutral. They did not have significant consequences, and were easily remedied. He didn't partake in any edit warring (I believe). He doesn't appear to have taken any action since this thread that suggests he intends to repeat his actions or escalate anything, and demanding apologies which satisfy every wrongdoing (some more debatable than others) doesn't feel constructive IMO. Although I feel the pages now lack information about the Listener article which is relevant & a major reason for their names to have become more known in NZ, I don't have the wiki knowledge for BLPs to argue this.

BLPs DO need to be created with the utmost care, and Stuart did not do this. His failing in this regard imo should not require grovelling in order to be able to do good and provide constructive, helpful work for BLPs in the future — he knows he messed up, he's apologised for it, and he doesn't intend to do it again. That's been pretty clear, and he's not taken any actions that would suggest otherwise. I oppose the ban for this reason: is the punishment he is receiving really justified, constructive, or helpful given no evidence he wishes to repeat his actions, or is it to make others feel better? (apologies for any formatting mistakes, I'm not very good with the source editor on my phone) Pseudomugil (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pseudomugil: Just out of curiosity, how did you find out about this discussion? Did you read about it off wiki? I'm curious how an editor with 100 and something edits who has never touched project space came across this discussion, and why you've chipped in despite having (in your own words) a limited understanding of the rules and how BLP are supposed to be written.

I don't get why you're focusing on the "turnip slapper" parts of the tweet - despite Stuart spending multiple paragraphs writing about it above that's not the big issue here. The issue people have with Stuarts tweets is that he stated that he was specifically writing shitty copy paste stub articles on people just so he could make them look like racists [67].

Posting attacks on other editors on other sites absolutely could be relevant and can be considered as an aggravating factor by administrators - the policy you linked specifically mentions this - Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks.

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that there were "no significant consequences". For 6 months the biggest piece of internet coverage that these academics had - the first thing you would have seen if you googled their names - was an attack page. Pages that completely missed major academic academic accomplishments like being a Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand and instead consisted of a copy pasted paragraph that only presented one side of a major controversy in a manner that was specifically intended to make them look like racists.

Why have you mentioned edit warring? No-one has accused Stuart of edit warring, why is it relevant to a BLP topic ban? The only person who seemed to think it was relevant was Stuart.

Can you point out which of Stuart's responses made you think he understands the seriousness of his actions and won't repeat them? His first attempt [68] was nothing more than ridiculous deflection and responses to non-issues no-one had even raised ("you can't be racist against privileged people" "I never edit warred" "I'm being censored") and his second attempt [69] apologises with the caveat that what he said was actually all just a massive "joke"! I don't see anything above that convinces me that Stuart actually sees the seriousness of what he did.

Stuart has shown that he is willing to create pages attacking people he dislikes, and from his responses here to be completely unsatisfactory. Indefinite does not mean infinite, if Stuart is willing to actually address the issues with his editing without trying to come up with stupid justifications for them then he can appeal. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban or any other sanction. The incident which prompted these articles' creation was the first time the authors who had stubs created had strayed far enough into the public eye to attract enough public attention to make a Wikipedia article necessary so it's disingenous to suggest that first explaining about this incident is somehow writing an unbalanced article. Anything else is based on statements apparently made elsewhere which is not under Wikipedia's jurisdiction. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh man... what you're describing is why we have rules like WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. If an otherwise non-notable person gets some bad press, we usually do not write biographies about then, because any biography article will be inherently WP:UNDUE. It's one thing to oppose a sanction here, but anyone who looks at those creations and thinks they comply with policy should also be TBANed from BLPs. These were attack pages; there is no question about that. They are quintessential examples of what the entirety of BLP policy is supposed to prevent. Levivich 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban, per Levivich, AtG etc... Clearly this needs to be implemented in the absence of any convincing response (other than suggesting it might have been... a joke..?). Creating attack BLPs is the exact opposite of funny. Stuart can explain what it all meant in due course, during an appeal, if he'd like to, but in the meantime, and in the lack of any such convincing explanation/reassurance it's up to us to make sure the damage is prevented from continuing. Begoon 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from BLPs, ranging from 3 months to indef (with an inclination towards the latter). BLP is one of—if not the—most important real-world policy we have; it's literally the page that, while we adhere to it, effectively prevents WP/W<MF from being sued on a regular basis. Creating attack pages should be the very definition of NOTHERE. Or, to flip the coin, WP:HERETOFUCKUPTHEPEDIA. SN54129 16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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

So, is anything going to be done? We seem to have a consensus for a topic ban.

As above. There seems to be a clear consensus for a BLP topic ban for Stuartyeates. His latest response seems not to have resulted in anyone changing their mind. In most cases that I've seen involving such a clear consensus, the topic ban is formally placed within a day or so of said consensus emerging. Not so here. Why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's a thread up above where consensus was just as clear for well over a week which was only just closed. I don't disagree that this one seems equally, if not more, obvious, but I guess it just depends on someone deciding to do it or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Begoon 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if nobody 'decides to do it', discussions here mean nothing at all? What exactly is the purpose of having them then? Perhaps we should close WP:ANI down per WP:NOTFORUM, and just leave the admins to do stuff as and when they feel like it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you need to be an admin to assess consensus for a topic ban? It doesn't need tools to enact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think we can compel people to do stuff. It is what it is, I guess - but yeah, it can be frustrating if you're waiting for a close. I was following the one I linked to and amazed nobody got to it while piddling little things got a 10 minute close. I don't see how it can be any different though, when every closer is a volunteer. That's one of the reasons, which lots of folks know all too well, that bludgeoning a complaint into something that nobody can be bothered looking at works so well if you want to get it ignored. (for clarity, this was a reply to Andy (e/c- the reply tool put it here) but what SFR says is very interesting too.) Begoon 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The Template:status idea is the most recent discussion around this that I can remember. Positive reception, but no critical mass. CMD (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:CBAN requires an administrator, unless I'm misreading it. But status template we can just use. I never understood why that was stopped cold by a couple of naysayers. Levivich 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right on the first point: "an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion". Begoon 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, closing a ban is listed under WP:BADNAC. Shucks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if nobody 'decides to do it', discussions here mean nothing at all?

Yes. You've been here long enough to realize that sometimes ANI discussions fizzle out because there's not an uninvolved admin who is willing to take action. It's a volunteer project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

In that case, someone can perform a BADNAC and either it goes to closure review, an admin takes some action, or the result is accepted. Assuming tool use isn't needed, that is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Just my anecdotal impressions, but I think there are basically three categories of archived-without-closure threads at ANI:

1. No consensus threads that go quiet and get auto-archived: Almost all of these stay in the archives. Sometimes, someone thinks there's consensus and pulls it back out of the archives, but they are wrong, and get a good talking-to from the community about not un-archiving dead threads and prolonging the conflict.
2. Low-participation threads that appear on the surface to have consensus but go quiet and get auto-archived without closure: These are threads where there might be three or four people supporting a sanction, but all of them are "involved" (i.e., it's one side in an ongoing content dispute "ganging up" on someone on the other side), and despite ample time, uninvolved editors are not participating in the discussion. Experienced editors recognize that these threads do not have enough uninvolved participation to form a consensus. If these threads are un-archived, it's often followed by a bunch of "oppose" !votes from uninvolved editors.
3. Threads where there actually is consensus that go quiet and get auto-archived: These are very rare. Most threads that have consensus that go quiet do not get auto-archived because people will keep posting something within the archiving period, sometimes specifically asking for a close (as happened in this thread), or sometimes specifically to avoid auto-archiving. If they do get auto-archived, they're promptly pulled back out, and oftentimes someone (often an admin who !voted) will post at WP:CR or WP:AN asking for a close. The "talking-to" that happens for unarchived Category #1 threads doesn't happen for these Category #3 threads because everyone can see that there is, in fact, consensus. Eventually, they are are closed, though it can take weeks or a month.

Even if a thread is auto-archived without closure, I don't think that means discussions here mean nothing at all because if whatever problem arose repeats itself, editors discussing it at that time will have the benefit of the previous ANI thread to refer to. Levivich 18:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Closed. But Swarm has let us carry on muttering among ourselves  :) SN54129 17:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Better to keep us here lest we wander off into another thread. Levivich 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  If I had closed it, I wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake. Rather, I would have closed the entire page by forgetting the bottom tag. Much tidier that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Even worse is this appendicitis -- meaningless additions to a closed thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though... Begoon 02:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon and pointless edits once again

This morning, I asked Dicklyon about a series of useless cosmetic edits he made which filled up watchlists for no benefit to our readers at all[70]. His reply boiled down to "you can hide minor edits", which is not helpful as many of us don't want to do this (as many errors and vandalism are hidden behind "minor edits as well"). He then started on another run of decapitalization edits, which included errors, turning blue links into redlinks[71][72]: when this was pointed out, Dicklyon simply restarted the changes which I objected against in the morning, making more utterly pointless, semi-automated edits[73][74].

This is the umpteenth time they have been told to be more careful, to listen to onjections, to follow policies, ... all to no avail. Can we please just topic ban them from either using semi-automated tools, and/or from capitalization changes? Fram (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. I've also worked through a lot of others on that list without issue (though less concentrated to one editor's watchlist I admit). I'll hold off on such work if it's deemed too useless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you instead commit to holding off on such work until it's deemed useful? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

On the "Test Match" fixes, there were only a few dozen, and I had noticed and avoided Test Match Special in most, but yes I agree I was not careful enough. I promptly fixed them all after the error was noted. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

...an error which wouldn't have been seen if your previous advice to "hide minor edits" was followed of course. Fram (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't we have a general guideline that if there are tasks that are doable by both and large enough in scale that they should be left to be done by a bot? If there was only 20 or 50 such fixes I can see this being done by an editor. But higher counts should be left to bots. --Masem (t) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of a guideline, but I'd be happy to have bot help when there are more than a few hundred edits needed. However, at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5, where 16,000+ edits were needed, I got slow-walked and pushback of the form "why is Dicklyon asking for bot help instead of just doing this himself?" So I did; I got into efficient bot-like clicking and did all of those with zero complaints (except a few redlinks caused by not also moving redirects back at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, which we're now trying to get fixed by bot at WP:RFBA#TolBot 13B since I can't do creations or moves with JWB). Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think 500 edits in 12 minutes is the very definition of a meatbot. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Those link updates were completely safe, so could be done quickly with bot-like clicking (unlike the Test Match fixes which I did more slowly and still made a few mistakes on). I accept your complaint that many of them had no effect at the level of the reader, due to piping, so maybe the link fixing to avoid redirect through a miscapitalization should just not have been done. But don't mix that up with how quickly and efficiently I did them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at just one of the many edits that flooded my watchlist, surely this is a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN? I can understand edits such as this more which affect the displayed text, but the Battle of Rocroi edit doesn't change the visual text in any way. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless. The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that reducing a software-created 'complaint count' that almost nobody seems to be aware of [75] is more important than the time wasted through actual contributors having to look at invisible changes in article space. I've got to say that I don't think such arguments are very convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

One of User:wbm1058's complaints was that nobody but him seemed to be aware of that list of errors. He asked me to help, so I've been doing that. I make no judgement, and express no opinion, about which kinds of contributions are more important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's only showing up in that list of errors because you tagged links to it as an error [76], a tag that is completely incorrect anyway since "Not in Wikipedia's style for article titles" is NOT the same thing as a miscapitalisation error. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to get that page to zero entries. rcats aren't this black-and-white thing, and I personally think you mistagged Habsburg Monarchy when you added {{R from miscapitalisation}} to it. That's very clearly a {{R from other capitalisation}} kind of deal (which I went ahead and corrected). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait.. you actually reverted me. "Habsburg Monarchy" is in no way incorrect just because "Habsburg monarchy" is preferred (Habsburg Monarchy is literally a proper noun, and a differing style guide would say it's fine to write out. Also, literally the article Habsburg monarchy literally leads with Habsburg Monarchy... is a modern umbrella term coined by contemporary historians...

