Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [1] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [2]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [3], and [4], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. However, I would primarily support someone mentoring FDO per my original comment and idea above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
  On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace: Also worth noting that I have contacted them off-wiki multiple times urging them to use edit summaries and not edit war. The usual result is simply WP:IDHT. If they can't listen to such mundane suggestions, mentorship isn't going to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel. Additionally, User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.

The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[5][6][7] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [8]. You have not provided one even today [9]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What an incredibly horrific and unpleasant TfD discussion we have there. Multiple participants deserve WP:TROUT, if not actual warnings. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to the report wrt User:Triggerhippie4:

Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [10]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [11] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).

Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [12] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [13] 'Nominator is a newbie', [14] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.

Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [15] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [16] 'unhelpful', [17] 'for a second time enters PAs'.

-DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to the report wrt User:Gidonb:

Gidonb expressing PA [18] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [19] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [20] pretending not understanding.

Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [21] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [22] and elsewhere [23][24][25] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [26] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [27].

• All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.

I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See #report wrt Triggerhippie4 above. The diffs there show that you were WP:CANVASSING, made WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Also proofs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on WP:EDRC for that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hiding behind others to justify you own breach of WP guidelines? Quite a non-defence. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

>These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
>User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
I don't consider this ([28]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
>The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
>user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't even be making a comment like this when the discussion is ongoing and elsewhere. That certainly was harassment. "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}": Did I do my math wrong? And there were 2 uses until you added it to this article.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Triggerhippie4, you write: "I don't consider this ... canvas". But IT IS. You are not free to judge yourself, of course. You wrote a personal attack. Now at last, respond to the content, do not ignore it. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit surprised that this quite simple report on two editors does not gain any traction by ANI regulars. Any rational explanation? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Simple? I can't even tell who the two editors are. EEng 04:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said: nothing rational. (logged as: another trolling post by User:EEng). -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thus reminding us why you're under an editing restriction providing for "immediate sanction (including blocks) if [you make] any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". You've really gotta stop seeing dark motives all the time. See also WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression.

  I was serious: I honestly cannot tell which two editors you're talking about, and this report is certainly not "simple". It's a confused mish-mash of accusations and counter-accusations, with a dollop of side stuff thrown in along the way. EEng 21:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice try. You write 'I can't even tell who the two editors are' as if they weren't linked. Now you changed into 'confusing report'. If something is unclear, why not ask clarification? Or, if you are unable to grasp the reoports and follow the talkflow, just walk by is an option. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On May 28, Bob Blaylock made two edits to Talk:Transgender, describing "transgenderism" as "pseudoscience" similar to homeopathy, phrenology, biorhythms, and such. After these edits were reverted by another editor, Blaylock created a new section complaining about "censorship" which they described as an admission that one knows that one is full of solid digestive waste, and that one's position cannot stand up to honest discussion. At this point I placed a level 2 warning template on his talk page at User talk:Bob Blaylock#May 2021 asking him to "Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Transgender for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics."

After he made another edit to Talk:Transgender, this time describing being transgender as a passing irrational fad and bemoaning his experience, of questioning the very premise of this article, only to be subjected to brutal and dishonest censorship for doing so, I placed a level 3 template at the same section on his talk page along with a personal message asking him to "stop accusing other editors of censorship, and definitely to stop trying to initiate general discussion about your beliefs about transgender people at Talk:Transgender." I additionally noted that he was risking a block and that I wanted him to be aware of that fact. He responded by accusing me of bad faith and inviting me to depart, and to apply repeated impacts to fine mineral particles.

In a parallel discussion initiated by CaptainEek in the same section on Blaylockʻs talk page, Blaylock continued to describe "transgenderism" as pseudoscience. After CaptainEek made repeated attempts to get Blaylock to provide sources or point out specific issues with the article, Blaylock stated I'm not going to let myself be gish gallopped with a bunch of manure from a male bovine that makes no real effort to support the point that they are supposed to support. It should be noted that this personal attack was made toward CaptainEek, a user with {{User:Cogiati/agender}} and a custom userbox stating "This editor expects recognition as gender neutral" on their userpage, as well as a statement that "In both Wikipedia and real-life my pronouns are they/them."

I apologize for this overly long explanation, and Iʻm not sure how to proceed from here. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, Ezlev, it is you that is actively seeking to keep the conflict going. . Please just stop harassing me, and stop posting bullshit on my talk page.  In fact, let me make it as clear as I can.  I do not consent to anything more from you being posted on my, page, and consider it abusive for you to continue doing so, or otherwise engaging in any harassment against me anywhere.  Just leave me the fuck alone.

  As for the other parallel discussion going on on my talk page between myself and CaptainEek, that is none of your concern.  Surely it is up to me to decide what I will or will not allow on my own talk page, is it not?  I might not ever come to any agreement with CaptainEek on the topic being discussed, but unlike you, he at least appears to be making an effort to discuss the issue in good faith, in a manner of which you appear to be wholly incapable; and as long as that continues to be the case, I have no problem with him continuing that discussion there.  If you have a problem with it, then that is your own problem; not mine, and not CaptainEek's.

