Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Girth Summit (talk | contribs) at 21:57, 16 December 2021 (→Suggesting [[WP:BOOMERANG]]: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    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

    Combative and NOTHERE editor

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

    The above was recently partially blocked by BD2412 for edit warring on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Since that happened, they have only been combative towards other users who attempted to warn them of this (including complaining/borderline harassing to admins, including BD and 331dot, who declined their appeal) and their attitude has been overall dismissive of all advice and warnings, describing them as "irrelevant", "meaningless", "BS", so on so forth. They're clearly not interested in collaborating, much less in actually building an encyclopedia (as opposed to merely shouting from the top of their soapbox), as obvious from their disinterest in actually being even remotely polite and civil, and I reckon there's not much reason to expect a radical improvement in a few day's time. Somebody uninvolved and with a spare mop would be welcome here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with everything RandomCanadian has said above. BrandonTRA's entire purpose here appears to be the insertion of poorly supported content into a single rather sensitive article. Their response to opposition to the addition of this material has been denigration of the multiple editors pointing out its flaws, improper templating of user talk pages with warnings, ([1], [2]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([3]). I gave them a minimal block under the circumstances – limited to one article, for one week – but they seem inclined to learn nothing from it. I've seen enough to expect that they never will. BD2412 T 21:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the same editor as BrandonTR? The tone is certainly the same. BrandonTR has been a belligerent and unhelpful SPA on JFK assassination articles for over a decade. Here's an ANI complaint I made about him in 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Long_term_incivility_from_User:BrandonTR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly seems like it could be a sock situation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider myself uninvolved with a spare mop, and already issued a warning to leave 331 alone yesterday, and another warning today, before this report. They have not mentioned 331 since then, just some venting and bluster on their talk page. I'm assuming they got the message. The only edit they've made since then outside their talk page is this. A 7/10 on the obnoxiousness meter, but yours might be calibrated differently, particularly if there's a long history of unprovoked stuff like that. I've got their talk page watchlisted and was planning to block indef if they kept it up, but thought I'd give a final warning a chance. If another admin wants to short-circuit that approach, don't feel like you need to get my OK. In particular, I was unaware of the existence of BrandonTR; if they've been doing this a long time, with previous warnings not on the new account's talk page, then I'm much less inclined to wait to see if the behavior changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an erstwhile target of this user's harassment, I would like to say that their editing on the JFK article is combative at best, harassing at worst. I would describe their attitude as "flippant" and "dismissive of the perspectives of others as always in bad faith."
      Here are some choice diffs: [4] ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
      If the original BrandonTR account is the same person, then this is a decade-long pattern that has not improved in the slightest. And in my opinion merits a WP:NOTHERE indef. If these are not the same person, then I think a TBAN would probably be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If these are not the same person, then the new editor has chosen a username almost identical to that of the old editor, in order to edit the same article in the same style, which is problematic conduct in and of itself. BD2412 T 03:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I would personally call it astronomically unlikely. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my books, anyone oblivious enough to attack multiple editors and admins while he's under a block is someone who can't be trusted to make constructive and competent edits. Ravenswing 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are blatantly the same person. Quacking loudly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just posting here to say the editor has simply stopped editing the offending articles and removed all the comments pointed out here, but has not responded to this thread or described any intention to change their pattern of behavior. I am doubtful that the behavior would not simply recur in some time, when we have all forgotten about it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose indef block

    I am proposing an indefinite block per WP:NOTTHERE. ––FormalDude talk 05:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as this is a WP:SPA who is interested most of all in pushing their POV. And they do so in such a way that makes collaborative editing all but impossible. They are very much WP:NOTHERE. They've thumbed their nose at this thread, saying "That's nice" when notified [13]. I cannot think of a clearer case of NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support:  Looks like a duck to me. Rest assured, I read the whole thread. /gen Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm ambivalent about a block vs. a final warning right now, and won't vote, but 2 clarifications: (1) after this thread started, they removed their most recent snark in several places, which I suppose is a step in the right direction, and (2) we shouldn't be talking "duck test" or anything sockpuppetry-related as a reason to block; the accounts didn't overlap, and the naming scheme doesn't indicate an intent to deceive. This is the kind of thing people do when they lose their passwords. I agree their long term behavior absolutely needs to change immediately and substantially, if it isn't already too late. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "duck test" is relevant here not in terms of sockpuppetry accusations, but in this being a much more seasoned editor than their account history would indicate, and therefore someone who should know better than to engage in the conduct complained of. BD2412 T 21:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair, reasonable point. If that's what's intended, I've no objection to considering that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as well. Ravenswing 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-pornography AfD's

    Note: I've closed all sections except the "Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG" section; there is no consensus yet on whether to sanction and/or topic ban User:Subtropical-man and/or User:Supercopone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    initial report

    Spartaz has not done anything wrong here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:Spartaz seems to have some sort of bias against pornography. Of course its his right, but he along with suspicious accounts associated with these AfDs [14] make me believe something else is going on here. In all this I have made mistakes by pinging another user wrongly. I did so because I thought the user had useful ideas on the matter. Yet, aggressively deleting notable articles is disruptive.Super (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a preemptive attack based on a warning I gave @Subtropical-man: concerning his attempt to poison the well at this afd by attacking my motives. He was canvassed by Supercopone to that discussion and started casting aspersions. Having warned him to retract or see my raising my own ANI this is clearly retaliatory. I invite anyone who has any doubts about why I’m nominating substandard BLPs to be deleted to cast their eyes over the list of porn deletion discussions and see whether or not my nomination standards are supported by the outcome of the discussions. And now back to the real issue, we have a BLP deletion discussion full of spurious keep arguments based on non-policy reasons but no sources. Also, cAn someone please speak to subtropical about their comments about me in that afd please? Perhaps its time they took a break from AFD? Supercopone is clearly in experienced but I hope that with time their appreciation of where we draw the line on BLPs with rubbish sourcing will improve. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spartaz, please stop manipulating. I complied with your request and removed the supposed offensive comment. What "preemptive attack" - this is typical "aspersions". User Supercopone decides for himself and does what he wants. I deleted my comment because I didn't want to waste my time in endless discussions. You have a grudge against my comment and you do exactly the same. And double, because you define other users's work as rubbish. Your comment offensive and you insult other users that they create rubbish... and I should scare you now ANI like you did. You do exactly the same. Your problem that (I wrote about in the deleted comment) concerns extreme abuses of the AfD. The same opinion is shared by the user Supercopone. Your main activity on Wikipedia is creating hundreds new AFDs and voting for deletion in existing AFDs. See last your own 100 AFDs - 99.9% your votes is for deletion. You are responsible for the mass deletion of Wikipedia articles. This has been going on for years. You have completely lost neutrality and perspective. That's why topic ban of AFD pages for you is a good way out. Wikipedia needs neutral people to operate on Wikipedia's technical pages, including the AfD, you are not one of them. Your edits clearly show that deleting articles is your phobia, you are doing nothing else. Therefore, other users have the right to demand changes and remove you from AfD pages. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ah thank you for withdrawing your statement (which was still up when I checked the afd before writing my reply) but since you choose to repeat your ridiculous claims here I stand by my comments. There clearly is disruption going on here but its not for nomimqtimg articles when they are getting deleted. Spartaz Humbug!…
    • Comment clearly there are a few editors that disagree with Spartaz, but I don't see any evidence that Spartaz is doing something ANI would need to discourage or prevent. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia has long had a problem with a plethora of very poorly referenced biographies of non-notable porn performers. Spartaz has worked diligently to take out the garbage through AfD and should be commended for it instead of attacked for the valuable work that they do. Clearly, some porn stars are notable and we should have well referenced biographies of those people. The others should be and are being deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You believe an almost 100% deletion rate isn't suspicious? Has anyone looked at the accounts that seem to always vote delete on all of these? Super (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs)
    • I know there are many articles of poor quality and without sources. However, the user Spartaz's phobia already affects better articles, such as Devon (actress). This is a current case. This article is correct, text, infobox, photo from Commons, not stub - 14,170 bytes, 28 sources and.... 27 interwiki[15]. She is awarded the most important award in the porn industry (so-called Porn Oscars), she was the Penthouse Pet and appeared in notable film of Pirates (2005). There are no reasons why the article should not be on Wikipedia. The user Spartaz has already started deleting valid articles. This is already dangerous and destructive for Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phobia? Excuse me but what the actual?. I find this accusation deeply offensive. How dare you label me with an abnormal mental health tag. Can someone deal with this please? Spartaz Humbug! 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations consist of the usual interviews, press releases and awards rosters. Start-class content doesn't make an article notable. The remaining notability rationale is an appeal to PORNBIO, which was deprecated in 2019. Again, the consensus for WP:BIO changed, and this stuff doesn't count anymore unless it is supported by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is asking for another editors opinion on a article canvassing? He had been involved in previous discussions on this article and cannot see where asking for a useful comment on sources is not allowed . You issued me a warning for that after I filed an ani.Super (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought an editor could nominate as many articles as possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment as an involved editor. Of the AfD nominations by Spartaz since 30 October that have been closed, all but one was deleted for failing WP:BIO. The latest nomination, Constance Money, may survive. (Nobody's perfect). However, in the case of Devon, the notability is questionable at best. I haven't voted, but I do see a valid, good-faith rationale behind the nomination. This is a good-faith house cleaning to weed out a backlog poorly sourced articles after notability and sourcing guidelines were tightened. The current rate of AfDs is hardly taxing on editor time and attention, thus little disruption if any. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BOOMERANG applies here. This morning I had pondered filing something involving both Supercopone for a bad-faith WP:CANVASSING and Suptropical-man for an out-of-left-field personal attack (yes, bob drobs, I stand by the "extreme hostility" characterization) against admin Spartaz. The former - AFD #1 of this subject, Supercopone chose 1 of 7 participants to canvass here. The latter - Suptroipical-man posts an egregious tirade against the article nominator here. They slightly softened some of the language upon challenge, but it IMO changed little. Both of these users have effectively tainted the afd , making a rancor-free discussion going forward rather difficult. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please also note above where Subtropical-man is using ableist slurs like "you have a phobia" against editors his disagrees with. [16] Zaathras (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have voted delete on every single one of User:Spartaz av AfD posts. Is that not weird to anyone else here? You aggressively intervene anytime someone votes keep.Super (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take an interest in the subject area because it appears that the Wikipedia has been for a decade or more used as a platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy. I am not opposed to pornography, but I love the Wikipedia and hate to see it coopted for commercialism. I also "intervene" when someone posts a sub-optimal reason to retain an article. The D in AfD stands for "discussion", if you did not know. In closing, I believe there are tools available somewhere to examine how a person votes in an AfD vs. how the AfD is closed. I'm fairly certain the majority my entries in various discussions will be matched by the close decision. Zaathras (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support TBANing Super and Subtropical from AFDs. We as a community are way too tolerant of editors who use AFDs to fight. Comments in the AFD and here like "I get it you do not like pornography", "User:Spartaz seems to have some sort of bias against pornography", and "user Spartaz's phobia" are all ad hominem attacks. It's exactly the opposite of "comment on content not contributor". We shouldn't tolerate this, even a little bit. Anyone and everyone making these sorts of attacks at AFDs who doesn't strike/retract them when asked should be TBANed. We've got to clean up AFD. Levivich 15:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know that I'd go as far as a TBAN, but it's weirdly combative behavior - It's not like Spartaz isn't giving policy justifications for their nominations. It's totally normal for editors to focus in on a specific area for a short burst of time. That's not evidence of anything except for dedication to the project. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      user:Spartaz treats others' work as "rubbish" and writes such words in an open discussion. User who treats other people's work as rubbish, should not be able to act on the AfD, especially that deleting articles is the main activity of this user on Wikipedia. These are serious allegations! I do not write that we should use TopicBan for Spartaz because he using the term of "rubbish" for other people's work (it does not meet TopicBan requirements, TopicBan is never given to a person for using an inappropriate word, TopicBan is only for debatable activity on a topic), but because high bias of this user and his disrespect for the articles of other users and his non-neutrality to remove articles. Just like a policeman, a policeman must respect every human life, if he thinks some people are "rubbish" then we have the Gestapo or SS [Note: I gave this as an example from another topic to clarify the situation - the example above does not apply to any person on Wikipedia. The above example is only to make you aware of what's the matter.]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like a policeman, a policeman must respect every human life, if he thinks some people are "rubbish" then we have the Gestapo or SS
    Okay, I don't care about your note after this, Subtropical. This is uncalled for.
    Spartaz isn't calling people "rubbish," he's talking about the content of the articles. The fact you've turned this around as some kind of attack on your person is just baffling. Look man, I'm no prude. If you saw my Patreon, you'd blush. But removing non-notable porn bios from Wikipedia is appropriate because those articles don't meet our standards. Not because they're porn performers, but because they haven't enough claim to fame to meet Wikipedia's general standards. Just accept that and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HandThatFeeds, I can see that you completely misunderstood the meaning of my comment. First of all, nowhere (I repeat: nowhere) did I mention that the Spartaz calling people "rubbish", I wrote many times, that he called "rubbish" other users's work (i.e. articles). For example, the current AfD (made by Spartaz) is about Devon which complied with Wikipedia requirements and was not removed by consensus. This is not a "rubbish"! The second thing: please read and understand the previous comments, for example: I know there are many articles of poor quality and without sources. However, the user Spartaz's phobia already affects better articles (...). Soon, articles that meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements will be removed, by misinterpretation by Spartaz. He will want to prove in AfD that they do not meet of requirements. Spartaz has done such things in the past - although the article met PORNBIO's requirements, he over-interpreted the rules and voted to delete. Repeatedly. One of the perfect proofs is first AfD about Devon. The article met the requirements of WP:PORNBIO, she had the most important award in the porn industry, Spartaz voted for removal after all. That is why I wrote about the fact that a person with such extreme behavior towards articles could not decide about them anymore. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Subtropical-man: A tiny bit off topic, but what's with the frequent use of "Spacnaz" when (I assume, from context) you mean Spartaz? You switch back and forth in the same paragraph, to the point where for a while I thought there were two editors with similar-looking names doing something you think is wrong. If this is some kind of nickname, stop it now. If this is some kind of non-English spellcheck (my best AGF-compliant guess, though I have no idea what a Spacnaz is), then please take more care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, sorry - my bad. I corrected it. Thank you for the info. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems as if you just willfully misinterpreted what he said
    Super, this is a bad hill to die on. When someone compares another's actions to the SS and Gestapo, there's no room to equivocate. Don't do that. I don't care how many Notes one puts in the comment, it's a personal attack to claim that good-faith edits are like the Gestapo.
    Subtropical, you explicitly said: if he thinks some people are "rubbish"
    You directly accused him of calling people rubbish. If that was a typo, then fine, I'll accept that. But his calling edits rubbish does not justify equating him with the SS, in any way of speaking.
    Second, you've continued attacking Spartaz by saying Soon, articles that meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements will be removed, by misinterpretation by Spartaz.
    You've directly accused Spartaz of looking to delete articles which do meet Wikipedia's standards. And then you state The article met the requirements of WP:PORNBIO when you've been told that PORNBIO is no longer accepted. You can't use PORNBIO to determine if an article is appropriate for Wikipedia anymore.
    You've done nothing to but cast aspersions this whole time, and I strongly suggest you step back & rethink your approach. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    • Sorry for using the word "phobia", maybe it was tasteless. I understand of "assume good faith", but it was hard to understand that someone is trying to justify the removal of thousands of articles because he thinks the work of dozens of users is "rubbish". I guarantee that such words can offend many users. No matter what your beliefs are, we have no right to offend others' hard work - it goes both ways, including me, Supercopone, and Spartaz. Levivich, if someone treats others' work as "rubbish" and writes such words in an open discussion (like Spacnaz), if someone treat Wikipedia as a battlefield to fight pornography per WP:BATTLEGROUND like user:Zaathras (because he thinks that it "platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy"), these are perfect examples for TBAN. Levivich, where's your neutrality? You propose TopicBAN for used word "phobia" (because someone wants to delete thousands of articles and apart from the fact that your idea doesn't meet any requirements of TopicBan), and no reaction whatsoever for using WP:BATTLEGROUND to fight with porn "rubbish" by user:Spartaz and to fight with "platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy" by user:Zaathras. So, sorry for using the word "phobia" etc, one little non-vulgar word... because some user can push apart from substantive discussion. So that a certain user does not have to avoid substantive discussion, because he focusing on the word "phobia" - once again, I apologize for using this word. In this situation, any subsequent comments like "because you used the word phobia" should be treated as spamming. I used that word and apologized (and I still waiting for apologies for calling "rubbish" others' hard work). Writing about "phobia" for the tenth time is littering the discussion. This is a place for a substantive discussion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Subtropical-man: The articles in dispute do not number in the thousands. The last time I looked, porn AfDs since 2019 counted in the mid 100's. There is a consensus that PORNBIO was supported by low-quality sources and that articles that relied on that SNG are no longer necessarily notable. Yes, editors contributed content relying on PORNBIO, myself included. Editors agreed that standard was no longer tenable. Taking an ownership interest in the content to the point of taking offense *is* a battleground mentality. Pornography is pervasive with and overwhelming volume of non-notable content pushed by low-quality sources. It is a perennial problem in Wikipedia that used to get an inclusionist exemption, and there are Wikipedians of good faith, who believed it hurt the project. That view is now consensus. Please accept that editors working on that consensus are acting in good faith. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    we are being played here

    withdrawn accusation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can we get some eyes on @Supercopone:’s edit history please. Long dormant account that was accused of socking appears back after 10 years and first action is to accuse another editor of a COI and taking them to COI noticeboard. Its obviously a compromised account being used to troll. Well played sir!! And there I was trying to share helpful advice. link to comtribs hereSpartaz Humbug! 20:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are you being serious? This is retaliatory because I filed an ani. You warned me right? I messed up filing the ani? Backed the wrong dog you said. You getting called out on your bad behavior does not make me a troll.Super (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spartaz: I can't agree with your logic at all, and encourage you to retract it or provide better evidence. Since the account was created it has focused on educational institutions in Georgia. And it's not unheard of for an editor to dive into AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specifically, it can't possibly be both the original contributor socking and a compromised account. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Withdrawn. Sorry, you see from my link I had a filter on the contribs and this confused me and made the editing gap look 5 times longer Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
        • At a glance (with the full edit history), Supercopone definitely looks like an editor who had some specific interest in "non-traditional" schools, fell into AFD last week, and has been making new-editor mistakes since. However, it is somewhat suspicious that of the 50+ pings that could have been made, they pinged exactly one editor (Subtropical-man) who apparently had retired from porn-related AFDs for reasons which should be obvious. I'm not sure I could cause this amount of disruption with one ping to an AFD if I tried. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          A 12 year old account that has only been active since December 2nd. Since the 2nd, he has voted in 68 AfD discussions. I see this as a bit suspicious given they have used vocabulary that makes me believe they are not a new user. – The Grid (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not true at all, I have never used vocabulary of the sort! I have been active over the years. I served in the military so you will see long periods of absence in my editing history.I am sorry I could not manage to find the time to edit overseas to keep my account consistently active for your liking. I am now retired so I will be around much much more.Super (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not want to drag him into this. He was actually pissed about it and asked me not to ping him. I am interested in religious diploma mills as they seem to be prevalent here. User:力 He had just made some amazing points in the original AfD and sadly I dragged him into this. I also just retired so have much more time on my hands.I got into AfD's after I saw some useful article vanish and I wondered where they went.... Well down the rabbit hole I went.Super (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see nothing wrong with what Spartaz is doing, their requests have fully justified rationales and most have closed as delete. I've read stories where porn performers are harassed because people have added their real names to articles. Wikipedia has a duty of care towards BLP subjects, and deleting articles on non-notable individuals is an important part of that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Overwrites with redirects

    resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Spartaz: if you want to delete articles, please take them to AfD, and don't just short-circuit the process by just overwriting the article with a redirect, as you have done at Chasey Lain and Constance Money. -- The Anome (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • That would be the redirect for an article deleted at AFD that I put back after an ip posted an unsourced article in its place? As for the second its a valid editorial choice and if you disagree I will take it to AFD after you revert it. Please see WP:BRD. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are completely right about the first one; please accept my apologies. I've now re-deleted it, replaced it with your redirect, and protected it, with appropriate comments.

        Regarding the second; yes, please take it to AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG

    I've read through this discussion in full, trying to tease out whether there is a consensus on the best way forward. Lots of suggestions have been put forward, from 'do nothing' to site bans, and no specific sanction has an obvious consensus, but I am going to work on the principle that someone who believes a user should be site banned would also believe that they should at least be topic banned from the area in which they have been disruptive. Based on that, I see consensus for the following:
    • Supercopone is indefinitely topic banned from the WP:AFD process, broadly construed. That not only means that they may not !vote in deletion discussions, but also that they may not participate in discussions about the process, or comment on contributors to that process. As usual, this may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.
    • There is not consensus for any specific sanction to be applied to Subtropical-man, but they should take heed of the fact that their behaviour in this episode has led to concerns amongst many of their colleagues. I would seriously recommend that they act as if there were a formal one-way IBan in place between them and Spartaz: any future instances where they make accusations about Spartaz's motivations will likely be met with blocks without further warning. Girth Summit (blether) 21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Supercopone appeared out of nowhere on December 1 and began posting in a huge number of AfDs, !voting to keep in nearly every single one. While this is not a problem in an of itself, Supercopone's rationales are rarely based in policy. Here are a smattering of Supercopone's posts in AfD: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Rationales like these popping up over and over is obnoxious to people who are genuinely trying to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, and have the potential to be confusing to the closer. I suggest a topic ban from AfD for User:Supercopone for a limited period of time, at least long enough for them to learn what kinds of rationales are acceptable at AfD and what kinds are not. Mlb96 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • You seem to vote delete the majority of the time. So I would suggest a topic ban for you as well.Super (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's funny you say that, because I was worried that I was voting keep too many times so I started commenting more on AfDs that seemed incredibly obvious deletes to balance it out. But that's besides the point, since you seem to have missed the reason I'm suggesting a topic ban. It's not that you always vote keep, it's that your rationales usually have nothing to do with policy. Mlb96 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Supercopone does need to do better if they are going to keep participating at AFD at the pace they are. Hopefully they can commit to focus more on quality than quantity going forward; if not some community-imposed restriction will be necessary. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:力 I am taking a break for awhile while I work on learning a bit more. I will actually work to improve articles for awhile before jumping back in to AfD's. That being said, is it your opinion no issue exists at all with the deletion of all these articles?Super (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Since "you vote delete a lot" seems to be a line of attack mounted by the 2 editors in question here, here are some statistics. When one's actions are upheld by a community of peers for the great majority of the time, then that is by definition not biased, has not "lost neutrality and perspective", nor is it a "phobia".
      Myself: 71%: [23]
      Subtropical-man: 18.6% [24]
      Supercopone : 0%, but TBD [25] Has weighed in at 39 AfDs in 3 days, only one has closed so far.
      Spartaz: 83%: [26]
      As for the merits of the boomerang, Supercopone is not off to a great start with the canvassing and the attacks. Subtropical-man has just gone beyond the pale and is a definite support IMO. Zaathras (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That data is not correct and leaves out a lot.Super (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting data is presented in your link: Quote: "Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Spartaz: 8187!!!!!. Analyzed the last 250 AfD pages edited by this user. Keep votes: 0 (0.0%). Account of Spartaz is mainly used to delete articles. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Subtropical-man:, we're skirting close to WP:CIR concerns here. If a person nominates a page for deletion, and in a clear, convincing majority of the time the Wikipedia community agrees with it the nomination, then it was a good nomination. End of discussion. Your personal feelings about the concept of deleting an article are not relevant. ValarianB (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Er until recently, my contribution to afds was closing them which leaves a blank contribution in the tool. More recently I'm clearing out the non notable porn articles so I'm not voting elsewhere much. For fucks sake! I'm following policy here. BLP & N are fundamentals. Why am I expected to justify doing policy based activity against moronic metrics. I'm clearly not getting sanctioned but no one is stopping this drip drip bullshit comment ary aimed at me. It's no wonder good faith editors get driven off the project. Can an admin either stop subtropical-man and supercopone from throwing round these spurious and insulting allegations or close this down. Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that admins often seem to be reluctant to take quick, obvious, action, such as closing the original report here. All User:Spartaz has done is to nominate some articles at AfD, as is everyone's right, and most of the discussions have resulted in consensus agreement with that editor's opinion. Anyone who disagrees can simply comment in the discussion, and if they disagree with the assessment of consensus they can go to WP:DRV. Shouldn't this discussion have been closed after two minutes, rather than the two days that it has been left open? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged him. He had already stepped back and I unwittingly drug him back into it all. Yet Spartaz is allowed to carry on his work unchecked even though he admits he wants all the porn Bio's gone because he sees it as advertising. An account that seem to always seem to support him at all cost keeps at it, Spartaz still gets to insult and and taunt other editors and the take away is to ban User:Subtropical-man user from AfDs? You also need to retract you absurd claim of harassment or show proof. Discussion is not harrasment.Super (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More unfounded allegations and personal attacks. Please provide diffs for your claims about me or withdraw. Honestly, why we tolerate this kind of abuse and harassment?. Its shameful that good faith editors can be abused like this with no consequences for the abuser. Spartaz Humbug! 19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have summoned him to the afd, yes, but since then that user had chosen to double- and tripledown at every opportunity to slur and harass (the numerous examples of such are linked to by other editors, and can also be found in tis very ANI) an admin with whom he seems to have a philosophical disagreement with on deleting articles. I used to take part in deletion discussions more, but found it to be a drags after awhile but that is just my preference. I also see no insults levied by Spartaz anywhere. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As user:Supercopone mentioned, it was a one-time issue. I have not had contact with the user Spartaz for few years. In 5 December 2021 I was asked to speak in this topic, all this. I see that there is no consensus to topicban for Spartaz, ok - I respect this decision. As I mentioned (in 5 December, and later also) - please do not ping me on pornography topic! I do not plan to edit in pornographic topic, I abandoned this topic a long time ago. And I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. I Ask, to Spartaz did not contact me too. For me, the topic is finished. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any action to stop this disruption, and generally urging everyone to raise the bar of tolerance for incivility (especially but not only at AFDs). I would have liked for this to have been dealt with via an indef block from the first uninvolved admin who saw it, as that would have saved other editors time. Editors who personally attack other editors should be given like one warning and then an indef, and let them make an unblock request that shows they can use this website without abusing other users of the website. Levivich 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from AfDs and a one-way interaction ban for Subtropical-man to prevent them harassing Spartaz. This has gone on long enough, and they have shown an intractable need to attack Spartaz over valid AfD activity. Considering Supercapone's comments above attacking Spartaz, I would not oppose a one-way interaction ban against them as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose to this. I have not had contact with the user Spartaz for few years. As user:Supercopone mentioned and I mentioned above, it was a one-time issue. In 5 December 2021 I was asked to speak in this topic, all this... and I regret that I agreed. I see that there is no consensus to topicban for Spartaz, ok - I respect this decision (I wrote about it above). I do not plan to edit in pornographic topic, I abandoned this topic a long time ago. And I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. If there is to be a ban to contact, it is only two-way. There cannot be a situation that Spartaz will attack me and I will not have a chance to answer. I think that I and Spartaz do not feel like contacting - of our own free will. No orders or prohibitions are needed here. However, if someone wants to impose interaction ban, I demand two-way option, because I still feel threatened and will feel threatened later. Besides, I don't want him to contact me. However, I believe that we have both learned a lesson and we will avoid each other - of our own free will. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerangs are nothing more than retaliatory behavior for reporting someone. The fact not one person even looked into this other than saying "its ok to delete as much as possible" and "he's a long time editor and admin." How about one admin take it upon themselves and look into this? The level of clearing pornography bios from Wikipedia is astounding [27] If someone doesn't see this level of deletion as destructive then there is not hope to change anyones mind on this subject. I have been back throughany of these and many should have been keep based on standard notability alone. Except he uses wording to take makes it seem as if no pron bios should exist. Please just take a look someone.Super (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban for Supercopone. When someone persistently misrepresents and misconstrues like this with such reckless abandon, there's no real point in kicking the can down the road. It's clear that they can't/won't abide by our collaborative requirements. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we already agreed to let it die and no longer engage with him.Super (talk)