You are misusing the the rcat system right now by claiming that this is a miscapitalization (something that literally unnecessarily adds to the database report you are claiming to care about). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I care about is the over-capitalization, not the database report (though the main purpose of the revert was to get it to show up on the report so I could illustrate that). If the RM consensus is that WP uses lowercase, doesn't that make it an error to use uppercase on WP? Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, then probably most of the others in that report are also wrong and don't belong in a list of things inviting fixes. Other than RM discussions, I don't know of any mechanism for deciding what capitalizations are wrong for WP, and I'm guessing that's how most of those got labeled as such. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this is an actionable complaint. Fixing linked miscapitalizations isn't a high priority, but it is a worthwhile task. We shouldn't tolerate errors in our articles, no matter how minor. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. And we should not tolerate errors in our page source, either. There's a reason we fix Linter errors, even though they often don't have an impact on the displayed page. Tolerating errors is bad practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. works fine for me, but regardless, wouldn't this happen for any example of WP:NOTBROKEN links? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

An alternative capitalisation, one which until very recently was the actual article title (and also occasionally appears in sources) is neither a spelling error or a mistake; even if it is not the preferred option according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Fixing this non-problem, at a rate of 100s of edits an hour, is a disruptive exercise in time-wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my comment, I'm referring only to this diff, which you seem to have acknowledged. Those are WP:NOTBROKEN issues, but I'm assuming that is script error. The rest, which result in visible changes to the page output, are not WP:NOTBROKEN issues (and I'm making no comment on those). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No, not 'script error', the hundreds of WP:NOTBROKEN violations (the ones with a piped link) were deliberate. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)To open an ANI over this matter seems petty to me. Dicklyon is a reliable and well-respected user who contributes invaluably to this site. I understand some mistakes were made like in regards to test match, but does this warrant an ANI? We all make mistakes some times, but Dicklyon is constantly contributing valuable material and to frame this as "User and his pointless work" seems unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Dicklyon is adept at creating busywork. So he pitches up at Habsburg Monarchy instigates a page move to “correct” the title which then creates a “miscapitalization” in redirects … only solvable by Dicklyon saving the day by dozens of corrective edits to those links to the self same article. What a waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hmmm. How long ago was that whole WP:JR deal? Exact same thing. In all fairness, go check out WP:MAW sometime and you'll see editors who specialize in polluting watchlists in like fashion but have orders of magnitude more edits to their name. Not only do they get usually get a pass, they're even rewarded for such behavior. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The amount of time and effort (and other people's time and effort) a few editors are willing to expend either making or complaining about these kinds of edits is mind-boggling. Like it or not, one of the groups Wikipedia attracts are the kind of people who really get into formatting, organization, and style, and spend a lot of time thinking about, finding, and fixing this stuff. On the whole, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but for everyone else, IMO the sooner you learn to ignore or work around/with it, the happier you'll be. This is the sort of nearly pointless edit that we could devote a few hundred k of text on or just say "meh," futz with your watchlist settings a bit, and do something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint is without merit. Dicklyon is fixing capitalization errors, which is entirely allowed. He has found an efficient way to do that by targeting the miscapitalizations list. If no one does that the list will grow. Is the list to be ignored? Is the complaint that he is too fast? Would it be better if he strung it out over an hour instead of 12 minutes? The watch list sometimes gets flooded. If it bothers you, take a break. If you miss some vandalism, don’t worry. There will always be plenty of vandalism. This discussion should be closed with an apology to Dicklyon. Constant314 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The "errors" being "corrected" seem altogether more minor than some of the ones caused in the process. Had they been done over a hour, they might have been done more accurately. And if there are sub-tasks here that can "safely" be done at bot-like speed, why not use an (approved and flagged) bot to do so? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I know, the process being complained about (the bypassing of thousands of links through the miscapitalized redirect Habsburg Monarchy) did not create any errors. And the few errors I made with the much smaller and slower batch of "Test Match" fixes created only 6 case errors, which I fixed quickly. Let me know if I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if I didn't distinguish sufficiently clearly between the two cases. For clarity, I'm saying they're on the one hand being done needlessly and with human error, and on the other, needlessly and unapprovedly in a manner you don't even claim to be supervising. "Only six errors" isn't an especially great accuracy rate, and it's not clear to me that there's no possibility of false positives in the Habsburg Monarchy case, as opposed to merely good fortune none occurred. Or at least were detected yet. Which is kinda the point of prior discussion of full automation of such things, so as get more than one set of eyes on agreeing "yes, no possibility of error here, can be done by bot in the way described". The remedy in the former case seems to be a little more careful; and in the latter, to follow the bot policy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Before this also becomes a 600k timesink like the last one, can I just say that if people want to help clear down lists there's nearly 24,000 articles with WP:V issues right here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It would likely be a better use of time than this thread, or arguing over capitalisation. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• This looks like an unambiguous violation of the bot policy (which includes WP:MEATBOT), all for a very useless edit (WP:NOTBROKEN). Since this is not the first time this has happened to Dicklyon, I would support an editing restriction from any such high speed semi-automated edits (unless prior approval has been sought and obtained as per the bot policy).
• The WP:Bot policy is there for good reasons, and if you're going at a speed of several hundreds of edits an hour (just over the first five days of April so far, Dicklyon has over 11000 edits (and then there's the whole month of March, at a similar pace: who knows how many other problematic edits have gone unnoticed?) - which, even assuming a very generous "awake 16 hours a day and only editing Wikipedia all the time", comes out to nearly 140 edits per hour - and we all know, realistically speaking, it's far faster than that) then there's not much room for wiggle room. Such large scale edits must get community consensus first, even more so if they are purely cosmetic. If they're not willing to abide by the established consensus regarding such edits, well then they shouldn't cry foul when people understandably get upset about it, and they most certainly should not ignore such complaints. This is a collaborative project, and if you're not willing to collaborate with others (which includes, occasionally, disagreeing), then it's time for a trip to the sin bin until community concerns are addressed and corrected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not important to fix these, but also not pointless. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not so. I repeat what I said above, since you missed it: WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Habsburg Monarchy" is neither a spelling error nor a mistake - it's an alternative stylistic option (which happens to not be favoured by Wikipedia practice, but is entirely legitimate). And, on top of that, it's not even visible to the reader, so it's entirely inconsequential. But, even if you were right, such a large scale editing spree affecting hundreds, nay, thousands of articles should have been checked with other of your fellow editors to see if there was an issue instead of acting like you're all alone and can do whatever you want. Speak of failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Over-capitalization is an error with respect to WP style. It's fine elsewhere. As others point out, it's visible in mouseover tips. If people would rather these be not fixed, we should revise WP:NOTBROKEN to say something different about that. The numbers for Applied Mathematics and Valide Sultan there are much lower than they were a few days ago too; these were much more complicated and took a lot longer each due to the variation in the first word capitalization in different contexts, which is not a problem with Habsburg. Several others no in the list today were due to my efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  As for "should have been checked with other of your fellow editors", I think they have been by now, and no errors have been found. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is you that you're fixing a problem which is not a problem. WP:NOTBROKEN says rather explicitly that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.. Whether somebody bothered to create a list of redirects from "miscapitalisations" is entirely that person's problem. Wrong capitals would be a problem if they actually appeared in article text. Given they appear in a redirect, (and given on top of that that until recently, the article was at the capitalised version!: should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?), and are thus not reader-visible, this is entirely an exercise in time-wasting and in irritating your other fellow editors. To take a real-life lesson, there are lots of things you need to get prior permission before doing. Justifying after the fact with "oh, but I didn't do anything wrong" shows that you're not getting the message. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I quite agree that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. But when linking through redirects with piping (or without even) when the redirect is an "error" w.r.t. to WP conventions, fixing it is OK, even recommended, per WP:NOTBROKEN, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Also note that many of these fixes DO affect the article display. Fixing only those would leave a big number listed in the report of linked miscapitalizations, so you could never have confidence in whether the job was done or not. It's better to fix them all, so the count tells you if there are more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Re "should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?" that depends. In many cases, yes, changing incoming links is part of the normal page move cleanup process; but it's sometimes hard and complicated, so it doesn't get done. When wbm1058 pointed me at the database of linked miscapitalizations, and suggested that would be a good thing to work on, I was happy to have it as a way to identify such clusters of linking errors. Fixing the visible ones worked best if also fixing the piped ones; I understand from this discussion that some regard that as busywork that serves no useful purpose and just pollutes Fram's watchlist, so maybe I should stop that. Other seem to think it's a good thing; we should probably get to a consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN instead of flogging me about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• As others have said, there are good reasons to take care and establish consensus for mass changes across a broad swathe of articles. I'd just point out that the community usually loses patience with people whose only edits are tinkering with things that have little or no effect on the reader, especially when done by the thousands, cf. Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, and many others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well you're certainly not talking me then, are you? I've recently created multiple new articles, and new illustrations, and lots of other things besides this one bulk case-fix operation across a narrow set of articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• They just need a flat out ban from all automated editing and a strict rate limit. Then when they (as will almost certainly happen) refuse to abide by it, they can join the ranks of the indef blocked editors who dont learn. We went down this road for years with editors like Rich Farmbrough, RAN etc. This is just another example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  No specific accusation, just lump me with others who had problems? Or my work quality is OK, it's just that the quantity is too large? That's not fair to me or anyone. If I've done something wrong, say so specifically. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that the benefit of having correct capitals is much less than the harm caused by irritating good editors. Whether a particular edit is "good" or not is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Got it: no such thing as a "good" edit, but Fram is a "good" editor and I'm not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The only real policy violation that I see alleged is that Dicklyon edits too fast, and I think it's fair to ask him to slow down. Otherwise, fixing capitalization seems to be within the realm of permissible cosmetic edits, yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Dicklyon is too fast too furious. He save his time by Automatic mass edits. Some other slower and more careful editors spend their time to find his mistake Manually - a few found in thousands check - and get upset. Whose time is more valuable? Leemyongpak (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast. Show me an actual policy that says a human correcting capitalization in a bot-like manner is a violation.
  • Per WP:MEATBOT “merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.” The gist is to avoid high speed editing that causes a lot of errors. No policy violation here.
  • WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and not a policy. It makes no mention of miscapitalization. There is no basis to infer that NOTBROKEN applies to the correction of miscapitalization. No violation here.
  • Per WP:COSMETICBOT “this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance.” The editor is in violation of a should and not a policy.
  • The existence of the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is tacit approval to resolve items on the list.
  • Incorrect capitalization is a grammatical error, not a cosmetic error.
  • Overloaded watchlists are an irritation. Incorrect capitalization is also an irritation. Who's irritation matters more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs)

    I think WP:NOTBROKEN applies in support of what I did here. And WP:COSMETICBOT, which I just looked at, has Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as ... the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs. That's what I was doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Utter bonkers. Point by point: "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time" - as has been shown, this was at the rate of several edits per minute (I think there's one stretch of nearly 500 edits in half an hour, which comes out to one edit per less than 4 seconds: no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so - and when edits are done at such a rate, there is a policy, WP:BOTPOL, which needs to be followed, and which was obviously not followed at all). Nor was this for "a short time". Over the past month (March and the beginning of April), Dicklyon has more than 30,000 edits. That's a lot of "short times".... is a guideline and not a policy is the most utterly ridiculous WP:WIKILAWYER that can be said about absolutely anything. It's still a community-accepted norm and simply because it hasn't been given the golden stamp of being a policy does not mean that you can just ignore it as some form of rounding error. Policies and guidelines have been agreed upon over years of collaborative editing, and they obviously set out accepted practice. As for WP:COSMETICBOT, simply because it is a "should" and not a "must" doesn't mean it should be ignored, either. The bot policy also says (WP:MEATBOT) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. and Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. If you're going to be making thousands of edits at rates of over a dozen a minute, there should clearly be some doubt... Obviously, both of these statements are valid concerns (which thankfully happen to be from a policy and not a guideline, so no more silly nitpicking on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so. No, of course not. You take precautions to avoid errors up front, just like when making a bot; you don't run fast until you're sure it's right. If you think this is problematic, show me an error. I admitted to the 6 errors on the smaller slower batch of "Test Match --> Test match", where I was actually paying attention; I agree I'm not perfect, but if an error is found, I'm all over making it right. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re: it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, that fine. In the case of the bulk Habsburg Monarchy that Fram is complaining about, there was nothing "contrary to consensus", and there were no "errors an attentive human would not make". and re: If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request., there was no doubt. If you'd like to look at the particulars for why no error was likely to be possible, I can show you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re policy vs guideline, I agree it's not a very useful distinction. I respect both. I happen to do a lot of work based on MOS:CAPS, guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Constant314. No policies were violated, but it sure is a good thing that we're spending a lot of time talking about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per Constant314. The time sink is not someone doing WP:WIKIGNOME work such as this, the time sink is discussions such as this. There's no rules against working fast, and these kind of periodic ANI discussions are starting to feel like a personal vendetta against Dicklyon. --Jayron32 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If they are different persons bringing these issues here, then it is incorrect to make the claim that this is a "personal vendetta against Dicklyon". As far as I remember, this is my first ANI discussion of Dicklyon's edits (or else it has to have been in some distant past). There are rules about working fast (WP:MEATBOT), and stating that they are gnomish edits doesn't mean that anything goes or that e.g. WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply. The timesink is that these unvetted, unnecessary edits are not error-free, and shouldn't just be ignored. For nearly a month, some of his semi-automated "case fixes" ruined a template on a number of pages (e.g. here). This "case fix" of Habsburg monarchy also case fixed multiple cases of "Dual Monarchy" to "dual monarchy" despite this (in thin this context) almost invariably being written with a capital M, it changed "Central Europe" to "central Europe" even though this is commonly capitalized... Just ignoring his gnomish edits will only let such errors proliferate, for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Those downcasings of dual monarchy and central Europe were done by hand, based on my interpretation of the evidence in light of guidelines; nothing to do with JWB or the class of edits that polluted your watchlist, annoying you. If you think I'm wrong there, then per WP:BRD, feel free to revert, and we can discuss. And while I did mess up a bit on the Dallas Cowboys (see my talk page), that was while developing patterns that I applied across all the other teams; I verified that I got all those right, but I failed to notice that early mistake in developing the patterns; I own my errors, and quickly fixed it when it was found (11 articles total). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Still work to do