    05:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

    Where did we agree that? And why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Me and Subtropical-man man have agreed to changes. I am only wrapping up with the AfD's Inwas already involved with. I stepped back from new ones and told an admin that earlier. Another admin literally told me I needed to file here when I questioned how to handle this. Please see that on my talk page. That said I have done nothing causing any issues in AfDs that should result in a topic ban other than working to save articles that have merit. My crime is wanting to stop massive deletions and wanting to improve WikipediaSuper (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So a entry by Lewis and Clark and a long time home to native Americans is notable and worth bringing up like I did in the Moons article? You cherry pick my votes in bad faith. The real problem here is I don't blindly vote delete everytime.Super (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator already brought those up. Finally, we have the name origin story, which is a perfect bit of "just-so" fabricated from Lewis and Clark's journals. The entry in question is definitely Clark's work, and does nothing to pin down a spot to such exactitude. You did nothing to demonstrate a pass of either WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND on any of those articles; being named by L&C does not affect either. If you had read the nominations you would have seen that. Nobody is blindly !voting delete; they have presented rationales based in policy and backed by consensus. And your continuing battleground and constant WP:IDHT behavior here makes me weakly support a siteban as well. eviolite (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So the point is that in good faith with a notable mention as a place where Lewis and Clark stopped at I voted Keep. I don't think my vote to keep can in anyway be twisted to be negative. You and other do not have to like it. It seems me defending my actions upset you enough to want me banned? Super (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, that does not show notability in any way. See WP:ITSNOTABLE and the actual relevant guidelines WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND which have been linked to you multiple times. The reason I weakly support a site ban is your consistent refusal to read guidelines/policies in addition to levying accusations on users like Spartaz and other commenters here. eviolite (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats your opinion. I feel it does. You cannot ban someone for having a different opinion then you. I felt it should have been kept and more information added.Super (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not true. "Very clearly" is a misleading claim. I actually have been working hard to provide factual information that is useful to the afd process. Literally just wrote a letter and sent it snail mail to a historical society for information.Super (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually have been working hard ... Literally just wrote a letter and sent it snail mail ... Millennials, lol. Levivich 01:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose action against Subtropical-man. The coverage of subjects in fields that are too taboo to receive mainstream coverage (i.e. the kind of sourcing we prefer and require) yet are immensely popular in regard to other metrics is something many may find wildly frustrating. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia that is free, open, and not easily manipulated by those who may have hidden conservative (or quasi-progressive) moral sensibilities. This whole matter is really just a symptom of our inadequate system of determination due to the lack of and repeal of special exemptions allowing an adequate amount of coverage for those who work in the adult industry. Especially given the existence of this thread, I do not imagine that Subtropical-man will engage in further frustrated behavior around the topic that might get them pulled back here anytime soon. Neutral regarding Supercopone (have not done and do not plan to do the necessary amount of due diligence to weigh in on that portion). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • who is that dig about moral sensitivities pointed at please? Spartaz Humbug! 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is certainly not an attack on anyone; rather, it is just hypothetical musings that the culture here surrounding the coverage of the pornographic industry etc. gives anyone who might covertly harbor such sentiments many legs to stand on, while leaving those who wish to see the indecorous topic reasonably covered with few. I could say the same thing about the way the domain was handled in the past potentially enabling innapropriate fandom; however, there is no need because the pendulum has swung far enough in the other direction to make such speculation unwarranted at this time. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than engaging in unsupportable speculations about hidden motives, we should focus on dealing with the clear-cut behavioral problems that are openly displayed in this very thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been open 10 days now and the longer its left open the more nasty comments about me are being made. There is a clear consensus that I am the aggrieved party here so why are we allowing this to continue? Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As there is essentially no valid opposition (subtropical obviously opposes his own sanction, Godsy posted a bit of an aimless word salad), support for Subtropical-man to be topic-banned from deletion discussions, and 1-way banned from Spartaz seems clear. Supercopone, the instigator, a site ban seems clear. ValarianB (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. There is opposition, also no serious arguments for topic-ban. The blocking policy is clear. I do not meet the requirements to topic-ban because I am not active in topic of pornography. Also, your "1-way banned from Spartaz" are disputed. There is no consensus and also I made a statement, I quote: I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. If there is to be a ban to contact, it is only two-way. There cannot be a situation that Spartaz will attack me and I will not have a chance to answer. I think that I and Spartaz do not feel like contacting - of our own free will. No orders or prohibitions are needed here. However, if someone wants to impose interaction ban, I demand two-way option, because I still feel threatened and will feel threatened later. Besides, I don't want him to contact me. However, I believe that we have both learned a lesson and we will avoid each other - of our own free will. So if I get an "1-way banned from Spartaz" I will have to create a new section/subsection in this discussion about "2-way banned" and the discussion will be extended. So far, I haven't started a discussion about 2-way banned to avoid prolonging discussion. Your opinion is already known [28]. Your aggressive comments who attacking me isn't helping here, it only unnecessarily prolongs the discussion. I think the discussion could have been closed a week ago. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the difference between your "deletion topic ban" and "site ban"? Second question: why do you support block whole AfD if I are no AfD issues me except pornography (not to mention that I quit pornography topic a few years ago and the current case is an exception because I was asked to speak)? I understand that you may have old prejudices against me, however, they are not important here, because these must be actual/current cases. I too can bring 10 users to vote to block for you but: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Topic-ban for any user is a serious matter and must to be serious arguments in accordance with the banning policy. Wikipedia:Banning policy say in the intro: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. If user for few years has not been active in both: pornography topic and the AfD, does not meet requirement for topic-ban in accordance with the blocking policy. Your comment is just Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE and propably a violation of WP:CANVASS. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support deletion topic ban for Subtropical-man, and support a site ban for Supercopone. Reading through all the relevant discussions both of them seem pretty combative here and in AfDs. It should go without saying that AfD isn't a battleground. While I agree that bans are a serious matter, neither seems to understand why their behavior is an issue. So bans seem like an appropriate way to avoid possible future disruption from them. Going by their actions in this discussion I doubt they will just stop magically stop being combative about things without some kind of formal action being taken in the meantime. It's not like they can't appeal the bans at some point in the future when they have both calmed down and are willing to get along with others better. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1:, You wrote: "So bans seem like an appropriate way to avoid possible future disruption from them". You used the word "them" which in this case cannot be qualified together with user:Supercopone. Here we have a completely different situation. User:Supercopone is active in AfD matters, I am not. I quit pornography topic a few years ago and the current case is an exception because I was asked to speak. I abandoned the topic of pornography few years ago by my own free will. So, by what law do you use slander that I am going to come back to the topic of pornography in the future? Your comment here violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A few times before I mentioned that I doesn't edit this topic from few years, I asked doesn't ping me on topics like that. I'm angry that Supercopone got me into this discussion... and even I got an apology. Everything indicates that I am not going to edit this topic, and your comment is purely speculative. If you have evidence that I intend to be active on a topic, provide that evidence. If you have no evidence, so - you breaking two Wikipedia rules, please correct your statement or/and change the vote to neutral. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I could really care less if you participate in things related to porn again. Your being disruptive in this discussion. The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles. It was your choice to participate in this discussion and throw around accusations at everyone in the process, even if you were originally pinged by Supercopone. In the meantime, it's not on me or the community at large to excuse your combative behavior just because you were pinged by someone. Seriously, find a better excuse and stop responding in a defensive way to everyone who "votes" in a way you don't like. It's beyond bludging at this point and does nothing to help your argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1:, you wrote: "I could really care less if you participate in things related to porn again. Your being disruptive in this discussion. The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles" - your commnet has proven once again that your support for topic-ban violates Wikipedia rules. Your previous comment violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this commnent in not accordance with the blocking policy, because for used a topic-ban there must be a reason: current, regular destructive actions on a given topic, and not just an aggressive tone of speech at all. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really feel like belaboring this discussion anymore then it has been but WP:CRYSTALBALL has to do with the content of articles, not dealing with disruptive people at ANI. In the meantime it's perfectly reasonable to support a topic ban for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Both of which you've clearly displayed. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:CRYSTALBALL has to do with the content of articles, however, it perfectly described your problem: Wikipedia is not unverifiable speculation or presumptions. You cannot argue based on speculation or presumptions, must to be serious arguments and evidences. Second: I understand what you wrote, however "combative" style of expression has nothing to do with topic-ban. Your idea is so absurd that if I write aggressively on the talk page of Talk:Elephant, I should have a topic-ban for any articles of Elephants? or maybe topic-ban for all animals? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:BLUDGEON. Especially the points made in the "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process" section. You'd do well to follow them here. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situation from a third person perspective (step by step, point by point): user quit pornography topic and AfD at all a few years ago and the current case is an exception because was asked to speak. User abandoned the topic of pornography and AfD at all few years ago by my own free will. The user has never had any problems with the AfD with other topics. To sum up: user inactive in AfD and also in topic of pornography. User spoke up on one case (over the past few years ), upon request by other user. The user was angry that he was being pinged and asked not to ping him. The user has written several times that he does not want to get involved in pornography topic. There are no arguments to propose a topic-ban in this situation, not a single rational argument consistent with the blocking policy. Based on the pillar of banning policy, to quote: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish user", the only thing is that the user may want to edit porn sites in the future, however, these are only unsupported speculations contrary to the actions of the user who abandoned the topic of pornography and AfD at all and his statements. From a technical point of view, there is currently no any basis for using topic-ban. Even if the user in the future (which is unlikely) the user decides to return to AfD and pornography, and if (repeat: if) its editions will be controversial, you can ask for a topic ban (then based on banning policy). As you can see, looking at the matter from a third perspective is crucial in such matters. As of today, there is not even any substantive (arguments, evidences) or technical (banning policy) basis for topic-ban.
    • Note Please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Topic-ban for any user is a serious matter and must to be supported by serious arguments in accordance with the blocking policy including an important sentence {{tqq|Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Also, remember to assume good faith. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support bans. I wasn't going to weigh in, but the not a vote box above which has just been placed by Subtropical-man has convinced me that they do not have the good judgment necessary to contribute in these areas. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This (deleted) box is request for substantive arguments (instead empty votes per Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE) and following the rules of Wikipedia (including banning policy) did not appeal to this user. I'll leave it without comment. I have never seen a more absurd vote in a discussion on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote before. Wikipedia is not voting, not democracy. This is obvious. The above vote is a parody. Some of the comments are even so sloppy that it's even hard to read what type of blockage it is: topic ban for pornography topic, topic ban for AfD (any topics) or topic-ban for pornography topic in AfD. The latter is theoretically the most reasonable and justified, however, no one even suggested it. Close whole AfD for user. It does not matter that it is against the policy of blocking and common sense. Some of the comments here are trolling and revenge, not a substantive discussion. I ask again: where is the administrator? The administrator should paste vote box and instruct others, because as you can see , when I pasted vote box, the user voted for my topic-ban. How long is this circus going to last here? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. Information for the administrator closing the topic. Recently, there have been a few votes without any arguments and against to the banning policy. Some comments/votes had the hallmarks of revenge for their aggressive speach here, which have nothing to do with the topic-ban on the AfD. No arguments were given, nor was it proven that topic-ban is necessary. Luckily, Wikipedia is not voting, not democracy. This is obvious. Even Wikipedia:Consensus in intro say Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Considering that there are no substantive arguments nor was it proven that topic-ban is necessary, it is obvious that there is no consensus for topic-ban for Subtropical-man. Considering that the discussion has been going on for 11 days, and the new comments (Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE) are more and more like trolling, I suggest closing the discussion. If the administrator closing the discussion has any doubts about topic-ban for Subtropical-man, please write, then will take the opportunity to obtain a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion) - a neutral person who will not be guided by emotions, who only check it formally - according to Wikipedia standards and rules and banning policies and that there are rational arguments for the necessity to enter topic-ban. From the above discussion it follows that there is neither rational arguments for the necessity to enter topic-ban and is against the banning policy. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Subtropical-man:, enough with the giant info-boxes, your opinion does not deserve or warrant a higher form of display than any other editor. I formatted them as comments and left an unsigned template, you are free to atach your actual signature and timestamp as you wish. ValarianB (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New suspicious nom

    Apologies...this had nothing to do with the above. Feel free to ignore this wholly. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with subject under discussion here; AFD was just a troll by a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The above nomination was just made with a blank nomination rationale, and clicking on nom PDNB's userpage, I came upon what seems to be a copy of a true adminstrator's userpage, along with a claim that PDNB is an admin. A lot of small edits and two weeks to get ACU privileges, and likely shooting for EC. Since the AfD was for a porn film, it raised my flags towards this topic (I am not claiming Spartz is socking at all here, and this is likely 100% separate from that! But there seems to be something else fishy in the topic area). Nate • (chatter) 10:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Really?? Are you seriously that incapable of comparing a long term editor's contribution who always makes policy based nomination statements and exclusively on BLPs with a random drive by nominating a smutty film? Its offensive to even link this to me with the faux i'm not suggesting bullshit. Really you are trying to link me and its offensive. And stupid as you have no evidence. What's next? I'm not saying Spartaz was standing on the knoll but... For fucks sake. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This pretty obviously has no relationship to the subject of this discussion, so, if admin action is needed, it should be in a separate section. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Which is why I appended on I had no thought about it being you (sigh). There are a lot of those noms right now, and since this is the administrator's noticeboard and it felt like something they had to take care of, I alerted here, just to rule out any possible connection. Sincere apologies for the haste and rush (or even mentioning you), but I would do the same thing with a Groundhog Day reset because I care about en.wiki's integrity. Did not mean to anger you. Nate • (chatter) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey User:Mrschimpf I assume good faith with your actions. You are an amazing editor here on wiki and I wish others would assume more good faith (myself included). You sir are a legend on the discord! So many editors look for anything to be a victim over these daysSuper (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Don't raise it as a subsection of a section about me then. Spartaz Humbug! 16:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Still having issues with User:Mztourist

    I have brought up this issue multiple times before and it hasn't been settled and continues to be a problem. One user, Mztourist has been intentionally targeting me as well as being constantly uncivil. One failed AFD attempt after another, and now I have been the victim of tag bombing. Could understand an article here or there, he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes. Mztourist's goal is to be disruptive, he has made it is personal goal to delete as many articles I have created as possible. The last AFD he even deleted citations and then claimed it should be deleted because of the lack of citations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton. Because of past issues I now refrain from editing any article he is involved with or AFD any article he has created to avoid contact, only to have him continually target me. I have attempted to have a no contact agreement in the past, something I still support to remedy the problem. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You've provided one link to an AfD from 2 months ago, which did not involve any obvious impropriety. If you want anyone to take this complaint seriously, you should provide evidence of inappropriate behavior, not just unsupported attempts at mind-reading. See Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide for explanation if you don't know how to produce diffs. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a diff that I think is worthy of noting. – 2.O.Boxing 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm especially curious about this statement ("he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes") and if the OP could provide diffs for this because I don't see that looking at Mztourist's contributions. We haven't always agreed but I don't think it's right to infer someone's goal as being disruptive without providing proof of that. How do you know what his personal goal is? I look back at the your contribs going back to September and I see possibly three articles brought up before AfD and two out of the three were a "keep" or "no consensus" result. Every other AfD you have participated in was started by someone else. I'm not doubting how a person feels and, based solely on what I read above, the OP clearly feels like Mztourist is targeting them but the community can't act on a feeling, however sympathetic we may be. JBL is right and we have to be fair to Mztourist too, thus the need for diffs. --ARoseWolf 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think if the article was deleted or not is the issue. It is the intention, Timothy J. Edens was nominated twice by Mztourist after it had already been nominated before. Then he deleted references to attempt to get Stanley Norton deleted. Then when the current AFD McGregor started to look like it wasn't going to be deleted, he tagged 20 articles saying "This page should be expanded with reliable sources or deleted." I wasn't informed on my page of any of those tags. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Given the personal attacks leveled by Jamesallain85 in that AfD, I'd say WP:BOOMERANG block is in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The response I just wrote was deleted, so I have to start again. Look at his edits starting December 6th, every tagged article was created by me. As for my comment, it was a serious question, did you read the conversation to that point? I am accused of not citing an article enough, I improve the article and am accused of ref-bombing. In the past I AFDd and article of his which literally had no citations and was accused of revenge AFDing. Am I just supposed to take this lying down, because it doesn't matter what I do I am wrong. If I improve an article its wrong, if I don't it's wrong. If I point out an article needs improvement its wrong. My wife makes an edit with the same IP, I get blocked. I get targeted by a user, and I get blocked. Mztourist is not being civil, I have actually stopped editing any article he is involved with and will not AFD any of his articles because I am trying to avoid him, but he continues to harass me.Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For a list of the AFDs I am referring to, they are all listed on my talk page. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps explain Special:Diff/1059147105 and Special:Diff/1059146759 or is there policy the rest of us are unaware of that allows you to remove others Talk Page comments because you don't like them?? Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I started to mark them as vandalism, then I just came here to bring up the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, if I went right now and tagged every page that needed improvement that Mztourist has, that would be OK. I feel like there is some bias here against me. I have tried to take care of the issue I am having in the past, again it was ignored. His demeanor is unprofessional and results in hostility. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel any article needs improvement then you can tag it no matter who originated it. We don't own articles here. Anything any of us has created or offered as time to the encyclopedia, while appreciated as it should be, is owned by the encyclopedia and controlled by consensus within the community. Please don't insinuate bias against you. I'm sorry you feel that way and I completely understand and validate the fact you do genuinely feel that way but accusing others here of bias isn't going to go favorably. You said 20 articles in 10-15 minutes. I only see 16 total articles they contributed anything to for the entire day of December 6th. I didn't check whom created all 16 articles but they aren't yours even if you created them and contributed heavily to them any more than they are owned by any other editor here. It doesn't warrant the aspersions I see in some of the diffs. The one on autism was highly inappropriate. I have a nephew with severe autism and it's nothing to speak of lightly. --ARoseWolf 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support boomerang of any kind. Another combative AFD participant. "Are you autistic? ... You are living in your own little world" [29] is beyond the pale. Let's remove editors who act this way from AfD (if not the website). Levivich 21:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone that read the entire conversation would notice this is not a new issue. I have attempted in every way to distance myself from Mztourist, he is the one that continues to initiate interactions and make accusations. It's been more than a year, what do I have to do. That comment was made after I noticed the massive list of articles he tagged. I apologize, it was made in the heat of the moment over a long and ongoing issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I have tagged or AFDd an article I have been accused of revenge, in every instance. I realize I do not own any articles, what I have issue with in one individual who over the course of a year has systematically targeted articles I created. It has been ongoing since August of 2020. I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize. If I AFD an article I am accused of revenge. If I improve an article I am accused of ref-bombing. If I don't improve an article I am accused of writing poor articles. Every action I take is reflected as negative. I feel like I am constantly been bullied, and it isn't that other editors haven't noticed, but the issues continue. This has been an ongoing issue for more than a year, I have attempted to arbitrate it several times with no success. I don't care if a hundred other editors AFD all of my articles, I just don't want to be harassed every time I logon to wikipedia by the same person with the same negativity trying to destroy my contributions. I am sorry if my comment wasn't appropriate, but I am at a breaking point. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would voluntarily take a year ban if it meant when I came back I wouldn't be harassed by Mztourist. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find it interesting that not a single person as acknowledged the escalation that led up to this. No one is looking at the issue or how it came to be.Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're going to provide diffs to back up your claims, I would suggest you stop. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know how to provide diffs, I have provided the discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You have done a singularly crap job of presenting a case against Mztourist, and meanwhile your own behavior has been repeatedly and obviously problematic. It is not at all surprising that someone who behaves in straightforwardly unacceptable ways (deleting appropriate-looking talk-page comments, writing "are you autistic?", making obvious revenge deletion nominations) and alleging wrongdoing without providing any evidence at all is not getting a friendly reception. (Personally I think it is conceivable that there is merit to your complaint -- but I'm not going to waste my time building a case for you, particularly when your behavior is much more obviously problematic.)
    I don't even know how to provide diffs I provided a link with an explanation in the very first response to you in this thread! --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I am being accused of revenge for AFDing an article with a singe reference [30] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your AfD nominations are obviously revenge nominations: you have only ever nominated articles to AfD that were created by Mztourist, and you have only ever done it immediately following a moment when they nominated an article you created for deletion. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here he is bragging that he got an article deleted despite it passing all six requirements for the defunct WP:Soldier, [31] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a totally inaccurate summary of their comment. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no he isn't. He's saying that an article can (and should) be deleted even if it meets one of the six requirements, if it doesn't meet WP:GNG. And he's correct. In fact GNG trumps all of the requirements, technically. Claiming they're saying something they're clearly not isn't helping you at all here. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here another editor essentially states Mztourist is could be revenge AFDing me because of an ongoing dispute from June of 2021 [32] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. They say there might be a dispute. Please stop doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another editor acknowledging that Mztourist holds a hostile position to citations that he can not personally view online [33] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't AFDd any articles recently, the last one I did was because it had a single reference, once it was more clearly referenced I close the AFD myself. Despite that I have a continues line of AFDs, only from Mztourist. When one is finished, the next one is coming soon, and as I improve them he only becomes more hostile trying to delete them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will happily take a block, I deserve it. I commented in the heat of the moment after I have been trying to improve McGregor, loading myself up to improve the article, only to have him stack a pile of tags that threaten to delete more articles. I apologize for the comment and will willfully take any disciplinary action, but I want the issue to be stopped in the future so it doesn't come to such matters again. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mztourist files AfDs on a number of articles, and a look at his history indicates that they're almost all military bios. This seems to be his gig. His match rate at AfD is frankly mediocre (62% of filings), but I just looked at the last 25 he filed. Not only do I not see any obvious signs that he's uniquely targeting you, but you have participated in a number of them without there being obvious signs that the AfDs concern your own articles. If you want to disengage with Mztourist as badly as all of that, you are doing a poor job of doing so. Ravenswing 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it comes to commenting on AFDs, I do not look who initiated the AFD. In face many times if I am on the fence I choose to refrain from comment. While true he AFDs more than just my articles, he is the only one AFDing my articles. Is that normal? Why was I accused automatically of revenge when I AFDd one of his articles? I have stopped interacting with any articles that he created, but I should have a voice when it comes to AFDs without being targeted. I am far from the only person that has had issues with Mztourist, I have said I take responsibility for what I said. But it still doesn't solve the issue at hand, why must I sit back and refrain from tagging or AFDing articles he created only to have him continuously do it to me? Why am I constantly being accused of revenge and nobody cares about his actions or demeanor? Compare Mztourists AFD match rate to his match rate with articles I created, he only achieved one merger. Every other article was voted to keep or no consensus, if he wasn't targeting me his rate with my articles should be at least similar. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gee, I dunno. Maybe we come to that conclusion because Mztourist has filed 120 AfDs, a handful of them being of articles you've created. By contrast, every single AfD you have ever filed [34][35][36] has not only been on articles Mztourist created, but each and every one of them closed as overwhelming Keeps, with only one single vote to delete between them other than your own. Kinda fails the duck test. Ravenswing 23:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering I closed them myself or asked for them to be closed after they had met WP:BIO, I think it is comparing apples and oranges. The articles I AFDd, except one I did by accident, were all source with one or two sources at the time I AFDd them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could go back and find the instances where I asked to have it closed in the AFD discussion (at least two occasions) but it would be a waste of my time anyway ([37]). I can tell you there is one thing I didn't do, delete his references and then AFD the article he created on the basis of lack of references, but I am sure that doesn't matter either. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would certainly be a waste of your time, because other than the single one I read ten minutes ago and already mentioned, you didn't do it. By the bye, do you really find that this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of arguing every point to death with everyone -- it certainly shows forth in these AfDs -- is getting people to see things your way, instead of cementing opinions as to your own behavior? Ravenswing 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this will be like every other time I came here to settle my dispute and absolutely nothing will be addressed about the actual dispute. If I had acted in the same manner as Mztourist and deleted his references and then AFDd his article how do you think the conversation would have been handled then? There is a double standard here, and a clear bias. Why hasn't that been addressed? Why is it ignored every time I have brought it up? As far as bringing up every point, that is what I was just asked to do, here again I am being penalized for something I was asked to do. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to show here. The AFD in that template is a red link and I looked in your history around the time and don't see any creation of an AFD page on the article. AFDs aren't generally deleted just closed. So it looks like you started the AFD process by adding the template. But later I guess you changed your mind so you undid the addition of the template and didn't open the AFD. While this is sort of a retraction, it's a lot less positive then you seem to think. It's not like after opening the AFD someone pointed something out that you completely missed. Instead whatever caused you to change your mind happened before you properly opened the AFD. Which means you really should have done whatever it was that made you change your mind before you added the template. Yes it's good that you didn't actually open the AFD once you somehow came to the realisation the article didn't merit deletion but that's a fairly minor positive, it's the only real basic level of what we expect from editors. Frankly I'm not sure why you're adding the template nearly 1 hour and 30 minutes before you plan to open the AFD anyway (well that's how long it took you to remove it). AFAIK most editors start the AFD first then only add the templates as it doesn't leave others confused about why the article is linking to an AFD that doesn't exist. Or if they are going to add the templates first, have their AFD prepared so it only takes 10 minutes or something to start the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jamesallain85: When you make atrocious comments like the autism one, you shouldn't be surprised if we don't give a damn about some alleged minor wrondoing of the other party. Even more so when your response here about your atrocious comment is so poor. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support boomerang Frankly the autism comment is enough for me. If they had shown some recognition of how bad their comment was, perhaps we could let it be, but they've shown no such recognition instead seem to think whatever lead up to it makes it not so bad. And if that wasn't enough, they seem to have no answer to the suggestion their AFDs were in revenge. Further they evidence they've presented against Mztourist so far (although I admit I haven't looked at all of it in part since it's presented throughout this discussion) doesn't seem to shown significant wrong doing. E.g. yes it is wrong if Mztourist did stuff because they didn't understand that offline sources are perfectly fine but that's the sort of mistake that happens and if the editor learns from it and takes step to fix their errors as far as possible, isn't something we would likely block them over. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Boomerang obviously. Jamesallain85 created a whole lot of minimally-referenced 1-3 sentence stub bio pages in December 2019 and January 2020 e.g. Wilhelm L. Friedell, Thomas Withers, John Addison Scott, William V. O'Regan, William Lovett Anderson which I have progressively tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed, as I have with pages created by other Users. Jamesallain85 has taken great offense at this and in addition to expanding the AFDed pages (poorly in my opinion) has abused me, REVENGE AFDed some of my pages and brought various complaints here. The only person being uncivil here is Jamesallain85 with his insults like the appalling autism comment. In addition he has absolutely no right to delete my comments on article Talk pages just because he doesn't like them, examples here: [39] and [40] Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Jamesallain85: the autism comment is a sticking point, people can't see beyond it. Recommend a couple options. 1) strike the comment and leave a sincere apology here (we have autistic users on Wikipedia). 2) request WP:OVERSIGHT to delete it entirely from the record as a gross violation of civil and hurtful to others (and an apology here to be clear not just hiding a mistake). I think you do good work and hope you can continue improving Wikipedia. -- GreenC 06:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. People are "supporting boomerang" without any actual definition of what they're supporting. So here's a proposal: Jamesallain85 is interaction banned from Mztourist, defined broadly, and including AfDs. (No objection, of course, should an admin hammer him over his repeated incivilities and his reverting Mztourist's talk page comments.) In the interests of keeping the peace, Mztourist is enjoined from filing AfDs or PRODs on article creations of Jamesallain85; if JA85's article creations are substandard, someone else can file on them. Ravenswing 07:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jamesallain85's pages have been substandard for over 2 years without anyone doing anything about them and they are only improved (poorly IMO) if they go to AFD. I don't see why I should be enjoined from PRODing or AFDing them due to Jamesallain85's uncivil responses. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you've been uncivil and abrasive too in dealing with him, and the easiest way to refute the notion that you have a personal crusade against him is not to have one. If his article creations are substandard -- and, for the record, stub creation on Wikipedia is not illegal -- other editors can deal with them. If they don't choose to deal with them, then perhaps the creations aren't so egregious as all of that. Honestly, you do have a success rate at AfD filings of little better than random chance. Ravenswing 08:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing That's very unfair. I think their AfD record is pretty good. Only 26 Keeps from 119 noms (62 delete, 12 redirect, 4 merge, 15 N/C) is a solid performance, especially when you consider that (a) a number of the military articles were improved after the AfDs began with offline sources that Mzt would not have had access to, and (b) a number of them were Keep-spammed by the Article Rescue Squadron. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (shrugs) Hell, I've been keep-spammed by ARS (what AfD regular over the last decade hasn't been, at one point or another?), and I've got 35 keeps off of nearly 500 noms. I'm aware that sentiment is trending towards painting JA85 as the bad guy, and not without cause, but c'mon. Ravenswing 08:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Boomerang - Jamesallain85's comments are beyond the pale. Might also require them to have to go through AfC for article creation. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize." Adding this here at the bottom so its easier for @Jamesallain85: to find: If Mztourist is telling you that they personally have to be able to review and scrutinize every source or it isn't reliable then they are wrong. Rather than getting defensive and becoming uncivil you could always point them to policy. WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE comes to mind as examples of policy or supplemental explanations. A source does not have to be online nor does it have to be easily accessible to be considered reliable. In some cases the only copy of a source may be found in a local university library. It can still be reliable. We generally accept offline sources when they are properly delineated. You can't just put down a book name and author nor can you say from page 1-999. Be specific. If you have read the source or possibly researched/own a copy of it then you should be able to add enough information to make us believe the source is credible. But to the point, no, a source does not not have to be online and does not have to be free to the public for access in order to be considered reliable. --ARoseWolf 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know of WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE, and am forced to remind Mztourist of there existence constantly, and I am not the only one, please look over Mztourists comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree. What I absolutely cannot stand is not that some of the articles I have created have been AFDd, it is when myself and the community have provided overwhelming support for WP:GNG, it doesn't matter what the source is or how notable the person is with proof, he will aggressively deny it over and over. With Mztourist, there is no discussion, there is no compromise. This discussion here shows the same thing, he absolutely refuses to take even a shred of responsibility despite the obvious facts that he is aggressive and rude when conducting AFDs, which others have noticed. I source my articles, and I am improving, but my interaction with Mz has been so frustrating I have been ready to give up contributing all together because it isn't worth the frustration and anger it causes when I cannot have a civil discussion with the person attempting to delete everything I create because he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over even if it isn't the case. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm saying references have to be online and easily accessible, but there is a standard of "in-depth coverage" that should be followed and it's on the person who is providing the references to show proof that the standard is being met if they are the only person that has access to them. Which, unless I missed it, didn't seem like you were willing to do. In the meantime I don't really blame Mztourist for being skeptical of your references since you've repeatedly and openly been hostile toward him nominating your articles. It wouldn't really be much of a stretch that someone who thinks their work is under attack, revenge nominates articles for deletion and calls people autistic, would also use questionable references to get their articles kept. Not that I'm saying your doing that, but considering how you've acted I can understand where people might be hesitant to take your word about the references being adequate. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds to me like you didn't read the interactions between not only myself and Mz, but his interactions between Mz and others in the AFDs. When Mz first made those claims about paid archives, I actually took the time to clip, save, and add the copy of the article to the link so everyone could read the articles, it made absolutely zero difference, because he never actually has a conversation, he stands on his soap box yelling, and when you try to appease him, he just refuses to respond. Take the time to read [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree]], it doesn't matter what we all do to appease him, he never stops yelling the same thing. He has not a single time admitted through all the AFDs, despite who has added them, ever conceded a new resource has helped the article at all. He stands there yelling to delete until the bitter end despite all of the articles except one, which was merged, being kept. The same here, he pushes the blame for our interactions 100% on me. You act like I have been making comments such as the autistic one from the beginning, that isn't true. That was made after more than a year of systematically being targeted again and again and Mz refusing to actually hold any time of meaningful discussion. If you would go back and look at the articles I AFDd of Mz, two of them had I believe a single reference and one and on references at all, the others were AFDd on the the same reasons he had AFDd another article based on WP:GNG. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that he was AFDing articles which were much better sourced while creating articles which had zero or almost zero sources. He became super defensive as well, despite being in the wrong. All of a sudden a single obituary was enough to support GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jamesallain85: You might not be aware of it, but the first person who called him out about the paid archive thing was Andrew Davidson, who is topic-banned from participating in AfDs for various reasons. Including repeatedly harassing nominators about arbitrary nonsense. Whereas, the other person who raised concerns, Cullen thought Alexander K. Tyree should be notable because they are a vet and teacher. As if that's some great accomplishment that makes the person instantly worty of notability or something. Which is just laughable. So I don't think other people having opinions against MZ in that AfD is the slam dunk in your favor that you think it is. Especially with Andrew. As far as MZ being super defensive, the first comment was an accusation that he might have nominated the article as revenge, which he was pretty none defensive about, and then you were pretty defensive in your follow up comment. Which MZ ignored. So I don't that's a slam dunk in your favor either. If anything it just shows that you were needlessly defensive about it from the start when MZ was actually pretty normal about the whole thing. Even after he was being accused of doing a revenge nomination. I'll give you that he was kind of defensive toward Andrew, but my guess is that it had more to do with the ongoing issues that led to Andrew being topic banned then it did anything to do with you or that specific AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the level of synth and at times outright information fabrication that occurs in some of these articles, I completely understand MZ's skepticism about sources that can't be easily verified. It may be policy to allow paywalled sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's always good policy. Intothatdarkness 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here was my attempt to appease [[41]], and like normal no response or even a verification. Because it makes no difference I stopped taking the extra time to try and appease because it is simply a waste of my time if they are just going to continue making the same comments. This was the state of the article I AFDd [[42]], I think some are so focused on my recent poor behaviour, but are failing to see the issue that has led up to this point. Look at the Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr. here [[43]]. It can attest to Mzs civility while I was trying to have a conversation on the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you continue to post to that thread (in the last link) after they twice told you to stop posting to their talk page? That’s not very sensible and puts the claim of “trying to have a conversation” in a different light. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the discussion below a few points were made that I think deserve a response. The tone of a comment can be uncivil no matter how mild one may think it is. Saying someone can be "brash" and "abrupt" and that they need to "tone it down" is not a real admonishment nor does it curtail any act of incivility. The brashness and abruptness is incivility and will damage any ability for collaboration, especially with those that may share a different opinion from Mz. The unwillingness to admit or accept any fault is a cause for concern and it should not be ignored by the community. With all due respect to @Slywriter, we have a case where incivility has gone both ways, however mild as one may think one side is, and this is the venue for the community to discuss and admins to determine and enforce a consensus from that community discussion. This is the exact place and the perfect opportunity for this to happen. I stopped going to AfD's altogether because of the incivility that is so easily displayed and overlooked during the process no matter which side I fell on. Personally I loved the challenge of not only discussing but improving and seeing the improvement brought about because of AfD's despite the fact that AfD is not article improvement. I hated seeing articles deleted but Wikipedia has so many articles that are below sub-standard and filled with non-notable subjects. Mztourist does a great job of pointing these out and I have praised them in the past for doing so. We have agreed in some cases and disagreed in others. I believe both editors in this case could be and are amazing and can produce incredible things for this encyclopedia. When viewing this case in a vacuum, they are, however, both guilty of incivility, whether in tone or words themselves. These are just observations based on the conversations and examples provided. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD may not be article improvement, but it does serve this function almost by default due to many things that are beyond the scope of this discussion. One thing I have noticed, though, is that passive-aggressive incivility often gets a pass by the community. It's much easier to call out and sanction the brash person than it is to look deeper. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, or saying that this case is an example of passive-aggressive incivility, just adding an additional perspective. Intothatdarkness 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support boomerang. All else aside, I'm not seeing where Jamesallain85 has actually provided any evidence that articles he created are being targeted, which makes his prolonged campaign against Mztourist (both via revenge AFDs in the past and things like this filing) an extremely inappropriate response to the normal AFD process, as well as egregious WP:OWNing. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose Interaction Ban