I'm not going to do any more bulk case fixing in piped redirects, but there appear to still be about 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of monarchy. I'll need to go slow to only fix those. I did a few as an example (see edit summaries with case fix (visible text only) (via WP:JWB)). Any reason not to finish those up now? Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't do any more bulk case fixing or any other mechanical-style bulk editing without approval at WP:BRFA first. I'd rather that such edits not be done at all since random minor inconsistency in such things doesn't bother me, but that's just me. I don't agree with Rhododendrites that this stuff in the aggregate is a good thing. It has caused astounding amounts of pain in Wikipedia over the years. Remember the date delinking arbitration, remember Betacommand, it goes on and on. RGloucester made a non-suggestion (i.e. he considered it unthinkable) that I thought was brilliant, that of demoting the WP:MOS from "guideline" to something like "suggestion" in order to shut all this down. That is something to take to heart. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon has used semi-automated tools to do an enormous amount of cleanup on tennis articles, the vast majority of which has been completely uncontroversial. If the issue here is that the Habsburg Monarch → Habsburg monarchy changes are unnecessary, then it and redirects like it should be removed from WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations (by replacing {{r from miscapitalization}} with {{r from other capitalization}}). If the issue is that changing the capitalization of piped redirects is unnecessary (which I tend to agree with), then the database report generator should be modified so that piped redirects aren't included if possible. Regardless, the report only contains 3400 articles, so we're not talking insane numbers of edits to clear it (assuming highly-linked redirects aren't added to it). Letcord (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

See below. Dicklyon put the Habsburg Monarchy redirects in the Database rport after the complaints about his edits, and after I said I would raise it at ANI: and he put it back into that Database report after yet another editor had removed it (by, indeed, putting it back to "other capitalization" instead of "miscapitalization"). It wasn't an error when Dicklyon started his "cleanup", it became an error when Dicklyon made it so after he received pushback, and it isn't an error now when another editor reverted him again. This is not an editor trying to clean out error reports, this is an editor creating errors so they can then clean them out... Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If Habsburg Monarchy is indeed an incorrect capitalization, and therefore linking to it erroneous, then regardless of whether it was officially tagged as such (and thus included in the report), it would have been valid to fix those links. So it comes down to whether Dicklyon's considering that redirect's capitalization to be "incorrect" was correct (I have no idea). Perhaps it should be required in future that redirects with over a certain number of non-transcluded links to them be discussed on the report's talk page before being categorized as "incorrect"? That would prevent issues like this from arising again. Letcord (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's what {{r from other capitalisation}} says: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. That is exactly what "Habsburg Monarchy" is. It being not the option preferred according to Wikipedia style does not make it incorrect. And messing with this ex-post-facto in an attempt to justify such edits is pure disruption and busywork-for-the-sake-of-busywork-style time wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at the history, this is worse than it appeared. Dicklyon's defense for the Habsburg Monarchy edits is "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. " But the Habsburg Monarchy redirect (until very recently the actual article title) wasn't on that list when Dicklyon started making these edits, nor when I complained at his talk page, nor when he restarted the same edits, nor when I complained about them again on his talk page. He rapidly added them to that list after I had said I would take him to ANI over these issues[77], and when that edit was undone[78] (not by me), he reverted it[79]. Basically, he is using his own after-the-fact unilateral actions as a justification for his need to clean out that database report: he creates an issue which he then has to work through, against objections from others. In what way is this acceptable editing? Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: what. the habsburg monarchy page was moved to the current capitalization. dicklyon should be very well allowed to change those capitalizations. if readers hover over those piped links, they will not see a preview, they don't have a quick summary of that article. raising this on ani seems to me a severe overreaction. the {{r from other/miscapitilization}} thing is an issue, but that's an entire separate thing from what you raised up here! 晚安 (トークページ) 09:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The issues are carrying on when there are objections, instead of dealing with these objections first; making errors when doing these things (the second batch); WP:MEATBOT issues; the creation of an "error", a listing in a database report, to justify his changes after the fact; his edit warring over this. We have guidelines that say that redirects shouldn't be changed to point to the target table instead, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Perhaps that guideline needs changing, but until then it shouldn't be ignored by editors who feel like it. I am now testing the previews (I hadn't enabled them, find them annoying), and for direct links and piped links, they work perfectly (i.e. when a page links to Habsburg Monarchy or to Austria, the hover is for Habsburg monarchy). So as far as I am concerned, the reason you give for these changes is not correct. If it is different for others (mobile, other browser, ...) then please enlighten me: but until then, this change doesn't bring any profit as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I was fixing it "preemptively", that is, before setting it up to appear on that report. I later labeled it miscapitalized to show how it would appear there (just like most of the others there have been labeled as miscapitalized after an RM discussion decided they should not be that way). How is this "worse than it appeared"? It's exaclty what I said. Dicklyon (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A post hoc justification of creating an error for things you were already removing but which were objected against, and edit warring over it to be kept labeled as an error, is a worse look than finding something on an error report and starting to remove them. "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing", so instead of simply doing case-fixing, you put things on that report and then do case fixing, or (as here) you do casefixing and put them on that list when people complain... Fram (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't create any errors, so no such justification was needed. And I did most of that case fixing before marking the miscapitalization, to avoid it showing up in the report with big numbers. You interrupted that work, leaving errors, so then I marked it. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"I didn't create any errors" ... "leaving errors": it was only an error (the capitalization) after you turned it into one by labeling it a miscapitalization instead of a different capitalization. Your excuses here don't make any sense, apparently you had to mark the capitalization as an error because I interrupted you? Fram (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

you need a break. 晚安 (トークページ) 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@晚安: No, Fram is absolutely in the right for pointing this out. Habsburg Monarchy was incorrectly tagged and placed on a database report it had no business being on. I don't think you seem to understand the situation here based off this reply. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not absolute. As I see it, Habsburg Monarchy fits very well into the class of redirect titles on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations; it seems to belong there. Why do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out already by RandomCanadian above, just because something does not conform to Wikipedia's specific manual of style does not automatically make it a miscapitalization. The RM did not get consensus for "Habsburg Monarchy is invalid and miscapitalised". The consensus was the article title should be sentence case because our manual of style proscribes that and both capitalization schemes saw about roughly equal use in reliable sources. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I find this to be a novel and odd argument. The whole point of the RM discussion and move was that the capitalized form of the phrase was wrong for Wikipedia, per MOS:CAPS, which is about capitalization, not about titles. What do you think sentence case means? The phrase is not "invalid" or "miscapitalized" in some other styles, but it's wrong for Wikipedia, and ought to be fixed, at least where it shows up in articles. Either that or everything I've been doing for the last 15 years to help Wikipedia move closer to implementing its guidelines has been a waste of time. That's why such things get tagged as miscapitalized, and why we work on fixing them. Numerous respondents here have supported such work. I'm flying out in a few hours, so won't be back to argue this further. Feel free to get the last word in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

HabsBurg monarchy would be a wrong capitalisation (no serious source capitalises it like that). Habsburg Monarchy is an alternative capitalisation (not a mistake) which does not conform with the Wikipedia style guide, but might conform with another (or be part of an upper-case title): therefore, it is not "wrong", it is, just as the redirect categorisatio ntemplate says, a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. Wikipedia naming conventions are not divine truth; and simply because something does not match them does not make it wrong, it just makes it different. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the pushback and misunderstandings, and my upcomnig wikibreak, here's what I propose to do:

1. I will leave these 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of Monarchy to others to fix over time to be consistent with the RM consensus.
2. I will stop responding to further cleanup requests at the tennis project, referring them instead to list at AWB task request and/or to seek bot approval (one such is pending and will complete without my further involvement).
3. I will stop interpreting the database report on linked miscapitalizations as suggestions for useful work to be done.
4. I will completely stop using JWB until at least after my upcoming long trip and wikibreak (returning mid May).
5. I may start an RFC on the interpretation of NOTBROKEN, to see how the community feels about fixing very minor errors.
6. While traveling with intermittent Internet I'll restrict my limited WP edits to more creative work like uploading photos.

Thanks to all who have supported me here; but let's not further pollute Fram's watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to do a bit of JWB just now to repair a goof I made on a few articles on March 9 that was just pointed out to me. Just a dozen or two articles with about three things to replace, in football. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Just 11 articles. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Given that 'Habsburg Monarchy' is as or more common in prose than 'Habsburg monarchy', it seems silly to have a guideline that mandates the second usage throughout Wikipedia. I'm fine with enforcing such a standard for article titles, but shouldn't article text be governed by something like WP:ENGVAR or WP:ERA? At least in cases like this where there are two competing conventions of capitalization in use in reliable sources? I suspect that this is a very common position with historiographical terminology. 'Byzantine Senate' is given as an example at MOS:CAPS, but when I check ngrams it appears that it should be 'Byzantine senate'. A whole lot of historical terminology will probably fail the "substantial majority" test. (Abbasid Caliphate does.) I don't think it is the right test, but even if we use it for titles I see no reason to force it on prose across the board. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you mean to question or change MOS:CAPS on the basis that it's "silly", this is not the place for that. As for that Byzantine Senate example, I agree, that's a bad one and should be removed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the above and I won't, but what I will do is comment on the pagemove Habsburg Monarchy to Habsburg monarchy. Look at incoming links from templates for the old title, and then read WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. I have previously tried to get Dicklyon to concentrate on links from templates after his "oh so important" pagemoves, but he seems incapable of "fixing" those redirects which actually DO need fixing, instead preferring to concentrate on those which do not. See his talk page a year ago. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Duncan, greetings from Amsterdam. Thanks for reminding me about fixing template links first. I didn't forget them, but when I generated the list of files to edit in JWB, from main and Template spaces, it put the Template ones last in the list (I could have done them first if I had thought it would be an issue). Within a day of the move, my process was stopped by Fram complaining here, so didn't get to the templates; and yes I had forgotten after all this discussion to get back and take care of those. As I said, though, there's still work to do and I think I didn't count templates in the 267. Dicklyon (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I updated 13 templates. There's more to do, like other articles and templates with still-overcapped titles, but those will wait. Off to Cape Town in the morning. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page previews

Above, the claim was made that such changes to piped links were useful because "page previews" (the popups you can enable in preference / appearance) don't work for redirects. In my experience (confirmed above by Procrastinatingreader if I read it correctly), page previews work perfectly for redirects as well (e.g. Habsburg monarchy, Habsburg Monarchy, and Austria all give the same result). Can some people test this and indicate whether they see any difference between those three popups? Fram (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say page previews don't work. I said they show the miscapitalized text even when the text is hidden by piping: Habsburg monarchy. My claim was that the hidden text with wrong capitalization (what I was fixing), is "not invisible to users". But the RFC I started at WT:Redirect indicates that people aren't bother by that kind of variation showing up as an extra line in the article preview, so I won't be fixing those anymore. Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

but sometimes it fails? why?

Oddly, it seems to fail intermittently this way, even in exactly the same context. I can't figure out how to make this reliably repeatable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's this: the normal non-redirected preview always works, but the preview through redirect (piped or not) only works the first time after a page load; after that it just shows like this screen clip. Reloading the page resets it to work once again. Or so my limited testing suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm right, this piping through the article title should keep working: Austria, while the ones piped through redirect don't: Austria. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So it seems that piping through redirects is indeed somewhat broken, miscapitalized or not. There should be a global technical fix for that, I would presume (or maybe it's working as intended?). Dicklyon (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Turning off the "Navigation pop-ups gadget" gives a more reliable and completely different looking preview, not showing the redirect name all. So that's where the oddness is, and the behavior I was noting. Resolved. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm, the popups for the redirect are supposed to work but frequently fail to load, whereas they work 100% of the time without a redirect. Turning off the gadget does not display any alternate popups whatsoever for me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We have, under appearances, a "page preview" toggle that works all the time, it seems, unlike the more buggy gadget. Fram (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sabbatino

The participant breaks the rules WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:CIVIL.

• Sabbatino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flag of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Remove template {{Fact}}, falsely claiming that the source is in the file description (The file itself has a source). Re-deleting the template {{Fact}} with an unfounded accusation (rvt Putinist editor). Please remind the participant about the rules and limit editing of the article Flag of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know - you were supposed to notify Sabbatino using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~.

Don't worry, I've done that for you - just a reminder for in future. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It is you who should not be allowed to edit topics related to Lithuania. You have always edited in pro-Russian manner and always caused problems in Lithuania-related articles in the past. In addition, the fact that you were insulted by my last edit summary just shows that you truly are that. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You should only make accusations backed up with evidence, and make them at the appropriate place (here not in edit summaries). If there are long term issues with Лобачев Владимир editting you need to supply that evidence in the form of diffs, or drop the WP:ASPERSIONS.