    A lot of people seem unable to get past the autistic comment, which was frankly completely outrageous and was deserving of a block in it's own right. However, blocks are to prevent damage to the encyclopedia and not punitive, the problem being the comment seems to have provoked a classic ANI pile on and we're not getting to the root of the problem.

    A couple of points need to be noted:

    1. Above Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard".
    2. The interaction between the two is not productive, both are uncivil and abrasive towards each other.
    3. Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep.
    4. JA85's stubs are being improved and expanded by the community.

    On this basis an interaction ban seems appropriate. It stops the toxic interaction between the two editors and allows both to continue editing. I think ANI needs to do something to nip this in the bud before it ends up at arbcom. WCMemail 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose This is misleading.
    • "Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep". Only 26 of his 119 noms have been closed as keep.
    • "Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard"." Mz has nominated over a hundred of these articles for AfD, some of which have been JA85's. Meanwhile, every single one that JA85 has nominated has been started by Mztourist. Who is targeting who here?
    • Apart from a few snippy remarks I don't see that Mztourist is doing much wrong here, whereas Jamesallain85 is an editor who has borderline CIR issues, calls others "autistic" and has misrepresented others persistently, even in this thread. That's not equivalence in a million years, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I meant that many of Mztourists nominations of JA85's articles are being routinely closed as keep. I feel that is accurate and not misleading. And it seems from the comment below I'm not the only one to notice. IMHO they're rubbing each other the wrong way and the best way to stop it is an interaction ban. That seems better than the arbcom case its heading for, neither would come out of that well. To add the comment from Mztourist that it's all the other parties fault does show a lack of awareness of the impact of their snarky comments. WCMemail 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as it seems that this is by no means a new issue. Both editors have accused other of vengefully nominating their articles for deletion. Both have, in fact, nominated the other's articles for deletion. There have been threads here from both of them about this already. Accusing people of being autistic is pretty rude — certainly, you should not be saying it about people you are arguing with on Wikipedia. I think that people are often allowed to slide on personal attacks, and this deserves some form of formal admonishment. However, Jamesallain is far from the only person who has been abrasive at AfD. In fact, in the discussion linked earlier in this thread (for Stanley C. Norton), I had an extremely long and unpleasant exchange with Mztourist after I added sources to the article, and I didn't even !vote on it. I think the most appropriate solution would simply be for both editors to stay out of each other's hair, and not interact on Wikipedia (perhaps simply avoiding nominating each other's articles for deletion altogether). jp×g 09:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's fine — there's no rule saying everybody has to agree with each other, and I am perfectly happy with you saying you think some article is bad that I think is good — but it seems to me like the forcefulness with which your opinions are made is not entirely necessary in conveying your perspective. jp×g 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed -- having just looked at that page -- you did say so. Over and over and over again. Ravenswing 13:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem to be a recurring issue with Mztourist, I noticed the same at this AFD when I started looking at the interaction between these two editors. Perhaps @Cullen328: or @Andrew Davidson: may care to comment but he does appear to somewhat harangue other editors about sourcing. I get the impression he really doesn't like sources that are not online. The questioning of good faith comments by other editors does rather suggest a lack of good faith. WCMemail 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson is topic-banned from AfD and will not be able to comment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose completely misleading summary of my actions. The incivility comes entirely from JA85, not me. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have already withdrawn myself from AFDing more articles of Mztourists, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome. I sincerely apologize for my comment, it was out of line, it was the result of building frustration, however that does not make it OK. The issue here has been on both sides, and I do not believe anything other than an interaction ban would rectify it, it has been ongoing more than a year. Wikipedia has more than one editor that is able to point out failures. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - While Mz can tone it down a bit, to equate the actions of both editors as equitable is not correct, imho.Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose When someone edits in a narrow field, they are more likely to engage with the same small group of editors which can give the appearance that an editor is following them around. Also finding a sub-standard article and then reviewing the editors history for other sub-standard edits isn't hounding. And civility as a whole in AfD needs to be addressed by the community.Slywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Mz is highly active in a narrow field, one that attracts some fairly passionate editors, as well as some who lack actual content knowledge but are intent on keeping anything that ever touches Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 seems to take criticism of content as a personal attack, and frames any response in that manner. While Mz can be abrupt, they certainly aren't comparable. Intothatdarkness 14:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it as a personal attack when it is worded as a personal attack ([44]) Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a response to your previous comment, this diff strikes me as downright mild. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that friends of Mztourist might wish to consider, I've seen it time and again when incivility is excused, it becomes a habit and gets worse to the point where the community finally loses patience and yet again we mourn the blocking of an experienced editor. Real friends would tell him to stop. WCMemail 14:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a "friend" of Mz, and I take your point completely, but here I don't think that any perceived incivility by Mz is the problem - or it's certainly not the main problem by a long way. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wee Curry Monster I am surprised by your rather barbed comments about me. Please advise when I've been uncivil in my dealings with JA85. Mztourist (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not taking a view at all on this dispute, other than to say that I don't feel WCM's comment is at all misplaced. I too have seen exactly this pattern in other editors who ended up being banned after years of people defending incivility on their part. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this issue you are speaking of, because the issue I brought here was the interaction. Read my response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) and how it escalated. This has been a perpetual problem for more than a year and it will not change. Mz takes no responsibility, he has stated himself that the issue lies completely with me. That is not the attitude of someone that is willing to change. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Looking over things it appears that Jamesallain85 is mostly the aggressor and in the wrong here. So an interaction ban wouldn't really be the best way to deal with the issue IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support points made by the nom. -- GreenC 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I feel, and this is my own personal opinion, this proposal hurts Mz more than it would James, especially considering James has backed off already. Mz does do amazing and positive things for the encyclopedia in a very targeted field and that's coming from someone that doesn't share the exact same point of view. I realize something must be done but I don't feel this will affect both parties equally. --ARoseWolf 20:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Looked at in context Jamesallain85's MZ's nominations are the root of the problem. They seem to be deliberating attacking the reasonably aceptable work of another editor, using a mistaken idea of the rules for WP:RS. I can not tell if it CIR, or something else, but at the very leastthey need to be removed from AfD. If conflict continues, it might require further action. As for Mz JamesA, he was acting under what I consider rather extreme provocation. They still shouldn't have responded that way, so I suggest either an admonishment and warning, or a very short block--perhaps 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose; no evidence of any wrongdoing on Mztourist's part that would rise to the level of justifing sanctions against them. Indicating that they feel that Jamesallain85 has largely created substandard articles now, in this discussion, is the opposite of an admission of hounding, since it says that they were nominated due to their low quality rather than who created them. It's not ideal civility but insufficient to justify sanctions (since it is still ultimately a comment on contributions and not the editor.) Having some nominations closed as keep is also not an indication of wrongdoing. If people want to argue that Mztourist is at fault for something, they need to present specific obviously-bad nominations, or enough borderline nominations to support the accusation of a pattern of harassment, or an actual admission that that's what they were doing rather than them just expressing a low opinion of the articles Jamesallain85 has created. I'm not seeing any of that here. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - mostly what Aquillion said. I asked for diffs and so far the only diff I've seen of alleged wrongdoing by Mz is Special:Diff/1059105125, which was an insult and that should be avoided of course, but it isn't anywhere near enough to support any sanction. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose admonishment for Jamesallain85

    I don't think the autistic comment can be allowed to pass without comment from the community. I propose Jamesallain85 is admonished for that comment with the warning that if any such comment is repeated it will result in an immediate and escalating series of blocks. Such blocks may be imposed by any admin without referral to ANI. WCMemail 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggested an interaction ban and the admonishment to deal with a comment that went too far. I'm disappointed that the community is divided over the interaction ban, particularly so when one editor is saying they are not the problem. It shows they have a lack of awareness that their conduct is also part of the problem and I feel they are being encouraged in that belief with editors stating one side was worse than the other. WCMemail 20:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Admonish it should be clear by the way Jamesallain85 has acted in this ANI complaint about their side of the disagreement that an admonishment alone probably won't deal with the issue and is therefore to weak of a sanction. Especially considering the whole autistic comment, but even without that there's enough on Jamesallain85's side to warrant more then a rebuke IMO. More so because there's already been ANI complaints about them that didn't seem to correct their behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reasonable solution along with the iban. -- GreenC 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I support admonishment even though James did apologize, which I personally accept as a member of the community. This is something that can't be overlooked and James needs to understand this type of comment is never okay and certainly not understandable under any circumstances. --ARoseWolf 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a first-line remedy per above and my reply in the next section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per WP:ROPE. James strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia, but made a horrible, egregious decision. They seem to have gotten the message that such language is intolerable here and I doubt that they will repeat it. In light of this, I would support giving them a final warning with the understanding that using similar language again will result in an indefinite block. Mlb96 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per above, this is probably too weak, but better than nothing. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose one-way IBAN for Jamesallain85 and admonishment for Mztourist

    It's clear, from my reading of the above, that there are concerns about giving a pass to Mztourist's civility, but that it does not rise to the level of a sanction. I believe that he should be formally warned against uncivil behavior in the future. However, since the locus of the problem is primarily Jamesallain85's behavior and his conflicts with Mztourist, there should be an IBAN applied to him interacting with Mztourist. That IBAN will also serve as a suitable sanction given the "autistic" comment that was made earlier.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could someone who supports action against Mz for incivility please quote and diff some recent examples? Levivich 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose one-way IBANs are good options only in limited circumstances. Even in cases where a one-way IBAN is enacted the other party should treat it as two-way (at minimum, not intentionally put themselves in the way of the other editor). Specifically in this case I'd note that (based on user talk page notifications at [45]) it seems post-2020 Mztourist is the only one who has nominated Jamesallain85's articles for deletion. It doesn't really matter whether the rationales for deletion were solid or not, the point is that Mztourist repeatedly initiates interactions with Jamesallain85; I'm assuming that will continue in the future, in which case a one-way IBAN would just create agitation and not be an appropriate solution here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see enough evidence that Mztourist is deliberately targeting Jamesallain85's articles for deletion out of malice, at least not in the same way that JA85 retaliated shortly after this became a sticking point between the two of them. The proper response to having an article proposed for deletion, if you feel that the subject is notable and that the article is worth keeping, is to improve that article so that it stands muster. Retaliating against the filer is not the proper response. This is why the IBAN needs to be one-way, since up to this point apart from being short, Mztourist has not attempted to weaponize Wikipedia's processes against another user. WaltCip-(talk) 18:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: (nods to ProcrastinatingReader) I was thinking the same thing; what, Mztourist gets to tee off all he pleases on Jamesallain85's article creations, and JA85's not allowed to defend them? Oh dear me no. Ravenswing 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think Jamesallain85's personal attack in this instance was understandable in view od the absurd nominations being made by Mztourist, who does not recognize the principle that paywalled sources are acceptable. The proper remedy is a topic ban for Mztourist against making AfD nominations, at least of Jamesallain85's articles. An admonishment for Mztourist JAwould be quite enough considering the provocation. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think that calling someone "autistic" was "understandable"? Good f***ing grief, this place is rapidly going down the toilet. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • +1 I suspect anyone who used "Jew" or "gay" as a negative because they were "provoked" would be indeffed on sight. Can someone explain how using "autistic" as a negative is better? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Understandable" does not mean that I think it was good behavior, but I would not, personally, give anyone an indef for the use of an insulting word, tho I would for frequently talking this way. The more serious forms of personal attack are concentrated attacks on someones work , it's attacking for the purpose of attacking the individual, not for enforcing a (misguided) understanding of RS. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me clarify my Jew/gay analogy. It's not just a personal attack. The implication of such an attack is that users who really are Jewish or gay or autistic are somehow unwelcome here. So it's a attack not just against the one user, but a large fraction of Wikipedians. People who are routinely discriminated against IRL, and might have thought of Wikipedia as a refuge. When we say it was "understandable", what message are we sending to those users? If Jamesallain85 had said "asshole" or another generic insult that would be different, because it's not targeting any group. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • (e/c) @DGG: What are you talking about? That last sentence is incoherent. Also, I assume you're not considering the effect using "autistic" as a slur has on, you know, people with autism. How does that rank on the seriousness scale for forms of personal attack? Also, there are more sanctions than "understandable" and "indef block", and in this section, indef block isn't even proposed. Also, to save on pings, in your comment in the previous section I'm fairly sure you've mixed up the two editors. Otherwise, great job though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I can't speak on behalf of the entire autist community, but I don't feel particularly "targeted"; it's not like this is significantly worse than "imbecile" or "moron" or "idiot" (all of which would be clear personal attacks and worthy of sanctions/admonishment/etc on that basis). jp×g 00:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • If someone says, "You eat with chopsticks? What are you, Chinese?", that's an offensive slur, even though there is nothing wrong with being Chinese. It draws on a stereotype and implies that there is something wrong with being Chinese and eating with chopsticks. In the same way, the "are you autistic?" comment was offensive even though there is nothing wrong with being autistic, because it implied that if a person were autistic, that would explain why the person would "fail to grasp" things. That's tantamount to calling autistic people stupid, which is significantly worse than calling the editor you're arguing with an idiot, imbecile, or moron. It's one thing to get into an argument and call the other guy an idiot, it's quite another to get into an argument and call the other guy autistic. I think we can tolerate the former but not the latter. The former is an attack against the other editor, the latter is an attack against the other editors and autistic people. (And it's an attack even if no autistic person actually feels attacked...the success of the attack is irrelevant.) Levivich 06:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does one get a pass while the other does not? On a project which supposedly has civility in discussions as a primary focus of the project how does either promote collaboration. Do I believe James was inappropriate? Absolutely. His autistic comment was vile. I also feel Mz was inappropriate. We all know the connotations and stigmatizations associated with the perception of mental illnesses. Some of the first code words you always hear are the ones mentioned here. Getting triggered enough to call another human terrible things inferring mental illness is okay but asking them if they are autistic is different? An attack is an attack and neither should be tolerated. I do think DDG has a point in the discussion of targeted actions. I think we can say that Mz targeted James because Mz feels that James produces sub-standard work, however, Mz targeted articles on Wikipedia that he feels are sub-standard and that's actually encouraged. Remove James and replace them with someone else and Mz would do the same thing. So it's not personal against James, in that sense, and no editor here should become so attached to anything they write that they feel personally attacked when someone disagrees that it belongs here. Likewise, no editor should become triggered enough to call another editor names just because they disagree, no matter the provocation. This is a case of both editors not being civil, regardless of the words used and it shouldn't be tolerated because, as a community, it is one of our primary principles for a healthy and productive collaboration effort. --ARoseWolf 13:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the last sentence means that he's attacking the articles to attack the editor; I don't see how it could be misunderstood. I fixed the names. . And I continue to think that emphasizing individual words as bright lines does rational handling of disputes a disservice: typically #1 pushes #2 repeatedly, until #2 says something we regard as inexcusable. But I've broken my rule not to comment more than twice in a single discussion, for which I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment In the past we had much more serious offenders who were allowed to stop their offensive behavior and go free. Something like this: [18:26, December 7, 2021]; is certainly unacceptable but it doesn't require IBAN. Admonishment for both is more appropriate. Relative to Mztourist behavior, something like WP:DISENGAGE might be advised. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment I oppose any interaction ban at this time but support admonishment of both James and Mz. Diffs have been provided, along with the witness statements of others who have dealt with Mz that have labeled them "abrasive, "abrupt" and acknowledged they need to "tone it down" which are all indications of the tone of incivility that Mz certainly is not alone in exhibiting but is often the result of their discussions with those that have an opposing point of view, especially at AfD's. Because I feel both editors can do amazing things for the encyclopedia I stop short of any ban or block at this point and feel an admonishment would give both an opportunity to evaluate and take corrective steps to improve their tone when dealing with others in the community. --ARoseWolf 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose A one-way IBAN essentially means that Mztourist could nominate James's articles for deletion and James would not be allowed to defend his own articles. That strikes me as completely unfair. If there is to be an IBAN, it should be two-way. Mlb96 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support directly addresses the only behavioral problem here. --JBL (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support since I agree with JBL that it's the only thing that will address the behavioral problems here. As a side to that, the thing about how Jamesallain85 wouldn't be able to defend "their own articles" if there was a one way ban is a little ridiculous. The articles don't belong to Jamesallain85 and if said articles are truly notable then other people besides Jamesallain85 will be able to defend them as such. I'm assuming without the behavioral issues being a part of it. So this seems like a good option to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know what I meant, don't nitpick over semantics; "their own articles" as in "articles that they wrote," not "articles that they own." And it seems unfair to force them to put their faith in other users when it's their work on the chopping block. The notability guidelines are intentionally vague, but that also means that sometimes users come to different conclusions. The person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's less to do with what you meant and more to do with the fact that Jamesallain85 clearly has some ownership issues when it comes to articles they have created. Which IMO is just being fed into with how things are being phrased. I'm not saying it's intentional on your part though. Outside of that, I agree that a person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor, but that doesn't include calling nominators autistic. If he was just making normal arguments we wouldn't be here right now and I wouldn't really care about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without commenting on the specifics here, I've been fairly successful at getting ArbCom to stop using "admonishment" and I'd like to just butt in here and explain why: we warn users all the time for any number of things, but somehow with more long-term problems we admonish them instead. I don't think that makes much sense and strongly prefer "formal warnings" to "admonishments". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, per Mlb96 and ProcrastinatingReader; of particular concern to me is that in this situation both editors seem to have been behaving rather badly, so a one-way interaction ban would be quite lopsided (being, as it were, a reward for one party and a punishment for the other). Comments like this do not indicate that this is a situation where one person is just being aggressive for no reason. jp×g 00:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with Mztourist saying that Jamesallain85's time could be better spent writing detailed, properly referenced pages? Even if it's a tad defensive, it's rather weird to somehow equate that to Jamesallain85 calling Mztourist autistic. They aren't even on the same level. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you mean by "equating". Let me present you with the following scenario, and tell me what you think of it.
    CEPHALUS: Thrasymachus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot.
    THRASYMACHUS: Cephalus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot and you should go fuck yourself off a bridge.
    Personally, I would posit that while Thrasymachus has clearly violated the bounds of civility, so too has Cephalus, and the greater indiscretion of Thrasymachus does not somehow vindicate or invalidate the fact that Cephalus has said something extremely impolite. In an environment where propriety was considered important, the conduct of Cephalus should not be permitted either. jp×g 04:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose one-way IBAN since that has no possible chance of working. You can't have one person allowed to talk about and try to delete the articles another created, and the other not able to say anything in response. Dream Focus 05:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way IBAN and oppose admonishment obviously. Whether a few Users consider me "abrasive" or "abrupt" that doesn't in any way rise to the level of JA85's personal attacks of saying I'm screaming, being petty, making myself look like an ass and calling me autistic just in the one thread. So its a bit hard to accept that me saying "If only one of those "better things to do" was actually writing detailed properly referenced pages..." is in the same league. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A one way interaction ban is a charter for abuse, this has been a two way street with both editors rubbing each other the wrong one. There is blame on both sides here and only one side is insisting they've done nothing wrong. A one-way ban sends the wrong signal. WCMemail 20:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose one-way IBANs in general, and I don't think it'll cure the disruption in this instance. Oppose admonishing Mz as I don't see any evidence of anything worthy of admonishment (Special:Diff/1059105125 ain't it). Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New proposal

    User:Jamesallain85 first agrees to never again create a military biography stub and secondly agrees to within two months revisit and expand all the military biography stubs created by him with reliable sourcing, following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD. I will recuse myself from all involvement until after the Milhist review. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose This is completely unacceptable, it is perfectly acceptable to create stubs for other editors to later expand. WCMemail 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain what is completely unacceptable about it? JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs that haven't been expanded in 2 years. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also find this to be a good example of how AfD is in fact a default article improvement system. Nothing else here seems to work, even if the improvements are at times of questionable value. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Mainly due to the burden it might place on Milhist. Ja85 seems to have OWN issues with stubs in any case. Intothatdarkness 23:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: Mztourist's lack of insight into the problem of questionable AfD noms does not appear to be improving and suggesting imposing restrictions that are stricter than policy mandates for new articles is neither justified nor helpful. Jamesallain85's autistic comment was definitely unacceptable / offensive and sanctionable, but this is a situation that leaves neither party looking good. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting that an IP who has made a total of 34 edits should take such an interest in this issue... The root cause of the problem was that JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs under the now deprecated SOLDIER 2 years ago which no-one has ever expanded and every time I AFD one of them JA85 comes complaining here to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is exactly the type of attitude which as plagued me for more than a year. I would like to point out that Mz has a large number of subs on fire bases and landing zones in Vietnam, many poorly soured with a single source for many of them, without specific page numbers, the source is not available online to be reviewed. Essentially everything Mz is accusing me of he has done himself on a larger scale, but if I AFD a single article, despite these the shortcomings, it results in explosive accusations of revenge by Mz and nonstop AFD of more articles, he is a bully. My AFDs are not revenge, they were to point out the hypocrisy of Mz pushing standards on others which he doesn't hold himself. Here are just a few examples: Landing Zone Virgin, Firebase Mile High, Firebase Checkmate, Firebase Currahee, Landing Zone Uplift, Catecka Base Camp, Ninh Hòa Base, Firebase Birmingham, and many more. Mz talks down to and belittles fellow editors and thinks he is somehow above the standards that are supposed to guide us. Then when there is a disagreement, the fault lies 100% with his opponent. I am not the only editor to have experienced this. Despite his many contributions, his attitude makes wikipedia a hostile negative environment. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All of those pages are longer than your 1-3 sentence stubs. They are all sourced to a reliable source and they all have specific page numbers. The source is divided into sections, 5 is the book section and the number after the dash is the page number. Each page contains encyclopaedic detail that establishes notability unlike your Navy bio pages. Just being an Admiral is not a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You might wish to explain this page numbering convention somewhere in the sourcing tables, then, as it's not exactly conventional or readily obvious (or change to a format like Section 1, page X). And as far as explosive accusations...I've seen far more aggressive OWN behavior from JA85 than I have MZ. And I will mention yet again most of this wouldn't likely be a problem if there was a functional article improvement process apart from AfD. AfD isn't the proper venue for this, as it results in drama, an avalanche of poor or questionable sources and information, and articles being kept and then never improved again. Any process that allows an article to be kept by noting sources that are never added to the article is to my mind broken or at least in need of an alternative. Intothatdarkness 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Intothat I have gone through and clarified all the refs. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Intothatdarkness, I take your opinion with a grain of salt, as you have had a clear bias through not only this process, but the AFDs as well. As far as Mz's stubs, that book is the only single source for each of those articles and not available to be viewed, there is no support for GNG, and most of the articles I listed are also just a few sentences, all of the things you are accusing me of. I am sure you will argue somehow they are different, they aren't. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not accusing you of anything when it comes to article format, JA85. That you think I am is interesting. The only format comment I had was directed at MZ. Your OWN behavior has been commented on by others in this discussion. My remarks about AfD's current default function also extend well past any stubs you may have created. Those stubs are actually a fairly minor example of the issue. Intothatdarkness 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of AfD is not to improve articles, it is to delete them. Please read WP:BEFORE subsection C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Intothedarkness, have you ever voted "Keep" on a single AfD that wasn't written by Mz? I couldn't find one. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it matters in the slightest, but like others I don't tend to vote keep if an article looks solid and notable. Since Keep or No Consensus (which is in effect Keep) both result in the article being retained, there's really no reason to vote Keep just because. I don't keep a spreadsheet of my AfD votes. Intothatdarkness 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does matter, because the articles of Mz that you voted to keep were way under par in comparison with many that you voted delete, from my point of view I think one could easily claim WP:MEAT in those instances. You literally vote delete on every AfD except those from a known colleague? What do you expect editors to think? Jamesallain85 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jamesallain85 you seem to have unlimited time and energy to argue here and elsewhere, however you can't be bothered to revisit and improve any pages you created unless they're AFDed, that really speaks volumes about you and what you're HERE for. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that very ironic coming from you. All I want is to contribute and not have any arguments, instead I am constantly being drug into debates on AfDs which shouldn't even exist according to policy. Then after nominating you get your pals to vote delete on your AfD nominations to boost your score. I wish you would focus more on adding content instead of attempting to AfD everything on wikipedia. I can understand targeting cases such as the Tuskegee Airmen where egregious copyright was called into question, but your continues targeting me I cannot understand. Every time I think you are finished I will not have to interact with you, you just AfD another article I authored and I get drug back into debate. I am trying everything to wash my hands of you, hence the requested interaction ban. You do not hold any special position of authority over other editors, and you claiming that I am not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia is flat wrong. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, you seem to have plenty of time for arguing. The simplest way to stop being "drug" into debates on AFD is for you to go to all the stubs you created and expand them with decent references and not create new stubs. I do not attempt "to AFD everything on wikipedia". The number of articles I have created and my total contributions are vastly more than yours. Mztourist (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I bow before you and your articles? This discussion has turned into exactly what I knew it would. Like normal you just ignore the discussion and turn back to your stub accusation, which I have pointed out you have the exact same issue. Why don't you repair your stubs first, then when everything you have created is perfect and you no longer have any stubs, start AfDing my stubs, at least then you wouldn't be a hypocrite. I have every right to contribute to wikipedia, and just because you have created vastly more articles and stubs, again doesn't give you any special rights. I think this discussion is proof enough itself we need an interaction ban. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JA85, your attempt to bully me out of AfD participation is noted. Intothatdarkness 14:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By pointing out your AfD voting record? I am simply pointing to the facts, you are accountable for your own actions, and those actions have fairly clear motives. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - "following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD" isn't something we can make happen via proposal. Also, this doesn't need bespoke babysitting sanctions. Editors should either edit non-disruptively or GTFO, IMO. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ad hominem attack (NPA) incident at a talk page for a minor China-related article

    I am reporting an incident of an ad hominem attack against me that was carried out by this IP user — IP user 139.47.34.245 — over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations.

    The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history. Their first ever edit was a reversion of a reversion that I had conducted over at the article China–Lithuania relations ([46]). Their second and final edit as of now was an incident of an ad hominem attack against myself, published on the corresponding talk page, Talk:China–Lithuania relations ([47]).

    I initially contacted the user to inform them that I believed that they had conducted a personal attack against me [48]. So far, after a couple of days, they haven't yet responded to me (at least, not through that account). Notably, the user quoted some text from my user page into the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations in an attempt to prove that I was "biased" (as seen in ([49]). I deleted the quoted text (though, I left behind everything else that they had written) and left a "personal attack removed" notice ([50]).

    A different IP user — IP user 195.135.49.168 — subsequently reverted my deletion of the personal attack over at the talk page, and a brief edit war ensued before I conceded to that user (their version remains) and began to seriously pursue a resolution to the dispute. This user was also contacted by me in the same manner as the first user ([51]). Lengthy negotiations have occurred between me and this user at their talk page since then. This user has refused to remove the personal attack, stating that its purpose is to "expose" me in terms of my apparent bias (seen in [52] and in [53]).

    I do indeed suspect that these two users are the same person. It is difficult to figure out what exactly is going on due to the usage of IP accounts rather than registered accounts. Notably, the second user's edits over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations have essentially combined both their own comments and the other user's comments into a single mixed-up blob (as seen in [54]), so, unless these two users are not the same person, I can't fathom that either user would find such a situation acceptable (it's impossible to tell where one user's comment begins and the other user's comment ends).

    My goal regarding this dispute is primarily to remove the personal attack material from the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I am not pursuing any specific actions against the two users who have been involved in this incident. I've already tried to resolve the dispute through negotiations with the other parties, but they are either non-responsive or refusing to co-operate, so I am now resorting to the incidents noticeboard, particularly because I want the personal attack material to be removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if it's proper to just add my two cents here, since it's not about an ad hominem attack, but this IP user has been POV pushing and reverting edits without properly engaging in talk. See [55] and Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan relations. E.g. the user doesn't think South China Morning Post is RS and insists on deleting it as a reference even though I have provided them with a link to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Anyway, this is exhausting, and I am done for today. DrIdiot (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    One more: [56] IP user just inserts a random source that doesn't justify the claim when pressed? Edits are full of this stuff. Was hesitant at first but I would consider this disrputive editing at this point. DrIdiot (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, previous example probably not the best. Anyway, the talk page has a record of the discussion. DrIdiot (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to point out something rather interesting (to say the least)... In my original ANI report above, which I wrote only around a day ago, I specifically said "The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history.". This comment has aged like milk... After only one day, the user in question now possesses THIRTY-FIVE edits in total (several of them quite large, I might add). This is also disregarding the high likelihood that the two IP users mentioned above are actually the same person in real life; i.e. their edits should hypothetically be considered together as one unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has been temporarily protected by El C ([57]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and removed, for the fourth time, the personal attack against me over at Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I've restored the "personal attack removed" ({{RPA}}) notice as well. As far as I'm concerned, this settles the dispute between me and the IP user (who operates multiple IP accounts) regarding their personal attack against me. Obviously, if this user has the audacity to restore their personal attack against me for the fourth time, then we will continue to have problems. As for the other issues that have been highlighted in this discussion, they are less of a concern for me, though I still think these issues need to be investigated by the administrators since some of them are quite serious allegations, although they are not related directly to me and my case here at ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The two IP users involved are the same person

    I have found some pretty damning evidence that the two IP users who have been abusing me (and have subsequently been vandalising the two articles China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations) are the same person. Just compare these two edit revisions. The first edit ([58]) was conducted by IP user 195.135.49.168 over at China–Lithuania relations whereas the second edit ([59]) was conducted by IP user 139.47.34.245 over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. The contents of these two edits, despite having been conducted by two different IP users on two different articles, are clearly identical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP was removing sourced information from China–Lithuania relations, as well as the personal attacks. I put China–Lithuania relations on two weeks' semi-protection. I'd suggest the same on other affected articles. Blocking the IPs for a time may be appropriate. But I'd feel more comfortable if other admins concurred on these actions, rather than doing it all myself - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still intend to get the personal attack against me at that article removed... I removed it earlier myself and left an RPA notice, but the abuser (who is using two IP accounts) reinstated it. And when I tried to remove it again, this user began engaging in an edit war with me. I abandoned the edit war relatively quickly and left the article under the abuser's version, with the personal attack still present in the article. The entire point of opening up this ANI case was to get rid of the personal attack... it's been several days and no progress has been made in this regard. By the way, I have to comment here or else the case will get closed prematurely... no other admins have shown up yet. With that being said, thanks for taking your time to comment here. It does give my case some legitimacy, I would think. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an update, there appears to be a 3rd IP now, and this new IP has made an interesting threat here: Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan_relations#Full_revert_of_non-consensus,_unilateral,_non-NPOV_edit_by_previous_editor. Essentially, they are accusing me of pushing POV from a particular "side" and threatens to "expose" some wrongdoings(?) from that "side" if I do not stop pushing back against their edits. The rest of last night's Talk comments are a clear example of WP:BLUDGEON. DrIdiot (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You beat me to it. I have also noticed the arrival of this third IP user (whom you've described above) — IP user 195.235.52.102 — editing the article Lithuania–Taiwan relations, who is most likely the same person as the person who operates the other two IP accounts. So, this person operates at least three IP accounts, and probably more than that. At this point, it seems that their usage of multiple IP accounts here could be intentional (i.e. Wikipedia:Sock). The person operating the multiple IP accounts has denied the allegation of their IP-hopping*, i.e. they are pretending that each IP account belongs to a different person in real life. By the way, all of these three accounts can be geographically traced to the Province of Barcelona in Spain. The person in question seems to be of Asian origin✝, so I suppose that they might be an ex-pat operating out of Barcelona, or they could simply be using a VPN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    *(Re: "Denying IP-hopping") — They have said ⇒ ...I would refrain from trying to "trace" other users... ([60]) – and – Oh yes, you also accused me of IP-hopping. Any evidence? Does that constitute a personal attack under Wikipedia's own definition? ([61]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ✝(Re: "Asian origin") — They have said ⇒ I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist... ([62]) – and – [I looked at] your ideologies. Not a single Asian ideology and no stances on Asian geopolitics ... to rectify your bias, studying Asian history and ideologies ... would counterbalance your ... militant, radical and verbally aggressive stances. May I suggest the (Taoist version of) the Middle Way ...? ([63]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - on the 'IP-hopping' issue, note they didn't actually address whether or not they were the same person, only whether they were 'IP-hopping' (i.e. changing IPs deliberately to avoid evasion). Very few of us have static IPs anymore, and when you're an IP editor you generally have no idea what IP address your edits are going to show up as (nor have any control over it). A user actually attempting to sock-by-IP-hopping, and one that was tech savvy enough to IP-hop at will on WP (using unblocked IP addresses) would unlikely be careless enough to use IPs all from the same town. Short version: assume they're the same person, assume they're not pretending otherwise nor have any control over their IPs changing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CAD:7C51:CA86:3A6A (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed that the IP user managed to hop from IP no. 1 to IP no. 2 and then back to IP no. 1 again (whether intentionally or not). But then, they hopped over to IP no. 3. This has been disruptive... They've neglected to respond to my initial contact with them over on IP no. 1, for example, only responding to me on IP no. 2. They might not have even seen my original contact... which would have led to some confusion on their part, perhaps. I see no reason why this user shouldn't establish a registered user account. It would make all of our lives a lot easier. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be completely consistent with (for example) someone editing from multiple devices or multiple locations. It is helpful to distinguish "things that are annoying about the world" from "things that someone is intentionally doing to be difficult" -- changing IP addresses (and the attendant difficulty of communication) in most cases is in the former category. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be pointed out that IP-hopping is not my primary accusation here (which is why this ANI case is here and not on the sockpuppetry page). This ANI case is primarily about a personal attack that was thrown at me by IP no. 1 and then re-instated by IP no. 2 after I had removed it. Bear in mind that the user had not interacted with me before, so the first time I had met them, they were yelling out abuse at me. I've subsequently gone ahead and removed the personal attack again, several days later, and it hasn't been reinstated yet, perhaps due to inattention from the IP user. The IP user has been editing two pages, China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Both of these pages have subsequently been blocked by two different admins (I'm assuming that El C is an admin) due to the disruptive behaviour of the IP user, which includes citing a deprecated source, removing sourced material, and behaving generally disruptively, among other things. This ANI case has been appropriated by DrIdiot, who is mainly concerned with the removal of sourced content over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jargo is correct that my concern is mostly with that article. However, if you look into the talk page Talk:Lithuania-Taiwan relations you'll find many examples of the IP user... being generally disinterested in understanding sourcing policy (the justifications being mostly ad hoc), as well some strange threats (search for the text "If you continue with your one-sided trigger-reverts"). The discussion is hard to follow since the IP user generally does not sign off with 4~ on subthreads. In this case I don't consider it a personal attack... but feels a lot like WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, I agree the personal attack on Jargo (see [64]) is more egregious. DrIdiot (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Re: Personal attack) — What's worse than the IP user's initial act of throwing out a personal attack at me (which might be forgiven due to the benefit of the doubt) is the IP user's subsequent insistence on reinstating the personal attack after I had clearly explained why it was wrong. This indicates not only their disruptive tendencies (whether intentional or accidental) but also their intention to behave disruptively, which I think is a much more grievous wrongdoing. The user edit-warred with me in order to force the personal attack back into the talk page, which, in my opinion, is a terrible pattern of behaviour. The user had initially thrown the personal attack at me in order to "expose" me. This falls in line with their tendency to push conspiracy theories ([65]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This ANI case is about to die. It seems that the IP user has been inactive for several days. Still, I am keeping this case open since it hasn't really been resolved; it's just been frozen. I guess the IP user may have lost interest in Wikipedia after they were (temporarily) blocked from editing their two favourite articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly are you expecting to be done at this point? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly expecting an investigation of the IP user or an extended block of the two pages. It depends on whether the IP user comes back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scantydu

    Hello. User:Scantydu has just posted a rather incivil retirement message on his or her talk page. While many parts of it are arguably breaches of Wikipedia:Civility, the reason I'm here instead of just ignoring it is the expressed desire for other users to commit suicide, which I believe to be block-worthy. I'm not sure what this falls under, but this user has no constructive edits, and appears to be NOTHERE at the very least. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I smell MrRosstheScientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock here. Care to investifate or just block per WP:NOTHERE? Loew Galitz (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that does indeed look suspicious. I'll open an SPI. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Concur, the duck is strong in this one. They've both edited the same 2 articles with similar edits, and posted the same sort of "retirement" rant. BilCat (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrRosstheScientist, if you have anything to add there. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Tol needs to stop stalking Scantydu and let him put whatever he wants on his talk page. Geez get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbob104 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Billbob104, but I'll let someone else have the fun of blocking Scantydu. --Golbez (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For reference, this account was created today, immediately after Scantydu's last edit (this one). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A very entertaining rant on his user-talkpage, getting the attention he hoped it would. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MrRosstheScientist was declined an unblock at 07:57 on 8 December, with User:Scantydu making their first edit at 4 minutes later. Writing style is identical. ➡🗑️ please. Theknightwho (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the inappropriate death wish screed and will now ponder a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually, you'll have to lock his talkpage. At this point, the lad is self-humouring himself. Of course, the socks will continue. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    self-humouring himself – I haven't heard that particular euphemism for it before. I understand you can go blind that way. EEng 02:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am enforcing this editor's retirement with an indefinite block, pending a sucessful appeal. If they return in any way, shape or form before then, the socks will be blocked as well. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worth deleting the relevant revisions as per WP:CRD, too? It isn't the reason for the block (so it serves no useful purpose), and seems to fall under "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Theknightwho (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Theknightwho, I take your point but here is my thinking: The ridiculous offensive comments were not directed at any specific editor and cannot be taken too seriously, although they were policy violations. I have removed them from easy public view. But I have left them in the edit history so that any serious editor examining this issue will have access to what this editor said. Any administrator who thinks that I have been too lenient is welcome to revdel or suppress without my permission. I might be asleep. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't imagine you were, in dealing with a troll who claimed to be "retiring" after what I am sure was a harrowing and arduous 20-hour-long Wikipedia career. Ravenswing 13:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look over the page histories, and found this questionable diff from 5 December by 106.206.202.92, which has the hallmarks too. Theknightwho (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued harassment by disruptive Hong Kong IP

    A thread was recently opened by Matthew hk about an IP-hopping editor who is persistently harassing and insulting other Hong Kong editors as well as adding uncited content (namely, obscure Hong Kong place names):

    However, no action was taken. Predictably the IP-hopping editor has gone straight back to their previous disruptive activity.

    For one, as I mentioned in the previous thread, they are persistently stalking my edits. Yesterday, I made a significant expansion of the "Kowloon City Plaza" article. Immediately thereafter they peppered it with maintenance tags and added problematic content that has been discussed with them before (e.g. they keep adding obscure land lot numbers to Hong Kong articles). They have a long history of such harassment, with much more evidence presented in the previous thread. Citobun (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Since OhNoitsJamie (talk · contribs) has warned 203.145.95.X for personal attack or groundless accusation, you probably need the actual ip range and which articles with {{la}}. Matthew hk (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Tuen Mun South extension's semi protection expired one day ago, and the IP is right back to pushing the same obscure place name there. Likewise at Kowloon City Plaza they are continually adding an obscure lot number. At Prince Edward, Hong Kong they are changing instances of the common "Mong Kok" place name to the obscure "Tong Mi". At Tung Chung East station they have changed "Tung Chung" to "Kei Tau Kok". What a headache. I am thinking of opening at page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse because this obscure-place name-pushing has been affecting Hong Kong articles for a long time.

    Citobun (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really surprised nothing is being done about this guy. This is getting dumb at this point. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Padgriffin: To be fair. From the edit log of City University of Hong Kong, seems there are more than one guy (203.145.95.X verse 1.64.48.231 verse 124.217.188.X which seems they have edit warring to each other). One of them (124.217.188.X) clearly linked to User:蟲蟲飛 (as evidence on participation on Afd), a globally locked user which linked to CCP. However, they enjoyed collateral damage by your can't tell the harassing is from the same person, just ip hopping using mobile service provider and home ISP, or multiple person that have the same harassing behaviour, as they refused to create accounts. For clearer documentation, i think user:Citobun really need to add the diff links to indicate which ip is actually harassing him recently, and which id keep adding narrow-interest info of land lease lot number , and which ip keep adding obsolete place name. Matthew hk (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the IP from Tuen Mun South extension for a year. I suggest that you make a page at WP:LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, for example, this is yet another ip from HK using yet another mobile phone network CMHK (182.239.122.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), which adding unsourced trivial Five Big Manmade Climbs" (五大人造爬上), in which does not even have google search result for "五大人造爬上" (Special:Diff/1060049801). I can't tell it is the same guy or not, but they (the ips from different range and ISP of HK) consistently adding unsourced content in non-constructive level. Matthew hk (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And tracking the page history, the above 五大人造爬上 hoax was also added by 1.36.41.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (zh:special:Diff/69080201) and in ja-wiki (ja:special:Diff/87001909) so that we never able to know it is the same person or not. Or is it the same as 203.145.95.X, or the ip that harassed Citobun, that Citobun fails to add the exact diff and ip number to this thread?) Matthew hk (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And as mentioned that this thread need proper documentation , Ymblanter blocked 42.200.166.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which clearly not from the same ip range from my last thread (and also not the ip range of my second last thread), so that i really can't tell they are the same person or a cult of toxic people. Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And And tracking the page history, 42.200.166.X ip range did involved in ip hopping in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Unicom Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there are multiple long-term disruptive IPs active on Hong Kong articles (especially those relating to the MTR and border crossings), but I believe that the editing centred on adding obscure place names, uncited geographic/naming trivia, and land lot numbers is one individual (the same person who is harassing me) as the editing patterns are quite consistent. I will soon make a page at WP:LTA as Ymblanter suggested. Citobun (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have created a page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the question of whether it's one or multiple individuals – I was scrutinising the earlier discussion at WPHK. While IP addresses like 116.92.226.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 116.92.226.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were pretending to be different people, it is clear from their editing that they are the same person. They were doing something similar over at Talk:MTR (two IPs were talking to each other pretending to be two different people, but they both have the same narrow editing interests, e.g. "New Kowloon" 1, 2). Although in relation to the Hong Kong border crossings dispute I do believe there are multiple anonymous individuals involved in that dispute. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are still stalking my recent edits. Citobun (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Omg c'mon have you actually found out how common references to New Kowloon, the Victoria City or land lot numbers are on Wikipedia? Land lot numbers appear in news stories in the press here too. And no I don't think I ever edited the Tuen Mun southern extension article. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have observed a long-term tendency of Citobun to disregard entire edits whenever he or she deems something to be wrong. Since Tuen Mun South extension is protected I would use it as an example. In his or her edits[66][67] he or she has repeatedly disregarded changes to the capitalisation of the letter G, addition of the convert template, and disambiguation between the MTR and the MTRCL. This happens over many Hong Kong-related articles and it has been a long-term behavioural or editing style issue. It makes him or her a person particular difficult for other editors to work with. Even worse was that he or she never bothers to go to talk pages.
    On the other hand he or she has kept asking for proof that the area was indeed referred to after Butterfly Beach. 42.200.166.13 had submitted references[68] and added some more[69] to fulfil him or her but he or she has never been satisfied. I have reviewed the references submitted and they do demonstrate that the neighbourhood is called after the beach, especially those added on 10 December. But he or she didn't bother to review the newly added sources. And he or she in fact does the same thing all along with many other Hong Kong-related edits - Dismisses whatever he or she doesn't know or doesn't like as obscure, and rejects all references. He or she is using his or her very own life experience to refute reliable sources. Perhaps he or she's too young to know what older people perceive about the geography, topography of this territory or life in this territory, perhaps he or she's living in a particular corner of this territory which hinders his or her knowledge of the rest of this territory in general, or maybe we have been all wrong and he or she's been right all along. No matter what from what I seen the way he or she puts it is discriminatory, antagonistic towards other editors. This isn't helpful to the Wikipedia project. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Needless to say, this is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. I don't want to get bogged down arguing about another one of your made-up names – but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? No, of course not. But that's the essence of your argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your personal agenda. Citobun (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fellow administrators all you need to do at first is to verify whether what Citobun suggested was true. Land lot numbers are used extensively in Hong Kong.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76] They certainly aren't obscure. In older neighbourhoods stone markers aren't uncommon. And in fact there are mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, e.g. Cheung Kong Center, an entry which Citobun's associate Matthew hk had recently edited. ... but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? Names aren't made up by me but the locals, and we indeed gotta look at each individual cases. Locations as far as Sugar Street is still referred to by many as Daimaru even though it's a block away from where the department store used to be located. Tai Fat Hau isn't just a name used by the locals. It made its way to be the name of a local council constituency, even though the namesake company had gone many decades ago. Other similar examples may include Tit Kong, Ngo Keng, Tai Hang and A Kung Ngam. And despite his or her WTC example he or she has practically endorsed that same usage with something like "Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area" in his or her edits to Turn Mun southern extension. On the other hand references to New Kowloon (which he or she admitted to be not incorrect) and the Victoria City have been so extensive on Wikipedia that that's an implicit consensus among Wikipedia editors active in Hong Kong-related topics perhaps since the earliest days of Wikipedia. These are easily verifiable and administrators shouldn't hesitate verifying them yourselves. What he or she has been doing is to stick with his or her very own experience and understanding, enforce it in his edits, and use IP editors from Hong Kong (which he probably knows very well why so many Hongkongers don't edit from registered accounts) as scapegoats or human sheilds, that something he or she has succeeded so far. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @116.92.226.240:, you show up as ip hopper that block evaded? (from 42.200.166.13 ip). You literally borderline personal attack and admit you are involved in adding narrow-interested "official name" of some location (aka land lease lot no) that they never a common name and violate WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT on wikipedia is not a travel guide or a bin of trivial info. Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What? How could you come up with something as such? Please read carefully as far as possible. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And just checked , Ymblanter has blocked that ip for 31 hours as well. Matthew hk (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not informed of the exact reason why I got blocked. But my changes to the Wu Kai Sha station article were reverted, for no reason. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid I have fallen victim of what Citobun (mis)represented. He argues and edits against whatever kind of reference to New Kowloon for obscure reasons. But now that I got reported and reverted for removing a reference to New Kowloon. (@Scottywong: FYI.) 219.76.24.209 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the damages are beginning to surface. He or she has made his or her way to mislead administrators. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @219.76.24.209: How and why am I getting roped into whatever this is? What do I have to do with any of this? Why are you pinging me to this conversation and posting cryptic requests on my talk page? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ZLinn1776

    ZLinn1776 My response is that it's hard to use civil language when what is being done is so clearly absurd. They're trying to use a sculpture of Sulla with a broken off nose. It shows great historical ignorance. The sculpture that I've used in replacement, which matches the physical appearance of the sculpture that was on this article for 10 years before someone that was misinformed replaced it back in 2020 with a sculpture of Sulla. The image that they're even using is called ScipioAfricanusSulla.jpg and it is definitely not Scipio Africanus, it is most likely Sulla. It's pretty obvious that you go with the Roman republic marble sculpture labeled with the man's name instead of some non-historical theory, a theory that is not confirmed by any historical sources. As a scholar I've read most of the sources. The source of whomever did this was in French, not English. This is an English article. I'm trying to fight against this type of non-historical ignorance trying to alter the public perception. Any reasoning mind would do what I've asked and read the label on the sculpture from antiquity, not some image of Sulla from the Roman civil wars. Perhaps I shouldn't have called the person being an idiot an idiot just because they're ignorant. I'm not sure what else I could have said there "Look at the label, ignoramus."? Perhaps my uncivil language was because of the irritation from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about trying to corrupt the public perception of an important Roman statesman. ZLinn1776 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ZLinn1776: You need to learn how to use Talk pages for articles rather than arguing just in edit summaries. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ZLinn1776 reply: Excuse you, obviously you didn't read what I posted on this Talk page:

    • User:力 meant the article's talk page, not your personal User Talk page. Beyond that, "look at the label" is singularly unhelpful when the "label" you keep referring to is the caption you put on the drawing you uploaded. (The originally misattributed bust, your curious assertions notwithstanding, doesn't actually have any words on it at all.) Furthermore, you ought to be aware that non-English language sources are neither disqualified here, nor automatically superseded by English-language ones. Never mind the frankly bizarre notion that using the image of one two-thousand year old statue over another could conceivably "corrupt the public perception of an important Roman statesman." Good grief.