I'm going to drop a comment at Talk:Flag of Lithuania about the flag, as content is a separate issue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that this explanation of the reason for the cancellation is typical for the participant. Here is an example in relation to user Uladzislaw Gumiennik: Rvt Litvinist (Lukashist) nonsense (Grand Duchy of Lithuania). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Another example: Rvt nationalist editor --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• I believe, that such edits ([80], [81]) are unacceptable. There is no place for discrimination of any editor based on their language or origins in the Wikipedia. By the way, the point of view that the modern Belarusians are the rightful heirs of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania has nothing to do with either Lukashenko (as the head of the Russian occupation administration of Belarus), or the Russian regime as a whole. What they both really do is Russification of Belarus (the more complete article in Belarusian be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі), and the Belarusian (so call "Litvinist") point of view is based on the dominance of the Belarusian language in the GDL. On the other hand, statements that Belarusians have nothing to do with the GDL are very convenient for Putin's supporters, as they justify the Russian occupation of Belarus, which is presented as a liberation of "White Russians" (other Russians, who never have their own state in the history according to such chauvinistic point of view) from the "Polish-Lithuanian yoke". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST

Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows. They may need blocking for abuse of Wikipedia for webhosting purposes. Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't notified the user, and you have provided zero diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dronebogus's assessment. The editor's entire contribution history is clear that they're using Wikipedia as a webhost and are WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Also I peovided “diffs” in the form of statistics because literally their whole edit history counts as evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly why do you care, secondly they're user pages, I wasn't trying to record notable information cuz the info I was recording was relevant to me, obviously no one is gonna look at those pages so idk why you are calling it "web hosting". Also like i'm gonna use wikipedia of all things to self promote lol, I was just recording info related to my projects cuz it was fun, stop going to furthest extreme, It's just harmless pages I was just practicing the wikipedia source with, calm yourself Ryan Jay (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3: It’s not “practicing” if you never put your skills to use on actual articles. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not exactly fair is it, I admit I got carried away and made a few too many pages, and forgot to actually edit other pages, so I apologize for that, honestly the one user page I care about rlly is the Snowtab in the Void one cause of the amount of time I put into that one Ryan Jay (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: Wikipedia:How to use your user space and WP:USER. Many, if not most, users who have been around for any amount of time, create user sub pages for any number of reasons. There's no limit on how many a user can have. How do any of us know they aren't working on ideas for expanding an article, or building ideas and sources for a new article. And as these guidelines say, "You can put more or less anything on your user page, as long as it does not break any other rules (for example, no copyright violations or insults directed at other users)." — Maile (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I know that, but this user hasn’t spent enough time anywhere else on WP to justify making 500+ edits in userspace Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space”) Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I could easily change that though, I mean I believe I contribute to episode list pages occasionally I could just do it more often but with other pages Ryan Jay (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fandom exists. They have practically zero standards as long as you don’t add porn, slander, or hate speech. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ok Ryan Jay (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: "Fandom" is a more general topic. It would appear to me that the wiki-hosting website Fandom (website) is what might have been intended here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

      Yes thank you Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Fandom does not like falsehoods any more than we do. wikia:User blog:Wikiatastic/A perfect rules article for your wiki#No Vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I’ve seen some comically terrible wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mariofan3:, please save whatever content you want from these pages ASAP as they will very likely be deleted, either as WP:U5 violations or through WP:MfD.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This user’s mainspace behavior also includes personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariofan3#March_2020 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes#This_is_annoying), blatant vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=838356166 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Screams_of_Silence:_The_Story_of_Brenda_Q&diff=prev&oldid=956108419) and a general flippant and hostile attitude towards editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=945408058). Honestly I’m not sure why they expect us to believe they can actually edit the wiki competently. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Shantae related pages

Over the last couple of days, there's been multiple instances of a user making edits to pages related to the Shantae game series (see: [82] [83] [84]), then immediately reverting themselves with a passive-aggressive message about myself, presumably due to some bizarre grudge over my reverting their edits and getting them temp-blocked for disruptive editing over a year ago. (If you look at the histories for Shantae and Shantae and the Seven Sirens, you will see them attempting to do so under multiple IPs beginning with 2601:280:c600:cfa0, dating back nearly two years). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we be honest for a second? Shantae is both racist and sexist. 2600:387:F:4012:0:0:0:B (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Can any admin see that this is blatantly WP:NOTHERE to the highest degree? (Some people would have a VERY GOOD argument for blocking me over NOTHERE, but this is way, way, way more of a problem) casualdejekyll 04:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem wp:nothere yourself. 107.115.5.118 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

JGabbard spreading white genocide conspiracy theory on South African farm attacks article

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

---

• JGabbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• South African farm attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JGabbard is an open racist who shouldn't be allowed to edit on Wikipedia.

1: [85]

2: [86]

3: [87]

4: [88]

Desertambition (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Whew, JGabbard is wildly out of touch with reality on that talk page. Perhaps a topic ban would be a good idea. CUPIDICAE💕 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • JGabbard was topic banned from "the subjects of vaccination, conspiracy theorists, and COVID-19, all broadly construed" in May 2020: see here.[89] Given this rant [90] I would suggest that if this isn't already a violation of the ban (which one might reasonably argue it is, given that it seems to be suggesting that the mass media are engaged in some sort of conspiracy to hide 'genocide' by the SA government), the ban should be extended to cover it. Or maybe we can do without JGabbard's 'contributions' entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an actual block is in order in that case. I don't see any value in denying factual evidence that's plainly written. CUPIDICAE💕 15:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Yikes. Taking a look at his userpage, no surprises to see he lists violent racists such as Tommy Robinson and bigots such as Ian Paisley as inspirations. His comments regarding South Africa linked above suggesting the democratic, multi-racial society of today is inferior to the apartheid regime is frankly disgusting and unhinged. If not already topic banned from this area, one needs to be put in place urgently. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Sheesh, I would think an outright block if they don't rescind those comments is in order, or is just in order anyway. Incidentally their Userpage is also a massive WP:COPYLINK violation, a lot of the Youtube videos they link to are copyright infringing. Canterbury Tail talk 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• WP:NONAZIS would seem to apply here. Supporting a racist regime (like apartheid) and actively spreading racist nonsense is simply incompatible with Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The present South African regime is a damnable, execrable, anti-white, genocidal institution, exceeding by light years the racism of the DeKlerk administration, and systematically replicating the 1804 Haiti massacre in slow motion, on a larger scale. is the kind of stuff that's rather uncontroversially described as racist nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree that that's pretty shitty, and I can't fault you for for arguing for an indef block. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm going to refrain from passing judgment a la "User X is a racist"--that is not a thing we should be doing. Having said that, the editor's comments on that talk page are highly troubling. I just discovered, in the talk page archives, that I said in 2016 that I had worked on that article as an editor, so I'll stick to commenting. I believe that JGabbard should be topic-banned from that article AND its talk page. This edit and the linked ANI post from 2020 suggest they really need to stay away from any political article, including BLPs, which fall under disputed areas such as those governed by AP2, climate change, pseudoscience, etc., because of their totally skewed ideas on reliable sourcing. I'm unwilling to propose an indef block, since there are areas in which they can be productive (those songs and musicians), and for the same reason a NOTHERE block is not appropriate either. Also pinging EvergreenFir, who has some experience with this editor on the South African farmers talk page, and Barkeep49, who closed the ANI thread in 2020. And yes, half of that user page needs to go, per NOTWEBHOST and possibly copyright problems. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Indef per NONAZIs and they have been already TBanned for (roughly) similar behavior. The extent to which certain editors administrators can be willing to collaborate with racist editors, is troubling. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• indef per the above. There's no point in keeping a net negative around, especially when said net negative has, at best, a tenuous relationship with facts and the truth. It's obvious a tban didn't work, no reason to think another one would. CUPIDICAE💕 16:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Indef Who cares that they contribute to other areas? The crap they expouse is damaging, that shouldn't be hand waived away. Comments stating otherwise is why we deserve the UCOC. Valeince (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, we seem to frequently dismiss bad behaviour simply because editors are productive in other areas, it's not something we should support or endorse. You can be an angel in 95% of your dealings, but if the other 5% are toxic then it's a hard no. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I do have some initial reservations about banning an editor who has been here since 2006 and done some genuinely good work. But, after having been told by the community to stay away from conspiracy theories, to be back again spreading falsehoods, this time about "government-sponsored white genocide in South Africa" is a major concern. The vile diatribe suggesting the apartheid regime was preferable to the current "genocidal" South African government is wholly, utterly unacceptable on an encyclopedia. Their understanding of what a reliable source is after 16 years on the project is also very concerning. Not sure how else these issues can be addressed. AusLondonder (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Remember one thing, it's an indef block not a permanent block, but it would force them to address the issues if they are to have a hope editing here again. Putting an indef doesn't necessarily mean kicking them off forever, that's a ban. Which means it can be an effective measure for dealing with things like this. Canterbury Tail talk 17:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you are right to clarify my clumsy wording. AusLondonder (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed they are welcome to find another forum for their racism. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Star Mississippi 17:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Indef (non-admin comment) this guy would need some seriously broad TBANs to become a net positive, and at that point there's not much of a reason to keep them around. casualdejekyll 18:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

JGabbard's userpage

I see some users expressed concerns about the apparent WP:LINKFARM issues of the talk page (along with other objectionable content). Not to encourage grave-dancing, but what should we do about that? Would anybody object if one chose to just axe the whole thing? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of the content on that userpage has to do with popular music. The links are mostly wikilinks, mostly to musicians and songs and the like. At the very end, they say that admire a variety of people, several of whom I do not admire. I think that it would set a bad precedent to delete this page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted the speedy earlier as grave dancing because there's really nothing polemic on the user page, and if it was fine when they were unblocked, it's pretty likely to be fine now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I personally think it's wrong to delete the whole userpage, but some of the links might be WP:LINKVIOs. In that case I would support removing any links to copyvios while retaining the rest of the userpage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, however the effort to go through all the Youtube links and determine what is a violation is massive. However that being said I believe the worst of it is in the section User:JGabbard#Overlooked,_underappreciated_gems_(Click_&_listen!) which we could just outright remove as webhosting and copylink violation. And most, if not all, of User:JGabbard#POETRY_(Health-related) is outright copyright violations. A lot of the rest is webhosting violations. And I think it's quite the feat that there are 1,082 unhypertexted external links on that userpage, plus others with hypertext. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, might need more of a precise scalpel than a massive axe. The effort to go through the whole of it, though, might just be overkill. If most of the content in a few of the sections is objectionable and links to copyright violations, removing those sections would likely get rid of the majority of the issues. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of bad categories by Sarahlundell and refusal to communicate

Sarahlundell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) won't stop adding incorrect categories to articles, which is 100% of their edits to date. Typically this involves adding random politicans to Category:LGBT heads of government, even people whose article doesn't describe them as gay, as well as edit warring after first attempt is reverted but also adding someone to the LGBT writers category whose article doesn't describe them as gay. I've tried to communicate with them, but they just carry on with the bad category additions. FDW777 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This user [91] was created within minutes of Sarah Lundell and is doing the exact same, adding LGBT categories. I would be amazed if they weren't connected. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

She is not alone, although she may be alone in adding the category to people who are not openly LGBTQ. Several other people have been eagerly adding this category to everyone from mayors to state legislators. We need to have a discussion somewhere about exactly what constitutes a "head of government". In my opinion, that does not include mayors. Where should this discussion go? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We have an article Head of government that pretty clearly explains what one is. Deor (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Which I linked them to on their talk page. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw the "LGBT heads of government" category pop up on some LGBT mayors I've watchlisted and at least one legislator's page. They are not heads of government. I set up a SPI thread for this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivance1027 prior to seeing this thread (no idea who the "master" is, but it could be Sarahlundell is the "master" account). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I had just commented on the SPI before seeing the thread here. This appears to be part of a WikiEdu course on LGBTQ Wikipedia editing. The stated goals are "adding tags to LGBTQ+ individual's Wikipedia pages as well adding people to lists of LGBTQ+ individuals" - unfortunately it seems like the students did not receive adequate instruction on categorization. Pinging the course instructors Awatkins123, Gabagirl and Whatknows to inform them of this thread, and will crosspost to the education noticeboard. Spicy (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out, Spicy, nice work! When you talk to the instructor, be sure to point out that they can't add a category about something that is not mentioned or documented in the article. If these people are trying to teach their students how to edit Wikipedia, that should have been in lesson 1A. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that these class editing projects, and editathons etc are almost continuously causing issues. I came across another one a few weeks ago where people were assigned articles to edit, and almost every edit had to be reverted. I'm starting to wonder if serious restrictions and rules should be put around these sorts of activity. I don't advocate banning them, but they need to be controlled in some manner as they are very clear net negatives at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN - we did teach students that categories need to be documented in the article. The articles targeted for adding categories all came from Wikipedia Lists of LGBT people - so if there were people wrongly categorized as LGBT this was a mistake already on Wikipedia. Students were directed to use the citations in the Wikipedia lists to add such information to article to back up categories if it was missing. In this process, we did run across missing or inadequate documentation in the LGBT lists - which we tried to improve when better sources could be found. Awatkins123 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the educational benefit from having students add categories to articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need Wiki-Ed? It causes more problems then it solves. What is its purpose? Teaching? There's like, you know, education for that?? Is it to teach people how to edit Wikipedia? Fact is that most people in their life will never edit Wikipedia after Wiki-Ed. The student accounts are a drain on server resources. There's no reason to do this. It's also MASSIVE spam on talk pages. Why does this even exist? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 02:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Dimitrovja

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

---

Dimitrovja (talk · contribs) has been adding some incorrect and borderline incoherent material to Java (programming language), as well as nearly incoherent drafts and duplicate articles in other languages (speedied now, see deleted contribs). Their response to warnings about this has been to post repeatedly on my talk page - 28 times over the last few hours, including 6 after I've told them I'd come to this noticeboard if they kept going. I'm not 100% sure if this is deliberate disruption (they are blocked as a vandal on sv.wikipedia.org) or the result of poor English skills, but I suppose either way the result is the same. Please place a WP:CIR block. - MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Ricky Luague and image uploading

Ricky Luague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ricky Luague is an extended confirmed user with a good number of edits that seem mainly constructive at a first glance, so I consider them to be a decent contributor to the project. However, I have noticed the increasingly large number of files they have uploaded with no source or licensing information at all (empty file description pages). They have been notified, either by a bot or a human, each time at their talk page with absolutely no response. (Their only edit to their talk page was in May 2018.)

This appears to be reaching a level of disruption, as they are leaving these possible copyright violations for others to clean up. (Plus, their consistent lack of edit summaries doesn't help.)

I suggest a partial block from the file namespace, as they are a longtime contributor to the wiki, but I leave that up to the community here. Bsoyka (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been given any particular non-template warnings of any sort to date, so I've left one. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Stifle: They did the same again. Still no response on their talk page. Bsoyka (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 10

Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjjl. El_C 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

i will light you on fire 晚安 (トークページ) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

SquarePants122 - uncivility as an IP (again)

SquarePants122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user in question was previously discussed for the same reasoning in October 2021, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#SquarePants122 - uncivility as an IP. Despite the ANI discussion as well as warnings on SquarePants122's talk page, the behavior has still continued on.

Just a bit ago, I had come across 2001:56A:FBD7:400:6C73:7E0F:4199:6EC via The Patrick Star Show. Upon checking the /64 range, I came upon some interesting recent edits on Elizabeth Banks:

• SquarePants122 makes an edit
• Edit is reverted
• IP reverts revert with uncivil edit summary

Thought that was a bit interesting, and checked my previous report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquarePants122/Archive#15 October 2021 and noticed one of the ranges I had reported there was 2001:56A:F170:7200:0:0:0:0/64, quite similar to the current 2001:56A:FBD7:400:0:0:0:0/64 range. Even Vistadan had suspicions the IP belonged to SquarePants122. At this point, it seems clear enough these IPs with these reverts containing uncivility within their edit summaries do indeed belong to SquarePants.

Given their complete ignoring of the previous ANI discussion, the SPI report, as well as warnings on their user talk page, I'm thinking the most effective way to deal with this would be applying an indefinite block on SquarePants122's account until a legitimate explanation is given/a valid promise to end this behavior is given. It's very disappointing that this user (who's been here since 2015!) feels the need to resort to using IPs to attack other users to keep their user account in good-standing. Magitroopa (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Just came upon 137.186.195.148 which appears to include similarly edited articles to SquarePants122, including yet another similar history of edits on The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder:

• SquarePants122 makes an edit
• Edit is reverted
• IP reverts revert with uncivil edit summary

This even more makes me believe that my indefinite block on SquarePants122 as I stated above is the best option to go with. Absolutely terrible to see what they are attempting to hide. Magitroopa (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

SquarePants122 has been checkuser-blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism streak

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

Please block this IP vandal who has defaced nearly 50 pages this morning ASAP. Two reprts have been filed at WP:AIAV. Swift action would be very much appreciated.--Chanaka L (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just reverted them myself actually. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Mass WP:BLP violations. Pretty much every edit is a personal attack, and most probably need to be rev/deleted. An admin may be able to suss out whether this is a repeat offender. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:F31 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • A non-admin might, too. It's not just administrators who do this. Uncle G (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• I got five diffs into the contributions history, and then skipped to the end. Block applied. The last edit was within the last half hour. I leave the more detailed work of revision deletion, if necessary, to another administrator. I've spent too much time as it is on a matter on another noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like he is back. 112.134.210.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). @Uncle G:, if you are online, kindly have a look. Looks like we need need to implement a range block.--Chanaka L (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated topic ban violations by EnlightenmentNow1792

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Timeline of events

12:30 EnlightenmentNow1792 is left a notice that they have been topic banned per a complaint at WP:AE [92]

12:39 EnlightenmentNow1792 leaves a rather unpleasant message towards the enforcing administrator, indicating that they are aware of the topic ban [93]

13:49 They re-join a discussion about how the article on the holocaust should present its impact on other groups, including Eastern Europeans [94]. The specific edit being discussed is this one, [95], which directly deals with the Eastern European related parts of the article.

15:09 They leave a comment in a discussion about the Azov Battalion [96]

17:26 They leave another editor a message about an article on an RT journalist, indicating that they have been discussing this by email. [97] This message asks another editor to, among other things, edit the article on their behalf to include information on the journalist supposedly being controlled by the Kremlin and pushing Pro-Russian Warmongering.

17:53 I leave them a message telling them that their edits were in violation of their topic ban [98]. They remove the message, falsely calling me a sock [99].

18:05 They leave another message discussing the RT journalist's article and asking another editor to "rectify it". [100]

18:21 They rejoin the discussion on the holocaust, claiming that the section of the article dealing with the holocausts effects on the Poles, Soviets and Ukrainians is not within their topic ban [101]

18:23 Another message in the discussion about the RT journalist, although this message is just a thank you [102]

18:27 Another message in the discussion about the holocaust, making ridiculous statments like inability or refusal to look at sources, is not contained in, or covered by, anything written in, WP:TBAN. [103]

I have tried, in good faith, to inform this editor of what the extent of a topic ban is on the assumption that they did not realise they covered all content on the project, in response to which they reverted me and called me a sock. In less than 4 hours they have made a number of edits that are in direct contravention of their ban, even after I had informed them of its extent. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. Not going to waste my time on addressing the substance of this complaint (almost every single diff is a grossly misrepresented). Permanent ban of the very obvious sockpuppeteer responsible for this "wikistalking" will benefit the Project on several fronts. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a sock – the IP is well known to many editors as a long-time productive contributor. DanCherek (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me that you have been repeatedly violating your TBan and engaging in attacks on other editors. Exactly how do you see the linked edits as not falling within the scope of your TBan? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, before you called the IP editor an "obvious sock", it would have been wise for you to take a look at their contributions. You would have seen that they have been editing for five years, have made thousands of useful edits on a wide variety of topics, and have never been blocked. Would you like to withdrawn your false accusation? Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The single IP has not made "thousands" of edits. However, assuming it's the same person, Special:contributions/192.76.8.0/24 has, but that would not have been obvious to many editors. That said, there was no basis for calling the IP a sock regardless.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Re the 15:09 edit: it was striking a number of the user's prior comments and withdrawing from the subject, so that's within the spirit of the topic ban if not the letter. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would have blocked EN1792 for the topic ban violations, but it's been a long time since I've done an AE block, and I was concerned I'd screw up the paperwork.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• The 17:26 edit is the only one that's blatantly violating the topic ban. Some of the others are tangential subjects, and it depends how broad one wants to get with "broadly construed". On the one hand, I'm not quite ready to block EN1792. On the other hand, if they don't scale back the scope of their edits, they're on borrowed time before they do get blocked for violating the topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• EN1792 has been just issued a topic ban, so their emotions are running high. Also, they appear to be inexperienced and might not totally comprehend what TB actually means. I understand that, but what I can't tolerate is calling other Wikipedians humourless bullying sociopaths. -->[104]. I asked them to remove what appeared to me a WP:PA -->[105] but the response was ...I have asked you to stay away from my talk page... (in the edit summary [106] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• This ANI is TOOSOON. @C.Fred: the 17:26 edit was made to my talk page in response to my email. It did not occur to me (or probably to EnlightenmentNow1792) that a Brazilian journalist who may be a "useful idiot" for the Kremlin was in "Eastern Europe." And EnlightenmentNow1792's crabby general remark, on his own talk page, about humorless bullying sociopaths...that frequent the Wikipedia Admin/Arbitration/incident/enforcement noticeboards is not the kind of PA that people get blocked for...I hope. Give him some time to figure out the TBan. It's for the good of the project. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm all for giving them time but the fella needs to back off with that battleground mentality. Seriously. I haven't seen such outrageous behaviour for a long time. Perhaps they might benefit from a couple of days' break. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor GULAG4U14413 seems to be here only to push a POV agenda and/or harass people

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

---

GULAG4U14413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the edit summary for their first edit. in which they state: " I hate gay people"

And then the edit warring over their addition on the Abortion statistics in the United States article.

In my opinion, this editor seems unlikely to be a positive contributor.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 22:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

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

TE by Bloodofox

Bloodofox (talk · contribs) is engaged in WP:TE over at a WP:BLP JP Sears. Some WP:TE I will list a few from this month:

• 16:11, 13 April 2022‎
• 05:19, 7 April 2022‎
• 16:35, 5 April 2022
• 22:48, 3 April 2022

I have tried to get some outside eyeballs at times when I wade into this seemingly political article here Talk:JP_Sears#Include_conspiracy_theorist_content and this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Office_for_Science_and_Society. Didnt think that ANI was needed until I noticed the TE continues against other editors as well ScottishFinnishRadish, Bonewah who maybe showed up as a result of the RSN or RFC? The whole purpose of these methods is to get outside eyeballs to a somewhat obscure topic. The article (while not seemingly about an overtly political subject, seems to be now given the discussion of the conspiracy theorist claim, which is a political term that bloodfox is pushing (and some other editors seem to support at least partially in the RFC).

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A little background: I'm the individual that has provided most of the sources on this article. Before I arrived, it was a puffpiece that did not reflect the reality of coverage of the article's subject. In turn, I've attracted much of the ire of the encamped editors on this page, including this one. In fact, this editor has been trying to scrub it of anything the editor deems "political" about the article's subject for years now. This includes sources like the New York Times (2022) description of the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" and this source from McGill University's Office for Science and Society discussing the subject's uploading of at least one now removed conspiracy theory-promoting video on YouTube, WP:RS be damned (and with it WP:LEAD—got to make sure those lead sentences don't appear in Google snippets!).

Having not gotten their way despite repeated, tedious RfCs (like this one) and even attempts at having English Wikipedia's conspirituality article deleted (yes, seriously), the editor now appears to be attempting to just bump me off from discussion. This editor has been watching the page since at least 2020 ([107] and I'd argue edits like these, where the editor less-than-subtle alters descriptions of individuals like Del Bigtree and Plandemic creator Mikki Willis, provide insight into the editor's motives). Further context: This article has recently attracted sympathetic editors who also appear to be keen on presenting the article's subject more as a concerned citizen anti-government freedom fighter (conveniently, just as the subject now presents himself) rather than, as the NYT puts it, a "conservative conspiracy theorist" headlining anti-vaxxer operated "anti-mandate" events. And so I guess it's now time to try this angle.

Anyway, classic pseudoscience and fringe article tactics that I've seen plenty of times in related territory, like over at Falun Gong, Epoch Times, cryptozoology—or, really any number of other fringe and pseudoscience articles I've had the, ahem, pleasure of editing and providing "inconvenient" sources for over the years. All meet with lawyering and tedious attacks (and yet all stay due to WP:RS). Anyway, in short, what you're seeing here can be summarized as 'when ya can't outright scrub the article, go after the editors themselves with whatever tedious argument you can make to at least try to slow the source additions down and maybe you'll get lucky with it'.

The article does indeed need as many eyes as it can get—and not just those whose beliefs align with the article's subject. That's all too often the case for these obscure figures promoting fringe and pseudoscience this or that. The aligned IPs we've seing drawn to the article lately have not been helping the matter either. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"I'm the individual that has provided most of the sources on this article." sounds a lot like WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR which states ""I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)". The ducks are quacking WP:FOWLPLAY... Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I have is with the frequent aspersions towards the motives of editors who don't agree with them. A reminder to "play the ball, not the man" might be nice. I originally saw this article on the WP:FTN thread, then took a deeper look when it came up at WP:RSN. I have no previous involvement with the article. The discussion is quite split at this point, but there is plenty of disagreement with Bloodofox's viewpoint that isn't from fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters or people with an angle, or encamped editors. Good faith disagreements can arise without someone on the other side being a shill or supporter. All of these examples are within the past week or so:

• In their response here I've attracted much of the ire of the encamped editors on this page... got to make sure those lead sentences don't appear in Google snippets!.. This article has recently attracted sympathetic editors who also appear to be keen on presenting the article's subject more as a concerned citizen anti-government freedom fighter... and not just those whose beliefs align with the article's subject.
• [108] would seem to speaks volumes about your angle here
• [109] these discussions of fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters are so predictable.
• [110] I get that there's a desire to downplay the subject's involvement here either due to BLP concerns or editor personal beliefs
• [111] And you're aggressively lawyering to keep out of the article. Given that there's a concerted effort to present the article's subject here as a freedom fighter over a conspiracy theorist, despite WP:RS, I guess we'll just need to wait for more sources to pile up (and then expect subsequent lawyering to try to keep them out.)
• [112] Jt, do you have some connection to the article's subject or are you just a huge fan?
• [113] I get that you're also eager to scrub the article of any mention of Sears and his anti-vaccine activities—you've been trying this for years now
• [114] Ah, the joys of working on fringe articles, where the lawyering to censor an article in favor of the article's subject never stops.