      Most importantly, using such uncivil language on Wikipedia is unacceptable under any circumstances, no matter how much you think you've been provoked. Which you haven't been -- edit summaries of "these busts are not scipio's" and "not according to sources" are quite in order. Ravenswing 02:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lengthy cut and paste from talk page
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    /* Historically Inaccurate Cover Photo For This Article */ new section

    This article had the main photograph changed from the historically verifiable likeness of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus by someone posting an image from a Russian site of Sulla and trying to pass it off as Scipio Africanus. Even in the Russian Pushkin National Museum in Saint Petersburg, Russia, there are marble sculpture busts of Roman General Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus that are labeled from antiquity with P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR at the bottom of the sculptures. You can see from Wikimedia commons these busts from Ancient Rome of Scipio housed at the Pushkin museum which are clearly labeled as Scipio. Now someone is trying to destroy the mainstream popular view of Scipio with a sculpture of Sulla with an uploaded image that is even labelled "ScipioAfricanusSulla". This bust is from Sulla from the Roman civil wars, not Scipio.

    I find it incredibly offensive that someone who is misinformed about history passing off an alternative ridiculous theory can be allowed to alter the mainstream image identified with Scipio. This happened during the Coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and I noticed that someone changed the image from a historical marble bust of Scipio to a picture of a marble bust of Sulla or some other individual missing a nose.

    In my academic pursuits as a historian of Greece and Rome, I have collected images of dozens of sculptures of Publius Cornelius Scipio, victor of the Second Punic War over Carthage, all dating from antiquity and matching the historical descriptions of Scipio as a bald man of large stature and muscular build. Anything else is just some non-historical theory.

    In terms of the Latin expression, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM - thus it is demonstrated - one must look no further than the Wikimedia commons articles showing marble busts from antiquity depicting Scipio's authentic physical appearance labeled with his name at the bottom as P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR clearly at the bottom of the marble bust, an abbreviation for Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. That should be definitive evidence compared to any non-historical pseudoscientific attempt to alter the image of Scipio Africanus in the public mind.

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isis_priest01_pushkin.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Isis_priest02_pushkin.jpg


    When you look at the caption of the image of Sulla replacing the image of the actual Scipio that was on this article for 10+ years, it says "Bust tentatively identified as Scipio Africanus, formerly attributed to Sulla. It might have been on the facade of the Tomb of the Scipios." So "tentatively" and "might have" replace identification of a man whose sculptures depicting his likeness were labeled in antiquity? This is obviously ludicrous and ridiculous. The citation used to justify this opinion misidentifying Scipio links to an article written in French, not English like this Scipio Africanus wikipedia article.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Publius-Cornelius-Scipio

    I have dozens of photographs of marble sculptures from antiquity that I've collected with the likeness of the real historical Publius Cornelius Scipio who was later given the title of "Africanus" after his victory over the Carthaginians at the Battle of Zama in North Africa. He is not to be confused with his father Publius Cornelius Scipio who fell at the Battle of Cannae. I've tried to upload these images to show the community the obvious truth with ancient Roman sculptures labeled bearing his name with marble busts compared to some ridiculous theory written in French that even shows a Roman denarius from c. 209 BC within that French article that clearly shows Scipio's historical physical appearance wearing a helmet.


    ZLinn1776 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Publius[reply]


    See the real problem here is that someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, someone ignorant of Roman history is trying to modify this article citing non-existent sources. Whoever it was that originally changed the authentic appearance of Scipio Africanus with a broken off nose sculpture most likely depicting Sulla cited a French publication. However I've seen over a dozen different marble sculptures made in republican Rome during the lifetime of Scipio Africanus labeled with his name in abbreviated form and they match the appearance that was on this page before the 2020 edit, and they match the appearance that I have corrected the article for the purpose of historical accuracy. ZLinn1776 (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that it was pointed out to him that the identification with the noseless bust is backed by a reliable source, but he stated that said source didn't exist and insisted on imposing the other image. He also made a similar disruption to Scipio Asiaticus. Looking at his talk page, he seems to have ragequitted, but a permanent ban might be in order just for good measure. Clearly NotHere. Avilich (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this diff [77] sums up their feelings about Wikipedia, the encyclopedia and community. Frustrated or not, it's highly uncivil. --ARoseWolf 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll be frank: it smells of far-right nonsense. I can't know that for sure, but it's ringing alarm bells. Theknightwho (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't concern myself with politics so I'll take your word for it. It is extremely divisive language from an obviously distressed and frustrated person that doesn't appear to be willing to remain civil. Classic case of WP:NOTHERE but seeing as they "retired" the answer may be to just let it go. --ARoseWolf 14:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If Twitter is any guide, that type does seem fairly focused on classical statuary, so maybe.... Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, what are the sources for the bust with the damaged nose being Scipio Africanus? I do not see them in the article (and the phrasing for the caption is strange to me -- if they say outright that the bust if of him, it shouldn't say "tentatively", and if they don't, we should be deciding they do). jp×g 12:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The caption gives Etcheto, Henri (2012). Les Scipions: Famille et pouvoir à Rome à l'époque républicaine (in French). Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions. pp. 274–278. ISBN 978-2-35613-073-0. I don’t speak French, so can’t check. I would assume that the source itself is tentative. I don’t see any WP:OR issue being likely, but it would be good if someone could confirm. Theknightwho (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I only have high school French, but Google Translate works just fine. The source is good, discusses the misidentifications in detail, and cites its own authorities. ZLinn1776 was just running his own peculiar "The source says things I don't like so it's dead to me" bullshit. Ravenswing 20:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gandalfett

    I note edits made by Gandalfett to be highly problematic. I created a talk page discussion a few months back on Chinese Singaporeans, laying out my reasons to possibly expand the page with more information, considering that they make up a significant proportion of the country's population. I bought up Chinese Malaysians as a possible article to look into. I think the message was definitely seen by some users (shoutout to Deoma12, etc), as over the months since, edits were made to do exactly just that.

    However, a few days ago, it seems like many of these contributions were purged or wiped out, especially by this user "Gandalfett". I began to realize this a few days ago, when they inexplicably removed my talk page discussion without any reasons whatsoever. Why? I'm pretty sure there's a rule on Wikipedia that discourages removing other users' talk page discussions like that. I then looked into their edits, and also found out that they made unexplained, significant removals on the article, with some edit summaries pushing its own personal opinions such as "Not useful information and may arise wrong implications" without further elaboration. As I'm not entirely sure of the procedure or have the means to deal with a user like this, I decided to make this post in the hopes of counsel by more experienced editors or administrators as to how better deal with a situation such as this. Thanks. MarionLang (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is MarionLang's third edit to Wikipedia. The Moose 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay...? I'm not an editor, it's exactly why I asked for advice from editors that have been here for much longer. I was bringing up as to why an editor removed my message on the talk page without reason. Am I missing something here? MarionLang (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Confused irrelevancy

    @The Moose: Per WP:Blanking, Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. Chip3004 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is a user talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gandalfett: I highly Recommend that you look into Archiving your talk page, if you want to you are welcome to copy the first 9 lines from my talk page which is the Archive option, Just replace " My Username with your own and you will have the ability to archive your talkpage. Chip3004 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip3004, that's all very well, but this complaint was not about the user talk page, but an article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though Gandalfett has been here for two years, they may still not be aware of having a talkpage, that's the problem. But none of the behavior you describe is acceptable, MarionLang, and I have given them a sharp warning. If they don't change their ways, possibly because they don't see the warnings, please let me know on my own talk, or else post here again. And Chip, it would have been better to follow MarionLang's link than assume it was a user talkpage and copy the whole of WP:BLANKING text for her; it's not relevant. Also, why should Gandalfett archive their talk? It's quite short. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Update: They know they have a talkpage all right, and have edited it to complain about my warning. Good, now we'll simply see if they stop the problematic editing. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Digression about digression
    I propose to restoring the information that was removed by said user @Gandalfett: on the article regarding Chinese Singaporeans, as these information were properly cited and if it was removed without any reason, I don't see why we can't put it back. Since it was deemed that the behaviour of the user @Gandalfett: is unacceptable. --Deoma12(Talk) 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, Deoma12. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Jakartan IP vandal/edit-warrer is back

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#User_on_successive_Jakartan_IPs_engaging_in_year-long_disruptive_editing_of_the_same_articles.

    This time the IP is:

    IP Location ISP Edit history Block history
    139.192.193.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 08:38, 29 November 2021 –
    05:15, 11 December 2021 (as of this post)

    Edit warred the same edit on Emomali Rahmon (diff). Edits the same articles as all their other IPs, mostly on post-Soviet states. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrelated topic but this same anonymous user has repeatedly made reversions against policy, although I explained it to him/her on his/her talkpage. --Local hero talk 03:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GenoV84 and the "Kafir Lives Matter" userbox.

    closing this down before it becomes a greater drama magnet. --Jayron32 16:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Islamophobic userbox Template:User Kafir Lives Matter was deleted at MfD here a few days ago. Since then User:GenoV84 has recreated it in three different ways. First was a simple recreation, which was speedily deleted. The second was a recreation under a slightly different name Template:User Kafir Lives, which was also speedily deleted and led to me warning him that this could be perceived as an attempt to evade scrutiny and that he should not do so again. Now he has recreated it in-line on his own User page and reinstated it when it was removed by another editor. When I asked him to remove it he replied unclearly with what I see as a meaningless evasion. I interpret this as gaming the system and WP:IDHT. He will not accept the decision to delete this box and is recreating it in whatever way thinks that he can get away with. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the userbox is entirely inappropriate (as is the 'uncircumcised/intact' one) and the repeated restoration of it is disruptive. If he does it again he gets blocked. GiantSnowman 22:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I contested the speedy deletion of the aforementioned userbox, as I already said on my Talk page, because it's neither inappropriate nor offensive but a statement of human rights activism and freedom of religion, and the same applies to the "Uncircumcised/Intact" one (there is also a "Circumcised" userbox for Wikipedians who want to use it on their user pages, but nobody has ever considered the existence of that userbox as inappropriate nor offensive). GenoV84 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Kafir Lives Matter" userbox was anything but islamophobic, in fact it was used by Wikipedians that also feature on their user pages userboxes such as "Black Lives Matter", "Reason Matters", "Empathy Matters", "Science Matters", and so on. Are they all raging islamophobes? I doubt it. GenoV84 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanielRigal: and @GiantSnowman: What strikes me the most is that you're threatening me to block me indefinitely, for what? A userbox.... Are you serious? Look at my edit count and all the edits that I made over the years, how much I contributed to this encyclopedia, I didn't sign up yesterday. GenoV84 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The community has decided this userbox shouldn't exist, largely because of its content. Re-adding it is just disruptive. — Czello 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GenoV84 The problem is that the userbox was just deleted a few days ago because there was consensus on MfD, and you want to recreate it. Like I said before, the appropriate venue is to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review to argue why the deletion was a mistake.
    As for your statement about the possibility of a block, it is important to note that admins only block users if there is currently a risk of serious, ongoing disruption. It does not matter what you did in the past, what matters is what you are doing now. And you are also misinterpreting "indefinite" as "infinite"; an indef block just means "however long as necessary to address the disruption". Given that you have made good edits to Wikipedia, I mainly see it a time sink both for you and for other editors to find loopholes that allow you to convey the same message despite there being consensus to not have that message present in any user page. Aasim (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't sign up yesterday, you are aware that this is a consensus-based project, and individual editors just do not get to give the finger to consensus and do it their way anyway. Despite what arguments you choose to fling, the community has decided that this userbox is objectionable and does not belong on Wikipedia. Whether you like the outcome or not is irrelevant. You can either seek to overturn the decision in the allowed ways to do so -- AND accept the outcome whether or not it is in your favor -- or you can be intentionally and purposefully disruptive. Intentionally and purposefully disruptive editors are routinely sanctioned. Someone with your edit count and longevity on Wikipedia should not be ignorant of these facts, or believe that you are immune to them.

    Beyond that, let's turn your argument backwards. Are we to understand that you have decided that the hill you intend to die on is ... a userbox? You're willing to court a block because you insist on having a particular userbox on your user page? Are you serious? Ravenswing 22:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look, and I don't understand how the userbox is inappropriate. All it says is that Muslims who don't believe in God are valid. Should we remove all religious userboxes? Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 23:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kafir" is being used as a dogwhistle here. It isn't expressing support for atheists in Muslim countries and societies. It's just to antagonise and marginalise Muslim minorities in "The West". (BTW, I see the minarets userbox as having the same purpose. People don't really object to minarets. They object to the people who build them.) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally voted neutral on Kafirbox but now agree it’s only going to be used for islamophobic purposes since someone who wasn’t trying to antagonize Muslims would just say “atheist”. The minaret one is also problematic but I’ll leave that to someone else. The other boxes are not unambiguously objectionable enough to bother dragging into this (even if some are… odd things to announce to complete strangers). Dronebogus (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically just GenoV84 needs to accept that community consensus was against the box so it was deleted, and rehashing that argument is a huge waste of time. Ravenswing put it best: a userbox is not a hill worth dying on, let it go. Dronebogus (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now, sadly, GenoV84 has retired, because we are collectively violating all sorts of freedoms, so, yes to Ravenswing's questions, a userbox was the hill to die on. Pity. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 09:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Erratically indented manifesto
    ::::*First of all, it looks like many of you don't know what "Kafir" stands for. In a nutshell, is this: Kafir is an arabic term frequently used in the islamic scriptures in order to refer to unbelievers, infidels, Non-Muslims and Former Muslims (people who have left islam) in both neutral and negative ways, although nowadays Muslims frequently use it as a slur directed towards people with different religious beliefs, people who refuse to convert to islam, and Former Muslims who have left islam. It has been reclaimed in recent times by Ex-Muslim organizations and individuals in the United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. with pride to express their support for human rights such as freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on, because many of these people have faced terrible consequences for leaving islam, including censorship, imprisonment, death threats, physical abuses, and psychological violence. In the same fashion, religious groups such as Quakers and Mormons where originally labelled with those names as derogatory, offensive slurs but they eventually reclaimed them as an expression of their religious, social, and cultural identity and history.
    • Now that I have clarified what the term stands for, it's clear that nobody would reasonably feel offended by it, in the same way that nobody reasonably feels offended if someone declares that "Former Christian Lives Matter", "Tibetan Buddhist Lives Matter", "Atheist Lives Matter", "Jehovah's Witnesses Lives Matter", "Mormon Lives Matter", "Jewish Lives Matter", "Zoroastrian Lives Matter", "Yazidi Lives Matter", "Shia Lives Matter", "Satanist Lives Matter", "Democrat Lives Matter", "Republican Lives Matter", "Black Lives Matter", "Freemason Lives Matter", "Pagan Lives Matter", and so on. But still, there are plenty of userboxes and user templates on Wikipedia which express exactly this kind of religious and political views, stances about social issues, support for and opposition to certain laws and legislations, as well as political ideologies and movements. Now, the best thing to do would be to simply delete all of them, because it's bound to happen that someone (an editor, an admin, a bureaucrat) gets offended and finds it offensive if user X puts a userbox on his userpage which declares "I voted for Biden" and user Y another userbox which declares "I voted for Trump". Dear community, what do we do? Do we block them all? If a user puts the userbox "I like Monarchy" on his userpage and another one, who disagrees with him and prefers democracy over monarchy, feels offended by the userbox and finds it inappropriate, do we rebuke and block the first user for refusing to remove it despite the fact that he did nothing wrong?
    1. @Theknightwho: This comment alone demonstrates that you don't even know what separation of church and state means and how important it is in a secular democracy: you are free to pratice your religion however you want, whenever you want, and whatever it is, but I'm free to never hear you screaming like a duck from a minaret 24 hours a day because we both live in a secular country; the same principle applies to church bells on Christian churches and any other religious building, no exception. The userbox in favor of the Pro-Alps Swiss ban stands exactly for that and was voted favourably by the majority of Swiss citizens, and you have to respect that decision:

    1 The regulation of the relationship between the church and the state is the responsibility of the Cantons. 2 The Confederation and the Cantons may within the scope of their powers take measures to preserve public peace between the members of different religious communities. 3 The construction of minarets is prohibited. (Adopted by the popular vote on 29 Nov. 2009, in force since 29 Nov. 2009 (FedD of 12 June 2009, FCD of 5 May 2010; AS 2010 2161; BBl 2008 6851 7603, 2009 4381, 2010 3437).)

    — Art. 72: Church and State, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (Status as of 7 March 2021)

    Do yourself a favor: the next time you're going to say something without knowing what the matter is all about, do a little research first and get educated on the topic, please.

    1. Be a prick
    2. Find a category you have no clue about
    3. Find a bunch of articles you don't give a shit about
    4. Delete everything for no reason
    5. When people complain, dismiss their comments, call them sockpuppets and trolls, and keep deleting everything
    6. Repeat

    A deletionist is a type of troll on TOW that, instead of being banned, is actually embraced with open arms. A deletionist is basically a cross between a troll and a griefer on TOW, and since TOW is suppsed to be about writing articles, it's pretty obvious what they do. Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles a day that they consider "cruft". Deletionists are lower than a common vandal, because vandals at least try to make the site more entertaining, whereas deletionists only target the entertaining content on TOW. Deletionists think that all articles on Wikipedia should be merged to one page.

    People who use Wikipedia like to write a lot of "cruft", from mentioning tours that musicians have gone on, to various characters in cartoon shows, computer games, or tabletop roleplaying games. It's what Wikipedia does. Furthermore, it's what Wikipedia does best!

    But at the same time, Wikipedia hates that it's what they do best! They want to instead be known for making legitimate, real articles. They can never do this right, however, and end up with totally inaccurate articles where they can't even get the dates right. Go figure.... GenoV84 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, you are free to practise your religion however you want, whenever you want, and whatever it is, but we’re free to never hear you using divisive dog-whistles that go against community standards. My issue was your hypocrisy that reveals that you are commenting in bad faith.
    Your comments about deletionism are irrelevant. This is a user box, not an article. Theknightwho (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented to explain what the matter of this discussion is all about and how it has been manipulated in order to portray me as someone who doesn't follow the rules and disregards the opinions and feelings of other users, despite the fact that every other user which I worked with knows that I never insulted them or treated them badly because they may have different religious beliefs or political views. Just ask them: Warshy, Tgeorgescu, Debresser, Editor2020, ParthikS8, etc. GenoV84 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could address the stated reasons, rather than wildly speculating, that would be great. Theknightwho (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I did. Can you read? GenoV84 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see any response to the point that it was disruptive editing or gaming the system, which were the primary issues. Theknightwho (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To address some of the points made by GenoV84:
    1. Yes I do know what "Kafir" means in Arabic. The concern here is that with that userbox that was deleted, "kafir" is being used as a dogwhistle as @DanielRigal has said. In other words, it is being used as a euphemism to justify discrimination against a protected group. This is basically saying "Non-Muslim lives matter but Muslim lives don't." which is a personal attack. This is very different from the social meaning of "Black lives matter", which is saying that "Blacks are being oppressed, therefore we should make them more equal". The opposite of that "White lives matter" can be taken as a personal attack or racist, as "white lives matter" basically enforces white privilege in western countries.
    2. My comment was specifically about that you need to move on from this controversy and make productive edits to Wikipedia. As angry as you might be, restating arguments that you have made is not entirely productive both for you and for other editors. I am basically saying that if you are unable to move on, I am afraid that a community ban (at the minimum from your userpage) may be warranted.
    3. You are welcome to have your views, but if they are particularly offensive or potentially a personal attack to the Wikipedia community, you should keep them to yourself. As much as you (and I) support freedom of speech, you should take a note at xkcd: Free Speech. It basically means if you get banned from a community, it is because the community does not want to listen. Just as I don't share my views on politics as they can be very divisive for Wikipedia, you shouldn't either. Unless if there is an issue with human rights, I keep it off of my user and talk page.
    4. Lastly, you should take a good read at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. It basically says if you exploit a loophole in process or policy to achieve the same goal, it is disruptive.
    In any case, I hope you do stick around to make useful contributions, if and when you do. Aasim (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GenoV84: why do you insist on dragging this out. It’s a freaking userbox. This has nothing to do with deletionism or article quality or separation of church and state or “screaming like a duck from a minaret”. It was a small rectangle on a userpage that the community decided was most likely intended to be disruptive, which was determined in a fair and civil debate if you disagreed you should’ve participated in the first place, and if you still disagree you can take it to deletion review. As Kephir put it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Broter/Ban on Muslim immigration, “[Wikipedia is not censored] applies to articles, and it merely states that avoiding cultural offence is a goal subservient to completeness of coverage. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a blanket licence to put literally anything into Wikipedia.”