So again, a little reminder to WP:AGF and comment on content, not contributor motives might help the discussion, especially when uninvolved editors show up from noticeboard threads.. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a common problem in articles about pseudoscience and fringe topics. Proponents will doggedly insist on keeping the article pro-fringe, and the editors who stick to WP:FRINGE and WP:RS get worn down dealing with it.

This has driven many a good editor away from such articles (and Wikipedia as a whole) because they have to constantly be polite while the fringe-believers continually keep pushing the boundaries. it's exhausting and frustrating. bloodofox is one of the best editors I've seen in this area, and I can't blame them for being a bit blunt with these other contributors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Does that include myself? I'm not a pro-fringe editor, I was brought, initially, by a WP:FTN discussion they opened, and paid further attention when a second thread was opened on WP:RSN. Just because someone disagrees does not mean that they are pro-fringe. This is just a failure of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

ITT: Editor who's tired and a little overcommitted talks to whitewashers, gets snippy, snippiness spills over to affect other good faith editors. I don't think this rises to the level where sanctions are needed but there might be an opportunity for Bloodofox to think about his word choices.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with fighting FRINGE is the same problem with fighting anything too much. Eventually, everything looks like a fight and everyone becomes either an ally or enemy. FWIW, i agree with User:S Marshall, i dont see any official action as necessary at this time. Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 65.188.214.10

65.188.214.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Diff on Fulbert of Falaise Adakiko (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

IP editor blocked one week for legal threats. IPs get off easy. Let me know if this behavior resumes, and the next block will be longer. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuous Disruptive Edits by User:Avish773

The User is repeatedly removing the content which was added after a brief discussion and adding content which was added after a brief discussion on Anupamaa's talk page. Sufficient number of warnings has been issued. But the User neither responds to those messages neither stops himself from doing those unconstructive edits. Administrators please look into this matter. Pri2000 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant {{u|Avish773}} rather than [[u|Avish773]]. The square bracket version opens the Wikipedia entry for "U". - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You are also required to notify users when raising issue at ANI, as per the editing banner. I have done this for you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Debashreedhar19 and COI editing

Debashreedhar19 (talk · contribs) heavily edits Arunita Kanjilal and Pawandeep Rajan articles (and some related articles). The overall edits are often POV in nature [115] for example, and sourcing has required a lot of pushing for sources, removing unsourced, adding social media sections [116]. All this feels like either WP:COI or WP:PAID editing happening. I've left multiple messages around the needed disclosures most recently, but they haven't responded. They have commented on their talk page in the past [117], so they are aware of it and several of the paid editing messages were on the talk page at that time. I'm hoping for some review of this and if warranted, a block to prevent further POV editing around these articles. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Coolcaesar and baseless accusations in vandalism

Today, Coolcaesar left a message on my talk page asking me not to vandalize Wikipedia and promising that I will be blocked if I vandalize Wikipedia again [118]. I was a bit surprised, and, after some investigation, I realized that the user was unhappy with my edit made more than three months ago [119] in which I removed copyright violation (which I have noticed through CopyPatrol) but restored an image added together with this copyright violation. I responded explaining this point [120] but the user continued editing Wikipedia without responding. I went to their talk page, and they doubled down [121] saying "If I mistook your clumsy cleanup for vandalism, then well then, I do have to apologize for my very poor choice of words" but insisting my edit was not appropriate. I noticed that the user was warned for baseless vandalism accusations last year [122] (to which they have chosen not to respond) and again today [123]. We are probably past the point when simple warnings suffice. I am not sure why I should be getting such messages at my talk page, irrespectively of whether the FeDex headquarters are in Memphis or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that they do not understand what vandalism is and is not and appear to believe that anything that's not 100% accurate or doesn't jive with what they think is correct is vandalism...CUPIDICAE💕 16:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually think they doubled down - they did at least concede that it was not vandalism and apologize. Perhaps we should see if they do heed User:Cullen328's warning, which I think should be a final one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is further discussion of this matter at User talk: Cullen328#What are you talking about?. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have not seen this one. Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A review of Coolcaeser's talk page and its archive will show multiple cases of being called on for labeling edits he disagrees with as vandalism; which is just a specific case of his many incidents of gross incivility that are also documented there. It really is not behavior to be tolerated. TJRC (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Bridgerton Cast List

A number of editors, including me, have been editing the cast list of the TV series. Majority wanted a separate division for the members of the eponymous Bridgerton family for clarity. At present, user Dmargi has been reverting these edits to follow MOS on cast list. But I argue that a simple alphabetical arrangement on a large ensemble cast is a disservice to the readers, especially when the focus of the story is obviously to the Bridgerton family members. It just does not make sense, style-wise, to let the protagonists of the show scattered and buried in the section. Maxen Embry (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Took a look at the page history, and saw only a couple of reversions of the cast list, unless something occurred further back in the history. I also looked at the talk page and found absolutely zero discussion of this issue. Where has the majority come to this decision? If there hasn't been talk page discussion to reach consensus, I'd suggest that it's awfully early to bring the concerns here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Have already raised the issue on the talk page. How do other editors access it tho? My worry is no one would reply to it. Maxen Embry (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Maxen Embry, have you considered notifying WikiProject Television? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Pogchamuepeo

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

---

User's userpage alone admits to block evasion. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 22:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on their talk page. If they were blocked in the land of long ago, and have abided by that block for multiple years, they might be a candidate for a standard offer. Let's get some details before hitting the indef button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ping Drmies. You want to take a look at this? They were fairly upfront on their user page that they were previously blocked. He claims the block was lifted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

PerryPerryD, please put links in your post. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, you're pinging me either because my son is a pog champ, or because I'm a CU--but I'm loath to run CU which is probably not going to show anything anyway if it was years ago. Let's see where the user goes--ROPE applies, and I doubt we're dealing with a prolific and disruptive sock master. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by E-960

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

---

I'm expanding articles with sources and user E-960 deletes it groundless multiple times [124], [125], because this anti-German user is outraged just by fact, that I'm writing about the German past of some places. Hope this will stop. I'm totally annoyed by this vandalism. Right now I'm taking a pause. --Jonny84 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the information as well, adding so much general history to a stub article about a small village is undue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've start a discussion at Talk:Jedlice, Opole Voivodeship were this can be talked about, rather than in edit summaries. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have in fact just noticed that you are copy pasting the same information across multiple stub articles about small villages. Maybe this would be better discussed at WT:Poland. I would ask you to stop, as doubling the size of these articles with the same text seems extremely bundue. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 you can't call edits (any edits) "vandalism" unless that editor is intentionally attempting to vandalize Wikipedia. This is not the case here. Please refer to this thread (just above) where an editor might be warned or even blocked for doing precisely the same.[126]. Do you understand what "vandalism" means? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This user reverts whole edits which were sourced without reason for multiple times. Not for the first time. That is clearly vandalism or permanent Bias/POV. Do I need to explain more... --Jonny84 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe E-960 was the most gentle about this revert. But I don't see it as vandalism. There is valid reasons for removing this text. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 - Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, you know? Word “vandalism" should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Copy pasted from our policies. You should get familiar with them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to believe in good faith after years of this disruptive edits.. Especially when he is erasing the information of German past in thousands of articles by a bot right now. I wonder if it would be called good faith, if somebody would erase information of Ukrainian past of Crimea, since it's occupied by Russia since 2014. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear. Are you saying these polish villages are currently being occupied by Poland but truly belong to Germany? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I've just said Crimea is defacto part of Russia, so we don't need Ukrainian history there, if we don't need informations about German history in Polish villages articles. I think you are mistaking this not by accident. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question ActivelyDisinterested. Do you think Jonny84 that these Polish villages in reality belong to Germany by bringing the Crimea example? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

never mind the user answered 1 second earlier - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading with understanding would help.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Commenting without personal attacks is better. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion now here, as it concerns multiple articles. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now, this is disruptive. Jonny84 nominates the page for deletion for no reason. [127] Why did you do that? Can you explain Jonny84? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is really escalating quickly. Have they been informed of Eastern European discretionary sanctions? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, see here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  ... and Jonny84 deleted the information [128] calling a person - ..a nationalist.. in the edit summary ...oh Lord. Come on Jonny84, what were you thinking? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a tiny insignificant village without any important informations about the village itself. Why do we need it in future? --Jonny84 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that now you're editing to make a WP:POINT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

GrizzCatBella edit conflicted me in reporting this. I'll just repeat my final sentence."With that I'm off to bed, with all the good faith in the world I start to wonder if we are being trolled" A bit over tired, I retracked that. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand their behaviour. Editors sometimes go off the rails you know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed your strikethrough formatting there, missed a \ Bsoyka (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First time striking a comment, of course it goes wrong. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jonny84 this edit of yours is exactly what vandalism is. You changed the article from this [129] to this [130] replacing it with text --> Mnichus [ˈmnixus] (German: Münchhausen) is just a tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit I just reverted [131] is also blatant vandalism by Jonny84. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm feeling bulled by some users right now, just for expanding stub articles with sources. Is it believable? I guess Wikipedia is based on fake and false informations nowadays.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not being bullied, and this definitely doesn't look like expansion with sources. Perhaps accusing other people of bullying isn't the best course of action here. Bsoyka (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure you linked the right diff there? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope, fixed. Thank you! Bsoyka (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't put this information (about population) into the article, so why are you expecting a source from me? --Jonny84 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed the diff hopefully for real this time, referring to Special:Diff/1082767304. Bsoyka (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This was referring to this, this and this.. But thanks for ignoring my initial edits like this [132], which was indeed sourced and reverted with dubious arguments. I already knew it's not about a neutral discussion here... If an extension of stub articles are not wanted, then there should't be a template, which asks for expanding.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe any admins have commented yet. We're all just editors like you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • So are the administrators. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Take a break Jonny84 and cool off. Come back in a day or two. (friendly advice) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• I see that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#User:World Beating over German placenames has escalated. Note that unless it has happened again since, "nationalist" was addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Personal attack. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  No hasn't been repeated, that issue is stale. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

So the users are not able to use the inserted sources and deleting it with the question about where it is mentioned [133], while the place name is clearly mentioned on page 29... I would call it intention.. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Its not whether it's referenced, is whether it's due. These are different issues. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • … neither of which are appropriate here, any more than they were last time. Take them back to Talk:Jedlice, Opole Voivodeship, Talk:Samuel Ludwik Zasadius#False informations and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Multiple articles being expanded with the same text.. Here, we get to discuss tit-for-tat editing, deletion nominations when an editor does not get xyr way, and accusations of vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I have tried multiple times to move the content issues away, I was just reposting that message as you replied. This is obviously a heated argument, so let's all try and stay civil. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • What are you expecting? If this place belonged to Prussia, I'm writing about that and I'm not writing about Italy or Rome, if this place has nothing in common with that.. This mention of due is silly.. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Calling something silly is not an argument, and this discussion (as it is about content) should continue at the link below. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Once again, I ask people interested in the content issue to join the discussion here. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I have attempted (hope it worked) to ping all user who have commented on this thread to the content discussion, in case they are interested. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonny84, are you simply constitutionally unable to have a content discussion on a talk page instead of here? Because I and others have the power to make you only able to edit talk pages. Now what on Earth were Special:Diff/1082767304, Special:Diff/1082767119, Special:Diff/1082769321 all about? Everyone else, who may not have been around at the time, might care to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-07/Gdansk or Danzig and the background at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names and elsewhere. This is not a thing that we're going to let blow up because of one editor mucking around with deletion templates and accusations of vandalism, note, and the way that it will be prevented will not be beneficial to said editor. So this nonsense stops, now. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• 1) What's your point, I've used the talk pages many times.. 2) If users are deleting my additions with the argument, that it has nothing in common with the village or same text on many articles, then there should be a consistent action with similar informations. So I took similar actions. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Jonny84 please stop. Edits like this one [134] were you intentionally vandalized (yes, vandalized) an article to make a WP:POINT replacing all the info with: tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest is not what other users were doing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • For me, edits like this ([135]) are exactly the same.. And even more, suppression of history and facts and erasing of sourced extendings.. So this is my opinion against yours. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
      • This is not only my opinion Jonny84. I don’t think you are understanding nor benefiting from this exchange so let’s stop it here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
        • You were looking in a German speaking source about Prussia from 19th century for a Polish place name, which was introduced after 1945.. THIS says everything about your ignorance and your lack of will in any cooperation or exchange.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Now you are calling me ignorant which is WP:PA. ("thank you") PS - Cool off Jonny84, take a brake, seriously. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • So you see no difference between a content dispute about where and how the encyclopaedia should discuss some history, and your scribbling false rubbish into articles as a tit-for-tat measure? I am administrator. Your editing privileges hang in the balance. I don't muck around when it comes to blocking for vandalism. Take time and think very carefully about what you say and do next. Uncle G (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    • So you are accusing me now of putting in false rubbish into articles???? Now show and demonstrate me every single wrong information I put into articles.. Next you will tell me, that Prussia didn't existed... Go further, go on! Next you will deny, that there was an Expulsion of million of Germans.. --Jonny84 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Three other people have brought up the tit-for-tat vandalism with the point avoided each time. Wikipedia has no need of someone who vandalizes articles as tit-for-tat measures and doesn't even acknowledge the falsity of Special:Diff/1082767119. Editing privileges of Jonny84 revoked. I said that I do not muck about. Vandalism is unacceptable. Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and incivility by Sayurasem

Recently Sayurasem have been mostly editing food-related articles related to Indonesia, some of them overlap with the cuisines of neighbouring countries in the Southeast Asian region. Their editing seems to indicate a pattern of highlighting or promoting a nationalistic Indonesian point of view at the expense of neighbouring countries, aggressively removing legitimate sources that are not Indonesian in origin while not scrutinizing Indonesian-centric self-published sources up to the same standard of quality, even when they are objectively unsuitable for citation on Wikipedia, like personal blogs or websites run by non-notable people who have not had work published elsewhere by a reputable publisher: here is one example with one being cited as a source and the other as an external link. This is not entirely problematic in itself and perhaps could be a matter for dispute resolution to settle, except that their edits have been undone or reverted by many editors besides myself and it is quite clear they intend to continue the pattern of repeatedly reverting anyone who disagrees with their edits. Sayurasem would occasionally retort in an aggressive manner in their edit summaries whenever the content they introduced or removed is challenged, claiming without providing credible evidence that the article's contents are "destroyed" or alleging that there is somehow "manipulation of article references". They have retaliated to recent edit attempts with further edit warring, or making incivil accusations on user talk pages like mine, instead of making a good faith attempt to discuss their disagreements with other editors in the relevant talk pages of the disputed articles. My attempt to explain in an impartial manner my disagreement with their non-neutral point of view and disruptive editing pattern by highlighting relevant guidelines or policies here, and my later warnings requesting that they cease posting on my talk page with their personal attacks, have been met with further animosity or ignored. They continue to display WP:IDHT and ownership behavioural tendencies, ironic considering what they have accused me of.

I am also calling into question their competence as an editor: there are at least two instances I am aware of, here and here, where an article they had newly created was found to be in violation of copyright or are redundant content forks of an established page by more experienced editors, who promptly removed them from mainspace in response. If their behaviour is not considered to be serious enough to warrant a temporary block, I believe a warning should be issued to Sayurasem at the very minimum, and for any interested administrators to keep an eye on the topic areas they are active in for problematic behaviour or potential copyright violations. I take responsibility for minor transgressions like violating or close to violating 3RR, because I was under the impression that some of their edits constitute vandalism and should be reverted. From the way they aggressively asserted their familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and policies to me, it is possible that Sayurasem may have previously edited under a different account, but I do not have evidence as to whether this user is a sockpuppet/master. Haleth (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Response

I will answer briefly but first I have the right to say that these are all baseless accusations made by the "senior editor", he seems to want to blame and corner the editors who disagree with him. If you look at the talk page, he has also had conflicts with many other editors (actually he is not 100% wrong, but he is a little "selfish" and forces his opinion to be accepted by others")

Curry mee

My edit on 24 february 2021 [136] destroyed by haleth (according to his point of view) [137] and this [138]

Lemang

Haleth revision (admits lemang comes from Indonesia) [139] new editor attack (which only has 6 contribution history) [140] Previously, many ip(sock) attacked this page, tried to destroy the article many times [141] [142] [143] shocked, once again related to sockmaster Awanama (talk · contribs) [144]

Dadar gulung

See my edit history on 23 february 2021 [145], before it was tampered with by a malaysian nationalist editor [146] Suspected sockpuppets [147]

haleth seems to help Wikipedia:The duck test editors and ip (socks)

And no, I'm not breaking any rules about "references" on wikipedia.

All sources that I have listed are from government websites (Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Indonesia) and National/international news portals that have high credibility. Sayurasem (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• My interactions with the editor in question is limited to Mee rebus and their actions to attempt at content forking the article into Mie rebus and Mie kuah redirects. While I had not look at the editor's contributions in depth due to IRL activities, a combination of such actions and the perennial obsession by various nationalistic editors with respect to food in the region would usually require someone step in and check through their edits to ensure that POV/revisionist content do not creep in. – robertsky (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Robertsky, stepping in and thoroughly checking through Sayurasem's edits to ensure that POV/revisionist content do not creep in was exactly what I did. Instead of addressing my criticism or making a good faith attempt to reach an compromise or understanding, all I got was for my time to be wasted by Sayurasem doubling down on their belligerence, conveniently ignoring the numerous instances where I had reverted editors who appeared to be pushing Malaysian nationalistic agendas or conspiracy theories. Instead of properly responding to concerns about their disruptive behaviour and incivility, they attempt to deflect by highlighting the behaviour of other editors who are not part of this discussion and doubling down on their aspersions cast at me. I now find it very curious that this editor, who have not joined Wikipedia for long and was fairly inactive for an extended period of time, appears to be aware of this serial Malaysian nationalist sockmaster @Awanama and seems to know a lot about the problematic topic of sockpuppeteering or concepts like the duck test. Haleth (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

”conspiracy theory" how can you call facts a "conspiracy"? edit history of all editors is not deleted, and can be seen by everyone, So stop accusing others of "lies and conspiracies"

• Remove Indonesia and Singapore, replaced exclusively with Malaysia (all Ip from malaysia [148])

[149], [150], [151] WP duck [152]

I assume haleth is Malaysian so with an "invisible" nationalist she defends several unconfirmed editors, this is just my assumption, actually I don't want to accuse, the problem is she accuses me of not being "neutral", even though I use credible sources Sayurasem (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

btw this page Mee rebus has also been attacked by "malaysian nationalist accounts" (currently blocked) [153] [154] [155] Sayurasem (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sayurasem I suggest not using government sources and national sources for these articles. Each nation are more than likely not to push their own narratives that they are the origin of the dishes. That is unless that the competing claims are acknowledged (at the very least, even if it is not accepted) like that of Yusheng where everyone went 'dispute is meaningless' in the end, or in Chilli crab where the disputed origin is laid out in a coherent manner. – robertsky (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jv.anthonny

• Jv.anthonny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jv.anthonny has been going around music articles adding unsourced recording years to infoboxes ([156][157][158]). They have been warned many, many times to stop adding uncited information, but it appears as if they are resolute to keep up this behavior, and they remain completely silent on their talk page. They were previously blocked for similar reasons in February 2022. Since they have been given a final warning yet again, I'm bringing this issue up here for an admin's judgement. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently they're an iOS app user, which explains why they're completely silent on their talk page -- they get no talk page notifications, and probably don't even know they have a talk page. Incidentally, they also don't see block messages. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Question: is the information they're adding factually incorrect? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: There's no way to know if the information is correct or incorrect (recording years aren't usually printed on a song/album's liner notes or discussed by the musicians), and if they're taking the information from another article where it's also unsourced, then they're citing Wikipedia. I have no idea where they could be obtaining this information, but the main issue here is that they aren't providing citations for their claims. They're being disruptive. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. If blocks are necessary here, it'll be yet another case that could've been rectified if we could actually... communicate... with the editor involved. It's been over a year since WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU was created, and even longer since when these issues have been present in the app. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockmaster reviewed own article with a sockpuppet account to promote it to a good article in less than a day

There is this article, Penang, which was promoted to a good article back in 2018. However, perhaps because no one else realized, but the reviewer and reviewee were eventually discovered to be both the same person using sockpuppet acounts.

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's procedures, but shouldn't it count as an instant WP:GAFAIL back then considering that the GA Review was helmed by Semi-auto, a confirmed sockpuppet of Vnonymous, who was the user who has made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination. One thing that also stands out is that the article went from nomination > review > pass in less than a day, and was passed by their own sockpuppet account.

This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. How does Wikipedia deal with situations such as these? Paul K. Sutton (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know whether we have anything that says the GA is automatically invalidated - although there may be. There’s WP:SOCKSTRIKE which says none of the SOCKSTRIKE measures should be used for closed or archived discussion. If comments by sock puppets may significantly affect the outcome of the discussion, a new discussion should be opened in a proper venue which suggests it should just go back to WP:GAR. I note that an experienced legitimate third editor was also involved and seemed to like the article. DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know. The purported "boosterism" also comes with heavy use of inline citations, so unless you're impeaching the citations as well, I'd think we're talking throwing out the baby with the bath water. Honestly, this looks at least GA-level to me. If you have issues with the article, that's a content dispute not suited for ANI; if individual citations are flawed, that's something you can correct yourself, as any editor can. Ravenswing 14:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the question is not really whether the article is indeed GA-level on its own merit, but the dishonest methods taken by the sockmaster to deliberately mislead others (WP:BADSOCK) to make it a GA in the first place. Is it even normal for an article to be promoted to a good article that quickly, especially when they did it themselves? In addition, they seem to be accounts passionately focused on Penang and Penang-related topics, with definitely some level of boosterism involved looking at some edits of theirs. One could argue that the intention of promoting their own content and the city to the extent of resorting to deceiving methods such as the usage of sockpuppet accounts for GA nominations is pretty much boosterism in itself. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like WP:IAR is an option here if someone wants to just yeet the GA tag. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if there's no rule written down about this, I think it makes sense to just delist with no further ado per WP:NOTBURO. The Sock's approval is meaningless (and, even if they weren't a sock, would be questionable given the brevity of the review relative to the size of the article). The third editor who commented on the review only commented on the use of images. It seems very unlikely that they evaluated the other 5 criteria. In particular, the article has well over 300 inline citations. If it's going to be marked as a GA, we should be confident that a reasonable number of those have been scrutinized for verifiability, and I doubt that has happened here. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

They could have at least reviewed mine while they were handing GAs out. Not only a sock, but inconsiderate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look, I can confirm the article meets my personal 'not-obviously-crap' assessment, and suspect it may fall somewhere within the broad vaguely-defined range of 'goodness' as seen in GA assessments generally. Accordingly, I'd recommend just finding someone willing to do a reassessment, and leaving as is for now. I doubt that our readers are going to up sticks and move en-masse to Penang just on account of a questionable badge on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This would be much better discussed at WT:GAN so editors familiar with processes can opine and also so any decision can be more easily found if this happens again. We have had socks pass their own articles before and they are dealt with quite harshly (indefinite blocks, GA removal and review deletion). In all the cases I remember the sock has been found because they review their own article. I don't think there have been ones four years after the fact, but given the GA pass was deceptive I think removal is still very much warranted. Maybe with Begoons comment copied onto the talk page. Aircorn (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was just posting a link to here from WT:GAN when I noticed that discussion was stared there at the advice of Colin M. Could we close this so we are not cross posting and that is the much better location. Aircorn (talk)
• There are other examples with this pair of socks, e.g. Talk:George Town, Penang/GA2, which SounderBruce put in for GA Reassessment but (mostly per AGF it seems) it was kept. Doesn't seem like an actual review was done on any of these, even though (from a cursory glance) they seem like decent articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see any lingering issues with George Town. By reassessing it the article has been reviewed by an independent editor. I can't find any other Good Articles passed or nominated by this editor looking at their contributions. Aircorn (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Troll

New user Xani LapZerin is engaging in disruptive racially motivated POV edit wars and was subsequently banned from editing the page, and has now resorted to posting pictures of Hitler to his profile. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

How's that putting a portrait of Hitler makes a troll out of me :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xani LapZerin (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are incapable of understanding why it was inappropriate, you clearly lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. I have removed the image, and suggest you find something more useful to do, if you wish to continue contributing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Xani LapZerin for disruptive editing, specifically plagiarism, Hitler trolling and general incompetence. The recent discussion at Talk: Kirkuk is illuminating. Cullen328 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Skibbereen-based IP range disrupting film articles

Someone in Skibbereen, Ireland, has been disrupting film articles using a dozen IP addresses. Disruption ranges from trivial and irrelevant unreferenced additions to wrong names inserted in lists of cast members. I don't see anything useful coming from this person. They have never used an edit summary, and have never replied to a talk page warning. Can we rangeblock them and save us all the trouble? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• 86.40.215.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.215.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.215.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note that 86.40.214.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) was range blocked 3 times in 2018/2019 noted as block evasion in one block. Seems never stopped. That range seems exclusively used by this editor so a range block would have little or no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. I would love to see another rangeblock on the /23 but with a lengthy duration. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. As mentioned, there's practically no collateral damage so blocked for a year. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption again started by Mrvillainwolf

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

Mrvillainwolf got blocked by Daniel Case Special:MobileDiff/1076443409 for one month. After their block expired they are back again at disruptive editing as can be seen Special:MobileDiff/1082870333, Special:MobileDiff/1082869951 and even here Special:MobileDiff/1082870537 Please take care of it. Thanks. Packer&Tracker«Talk» 16:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Nawabdera

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

They were soft-blocked a few months ago and have been using their user talk page to spam. Please revoke TPA. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I've sent the required notification for you. Bsoyka (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I've revoked talkpage access and removed a lot of promotion, inappropriate personal details, and other things that don't belong on a Wikipedia talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC).