    This is a completely trivial issue. Dronebogus (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear @Dronebogus: I do not insist to drag this debate, I explained what this discussion was all about because there are some people that refuse to understand and promptly accused me of hypocrisy and bad faith, despite the fact I explained my point of view too well. Certainly, if I knew that the userbox was nominated for deletion I would have participated in its discussion but nobody notified it to me. GenoV84 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your hypocrisy and bad faith remain:
    1. You patently knew of the deletion of the userbox, because you recreated it in-line on your own userpage. The fact that you recreated it more than once puts rest to any doubt that you knew that this was a contentious issue.
    2. For all of your patronising about the Swiss minaret ban, you missed my point: you cannot call the removal of your own ability to broadcast your religious views a breach of your human rights, while supporting removing that of someone else. It reveals that your intent was always to be anti-Muslim, and not to support freedom of religion.
    Theknightwho (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should take a look at my contributions and see how many articles related to islam I contributed to and see where the "anti-Muslim attitude" stands. Go on. GenoV84 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about screaming like a duck from a minaret 24 hours a day? You still haven't explained why you thought the right course of action was to game the system. Theknightwho (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't even know what a minaret is? Anyway.... As Dronebogus said, I should have taken my complaint to Wikipedia:Deletion review but I didn't. That's entirely my fault, I agree on that. GenoV84 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If your point is that the call to prayer intrinsically sounds like someone screaming like a duck from a minaret 24 hours a day, then that isn't helping your case that you aren't anti-Muslim. Combined with your clear intent to deceive by creating the userbox in-line on your userpage in order to avoid scrutiny, and your repeated insults to users on this page, it really doesn't look good. Theknightwho (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends. Some people may find it amusing, some others may feel offended by it. The same also applies to church bells in secular countries. Am I also anti-Christian for being supportive of secular values, according to you? As I said to Dronebogus, I do not insist to drag this debate because it's futile and I simply expressed my opinion, so why do you keep trying to do that? GenoV84 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to equate being insulting and derogatory with "being supportive of secular values", then you are simply being dishonest. I would support a topic ban on Islam, at the very least. It is clear that you are not willing to address the concerns that people have raised in a sensible fashion. Theknightwho (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't equate separation of church and state with being offensive and derogatory, as I didn't insult anyone for being Christian, Atheist, Muslim, etc. it was just a comparison, because different people may feel and react differently about the same phenomenon, and they may feel pleased or offended by it, especially when it comes to different religious groups and their traditions. That's why secularism exists, to avoid this kind of divisive and unproductive conflicts. GenoV84 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that you insulted a particular person for being Muslim. I said that you equated being insulting and derogatory with "being supportive of secular values", which you did, by implying that I must also feel that supporting secular values is anti-Christian. It's nonsense. Theknightwho (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Theknightwho, I just said that it was a comparison and I didn't mean to offend or insult anyone. I worked together with other Muslim Wikipedians in the past and I never insulted them, they never insulted me, and everybody got along peacefully. Also, someone in this discussion insulted me by calling me "a chump" but nobody contested or complained about that, which is a very inappropriate, ignorant, and uncivil behavior towards other users, not even you. Why? GenoV84 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravenswing: The next time remember to avoid being a moron by posting insults and offensive comments towards other users, that truly would be a positive win for the encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tells people not to insult them

    Immediately uses a worse insult. Dronebogus (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But I didn't get any notification of its nomination, in fact I didn't realize that it had been deleted until I checked my userpage. GenoV84 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I’m afraid you were simply too late and while I’m sorry for you that’s nobody’s fault. In that case you should’ve taken it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. However, as you said this is a completely trivial issue and there's no point to go further, I just wanted to express my opinion about it. GenoV84 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GenoV84, if you actually wanted to be done with this, you’d just walk away instead of arguing every little point. What you are doing is hypocritical WP:BLUDGEONING. Dronebogus (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it's been a few hours I'm not sure if I should reply especially since my comment is a bit ironic but it seems to me this is one of the cases where the best solution is simply for others to stop replying. The correct way to appeal the deletion has been made clear to GenoV84 and this has included the message that continuing their disruptive behaviour of ignoring the MfD results will lead to blocks. I think it's also sufficiently clear that this also applies to complaining about the deletion or related matters in inappropriate places, so if they open inappropriate threads elsewhere, this can be dealt with. If they make one or two pointless comments on this thread, unless they say stuff sufficient to warrant a block, just ignore them. If they keep posting to this thread when no one else is, I'm sure someone will deal with them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's safe to say that the editors who felt the "retirement" was in bad faith were justified in their views, and just as safe to say that this guy doesn't have any intention of dropping the stick. Ravenswing 11:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Nil Einne's observations and find that the repeated provocation and arguments with GenoV84 is equally as disruptive as the original act which kicked off this thread, if not more so at this point. The point, I think, about recreating a deleted userbox has been well-established and there is no benefit to arguing ideology, particularly since it seems that the viewpoints are so divergent as to be irreconcilable. I urge everyone to observe WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND which applies to Wiki-space as much as it applies to mainspace. Cooler heads should prevail and perhaps a prudent admin should close this thread so as not to engender any further bickering.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Kwamikagami, instigated by Libhye

    This individual Kwamikagami, at the instigation of Libhye, is insistent on inserting pronunciation guides in multiple articles which feature Latin names, while refusing to properly engage with at least 3 disagreeing editors and to establish a consensus, in complete disregard of WP:BRD. This is a dispute that has taken place sporadically over a couple months but has gained traction just now in December.

    To give some context, this all started back in February this year when Libhye tried inserting pronunciations in two very specific articles, Romulus (1st diff) and Manlia gens (1st diff). This was rejected and reverted by P Aculeius. Libhye then, after trying again and being reverted multiple times, (?)invited (20–21 March) a bunch of supposedly interested editors (Florian Blaschke, Kwamikagami, Erutuon, Mahagaja, Xyzzyva), of which a single one, Kwamikagami, answered the call (another had the better sense of reminding him that talk pages exist). From then on it was this Kwamikagami who took over the struggle. I got involved at the same time, as I agreed with Aculeius's reasoning. At first it wasn't a big deal: I reverted Kwamikagami once or twice in each page, he replied with edit summaries saying "duh" and "rv quasi-vandalism", but the affair died quickly after, in March still, without devolving into an edit war. A talk page discussion was started (here) for good measure some 6 months later, in September, after the affair threatened to resurface, but nothing came of it at that moment, and only the opposing party (myself and P Aculeius) initially participated in the discussion.

    Things got interesting now in December, when the "semi-retired" Kwamikagami really decided (again at the subtle encouragement of Libhye) to get his way at all costs or die trying. He called one opponent an "idiot" and "ignorant edit-warrior" (all in edit summaries), and, after finally discovering that a talk page discussion had already taken place, went there to opine that the opposing arguments were "stupid" and "stupid insistence on ignorance". He then proceeded to edit some 15 other articles, despite the fact that a discussion was still ongoing in the talk page and no consensus was in sight. He continues, as of today ("rv censorship"), to impose his own version despite that he does not even have a majority agreeing with him on the talk page, and that guidelines and policies have been brought up against his edits.

    In short, can someone with authority tell those two to stop? I don't care about the insults personally, but it becomes pointless for the rest of us to use talk pages while the opposing party, with impunity, ignores us, ignores our opinions, and pushes through with his preferred way without consultation or consensus. Kwamikagami has stated that he will be "stubborn" whatever happens, which I take to mean his mind is already made up. Avilich (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This dispute is truly bizarre. We're supposedly not allowed to have Latin pronunciations of Latin names on WP, because they're "obvious" (even though the editors themselves can't predict them), or per DICT, and also that the modern standard orthography for Latin shouldn't be used because it's "confusing". I don't think I've ever come across someone who would edit-war over providing basic information like this. DICT is normally an argument for words which someone can readily look up in a dictionary, which isn't the case here. With a bit of high-school Latin, I wasn't able to predict the English or Latin pronunciation of Manlia when written in defective orthography, so I'd assume that readers without any Latin would stumped as well. I don't care if we use IPA-la or the full (non-defective) Latin orthography, if it's in the lead, a fn or an external link, but there should be some way a reader can tell how to pronounce the topic of the article. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't seem to be any consensus at Talk:Manlia gens, so following dispute resolution for the content issue would seem to be the way to go. If there has been any edit-warring then of course there shouldn't have been. One thing that I certainly have noticed is that there is at least one editor (and it's not kwami) who has shown ownership behaviour in our articles about Ancient Rome, and that needs to stop. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's particularly productive to accuse people of "ownership behaviour", because 1) what constitutes "ownership" is inherently subjective; 2) it's hardly realistic to expect that editors who've authored or made significant contributions to articles to recuse themselves from content disputes involving those articles, as though the more involved an editor is with an article, the less weight should be accorded to that editor's opinion; and 3) "ownership" isn't a bludgeon that can be used to resolve content disputes without addressing the underlying issues. Vaguely worded threats ("it needs to stop") are even less helpful—just because you don't "name names" doesn't make it any less adversarial.
    This isn't the forum for reaching the issue on the merits; that's back at the talk page of the article where the content dispute is taking place. Since that argument has been carried over here, I think I would be justified in replying that since the subject of the dispute is a name, not a random word or phrase, the question should be how to pronounce it in English, not how we would pronounce it if we were speaking Latin—as though that question had a single, indisputable answer. There really is only one natural way for the name to be pronounced in English, since in English the stress naturally occurs on the first syllable (in this instance, the stress in Latin would also be on the first syllable), and the first 'a' has to be short in English because the 'n' isn't followed by 'e' or 'i'.
    But all that is a digression. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, because this is a request for admin intervention due to disruptive editing. And I don't think that a content dispute rises to the level where that's justified. I happen to agree with Avilich to the extent that I find some of the other editors' responses to be uncivil and inflexible—for instance refusing to engage in any discussion until multiple reversions had taken place, and continuing to revert all changes without first having achieved any sort of consensus, while using edit summaries to impugn other editors' intelligence or motives—but the only thing for an admin to do here might be to remind the editors that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, which means trying to find a path toward consensus. Accusing other editors of "vandalism" or "censorship" in a content dispute doesn't even make a pretense of collaboration. I've tried to abandon the field multiple times in this discussion, simply because I could see no other path forward, but I think that Avilich has made some valid points, and that he shouldn't be threatened for arguing one position, when the other side is just as inflexible, and even less civil. P Aculeius (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty of consensus for the existence and usage of {{IPA-la}}, and the idea that standard scholarly transcription of Latin is somehow inappropriate on WP is just weird. You want to delete the pronunciation guide, fine: get consensus that such is inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the existence of the template nor the fact that it's used on Wikipedia has ever been in dispute. But it's not a pronunciation guide; it's a transcription of an unmodified Latin name into... Latin. If there were any significant difference, there might be some justification for a transcription, as in the case of Mark Antony vs. Marcus Antonius. But as one of the editors in the article's talk page noted, the transcription would be a pleonasm without any conceivable justification, were it not for the fact that you added a macron over the 'a'. And as several editors have pointed out, written Latin does not use macrons; the sole justification for keeping the template is an inauthentic mark added to indicate pronunciation, incongruously placed in a transcription rather than a pronunciation guide. And as the same editors have pointed out, the meaning of the macron isn't immediately obvious, because the article is intended for English speakers; not for people wishing to speak Latin with authentic Latin pronunciation. Macrons produce a different sound in English pronunciation guides than in Latin, but by adding the macron using a transcription template for Latin, a potential and unnecessary source of confusion is created, with no significant benefit to the reader. You insist that there must be consensus before your additions to this and the other articles can be deleted, but you don't seem concerned that you added them without achieving any similar consensus. There are many instances of foreign words and phrases that could not be reasonably spoken or pronounced by English speakers without pronunciation guides or transcriptions. But with relatively few exceptions, Roman names aren't among them. P Aculeius (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find some of the other editors' responses to be uncivil and inflexible—for instance refusing to engage in any discussion until multiple reversions had taken place, and continuing to revert all changes without first having achieved any sort of consensus, while using edit summaries to impugn other editors' intelligence or motives—but the only thing for an admin to do here might be to remind the editors that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, which means trying to find a path toward consensus. I haven't had a lot of interactions with kwami but the last one had precisely the same antagonistic behavior you describe here. And I note that their response to you don't acknowledge it. I would strongly support some sort of administrative admonition that makes it clear that this uncollegial approach is not acceptable. --JBL (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shylock13 racism/vandalism

    Reported editor blocked.

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

    User:Shylock13 appears to be an account created for the sole purpose of vandalizing Jewish-American organized crime and its talk page. In addition to the racist rants being posted, the name itself is likely a reference to Shakespeare's antagonist Shylock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headphase (talk • contribs)

    Blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shakespeare's antagonist Shylock tee-hee. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Those are really nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories. Should the first two edits be RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaundryPizza03:  Done, thank you -- TNT (talk • she/they) 04:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can confirm - the... uhh... editorial comments... have been redacted. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Trembolomano and hijacking

    Hi all, This vandalism goes above and beyond the usual type and is proving extremely difficult to revert. I'll try to explain what has happened but apologies if this is difficult to follow. Misho Amoli was deleted at AfD and is now salted. This user, in an attempt to circumvent this, has now hijacked Misho and moved the location to Misho Amoli (YouTuber). The problem is that Misho was about a different person and this new article on Amoli still contains the history of that other article. I have requested WP:G4 but realise that this might delete the good history prior to the hijacking. The history for the real Misho is now split between Misho Amoli (YouTuber) and Misho (rapper). This is not a one-off incident either. This same user has also hijacked Hyped and moved the page to Hyped España - this was swiftly taken to AfD, which Trembolomano did their best to disrupt by removing the tag, blanking the discussion page and removing it from all logs and sorting cats, which I have just spent some time trying to restore. Please can an admin look into the above? Thanks. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the G4 tag, as (as you say) the history needs to be retained and so speedy deletion is not appropriate. Someone needs to move it back and remove the hijack content (and maybe merge history, and sort out the disambig page) - but definitely not just delete. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this ANI post, user is continuing to disrupt. See [78]. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the hijacking, but I cannot move Misho Amoli (YouTuber) back to Misho. Can an admin help? MarioGom (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks all. Please could an admin do a hist merge of Misho (rapper) and Misho? That should restore things for good. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any agreement on the name the article should be under?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, it should all go back to Misho. A link can then be added at that destination to Misho (disambiguation), which covers Mishō, Ehime and Big Sha. Happy to stand corrected, though, but that seems to be what was there before the hijacking and disruptive move. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Novikoff and a strange way of edit-warring

    Mike Novikoff performed today a third revert with this edit summary. First, it contains my real name, which I do not really appreciate. Second, if I get the point, he thinks that because I blocked him on Wikidata for a day for personal attacks, it is ok to revert here my edits without going to the talk page. Could an admin intervene please. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand correctly another part of the edit summary, he thinks that I resigned somewhere (where?) under a cloud, which is factually incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, but: the edit summary was indistinguishable from trolling (and conceivably should be rev-delled). I have no idea what the MOS has to say about this (and don't really care to know), and the coat of arms is pretty. So I have reverted. --JBL (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Me neither, but I see that the US states have seals. If I can parse the edit summaries, the user says they would remove these seals as well but do not have sufficient userrights as the templates are protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have no idea what the MOS has to say about this (and don't really care to know), and the coat of arms is pretty", "Me neither, but I see that the US states have seals" – Sorry, but this "I don't care about the MoS" attitude appears to be highly unconstructive, it's next to "I don't care about any written rules", and it's the last thing one would expect from an admin. WP:DECOR (a part of MoS) says it clearly: "Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function."; and WP:OTHERCONTENT is a well-known invalid argument.
    I've been removing such decorative icons for years, I've already removed hundreds of them, all in accordance with MoS, and now I stumble upon a really weird counteraction that effectively forces us to discuss whether the MoS is important and whether it should be implemented. — Mike Novikoff 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now just imagine if you had written a mature, well-formulated paragraph on the talk page instead of reverting with an inscrutable, trollish edit summary! --JBL (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And the fact that the US templates have had seals for years means that the interpretation of the policy by Mike Novikoff is - well, not necessarily wrong, but at least debatable. And this is a consistent pattern in their behavior, for which they have been blocked indef on the Russian Wikipedia (not by me, for the record).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop making ungrounded accusations. The reasons why I've been blocked in ruwiki have nothing to do with any encyclopedic content, and ruwiki has nothing to do with English Wikipedia.
    I believe we do have some guidelines that apply directly, and requiring to discuss them again and again is counter-productive. And anyway, for {{Moscow Oblast}}, you still haven't presented any argument besides WP:OTHERCONTENT. — Mike Novikoff 09:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a venue to discuss content. This is a thread to discuss your behavior, and I think there is already enough material for an uninvolved administrator to take decisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Has nothing to do with the present case given that in Russian Wikipedia there is no justice and many "corrupt" administrators impose sanctions arbitrarily. There are a lot of abuses. One can even find some cases on Meta (RfCs: [one][two]) raised by victims. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    May I please suggest to do your homework properly next time? Russian Wikipedia can be a department of Hell, and every single administrator can be specifically paid by Putin, Xi, and Trump to ban users they do not like, but your first link accuses a user who is not an administrator and have never been one in overstepping admin privileges, and the second one is not about the Russian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first case cites some administrator threats to block a user globally (in russian). In the second (I fixed the link) the user appeals block because it's obvious that he can't appeal it on his own wikipedia. I provided two cases only for a glimpse. I ain't going to elaborate on it further. I will just state that it's very easy to get banned on Russian wikipedia for nothing. You may not invoke blocks elsewhere carelessly to build up a case against someone. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, in the first case the user is not administrator, and in the second case the filer is an LTA. It is not very easy to get indefinitely blocked from Russian Wikipedia, and it is impossible to get banned there because the concept of a ban does not exist, but if you look specifically at Mike Novikoff's block log you will easily see that they really make an effort to get indefinitely blocked, for personal attacks and trolling. This is more or less the behavior they demonstrate now on the English Wikipedia. I see also that you have been indefinitely blocked there as well, by four different administrators, for personal attacks, which puts your activity in this thread in an appropriate context.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    … you will easily see… It's hard (if not impossible) to verify justification of the blocks. The rest has little to do with the current case either. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, completely independently, POV pushing in a Russian-Ukrainian article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a gnoming, a tidy. If you care to check, it starts with removing two non-existent parameters – |pushpin_map1= and |pushpin_map_caption1= – from {{Infobox settlement}}, which both produce warnings in an edit preview. Then it deals with WP:OVERLINKING and WP:RUSTRESS, and with some excessive wordiness by the way. Then it does some formatting and cleanup to a <gallery> tag. And then you revert my edit altogether, call it "POV pushing" and bring it to ANI. Very nice. — Mike Novikoff 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article before your edit stated that it is a disputed territory between Ukraine and Russia, in quite some delail (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a Ukrinian division, whereas the Republic of Crimea is a Russian division), After your edit, it stated, in Wikipedia voice, that it is in the Republic of Crimea in Russia. This is not gnoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that this is definitely not mere gnoming and the edit summary "tidy" is quite misleading. Citobun (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of WP:POVPUSHing require more elaborate evidence. Where the Crimea belongs to is clearly irrelevant to the town of Gurzuf. On the other side, suggestions like AfD:Putin khuilo are more questinable given extensive socketpuppetry involved. (The AfD was opened by nom somehow). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I understand you correctly that because I have seven years ago AfDed an article which eventually was kept it is ok for another user to go to a DS article, make an edit which changes the attribution of the dispute territory, and then to come here to insist is was wiki-gnoming?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not implying anything here and I ain't gonna elaborate on that. Just drop the stick. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To drop the stick is not supposed to describe the situation when user A commits clear violations of the Wikipedia policy, user B points this out, user A reacts defensively, and nobody else says this was not a policy violation. And if you are not going to elaborate on what you are saying just means what you are saying is worth of nothing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's irrelevant to the town of Gurzuf where the Crimea belongs, and that's exactly what I've meant by removing some excessive wordiness by the way. But. Even if. You think it should be kept. To which I don't even oppose. Have you ever heard of partial reversions (WP:REVONLY)? It seems rather odd that I (just a rollbacker) know it and Ymblanter (an admin) doesn't. How about restoring at least the non-controversial parts of my edit? — Mike Novikoff 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean it is not relevant for Gurzuf which country and which administrative division it belongs to? Go on, make your changes, you are not blocked yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet? Well, done. — Mike Novikoff 19:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the edit summary eliminating the identifying info. — Maile (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose any sanctions even though it's appropriate per WP:PRIVACY to revdel it. In defense of Mike Novikoff I would like to say that the nom is well-known figure on the Russian speaking internet. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTING It doesn't matter what happens elsewhere. Posting personal information is a form of harassment on Wikipedia, and is to be removed immediately. — Maile (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with removal. Feel free to supress some of my edits too if necessary. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given this, anybody wants to block? Or should I wait until the next time? the user clearly thinks Wikipedia is a battleground and MMORPG, and they do not seem to be interested in policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh my. I guess it's contrariwise. Just look: should I wait until the next time? Should he wait? The next time? they do not seem to be interested in policies – especially in MoS. ;-)) Ymblanter, are you crazy? Have you even got the reason you want me blocked, or just so? ;-))) To block a user with almost 10 years of good standing. For an unspecified reason. ;-))) — Mike Novikoff 23:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and reverting by user (3RR)

    I did improvements on the Horn of Africa article, mainly since its was incorrectly structured for a geographical region (template), it looked more like a country article rather then usual Geo article template. I addressed the issues in the talk page. However user M.Bitton reverted my changes [79] and asked me to motivate them, which I did. After that user did three reverts [80], [81], [82] going against NPOV insisting that the “Horn of Africa Region” is also called “Somali Peninsula” which is incorrect. There is clear distinction of the two which has been explained to user. The geographical region “Horn of Africa” consisting of four countries, stretching far beyond the peninsula. The “Somali peninsula” lies within the Horn of Africa region and is the landmass stretching out of the Somalia coast. User persists reverting and adding this same thing to the article. By doing the three latest changes user has also broken three revert rule. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Leechjoel9: whenever you post about someone at ANI, you need to notify them at their user talk page. I've done so already for M.Bitton. Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so correctly two times, user keeps deleting my ANI notifications (two times) and edit warring warnings (two times). See diffs [83],[84] and the warning [85],[86]
    I am sorry. I should have looked at the user talk history. It's ok for M.Bitton to remove those notices per WP:BLANKING. Firefangledfeathers 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the content itself, but it's clear from a review of the history that M.Bitton has not broken 3RR. They are right at the limit. The "Somali peninsula" descriptor, right or wrong, has been present in the article for a long time. Per WP:BRD, Leechjoel9 should really be avoiding reverts and working to build consensus at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers 17:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Leechjoel9" forgot to mention that: 1) having failed to remove the "horn of Africa" mention from the Eritrea article (they even disrupted the RfC and tried to reopen it after it was closed), they turned their attention to the "horn of Africa" article that they butchered. 2) I restored the names section that they removed simply because they didn't like it. 3) ANI is not for content disputes and like I said, the fact that the Horn of Africa is also known as the Somali Peninsula is something that can easily be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is entitled to blanking but it’s not a good Wikipedia behaviour. A practise that seems to be common by the user. User should be able to take critisism and warning without deleting them from their talk pages, especially active ANI comments. Regarding the conflict, the user is misinterpreting the source and implying that they are the same when they actually are not, which is breaching the WP:NPOV and pushing for a view that is not true. These two are not equivalent to each other. It has possibly remained so in past wrongfully since somebody has pushed for this view or that users have not picked it up. However as I can see in the talk history many have objected or questioned to also use term “Somali Peninsula” since its not the same as” the “Horn of Africa Region”. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Everyone is entitled to blanking but it’s not a good Wikipedia behaviour." I'm rather surprised to hear you say this, given this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Plastering a user's talk page with the same warning over and over again is disruptive and has nothing to do with criticism. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: Leechjoel9 has just broken the 3R rule. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect, that last issue of yesterda has nothing to do with this issue so stop trying to portray it as such. I asked for references that support your claim, until you find such pleas stop pushing your view which is against WP:NPOV. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Leechjoel9, you have indeed broken 3RR, which applies "whether involving the same or different material". A self-reversion here would be a wise move. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leechjoel9: Stop editing my comments! M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has intentionally modified you comments. Please stick to the issue.Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentionally or otherwise, you have a habit of editing comments, including your own after someone has replied to them. I'll let the admin deal with the "issues". M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree but I have sorted it out to avoid any misunderstandings. The view that’s it’s incorrect still stands and I’ll re-add if no legitimate reason to not remove it appears. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at Leechjoel9's talk page, and it seems he has a history of edit warring and he has been sent to ANI twice before. WP:BOOMERANG? Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have an edit warring history. Rather there have been disputes (related to one article, same topic) were a user randomly created ANIs to prevent users from editing some articles on here (especially Horn of Africa related articles). If you look at those ANIs they have been based on disputes of content and not been about edit warrings, and issues have been controversial (like this one) where users have been trying to push views against WP:NPOV. None of the issues have been regarding misconduct. The issues have also been resorted within those ANIs and in the disputed articles. A thing that would be good to also look into is also all the blanked:removed ANIs or warning of M.Bitton, didn’t took to long to find another removed ANI [87] Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not how I would characterise this ANI thread per Drmies closing. I don’t think you come out well there. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it would be good to also look to why that ANI was created in the first place and not only the summary. Of course the admin needs to look at all issues brought up by filing party and respond to those claims, so of course the summary will also include the acclaimed edit warring. The acclaimed edit warring in that case was ONE revert. The rest of that case was purely about topic content, please feel free to read it. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I’ve read it and Drmies correctly summarises thus: “User:Leechjoel9 acted improperly in removing the name from Asmara, inventing a reason for removal that doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they said they'd stop doing that, and not a moment too soon: that politically motivated removal could have led to a block or a topic ban. The example does show a propensity for battleground behavior, and if that picks up again measures might have to be taken”. Down playing rather than owning that accurate conclusion doesn’t help you. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then explain this (from your TP archives):
    You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eritrea. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
    Points to note:
    1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
    2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
    If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    == Eritrea edit warring ==
    You were notified about the applicable discretionary sanctions on 28 January 2021. These edits show unacceptable edit warring:
    Warning: You will be topic banned if further disruption occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now your mixing up incidents, the ANI had nothing to do with the incident you brought up above, the ani was about population estimates, this one above was about lead sentence of an article. So your conclusion is citing the exact same summary. For matter of facts, the user M.Bitton Was involved in that exact same dispute above and reverted several edits of mine and making disruptive edits in that exact same talk page, where I initiated and created an RFC. The other user was edit warring and I restored the version (status quo of one year+). I was the one reporting the user making the edits, and I also resolved the issue by creating an RFC which resulted in consensus. I also warned M.Bitton in the past for that incident, however as you can see the users also removed that warning. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you insist on making up stuff, I will ping Drmies and see what they think. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: "Leechjoel9" has a habit of changing their comments after other editors have replied to them, so don't surprised if some of the replies don't make much sense. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not insisted in making up stuff, majority of that ANI was about content dispute, even though it brought up one issue explicitly referring at edit warring. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that’s just not true. I’m going to repeat once again from Drmies’ closing: "User:Leechjoel9 acted improperly in removing the name from Asmara, inventing a reason for removal that doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they said they'd stop doing that, and not a moment too soon: that politically motivated removal could have led to a block or a topic ban. The example does show a propensity for battleground behavior, and if that picks up again measures might have to be taken" DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Leechjoel9 seems to be reading-comprehension impaired[Joke], I have highlighted parts of the quote for clarity. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 22:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read it more than once. I responded accordingly in that ANI as ive done here.Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @JulieMinkai: can you please not? Also, if you quote, quote and link, don't just copy like that. It's confusing. Thanks. El_C 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything's happening all at once! Struck as I was writing the above. Funny. Drmies, I'm trying to ween myself off of the more custom'y sanctions lately, but I could see supporting such a proposal. I guess it would depend on Leechjoel9's un/productivity (of which I know little). In the case of productivity, I could see a 1RR restriction as being useful in that unlike a TBAN, they'd still be able to contribute to the topic area. El_C 23:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Leechjoel9 AE/3RR block

    I've AE blocked (logged) Leechjoel9 for 2 weeks, per WP:HORN, for violating WP:3RR on the... Horn of Africa page itself. As I noted on their talk page (here), continuing with this kind of behaviour once the block expires is almost certain to lead to a WP:TBAN of an undetermined duration. El_C 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is definitely going in the ANI Hall of Fame. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JulieMinkai, please! Only I may spam ANI with nonsense. El_C 23:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only you and EEng, it seems. Please don't open another ANI thread about me Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 00:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I taught him everything he knows. EEng 06:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Save it for your therapist, buddy! El_C 10:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoonadue's vandalism

    Yoonadue has persistently removed sourced content from pages, despite being warned - which wasn't even necessary considering they've been here for 7 years, and have already been warned not to edit war before that. This isn't even edit warring, it's just constantly replacing sourced content with junk, which is considered vandalism. (WP:DE)

    Cipher21 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not vandalism, and you're not likely to get very far if you mischaracterize it as such. This is a normal editing dispute; each of you believes you yourself are correct, and neither person is acting in bad faith, though you are BOTH on the brink of edit warring. Instead of seeking sanctions, you need to seek dispute resolution. Also, as the locus of the dispute is the India-Pakistan conflict area, Arbitration sanctions may apply, so please tread lightly. --Jayron32 19:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not adding my own content, I'm replacing blatant original research with what the cited source(s) - which have been there long before the "dispute" - say. In this diff, the cited source states Amritsar was cratered and B-57s/F-104s/Whatever were used, while the WP:OR completely contradicts the inline citation, for example by stating Ambala was cratered. On top of that, undisputed sourced content, such as the type of aircraft used, is ALSO being removed with no justification. The edit summary deceptively claims all of this was "not supported by sources." These are WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which is why I have brought this to ANI. Cipher21 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cipher21 is largely an WP:SPA who ends up being WP:1AM in most of their disputes. This isn't the first instance where Cipher21 is engaging in this unsavoury misrepresentation of other people's edits or sources, and a case of pot calling the kettle black. Consider the page in question Talk:Operation Chengiz Khan#Ineffectual strikes where they mischaracterize paraphrasing as original research and their 6 reverts as "constructive edits" this where they mischaracterize their reverts as "Wp:bold" edits.[88] Then this is another instance where they return weeks after they had been reverted and were again rehashing the same edit summary, presumably in pious hopes that this won't get noticed a second time.

    Operation Chengiz Khan where they have edit warred for weeks against multiple senior editors without heeding to the repeated pointers to use talk page, and about which they warned by MBlaze, for having made 1, 2, 3, but simply sat out weeks to return again to resume their edit warring, without talk page participation, 4, 5, and 6. As attested to by this discussion, their only talk page participation was after MBlaze called them out on their "outrageous" edit warring.[89]

    This comes on the heels of thier disruption on another ARBIPA page and exercise at getting around a talk page discussion [90] having been reverted for misrepresentating sources a second time on the same page after You are risking sanctions by deliberately misrepresenting sources.
    My edits are obviously not 'vandalism' but Cipher21's mischaracterization of my edits as 'vandalism' speaks of their own WP:COMPETENCE. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cipher21 cites this as one of their "examples" to paint a misleading picture of how Yoonadue is indulging in "vandalism" by "Removal of sourced content", but this is quite in bad taste, and is in fact yet another instance illustrating their disposition to mislead other editors and being economical with the truth. Yoonadue's edit at 17:12, 12 December 2021 removed a newly added reference (vide the preceding edit) whose reliability was impugned on the talk page by Kautilya3, Yoonadue, and I (as this version from 17:15, the same day, unequivocally attests too, and stemmed from the same talk page discourse, and they noted in their edit summary Opinions diverge about the reliability or lack thereof of this source as is attested to by talk page discussion. The issue has since then been raised at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#India:_A_Country_Study,_Federal_Research_Division,_Library_of_Congress, which has elicited views in favour of Yoonadue's position. Cipher21's mischaracterization of this unambiguous content dispute in which they happen to be a participant as manifesting "Yoonadue's vandalism" on this august administrator's noticeboard is worthy of being deprecated, and their conduct on ARBIPA pages be scrutinized as "source misrepresentation" and "POV editing" seems to be a popular complaint against their edits, something they manifest here itself. Kerberous (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am usually reluctant to bring content disputes to ANI, but considering the sheer absurdity of Yoonadue and Kerbous's accusations:

    • The source states,

      The runways at Amritsar were cratered, and a radar station was detroyed, but most of the other airfields suffered only minor damage.

      [1]
    • The original research being continuously restored claims No material damage to most of the IAF airfields, with only the runways at Ambala getting cratered.

    Another example of the WP:OR being restored is the line,

    • A large-scale offensive was therefore doomed to fail, likely to cause heavy losses and bring the PAF in a position where it could never seriously challenge IAF operations
    Which is, predictably, nowhere to be found in the cited source.[2]

    WP:EW does not forbid restoring sourced content when an edit warrior keeps replacing it with nonsense - this is the definition of WP:VANDALISM.

    On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948, while there is some minority support for Yoonadue's stance - to remove a neutral source - there is surely no consensus, as Kerberous falsely claims. The RSN discussion on the neutral source has no consensus for Yoonadue's stance either. If anything, it's gaining support for the source's inclusion. Cinderella157, GreenC, SpicyBiryani, and Truthwins018 are among those in favour of keeping the source.

    Calling a single well-sourced edit "disruption" shows how Kerberous is more interested in POV-pushingthan collaborating with others in building an encyclopedia. Unlike Yoonadue, I did not persistently restore my edits, and have taken this dispute to the talk page - WP:BRD. Yet, they falsely claim I am misrepresenting sources by cherrypicking an old diff of the talk page discussion, where they themselves are wrongly accusing me of misrepresenting sources (insert Obama giving Obama a medal). Here is the current diff. The discussion has grown vastly since then. See WP:SMEAR.

    Keberous's second example of alleged misrepresentation of sources is Yoonadue removing numbers directly quoted from NYT and BBC.

    In the diffs provided, I do not see any false characterisation of edits as bold. That's literally what they are. In the cited diff, did I resort to revert warring as Yoonadue did? No, I did not.

    Yoonadue is citing WP:1AM, which if anything supports me in reverting content which directly contradicts Wikipedia's policy of WP:OR. I will naturally edit in topic areas I am interested in, and am entitled to do so. Yoonadue's 500 most recent edits are mainly in India/Pakistan topics. Does that make them an SPA? They have already resorted to invoking personal attacks by calling me incompetent and claiming I'm some SPA with hidden malicious intent.

    Yoonadue and Kerberous's accusations quite plainly show they are projecting their own behaviour of POV-pushing and misrepresenting sources on others. Their casting of WP:ASPERSIONS indicates how little merit their allegations have. Cipher21 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cipher21: this is the definition of WP:VANDALISM You should actually read this link. --JBL (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Nordeen, Lon O. Air Warfare in the Missile Age (illustrated, reprint ed.). Smithsonian Institution. p. 78. ISBN 9781588342829.
    2. ^ "India and Pakistan: Over the Edge". TIMES magazine. 1971-12-13. Archived from the original on October 11, 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-04.

    Cipher21 logged warning

    Cipher21, I'm gonna put this plainly for you: stop weaponizing noticeboards to win content disputes. Stop repeatedly calling good faith edits "vandalism." You've been exhibiting too much WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR deficiencies in the topic area. It's turning into a timesink, so an WP:ARBIPA WP:TBAN is likely to follow if this behaviour repeats. Use WP:DR/WP:DRR better, please. I will log this warning for the record. Thank you. El_C 12:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor refuses to abide by WP:V

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

    Despite descriptive, linked edit summaries (1, 2, 3), repeated warnings on their talk page as well as a personal plea for them to source their edits, it seems (to me at least) Thesucessor has no intention of abiding by WP:VERIFIABILITY. As can be seen by their edit summaries in the history of the article in question, their excuses essentially are: other things in the article are unsourced so I should be able to add uncited info too and the all too familiar You don’t need a citation to something everyone knows. Please could I ask an admin to assist. Thanks. Robvanvee 19:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them for WP:EW. @Robvanvee:: Consider this your formal warning: you're up against the limit yourself. If you revert one more time, you may be blocked for the same as well. --Jayron32 19:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jayron32. I thought 3RR was applicable during a 24 hour period? Robvanvee 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never once mentioned 3RR. You just did. The relevant policy page is WP:EW, to wit "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". You may be blocked for edit warring even if you don't technically violate 3RR. I'm required to block you if you do violate 3RR. I may still block you even if you don't, if you show the willingness to continue the edit war. You've been warned. --Jayron32 20:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of continuing the edit war, or violating any Wikipedia policies for that matter. Never have in all my years here. If I said something to upset you, I apologise. Thanks again. Robvanvee 20:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said nothing to upset me. --Jayron32 12:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robvanvee: I would encourage you to read and internalize the following text from Wikipedia:Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Your comment that you have never violated a Wikipedia policy seems to fly in the face of the fact that you were edit warring here, because 3RR is only one type of edit warring. However, breaking Wikipedia policies is nothing to be ashamed of—it's something we all do, but just need to make sure we don't do intentionally once educated on the topic. (If you want to go over and above, you could even tell us what you would do differently in this situation the next time—there's a really key step you didn't do that has not been mentioned in this discussion, as far as I can see...) — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On a semi-related note, I have removed Robvanvee's rollback flag as the history in this edit war, and at Wish You Were Here clearly shows them using rollback on good faith edits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bilorv:, just to clarify, I never said I've never violated any Wikipedia policies, I said I had no intentions to do so. I never did get into the edit war intentionally either as my understanding of WP:EW was (admittedly) slightly skewed, though I have since brushed up. Also, I have taken Jayron32's warning to heart and appreciate his approach as my my edits were made in good faith. I also expressed my intention to always abide by the rules earlier in this thread and I would hope my track record supports this. Thanks for your support. Robvanvee 21:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification of what you meant, Robvanvee, and your positive attitude. — Bilorv (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    After a recently archived section on this talk page, Talk:Race and intelligence was semi protected due to repetitive postings / disruption by the above IPv6 range, as well as some extremely racist comments by an IPv4 that geolocates to the same area. Since the protection, the IPv6 has moved on to posting the same sort of content at Talk:Race and crime in the United States and Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy, including this rant about another editor. I'm not sure if we need a range block, more semi protects, or a combination, but clearly something more is needed. - MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So your answer to my complaining about censorship is more censorship? oh dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:9549:3101:D652:A083 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Arodman1999/67.6.158.169

    Handled by Girth Summit. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At the page Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry), Arodman1999 removed a comment calling it "irrelevant" that in the 2021 game played this last Saturday that Kansas never trailed and the game was never tied. We reverted each other a couple times, I reached out on their talkpage after my second revert, which is what I typically try to do. I advised the editor of edit war policy and that we need to discuss the issue before they revert again. The editor then proceeded to log out and revert under the IP address 67.6.158.169. I'm totally willing to discuss the relevance of the comment, the other editor doesn't appear to be.--Rockchalk717 05:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor and I have began discussing it, however I do think the fact the editor potentially violated WP:LOUTSOCK should be looked into.--Rockchalk717 06:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind I opened up a sockpuppet investigation.--Rockchalk717 06:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Jclemens at Family Research Council

    There is an emerging problem with Jclemens' editing behavior at our article on the Family Research Council.

    Here, Jclemens inserts into the article lede a weasel-worded claim that the SPLC is responsible for the acts of a mentally-ill gunman.

    I reverted theirbold edit, objecting on the grounds that the edit represents undue weight in the lede on a minority viewpoint, and requesting that Jclemens discuss their proposed addition on the talk page.

    Instead, they revert the claim back into the lede, with somewhat different wording, and say nothing on the talk page.

    I opened a discussion on the talk page, explaining my objection to its inclusion in the lede. Jclemens' response has been to stonewall and repeatedly attempt to flip the burden of inclusion - which, as policy clearly dictates, is on the editor proposing added material. Jclemens has instead attempted to present their version as a fait accompli, rather than a subject for debate and consensus.

    After I explained the issue, and patiently explained that the ball was in their court to open an RFC to gain consensus, they ignored my explanation of policy, falsely claiming that I had not provided a policy rationale for removing the material.

    At this point, a third, previously-uninvolved editor, Mvbaron, expresses the opinion that none of the disputed material belongs in the article lede - there's now a 2-1 expression of opposition to Jclemens' proposed edit. Does this faze Jclemens? No, of course not - they simply declare that their edit must be included because they say so - The fact that it continues to be referenced by multiple reliable sources ever since means that WP:DUE requires its inclusion, so yes, it's required by Wikipedia policy and so the conversation can only legitimately be how not whether to cover it. Thus, Jclemens has arrogated to themselves the power to unilaterally decide what policy means, and conveniently enough, they decide that policy requires their edit be included! This is, of course, ludicrous - the entire point of developing editorial consensus is that no one editor has a monopoly on policy interpretation.

    I again explain to Jclemens that two separate editors have objected to their proposed addition, and that they may not simply ram material into the article over our clearly-expressed objections, and that their remedy is instead to open an RFC if they want to get broader input. Mvbaron reiterates their objection.

    So of course, this evening, Jclemens rams the material back into the article after declaring that our objections are not "policy-based" (again, Jclemens has declared themselves the sole arbiter of policy on this article).

    I submit that this is disruptive and tendentious editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this is certainly an unfortunate turn of events. I have repeatedly asked this editor for a rationale for excluding this material, [94], [95], [96], with no response. I have been accused of edit warring [97] and violating 3RR [98], and now dragged here. For what? Including RS'ed motivation for an attempted mass shooting, including by the SPLC itself [99]. A review of my contributions to the talk page and article in question will find anything but stonewalling, but instead an effort to find a way to optimize our coverage of an attempted murder spree with significant and enduring coverage that continues to play into the narrative of political rhetoric years later: [100]. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have very clearly and repeatedly stated on the talk page that I believe your proposed addition is undue weight in the lede of the article because it represents a small minority viewpoint. That you obviously disagree with my rationale is neither here nor there - you are not entitled or empowered to ignore my objection or declare it invalid merely by your say-so. If you believe your position is supported by consensus, you are welcome to open an RFC, and as I have also repeatedly stated, I will abide by the conclusion of any such RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked to three edits objecting to the inclusion, but only in one do you even mention UNDUE. You assert that attributing the attack to the SPLC hate designation is a small minority view, but it's repeated by the Washington Post Magazine [101] and the SPLC itself [102] among other sources. You've failed to substantiate your assertion that lede coverage of the shooter's motivation is UNDUE, which is what I've been asking for some time now. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is still in the realm of content disputes and can be handled on the talk page. I'm just a bit baffled that Jclemens insist that there's no talk page discussion happening, so I invite you to argue your point here: Talk:Family_Research_Council#Removal_of_material_from_lede_against_formal_RFC_consensus where North and I have laid out our reasons why a specific detail is not lead worthy. Let's just discuss it there, shall we? Or, Jclemens, if you think it's going nowhere, open an RFC. Mvbaron (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As with nearly all BRD or WP:BURDEN disputes that make it to ANI especially those involving very few editors with similar levels of policy experience; wouldn't it be better if someone involved meaning any one of the 3 currently involved, uses some other form of dispute resolution to get more help like starting an RfC, rather than wasting time here at ANI? It seems clear the 3 of you aren't going to come to consensus. And there is sufficient evidence that the addition has been been disputed from the get go so provided reasonable attempts are made to resolve this, in the unlikely event this ends up being a no consensus situation even with more feedback, you have sufficient evidence that the status quo ante should be without this addition. And this isn't some hot button current issue where lots of readers are going to see it in the 30 days or however long it takes for an RfC or whatever you use. So focus on discussion and resolving the dispute, not on getting you preferred version to stick before you do so. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warring between Wikicircuitz and Uma Narmada

    Two editors are having issues. Not sure who is doing it to whom.

    Adakiko (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They having an edit war in many articles, and talk pages. I suppose to report these two users. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 09:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help me from this problem.That user is making all my good credits of edits by reverting it and making it worse - Vandalism and disruptive edits.recheck our contributions and that user is providing same reason for every reverts.dont have proper way of reply or clarification while doing the reverts..please block that kind of users who fully try to damage and distruct someone's effort as an editor... persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
    Please help me from this problem. This user Uma Narmada is making all my good edits by reverting it and making it worse
    Please help block this user vandalism by Uma Narmada Vandalism and disruptive edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicircuitz (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikicircuitz:, I'm confused by the sequence here. Your very first edits on Dec 12 were to revert Uma Narmada. Looking at logs from this page and this, you seem to have started blaming them after they reverted edits from an IP. They had touched none of your edits at that point. On both pages Uma had two edits at most, hard to see that as "persistent" disruption. If the IP was you, you should read WP:MULTIPLE.
    14:05, 2021 December 14 Wikicircuitz Persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
    18:31, 2021 December 13 Uma Narmada Undid revision 1059457844 by 60.54.96.158 talk)
    21:17, 2021 December 9 60.54.96.158
    14:01, 2021 December 14 Wikicircuitz Persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
    18:28, 2021 December 13 Uma Narmada Undid revision 1059803693 by 60.54.96.158 talk)
    00:16, 2021 December 12 60.54.96.158
    --Hemanthah (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Is reverting one or more pages without valid reason is ground for edit warring? It seems like User:JKLlamera is reverting some of my edits just to make disruption and the like. Refer to contributions of the user for more. NewManila2000 (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The only "grounds" for edit warring are given in WP:3RRNO and "reverting one or more pages without valid reason" is definitely not one of them. As always, if you're not sure why an editor is reverting you, talk to them. If they continue to revert without offering any explanation, you can likely ask for them to be blocked but still should not edit war. If they give a reason but you disagree with it, then discuss and try to come to consensus and if you can't then seek help or get others involved i.e. WP:Dispute resolution. I had a quick look at Special:Contributions/JKLlamera and think there are only three simple reverts anyway and the latest was on 3 December, the other two on 15 November. So if you continue to have problems you will need to be more specific about what these are. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, thank you for the advice. Just in case, how can I propose for a blockade of a user? Yeah, I still became patient as of this time. NewManila2000 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @NewManila2000: Have you tried talking to them? Use the talk page to ask why they are doing these reverts, and don't forget to ping them using the ping template. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I putted some warnings on his user talkpage and inserted a gentle reminder to the user. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely NOTHERE user that was previously banned on Korean Wikipedia

    This discussion is about the user 애국심 존중, who was banned from the Korean Wikipedia for sockpuppetry in October. Almost immediately afterwards, they started editing on the English Wikipedia, with most of their edits being to their user page. Besides their user page, they have accumulated warnings and reverts for disruptive/unsourced edits on Friday Night Funkin' (one example), attempting to remove the redirect on Eternatus (one example), and using their user page inappropriately.

    I think, at the very least, they should be blocked here for WP:NOTHERE violations and disruptive editing, and at the very most, they should be globally banned/locked for sockpuppetry and NOTHERE. wizzito | say hello! 09:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    While this isn't the right place, is the sockpuppetry actually a global problem? Have more than one of their other actually edited another project? Since if not, don't see why a global ban for that reason makes sense. More specifically and bringing this back on topic, have more than one of their accounts edited here in violation of our sockpuppetry policy? Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne & @Wizzito: from the socks I could find (namely, the ones listed here) it looks like none of them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 have edited enwiki and only two (4 and 10) are even locally attached, so it looks like the issue is confined to kowiki. Note that I don't speak Korean so if I missed some socks that's probably why. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Without attempting to locate or inspect known socks of this user, the only issues that are apparent to me is that their English is a little rusty, and they are unfamiliar with enwiki rules. That can be improved; they seem to desire a second chance. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Although they only have a handful of mainspace edits, I don't see how they are a negative to the project as it stands. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 11:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly recommend Papago for Korean translation instead of Google Translate. The Moose 20:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wizzito: I was banned account at Korean Wikipedia.--애국심 존중 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wizzito: [[검사 요청]]. --애국심 존중 (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaline Nakano

    The user is User:Evaline Nakano. The latest problem (which I noticed because it happened while I was correcting errors on a page) is a revert of some edits I made to List of Symphyotrichum species. This list is currently a FLC. You can see on the user's talk page there have already been issues. Also, in the user contributions list, there seems to be a pattern of meaningless reverts. The user has been threatened to be blocked by SuperMarioMan. I asked the user to revert the revert they made to List of Symphyotrichum species, and they did. The conversation is User talk:Evaline Nakano#Hi, wondering why you are reverting edits. If there were not already a history of this, I would assume good faith, but I think we are past that given the history, so I wanted to report this. There is also a possibility, as you can see on the user's talk page, that they are using sockpuppet account(s). I'll let you folks be the judge. Eewilson (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I just spotted them reverting a good faith message on User talk:Smirkybec. Although they immediately re-reverted, I'm not impressed - if it's not wanton disruption, it's WP:COMPETENCE. Either way, a response is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They reverted an AfC review notice I added which made me notice them, but they have also created user pages for other users see User:Halal-haram-hallam which is not cool or due to similar behaviour of that user (random reverts and lots of test1, test 2 etc pages) I hear the WP:QUACK of a sock. KylieTastic (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that for the past several days, revert partying is pretty much all both accounts have been doing. Eewilson (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They did the same to an article I made. Edited, then reverted their edit right afterwards. This is just edit farming, right? To have a larger edit count to get the higher level account privileges? SilverserenC 01:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor AlexBrn lacking neutral viewpoint

    BOOMERANG
    OP blocked by User:El_C. Drama reduced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Editor Alexbrn is active in a lot of articles where Ivermectin is mentioned and has a biased view. In the latest talk under Paul Marik, after I had mentioned an UnHerd talk with a Wiki co-founder, he commented ad personam:

    "If Qanon's your thing, fine; just don't expect it to get traction here. Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

    This is proof of his biased thinking and immoral speech, suggesting a user would be interested in Qanon after the user has linked to an UnHerd video. Alexbrn actively suppresses the reflection of different opinions in the medical world about the use of Ivermectin and other medicine against COVID in main articles and likes to get personal then on the talk pages. Otaku00 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otaku00 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we need a whole long discussion before the boomerang block here, or can we just jump right to WP:NOTHERE to save time? --JBL (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was betting with myself how long that would take.
    [X] Unsigned post
    [X] Ivermectin
    [X] Complaining about someone saying "Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."
    I guess we can leave the thread open for a while, but in the interest of reducing drama, maybe just block now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I missed one.
    [X] Recent block for personal attacks in the topic area they're complaining about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OP blocked indef: User_talk:Otaku00#Indefinite_block. El_C 13:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Pankaj2511 and Manor Rama Pictures

    Editor User:Pankaj2511 is creating multiple versions of articles and drafts on Manor Rama Pictures, which was already the subject of a deletion discussion.

    The multiple versions of the draft name, differing by case and number, appear to be an effort to game the naming of the subject of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that User:Spiderone has requested title blacklisting, which is a good idea, and that a sockpuppet investigation has been requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Manor Rama Pictures and Manor rama pictures are already salted. Not sure there's much we can do as a community as I don't think there's a rule against constantly creating the exact same article, even though it is obviously disruptive in this instance. I've left a UPE message at User talk:Pankaj2511 so we'll see if they choose to respond. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I request that the community do is to block the editor for being not here to contribute constructively. The sockpuppet investigation might catch them anyway, but this editor is a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought both the creators for sock investigation but there is no violation found. I would recommend to block all the versions of subject's title. DMySon (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block, the individual is clearly using Wikipedia to advertise themselves and their organization via Draft:Viraj Kapur. Jerm (talk)

    Agreed. I've requested G11 and it looks like they've been blocked. Hopefully, that's the last of it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    G.M.Hiram and Valentin Bura

    G.M.Hiram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) disclosed that they are Valentin Bura in the edit Special:PermaLink/1036771685 of their userpage. They are engaging in tendentious editing to promote Bura, with the appearance of being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. This includes:

    User, after initially disclosing that they are Bura, later denied this on their talk page, and accused me of inserting it into Wikipedia's database Special:Diff/1060269191. They claim death threats on their current user page (as per attempted insertion into article) -- if so, they should certainly report those to [email protected]. It appears to me, however, that they realized Wikipedia frowns upon people writing articles about themselves, and attempted to conceal their identity for this reason.

    I came across the situation through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentin Bura, where the article appears to be headed for deletion. The relentless promotionalism makes me believe the user is WP:NOTHERE. The creation of new pages on likely-non-notable subjects for apparent name-dropping purposes is modestly disruptive, and I thought made it worthwhile to bring the situation here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted their edits at Polynomial hierarchy in August. To those not familiar, the area of computational complexity is almost unique in mathematics and computer science in that it contains unsolved problems/questions easy enough to be understood by first or second year undergraduate students. As such, the field is rife with amateurs and even professionals who believe that they have solved important problems, but with proofs not accepted, or discredited, by the mathematical community. G.M.Hiram's edits struck me immediately as such a case. As the wider evidence is that they are not here to build an encyclopedia (only to promote Bura), they must be blocked as a matter of avoiding misinformation/pseudomathematics. Trust me, if PH = NP or P or co-NP (not sure exactly what Bura is claiming) then there will be dozens of experts who arrive at Wikipedia to update relevant articles.
    I would put the odds that one person has solved both the Riemann hypothesis and "does PH collapse?" at less than one in a million. — Bilorv (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was preparing to report this user earlier this morning, but I had to go proctor a final exam. The fact that they've met the criticism of their editing by further dubious/promotional article creations is extremely unpromising. I would support a block per WP:NOTHERE. (And maybe a check for sock-puppets, given the edits of NicanorAlvaradoDosSantos and FlorentinoArizaDeNascimentoAltamirano.) --JBL (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock- and or meat-puppetry looks exceedingly likely. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    G.M.Hiram blocked indef: User_talk:G.M.Hiram#Indefinite_block. El_C 22:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    YOUR CONTRIBSGIVE ME THE NOTIONYOU'RE JUST HEREFOR SELF-PROMOTIONBurma-shave

    Unsourced content on List of WarnerMedia television programs

    Imtiaz.kazi3 is adding unsourced content on List of WarnerMedia television programs. 85.255.236.101 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that you take your report to WP:AVI. Chip3004 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's a very bad recommendation. AIV is for blatant vandalism, not for this sort of thing. Also, neither the IP (whose burden it is) nor you has bothered notifing Imtiaz of this thread. I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Never saw an IP bite a registered user that hard before, seriously, tone it down. Threatening blocks on their first warning for adding usourced content, then telling them that they would be indefinitely blocked, definitely counts as biting the newcomers. I really don't think that there is a case here, if there was, this IPs behaviour has rather eclipsed it IMHO. Might I add that this IP is possibly evading a block. 85.255, do you know User:Nabasile? @Geraldo Perez: and @EvergreenFir:: Do you either of you have more experience with Nabasile? If so, is this IPs behaviour something you've seen before? Mako001 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely Nabasile - IP range, edit focus and general behavior. I didn't report as an IP sock when I first saw the 3 IPs he used as he seemed to be trying to communicate what might me a valid concern and wasn't trying to edit articles. His concern might be valid and he did make other sock edits to to Kazi3 expressing it previously. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Special:Contributions/85.255.236.0/24 has blocked IP addresses with this behavior pattern. Not sure a block is fully warranted as they are not being disruptive (though they are evading a block). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vodaphone uses Special:Contributions/85.255.232.0/21 as one of its cellular data network assigned ranges (AS25235) and Nabasile gets random assignments each time connecting. Also shows up on other ranges owned by Vodaphone and Virgin Media. Lots of vandalism which is not Nabasile on that range too - too bad we can't treat cellular data networks like VPNs and block them completely. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP address uses my username to make vulgar discussion

    I just woke up with a notification from Trailblazer101 saying I "violated" the Wikipedia etiquette on Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I checked the edit history and an IP address (103.146.225.223) disguised under my username to make inappropriate discussion there. I don't know what to do so I came here for the first time and would like your help on this matter. Centcom08 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP address is now blocked. I'd suggest you just drop Trailblazer101 a note saying that it was a troll trying to cause disruption, and leave it at that - they can check the history of the talk page for themselves. Girth Summit (blether) 00:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block 103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, who is highly likely to be the same user (both addresses geolocate to India) and has just made additional personal attacks toward the same two editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP address 103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has further engaged in personal attacks against myself and Cent on the same subjects on both of our talks, despite the issue being resolved. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that IP is attacking editors at Talk:Spider-Man:_No_Way_Home#Maguire and Garfield. Should be blocked either way. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ToBeFree: It seems that This ip (103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is doing the same thing as IP (103.146.225.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) Chip3004 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sussier leaving messages on random Wikipedians

    This user Sussier is telling random users to help him copy edit and fix link on the article Akane Yamaguchi. I think this is a sockpuppet because I remember seeing one of these before, but I'm not sure. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't comment on whether this user is a sockpuppet, but their behavior is definitely disruptive. They've continued to message random editors after being notified of this ANI thread. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Now blocked indef by Paul Erik, after an AIV report by Paradoctor (talk · contribs) when they continued past a level-4 warning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one: Limpae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Lennart97 (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit warring and article ownership by Broadmoor

    Broadmoor has a history of edit-warring and article ownership of Florida A&M University. He or she has been blocked twice for edit warring and has many warnings on his or her Talk page (e.g., August 2021, June 2019, March 2018) so he or she is definitely aware of our policies against edit warring. He or she has been engaging in edit wars and ownership of this article since 2015 continuing through to this year. Today, he or she edited the article to remove information that is the primary subject of the first source cited in the article. I reverted that edit, Broadmoor reverted, and we exchanged another pair of reversions.