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

The bot deleted a picture here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Utkin&action=history

"Removing Commons:File:Dmitry Utkin.jpg" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2B30:ABD0:5C68:181F:E14F:E884 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The bot did not delete an image, nor does it appear to be malfunctioning. The image was deleted on the Commons by an administrator, and this bot is simply removing the link to it now that it's been removed. Bsoyka (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@2600:1702:2B30:ABD0:5C68:181F:E14F:E884: Filedelinkerbot is not malfunctioning, the picture was Deleted on Commons because it was an Copyright violation. Chip3004 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright violations from User:TheGreengiant23

User:TheGreengiant23 continues to insert repeated copyright violations into articles. In June 2015, this user was blocked for copyright violations.Back in January of this year, [159] an unrelated discussion unearthed multiple violations of copyright, but nothing came of the discussion. There appears to be a Wikipedia:Competence issue with this editor. The latest example is this [160]. I reverted their edits at 2030 Winter Olympics because the opiniated text. On a hunch, did a check to see if there was a copyright issue, and there was. Some of the text is copied from here [161] Note: I have not left a warning for them or notified them of this discussion as per their wish for me to not write on their talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have notified TheGreengiant23 of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This user have been told to let me (and others he's bullying) alone. It's a little game he's playing with others, accusing users whom he dont like the contributions to revert without asking their opinion and than accusing them on anything possible (pseudo vandalism, copyright, harassment, etc.) This user have clear mental illness and i wont go further in this non sense. I dunno if their is a rule for falsly reporting users and intimidate like hes doing but plz adm have some lil judgment and don't take his word like cash. Thank you very much. (Speaking in the name of all his victims, who are in vast majority experienced and fabulous and positive contributors) TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

COI/UPE bullying

• Chris troutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DoubleCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few years due to general inactivity + being locked out of my account. But after noticing that a startup called Remote that I was learning about didn't have an article, I tried to log back into my account and to my surprise I succeeded in regaining access. So I started to update myself on what has changed around here, as I would like to become more active again. And I proceeded to create an article on the mentioned company.

That proved to be a quick reminder that Wikipedia is not always an enjoyable experience. The stub was first speedy deleted due to lack of sources while I was still gathering them (I don't think Drafting existed a few years ago so I was just editing as I would before - directly on the mainspace). I reached out to the admin who speedy deleted, who then restored the stub as a draft. I finished adding sources and moved the article back to the mainspace. Shortly afterwards, user Chris troutman nominated it for deletion due to concerns about the company's notability and the sources I had gathered. So far so good, but in his reasoning was also the allegation that I may have a conflict of interest as this company was "an odd choice of article to write after [me] having stopped editing for years".

I ignored that and the discussion proceeded to focus on the sources and how to improve them. As the outcome was leaning towards Keep, Chris brought up the COI allegation again and demanded I disclose whether I have a COI - a demand which I refused to comply. Chris then took it to the COI noticeboard. Two users agreed with him on similar assumptions: the quality of the sources and my choice of article meant I had to have a COI.

Users DoubleCross and Scope creep then decided to up the ante and accuse me of being paid to create the article[162][163]. And now I even have a user implying I should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE.

I may have been away from Wikipedia for years, but unless a lot has changed during my absence this is bullying plain and simple. I used to break fights by reminding users to be civil and assume good faith, and I'm disappointed that this type of hounding is allowed to run unopposed.

I would like to be clarified if the users above are in their right to make these accusations. Húsönd 23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's best just to say so. That said, we have high standards for notability of corporations precisely to avoid poorly sourced boosterism, regardless of whether it's well intentioned creation or not. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the spectre of spammers, passions sometimes run high in deletion discussions for companies, and the independence of sources can be debatable. While the launch of this AFD unfortunately followed some snarking by the nominator Chris Troutman to the article creator Husond upon his return, discussion was proceeding quite well. Unfortunately, Scope creep joined in with a rather passionate Delete, and reacted to my answer to his comment by wholly reverting my response [164]. I think this was a decidedly suboptimal reaction, but that happens. Things degenerated from there. As pertains to me, he's now responded to 3rd parties calling him out on his conduct by accusing me and Husond of being corrupt on his own talk page. I've asked him to withdraw the accusation, but he does not seem inclined to do so. I do think a 3rd party look into the conduct issues here all around would be helpful, hopefully leading to a deescalation and withdrawal of rash accusations. Moving from conduct to content, I shake my head sometimes how much more scrutiny we place on articles about 2nd tier but (arguably) notable companies versus minor celebrities, all from a fear of COI which actually arises just as frequently for personal vanity articles. However, this is not new (see for instance [165] from 2006!) and probably not solvable at ANI. Martinp (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that scope creeps reversion was totally out of order and their corrupt accusation is not ideal either. As to the COI insinuations it just makes me uneasy. I can see why they were made and companies are notorious for it, but Husond explanation is also entirely plausible. Overall I think the evidence is a weak to go all out on UPE and it is really just a red herring as regards the AFD anyway. It would be great if scope creep could restore Martins comment and editors could leave out further accusations of COI at the AFD and just focus on sources. If non-neutral editing or spamming results then the COI accusations can be revisited. Aircorn (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Martinp had only made two comments in the discussion prior to the one which scope_creep removed, one of which was Martinp's !vote and the other of which was expanding on the !vote. To say that Martinp bludgeoned by posting a third comment, which was the first time they had replied to another person in the discussion, would stretch the definition of the term "bludgeon" beyond its breaking point. scope_creep should voluntarily restore Martinp's comment at the AfD. I also feel the need to point out that scope_creep has a history of playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations, so it does not surprise me that they would refer to Martinp as "corrupt" solely because Martinp disagreed with them. Mlb96 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Husond, yes, things have changed a lot since the early days when you were highly active before going pretty much silent for a decade or more. You have been an administrator off and on, and have lost your administrator's tools twice, I think. One thing that has changed for the better, in my opinion, is that we work much harder to control the promotional contributions of spammers/paid editors/COI editors. As an administrator for almost the past four years, I have blocked 5849 accounts and about 80% of those were spammers and COI editors. One useful tool is the direct question to a possible COI editor: "Do you have a conflict of interest?" This is not bullying. It is protecting and defending the encyclopedia. You seem to consider this entirely legitimate question to be unacceptably intrusive and are refusing to give a direct answer. Your refusal reflects very poorly on you, because you could have easily and promptly and conclusively denied all accusations of COI editing and PAID editing. But you have declined to do do, which leaves these possibilities open for editors who patrol COI and POV editing. Let me be crystal clear with you. If you harbor any wish to be an administrator again or return to the status of a respected and trusted editor, you need to answer these questions frankly, honestly and fulsomely. Your reluctance to answer places you firmly into the informal category of editors who cannot be trusted. Is that what you really want? Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The direct COI question might not be bullying, but it can be presumptive and certainly feel quite rude depending on the context. A more astute accuser might have AGF upon seeing an editor with 36,000 edits under their belt, a history of adminship and a gazillion barnstars and perhaps recalculated, especially when the article was clearly being built with quality, guideline-compliant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't particularly discussing Martinp in any accusation about being corrupt. I didn't believe at the time, they had a handle on the policy, although I've since found out they have written some of the NCORP policy. I was speifically speaking about the behaviour about editors who are trying the game the system, that I believe is happening here on a regular basis. I shouldn't have reverted the comment by Martinp but by the same token, this type of behaviour where editors now try to for push for a no conensus, so the article is kept, by continually pushing the conversation in the same direction that it becomes bludgeoning, is now common. It is standard pattern. I thought it was that. Even after I called out the references, where 6 out the 9 were press-releases, and 2 of the remaining were 2 sentences each, still the comment, ignoring the references and there is no other coverage. Mlb96 above makes the comment about me, playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations. To a certain extent I do, but nobody seems to care about it. I thought by now, there would be sea change, but no. I will stop working on coin and Afd and cat:nnn from this point forward. I think about 60% of the articles are now paid for and that it's now de-rigueur to pay for articles on Wikipedia. A few days a sock master self-confessed to running a farm on the coin for four years. That is the tip of the iceberg. I really don't understand why we are doing this. Its madness. I rail against the 1000's of hours I've wasted working to keep it out, that could have going into writing new articles and and there is so much still to be done. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling at the article Turkish War of Independence

On March 9, I made a request to add a content in the article Turkish War of Independence regarding killing of Muslim Turks during the war. It was rejected same day by Buidhe, stating that “It is not clear what specific edit is being asked for and if so, whether it has consensus.” However, prior to the edit request there had not been any discussion about the content, therefore it is unclear how there was no consensus against the content at the time.

Again, on March 9, I made a second request improving the content with more references and an explanatory foreword. This was also rejected by ScottishFinnishRadish, who claimed that there was no consensus about the content and asked me to discuss it first without himself/herself discussing the content.

On March 11, I wrote a critique of the abstention of discussing the content I proposed, this critique is available at Turkish War of Independence talk page.

On April 3, I created a request at the Noticeboard page of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View under the heading Turkish War of Independence & Atrocities. As of April 16, it is yet to be answered.

On April 11, I started a “Request for comments” to discuss the content I proposed. The engagement was very limited: Buidhe, seemingly cooperative at first, stopped replying after two responses given by me. On April 14, another user Alaexis stated, without elaboration, that the content would not be “DUE”, because according to he/she there was no section that discussed civilian loses. I explained that there was a section that covered civilian loses under the heading “ethnic cleansing” but he/she too did not reply.

So far, nobody was able to challenge the content from a factual perspective (i.e., disprove the massacres against Muslims). The limited amount of criticism emerged from editorial concerns that, I believe, are specific to Wikipedia. I even offered some compromises to satisfy these concerns but did not receive comments on them.

It has been over a month since the content has been proposed and whilst I made every effort I could think to cooperate and create a better article, I did not receive proper feedback from Wikipedians. Under such conditions I believe my efforts to add the content regarding atrocities against Muslims Turks during Turkish War of Independence are being stonewalled.

My request is either discuss or add it to the article.

Best regards.--176.219.152.58 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment given that a RfC is underway, the best course of action at this stage would be to get more input by publicizing it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Observation. Part of the problem may be the wall of text approach to your requests. Nowhere was the a clear indication of what text should be inserted or where it should be inserted into the article. Sometimes shorter is better in requests: I've frequently advised editors to break long multi-part requests into smaller requests that go one item at a time.

M.Bitton is also correct. There is participation in the RfC that you started three days ago. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty evident that 176.219 is User:AdaletAdam, indefinitely blocked since 11 April. Compare, for example, AdaletAdam's comments in this talk page section. Someone let me know if they need more proof, or if this needs to go to SPI, but it's fairly quacky and I urge admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong. A wicked spirit bamboozled me into comparing AdaletAdam comments against other AdaletAdam comments, which resulted in my confidence that the comments were made by the same person. My apologies to 176.219 and anyone who wasted time investigating. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User:GenoV84

• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On April 14, 2022, I removed a minor sign from Islamic eschatology as it was based on a hadith that was graded as Da'if (weak) meaning that the hadith is unrealiable and should be disregarded. The sources that the user included also state that the Hadith is Da'if as can be seen here: . Another editor indicated this to the user on January 25, 2022. (see edit history) but he ignored the comment. Weak Hadiths are disregarded by the Islamic community either due to discontinuity in the chain of narrators or due to some criticism of a narrator. If a narration cannot be traced back to its source then the narration is unreliable and there is even a chance that it was fabricated therefore hadiths like these which are classified as Da'if should not be used. The user "warned" me on my talk page that I was commiting vandalism but when I tried to engage in conversation he deleted my comments on my talk page and gave me a "third warning." It's clear that the user does not want to engage in conversation. He claims in the edit history that "No academic sources have been provided to support these unsubstantiated claims" yet as i've indicated above, his own sources claim that the hadith is Da'if. 190.83.141.216 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't base that article on which hadiths are reliable - they are all made up. Besides, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at Ani. 107.115.5.118 (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

References

IP 72.174.131.123

The IP 72.174.131.123 has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks over the past five months. As demonstrated by their talk page, they have engaged in an edit war every month since December 2021. Earlier this month, the IP repeatedly attempted to add unverified rumors to the Die Hard (film series) article. In defending their edits, they called a Wikipedia guideline "stupid" and insisted the rumors should be added because they were "pretty sure" of them. When another editor informed them that they needed proper references, they accused the editor of only making "non-constructive reverts".

On the Randall Cunningham article, they have repeatedly removed information about the subject being third in quarterback rushing yards with significantly longer and less specific wording. Their argument for not including this information is it's "subject to change", which ignores one of the main reasons Wikipedia allows for easy editing. In response to my edits, they said I'm "being ridiculous" with demands of "a very junior editor" and called my edits "boneheaded, not just here, but elsewhere". They also went on my talk page to interject in a conversation from over a year ago and accuse my editing of being "destructive to some degree". Bluerules (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. See Special:Diff/825559319 from February 2018. It looks like our protagonist has been at this for several years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)