    I don't mind a little bit of rough and tumble editing; I do mind when an editor knowingly and repeatedly engages in edit warring and ownership over several years despite multiple discussions with other editors and warnings. The edit summary used in his or her latest reversion, "it doesn't belong there. let's go to arbitration, i will continue to remove it." clearly communicates an eagerness to continue edit warring and owning the article. The most recent warning left about edit warring was left just a few months ago, by an administrator, about edit warring in this same article. This is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Can an administrator please make it clear to our colleague that this behavior is not acceptable? ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:1F03:9D00:20E8:34B7:3C24:F388

    This ip has posted something to their talk page that is very offensive. This edit. Chip3004 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hhhh! El_C 04:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really a matter for AN/I? I'd say an IP user posting "suck penis" to their talk page (and that being their only edit so far) isn't chronic or intractable. Just slap them with a templated warning. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kaidros

    Kaidros (talk · contribs) is a new user. OK I get it. We all make mistakes when starting, but this is becoming a WP:Competence issue due to the user being unable to listen to the others. At Historic center of Mexico City the user removed this image and this information I reverted them with the summary: "Unexplained removal of sourced content". The user returned and removed once again the picture with the following summary "a bicitaxi image insert on this section is irrelevant to the text, images should include images of the buildings refrenced in the section." I restored it and moved it to another place and expanded it upon the missing information.[104][105]. The user returned and once again removed the information and the image without providing a reasonable reason to remove the image and the content.[106] Once again, I restored the content[107] as it was clear that this is not about being misplaced, but on very personal grounds to exclude the content. Once again, the user removes the information now saying that "rickshaws are no where a commonly used form of transportation also source number 49 is 6 years old, source number 50 is an unavailable link and source 51 never states or support the claim that it is a common form of transportation, it actually refrences bicitaxis being almost eliminated and says there are trying to come back after many years of being on the decline", none of it a reasonable reason to delete as it could be fixed easily. I further expanded the information to up-to-date information,[108] because the user literally demanded me to do it [109], just to be reverted because "Former edit was a resolution, stop editing to your liking and keep the resolved version" This is not about the content. First, it was problematic, then it was slightly improved with a minor rewording, but then the problematic content resulted a better option according to this person. I would take this to AN3 instead, but this is just a case of a user that is not listening to the rest. Like in Mexico City, Kaidros makes a change, they are reverted with a truly wrong reason,[110] then restores their preferred version [111] to end up getting reverted with the following summary: "images are usually placed with a consensus, please discuss at talk page." At the talk page, however, the user writes that the image has to be replaced under a very personal view ("[it looks] packed and messy"). There are no indications to gain consensus, but just to get someone else to fix it for them, just like in the first example, where the issue was easily solved to the point that the user could have fixed it by themselves. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue was resolved with help of User:SpinningCeres with this 1 edit by adding the rickshaw information where i even apologized to him and stopped editing the page, but User:Tbhotch is insistant on having his way so he kept on editing the page, this user has a history of reporting users if they disagree with him with a section on his talk page titled 'Interesting' from just 6 days ago where he reported this user even after the issue was resolved being proof of this__Kaidros (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excepting that 2601:48:8100:B6A0:B435:22AF:C973:92A9 (talk · contribs) was not reported by me, which by the way was eventually blocked due to persistent disruptive edits, that user's case can be seen here. That user thought I had reported them here, but this is a different user that was falsifying information about living people. And this doesn't excuse you from persistently removing sourced content. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my edit after noticing the article on recent changes. I was trying to push the dispute in the right direction out of what looked like a stalemate. It was not meant to be a end-all-be-all resolution, which some of your (User:Kaidros) comments seem to imply. SpinningCeres (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I understand, i am just mentioning that you (SpinningCeres) as a third party did come in and defused the situtation to the point where i apologized to User:Tbhotch and did not edit any further, i am not trying to bring you in the middle of this but i did agree with your edit and thought it was neutral enough. As to you (User:Tbhotch) i just wanted to better the article by adding more truthful information in the transportation in mexico city, to where you insist bike taxis are common, without mentioning taxis or tour buses which are the actual main transportation methods of the historic center of the city, rather you kept on reverting the information to say rickshaws are a common things without providing a single source where they state specifically this point, one of your sources was a dead link and another mentioned bike taxis being in the decline for years, i am not sure how you are assumming this means they are common, i dont understand the need to keep adding this false information, i am suspicious this a personal issue with you, you seem to be the only person with a problem with the last edit made.—Kaidros (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaidros: It's not the end of the world, I can go and create an article about them as there is enough information for an independent. We are not here discussing that, we are here discussing how you keep doing things. You insist that it is me the one that is falsifying information yet I didn't add that information, I merely restored it as you didn't provide an acceptable reason to remove it on multiple times. Whoever added it, they can be found in the history and when. Now if they are not common, then why you simply didn't remove the word "common", or performed a simple rework like Ceres did. If the links are dead, then why you didn't request an archived copy. No, you keep reverting it until you were asked to stop, and even after that, you have continued reverting. This is why we're here, not to discuss if taxis are more popular (there or everywhere). The article is obviously incomplete, for example there is no information about the RTP, Ecobici or trolleybus services. Should I add it? I don't know. Why would I waste my time looking for information if you will come and revert me because it doesn't satisfy you. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: the correct bicitaxi information is literally already there in the final edit, your actions seem personally motivated rather than trying to come to an agreement to have a factual page, Wikipedia isn’t a place for your personal motives remember that.__Kaidros (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaidros: And those personal motivations are? (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch:, well for starters a personal motive is defined as a motivation arising from an individual's internal desires for the satisfaction and fulfillment of specific needs. My assumption from your specific actions would be you are trying to make it seem that bike transportation is more popular in Mexico City than it actually is, you most likely desire a more eco-friendly travel like other cities such as Amsterdam or Barcelona but this just isn’t the case in Mexico City as of this moment, your own “sources” state this exact point, with one of them even stating they are trying to rescue this service from disappearing. the current edit of the page includes bicitaxis but in a more neutral sense but you are very insistent to keep up a version that states it’s a common thing pairing it along side the metro and metro bus, seems very bias, please state your issue with the current version of the article please because i personally see it as fair, inclusive and informative, you are the only one that has an issue with it._Kaidros (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaidros: So you assume. Assumptions are not facts. In fact, you don't know anything about me to assume things about me. You assume is that I care about bike transportation (I don't) that wants to give undue weight to bicycling in Mexico City (I'm not) because I desire eco-friendly traveling in the city (that's the function of the Ecobici (Mexico City) system, not mine). You keep insisting that this is "my information", that it is "my ideology that bicycles are common in the city" and that I'm on a personal journey to promote cycling because I'm some sort of pro-environmental neo-hippie. Yet as I told you above the information was added by another person earlier this year, information that you could simply have corrected by removing the word "common" from it and by simply modifying it to say that the rickshaws were declining, just like Ceres did. So please, don't assume things about other people, because if those started assuming things about you, you wouldn't like it, would you? (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: well funny thing is, the edit you mentioned has been edited out by multiple users, why do you think this is so? you think we all just have a personal vendetta against it? no it’s just inaccurate, but the good thing is that accurate information has been already added, so i don’t see you continued problem with it, you are making it impossible to resolve this argument by acting immature, your rickshaw information is there, what else do you want, or you want it to say “rickshaws are super common all over the city and the government is giving a million pesos to the drivers in 2021” haha, the information is there man move on it’s not the end of the world.___Kaidros (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: i also wanted to add, the edit you mentioned is of a user that is depicted in the picture, he is editing his own picture of himself on the article without any context, not sure if that goes against any wikipedia rules but it doesn’t seem like good behavior.__Kaidros (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaidros: If by "multiple" you actually mean "Tbartovic and I", then you are right, but that's hardly "multiple". The thing is that Tbartovic removed two things without explanation [112][113], and just like with you, I requested them the same thing, to explain their motives and they later explained their reason [114]. And guess what, I didn't revert it because the user satisfactorily gave an appropriate reason without taking it personally or assuming the other party was misinforming the audience. Tbartovic was later reverted three weeks later, but in that case you can ask the reversor their reasons, not me. And its weird you call me immature when you were the one that said: "haha, the information is there man move on it’s not the end of the world." And I actually have moved on,[115] I have better things to do than playing 20Q, maybe it's time for you to do the same, however, I'm sure this won't be the only ANI case you'll have in the future if you continue with that WP:Own attitude. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: I can see, just like last time i apologize for the inconvenience and im ready to go my seperate way, i hope this was a case of being able to come to an agreement without the need of an administrator, have a good day fellow Wikipedian.___Kaidros (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two days EC, please both take it to talk. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chiefsfocus

    While this editors edits aren't necessarily problematic, their username and user page are. When I saw the username it looked familiar at first, then I realized it's because it's a blog about the NFL team the Kansas City Chiefs that I personally follow on social media. Their Twitter is this and their website is this. If you look at their user page, it appears to be an advertisement. Seems like a WP:PROMO violation.--Rockchalk717 07:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I've G11-tagged the user page. I see no other promotional edits for this user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    95.142.138.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appears to be modifying Cyprus-related articles as if it is under one government. Changing "Northern Cyprus" to "Turkish-occupied Cyprus" or to "Cyprus". Removing content suggesting two governments, etc.

    Adakiko (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adakiko - Blocked for disruptive editing for 72 hours. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2409:4052:2303:4CB6:0:0:27F2:90A0 repeatedly adding unreferenced contents in List of presidents of Guinea-Bissau

    I warned this IP user twice, and I revert his edits with explanation, but it seems like he is not listening, what actions could you make for these type of edits. I requested a protection on rpp page, but the article still not protected, there are a number of IP user edited that page. Thanks in advance. Update This IP user: 2409:4052:D9F:9C9F:0:0:BA8B:5211 is the IP user I warned not the IP user above, but both of them were edited that page without citatios I think both IP user, are the same user, any actions? Thanks. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been protected already thanks. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 11:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected block evasion

    I wish to report about an IP address for User:24.188.128.246 (talk) due to similar reverting and editing actions on the same article (you can see for yourself in the [[116]]) and along with other related articles (The Voice (American TV series) in general). I highly likely suspect it was a block evasion, after seeing the prior account being blocked from editing, so this would be correct. TVSGuy (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block required

    Please can someone block Ruling party (talk · contribs). They are reinstating disruptive edits (moving categories out of process) and labelling the undoing of their changes as "badfaith vandalism". Their response to me pointing out the problem was this. Thanks, Number 57 13:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruling party blocked, clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: but you are an administrator here, you can block him right? —Ctrlwiki • talk • 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was concerned I may be deemed to be involved, particularly as I have raised issues with this editor before. Cheers, Number 57 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ctrlwiki - Many administrators are very serious about the need to separate their acts of editors from their acts as administrators and to avoid mixing the two roles, so that an administrator should be otherwise uninvolved. When it is obvious that an editor is problematic and needs to be blocked, it is often wiser to let another administrator do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can Covid-19 misinformation (namely horse dewormer misinformation) get revdel'd from my Talk page?

    About a month ago, after having, I think, conducted some minor cosmetic edits on the article Ivermectin, I received this message on my Talk page, erroneously aimed at me.

    Now, I'd normally have just left it up - I'm not starting a discussion about the user in question who posted it here - but in hindsight, I wasn't comfortable with the fact that three articles referenced in this message were still on my Talk page; as such, I removed them.

    My question is - is there any way to suppress the fact they were added and removed in the first place? I don't want the URLs in question to be even available for someone to look at, even through edit histories. I'm unsure that this would be viable criteria for revision deletion, but this isn't really a sensitive request as such, so I think I'm correct to ask here. Thanks!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's revdelable. We are awash in Ivermectin idiocy everywhere, so I don't think we need to worry about someone linking to an old version of your talk page. Removing it was, of course, fine (it's your talk page), but I wouldn't revdel it if it were up to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ineffablebookkeeper: Are you sure that you linked the correct diff in your original post? The only URLs I see in the linked revision are to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, which is operated by the United States National Institutes of Health (while I agree that the government is often untrustworthy, my understanding is that Wikipedia generally considers the NIH to be a credible source). jp×g 00:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PubMed is just a database; most of the stuff in it is unreliable for our purposes (and some is the most awful crap). It's a common misconception that because something's "in PubMed" it somehow has an NIH imprimatur. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: - I have to admit to not having read the sources in question, but as Alexbrn says, it apparently doesn't always host reliable content. The text around it, which made a point out of Would You Like To See My Peer-Reviewed Studies Down Here In My Cellar Next To A Cask Of Amontillado Wine, seemed to indicate quackery if nothing else.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My first article on the English wikipedia

    NOTHING TO DO HERE.
    This is being discussed at the WP:TEAHOUSE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    The Russian Wikipedia has an article "Уральский, Марк Леонович" (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уральский,_Марк_Леонович). I would like to put its English version (translation) into the English Wikipediа as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark_Leonovith_Uralski. Help me,pleas, this to done Mark Leonovith Uralski (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    People are strongly discouraged from writing articles about themselves: WP:YOURSELF describes the issues. It also suggests Articles for Creation, but I have to say, the RU Wikipedia article doesn't have any references aside from one interview and your own web page, which means its translation would have a hard time passing the General Notability Guideline. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This has also been asked at the Teahouse, which I think is a much better place to ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block request

    Requesting a block on Rui Gabriel Correia (talk · contribs) from editing the article Battle of Diu. The user insists on engaging in disruptive editing either removing images related to the article, or inserting false and unsourced information even after I already explained why his edits aren't reasonable - his justification is that if three other people have also done it, then it must be true! It's completely ridiculous and shouldn't even be an issue, as it goes completely against Wikipedias most basic principle of WP:VER. Wareno (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected the article. There's edit warring going on all over (yourself included). You don't get to use the "revert" function as a weapon even if you think you are correct. Consider this your warning. With the article protected, it will remain in its current state until such a time as everyone comes to a consensus on how to proceed on the article talk page. Use dispute resolution processes if necessary, but you must reach consensus on the talk page before it will be unprotected. --Jayron32 19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your efforts. However, do know that there's no "think" here; I'm merely removing (or trying to remove) persistant vandalism that isn't supported by any sources, as the failure of the other user to produce them upon request will attest to. Wareno (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is not "things that are not supported by sources". If there is consensus that these things are not supported by sources, then you will have no trouble showing that on the article talk page. "Things not supported by sources" are not an exception to WP:EW, and you will be blocked for edit warring over that as well as anything else. Please stop calling things that are not vandalism, "vandalism". It is unlikely to work out well for you if you keep doing that. Instead, hold discussions on the article talk page, generate a consensus by bringing in outside voices if necessary, and then the let an admin know so the article can be unprotected. --Jayron32 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just looked through the article and its history, what this alleged "vandalism" consists of is that Wareno wants his pet image in the article and doesn't want a flag icon the other fellow's sought to put in. Trout slaps all around, but neither one seems to be accurate. Wareno's image pertains to a people who killed the Portuguese commander ... on a different continent, a year after the battle the article commemorates. The inclusion of a crude illustration of those generic people is trivial at best, and not remotely vandalism. Ravenswing 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Further ... this isn't the first time Wareno's been edit warring on this page, or issued insulting threats: [117] Ravenswing 16:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you took the time to look through the issue. But I'll point out that the justification for the recent edits made by the opposite party were that A) the image was removed because it's "unrelated"; B) That the flagicon along with the belligerents it represents belong in the list of participants of the battle. First off, as we can see, the section from which the image was removed specifically mentions the people whom the image was made to represent roughly in the same time period, hence, it's not at all "unrelated". Quite simply, some user thought it was unrelated, and removed it, so of course I put it back. Second, some users have inserted some belligerents into the box, which did not take part in the battle. Where are the sources that prove they did? They don't exist, as I already said time and time again, but why isn't the opposite party being asked to produce at once any evidence that justifies their behaviour? Once they are, you will see the issue settled. Wareno (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unrelated" might not be entirely accurate; "too trivial and inconsequential to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion" is. I would've removed the image, as irrelevant to the subject, myself. And yes, we have heard your arguments. For my own part, I don't care much for the inference that the issue will not be "settled" until the other fellow "justifies" his behavior, the more so that you are edit warring yourself, and you've done it more than once on the article. You do not own this article, and your permission is not required for others to edit it, even when they're editing your own contributions. Ravenswing 20:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments on changes by user

    I want to make it clear this WAS NOT directed at me, however I did notice it, and thought I should bring it up. During an edit on the page Outline of the French Army at the end of the Cold War, Buckshot06 made the following comment on an edit: "far more f***ing accurate and inserted a bare link reference with information which is correct, however the commend doesn't seem very professional. Comment here. Again, I want to point it this doesn't seem to be directed at anyone, but does seem a little harsh and thought I should bring it to your attention. Page history edits here. Thank you. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm at a loss as to what administrative action you think is warranted here. You came straight here without actually discussing it with the user first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've had to seen worse, on Wikipedia. The comment isn't even blatantly aimed at another editor. What policy do you believe is being infringed? Ravenswing 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this can safely be quickly closed with no action. As well as the comment not being directed at another editor, it even contained asterisks in the original. If we blocked editors for making comments in edit summaries that do no seem very professional to everyone we would have very few unblocked editors, and, even so, I disagree with that assessment. I have seen and heard far worse in my professional life. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mitchellhobbs deleted my updates as "improper" with no explanation as to why

    No administrator action needed as of now. There is an open talk page discussion located at Talk:Jack Palance#Palance was born in 1920 (not_1919); died of pancreatic cancer at age 86. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DIFF: [118]

    MY POINT: Jack Palance was born in 1920, not 1919 and died of pancreatic cancer at age 86

    EDITOR NOTIFIED: [119]

    a) PALANCE, JACK was born 18 February 1920, received Social Security number 057-12-2514 (indicating New York) and, Death Master File says, died 10 November 2006 Check Archives.com for JACK PALANCE. ($) Source: Death Master File (public domain) (at [120])

    b) https://www.ebay.com/itm/401741990048 -- copy of death certificate with correct year of birth (1920) and cause of death (pancreatic cancer)

    NOT TO MENTION ANCESTRY.COM, WHICH I KNOW SOME DO NOT CONSIDER UNDULY RELIABLE: ([121], [122], [123], [124] and [125]).

    65.88.88.200 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Mitchellhobbs undid the edit on December 12. The IP raised the issue on the article's talk page on December 15 [126], and here all of six minutes later. This should not be at ANI. Wait for the talk page discussion to actually happen. Meters (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    False Information about Article: "Barbary pirates"

    The place for arguments about article content (including ridiculously incorrect arguments) is at the relevant article's talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IN the text it claims, "The main purpose of their attacks was to capture slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Arab slavery market in North Africa and the Middle East. Slaves in Barbary could be of many ethnicities, and of many different religions, such as Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.[1]

    While such raids had occurred since soon after the Muslim conquest of Iberian Peninsula in the 710s, the terms "Barbary pirates" and "Barbary corsairs" are normally applied to the raiders active from the 16th century onwards, when the frequency and range of the slavers' attacks increased."

    I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with at fact that the 'Barbary pirates' took Europeans or any peoples as slaves in any way shape or form. Please remove this false information about slavery. What they did is imply rules for the Mediterranean Sea and others had to pay fees to use the Mediterranean Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.24.17 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, this would make for a much more compelling argument if you could point to sources for your preferred content, and/or places where the existing article does not follow the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Barbary slave trade. No idea what your disagreement is about. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief, there are thousands of sources supporting the assertion (heck, it became a political issue in the UK, contemporaneously), even if this was a fit discussion for ANI, which it isn't. Ravenswing 02:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave

    Personal attacks

    See here. A user has been personally attacked by another one with really informal comments.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Because they applied Template:Slave narrative to a horrible tone-deaf $2 'educational' 'game' which apparently casts slavery as a game and originally included a mini-game where you arrange the occupants of a slave ship, Tetris-style. Drmies had every right to call Haleth to the carpet for comparing a video game's mangled narrative to the stories of actual people who were scarred by human slavery and wanted to voice them. They should be relieved they didn't get slapped with more than Drmies rightfully chewing them out for such a dumb edit. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. A 15-year-old accounts' user should have known better. Drmies was incivil but it was rather adding that template was dumb. Play stupid games... EvergreenFir (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like unnecessary vitriol from Drmies in response to what appears to be a good faith attempt to add a video games section to the Template:Slave narrative template. Also some ire randomly directed at Silicon Valley after four video games (developed in Minnesota, Bulgaria, Denmark, and France, respectively) that deal with the subject of slavery from a first person perspective were added to the template by Haleth. Notably, Drmies doesn't appear to object to (or maybe didn't notice) the numerous works of fiction – most written by modern authors with little to no connection to slavery – that were already in the template. Setting standards for the use of the template is one thing; that's a content dispute that should take place in an appropriate venue. It's another thing entirely to attack another editor with baseless aspersions. I don't agree with the above users who are mischaracterizing this as a cut-and-dried issue of flippant behavior being appropriately chided by Drmies. AlexEng(TALK) 09:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AlexEng, look at the article for that game, what that game does, and how critics responded to it. There is a huge difference between a work of fiction (in the case of some of these "works of fiction", based on slave narratives--or personal experience) and a video game. Have you read Our Nig? Did it figure a scene "in which the player [reader?] needed to "stack" slaves in the storage compartment of the ship", and did it "trivialize slavery"? Inquiring minds want to know. If video games "deal with the subject of slavery from a first person perspective", does Zelda deal with "the subject of magic and flying up walls from a first person perspective"? Of course this is a "content dispute"--in which one set of edits was indeed tone-deaf. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies is clearly in the wrong here. WP:CIVIL applies to everyone, even those acting in good faith. Slave tetris does not make being uncivil okay. That being said, this isn't worth anything other than a light scolding, if that. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Close. A trout to the OP for the absurd decision to bring this here, and a trout to anyone who thinks there is any reason we should waste time discussing third-party drama-mongering. Haleth and Drmies are both grownups and if one of them wants to have a discussion at ANI they both know how to start one. --JBL (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen a lot of shit on ANI lately that could have been resolved with a talk page conversation instead of a full-on drama board posting.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If describing things that are patently tone-deaf and fucked up as "tone-deaf" and "fucked up" is a problem, then just shut the whole project down for the good of humanity. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My real name again

    Is this edit appropriate? I have never edited the article, except forone time when I misclicked and immediately self-reverted, and I obviously did not write the Daily Dot article (which indeed mentions me by name and by username).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    edit in question has been removed by user:Padgriffin. Meters (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) : Prolly not- while you do have a COI with that article, I don't think a single self-reverted 1-byte edit from 2015 (that resulted in you accidentally vandalizing your own surname) constitutes "becoming involved" in that article... unless your name is secretly actually "Bobobo". I did a rollback on it. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 07:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, would you like the edit revision deleted? Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    No, I do not think it is needed, there is a link to the Daily Dot article anyway, and whoever is on that page probably knows my real name. Thanks for offering.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist language on Talk:Cap-Haïtien_fuel_tanker_explosion

    Was checking on this current news article and did a double take when I saw the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1060491147&oldid=1060489203 62.153.231.130 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel'd and user blocked for the comment. Lookign at the edit history, NOTHERE applies. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TheresNoTime, Sir Sputnik, this points to both Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beaneater00/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz: Kittenenthusiast88 was linked to the latter, but is a match with this Nazi account, along with CactusRoy and AlbanianPatriot88. I think something needs to be merged. Oh, we need to throw in User:Legume Luncher as well. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_events_portal Overstuffed with hoax articles

    every time an editor learns that ANI is not the first place one goes when they don't understand what is happening, the world becomes a brighter place. --Jayron32 15:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A large number of hoax pages cataloging “archiving” fake “contemporary events” from before Wikipedia existed have mysteriously appeared in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_events_portal. At least some are created by user:GeoffreyT2000 but I haven’t checked all of them. I was wondering if special action (like mass speedy deletion per WP:G3) and/or sanctions should be performed. Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks as if these have not appeared recently, but were there since 2017, and have not been added by GeofrreyT2000 (they edited these, but didn't create the ones I looked at). They don't seem to be intended as hoaxes, but someone using the portal format and creating similar pages for older dates, probably in an attempt to be helpful. Fram (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dronebogus: could you clarify what problem you are trying to solve? As an example, the page Portal:Current events/August 1998 was originally at August 1998 and moved after this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_11#Using_archives_of_Portal:Current_events_for_month_articles. I can see no evidence of anyone trying to hoax here. What am I missing? —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP range 36.81.12.0/22

    This range has been introducting problematic edits at various television series and awards articles, particularly adding foreign networks, which aren't the original broadcasting networks for the series and awards programs in question, and goes against the template instructions for the "network" parameter found at Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox award. Also, some additional various vandalism or disruptive edits. (Please see their contributions.) This range of IPs geolocates to Indonesia, and isn't the only range from there disrupting these articles (I was seeing IPv4 addresses not beginning with 36, but haven't disseminated the details yet). I am suggesting a range block on the above for these disruptive edits, as semi-protecting the numerous articles involved doesn't seem practical (though I did request semi-protection for one article, Boy Meets World, about a day ago, before noticing this was going on at way more than just that article). From their contributions, this doesn't seem to be a WP:COLLATERAL issue. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did leave one warning here, concerning the Boy Meets World editing, but noticing the edits were coming from dynamic addresses, I found there was no point in leaving additional ones. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MPFitz1968 - I did a pretty good poke through this range's contributions, and nearly all of them consist of the addition or modification of content without referencing any kind of source at all. I've applied a 72 hour block to the 36.81.8.0/21 range. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing attempt

    OK. This has gone too far. I have never made a complaint before, but I must do so now. In their obsessive zeal to get their way, @A. C. Santacruz: just blatantly attempted to out me here [127]. Can you do something about this editor please? BTW, After push back, teh editor in question deleted the material from Talk.[128]. Rp2006 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has personally redacted the content and it is now suppressed. I genuinely do not see anything more to do here, but if there are further concerns feel free to convert this close into a comment and re-open. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC) I have been asked in a roundabout way to re-open this to evaluate their overall behaviour, so have at it. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry... @Primefac: I do not see how to reopen it. Rp2006 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAIK, outing somebody is BIG no no, even if they've reverted the outing & it's been redacted. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a bit more complex than that. There was a source in the article that they were told to read, the source was written by the editor alleging outing. It's a whole clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1060660405"