  You are unworthy of so much as another second of my time or attention, Ezlev.  Go away and leave me alone.

 — Bob Blaylock (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment. None of this is acceptable in a collaborative project. – bradv🍁 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bradv, I think I know why you didn't go with the old NOTHERE indef-block, but I wonder if Bob Blaylock knows how close he is to one of those. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, if the last few days were the only indication this would totally be a NOTHERE block. But there are some good contributions in the past, so I'm willing to give them a chance in the hopes that they're just having a bad week. – bradv🍁 22:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it, Bradv, and I appreciate it. I hope they do too. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the disruptive behavior resumes, perhaps a topic ban on sexuality and gender may be in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been contributing to the Wikipedia for over a decade, and this is the very first time I have ever run across this sort of trouble.  I think I had some very valid issues to bring up, and I am very much taken aback by the response to my effort to raise these issues.  Apparently, in bringing up these questions, I've hit a nerve that we're just not allowed to hit.  This seems to go very much against what I have always understood to be the purpose and philosophical basis for the Wikipedia. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv — I am not a “they”.  I am just one man, not multiple beings, and there is no rational reason to address me using a plural pronoun. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Blaylock, I used the singular they, which I typically do when I don't know the other person's gender or when their gender is irrelevant to the discussion. – bradv🍁 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob Blaylock: Literally nobody refutes - or cares - about your personal talk page. The subject of this AN/I thread was initially the bombarding of your personal, disputed perspectives onto pages. But, now I believe the focus should be on you not acknowledging why you were brought here - a case of WP:IDHT. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: — A third of Ezlev's complaint, including nearly all the false accusations against me of harassment and personal attacks, are about a conversation that was going on on my personal talk page between myself and another user. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KIENGIR is indef. blocked on en.wikipedia and recently made a blog-like post on his hu.wikipedia account, where he complained about different en.wikipedia editors (Power~enwiki, Beyond My Ken, Biruitorul, Robert McClenon, Boynamedsue, Azure94, Arminden, Rsk6400, Schierbecker. I thought to bring this into the attention of the administrators. 82.78.61.106 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I really don't think there is anything more admins here can do about that, as he is already community banned, and there is not a sanction stricter than that that I am aware of. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're only using their Hungarian Wikipedia account to post (in English) attacks against English editors, including writing messages on at least Beyond My Ken's huwiki talk page, a case could be made for cross-wiki abuse, which could be reported to m:SRG for a global lock. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it per hu:WP:KSZT. dudhhr_Contribs 19:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's "interesting". That post is in English. I don't know any valid reason why he should be posting a lengthy attack in English in the Hungarian Wikipedia. I know of at least one reason, which is precisely that English Wikipedia administrators can't block him there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just letting him get on with it. I don't know what the Hungarian wikipedia's rules are, but if he's breaking them they'll presumably do something about it. As it is, it's just another in a long series of bad choices. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad case. Some time before KIENGIR wound up here, they made a really good improvement to one of my articles. (I didn't know that under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, what is now Slovakia was called Upper Hungary.) I encouraged them in a friendly TP discussion to utilise their rare heritage of what became the Slovakian-speaking minority in Hungary after the 1920 Treaty of Trianon for the benefit of enwiki. However, it seems that was not to be. Narky Blert (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but were deceived about that by him. The borders of "Upper Hungary" were never set in stone, and in fact, originally referred to only parts of today's Eastern Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. Even shortly before 1920, Upper Hungary was understood as a much larger region than modern Slovakia, and included parts of the region of the Matra mountains. It was only after Trianon that Hungarian irredentists began claiming that Upper Hungary and Slovakia are the exact same region. Today, Upper Hungary is mostly used to refer only to Southern Slovakia, where a significant Hungarian minority lives. Azure94 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mention was in an article about a guy who lived in the High Tatras in the mid-late 1800s (Klemens Bachleda), so I think the reference to that ill-defined region was most likely correct. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.

Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane ^talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.

Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. The user is constantly making non constructive edits to Wikipedia, removing contents from articles without giving valid reason/s for doing so, using religious texts as references to Islam related articles. The user is even using unreliable sources such Youtube and facebook as references and is edit warring with multiple editors. Worse, they are paying no attention to what others are telling them and has no intention to work in a collaborative environment. I took a close look at their edit history, and it appears to me that the user is here with an agenda. I have issued multiple warnings to this user (so have others) and tried to convey our concerns. But none of the users have received a reply so far. I recommend an indefinite block, since this user I think is causing a massive damage to Wikpedia and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do some some attempts at constructive editing. I am also seeing a failure to communicate and a failure to grasp the standards of the project. I will not personally take action but I can understand if another admin feels differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I do understand I have made many wrong edits, hopefully won't make now. I literally made like two or three wrong edits I think and that's the reason I am causing a massive damage to Wikipedia? Well I didn't knew, I have read some policies now — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharqHabib (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SharqHabib:, My use of the phrase "massive damage" may have been a little exaggerated. They aren't, however, just "two or three." My real concern was that you seemed unresponsive to other people's worries. But now that you're talking, I think we'll be able resolve many issues. Mosesheron (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I understand. The user is making some constructive edits as well. Their edits are mostly problematic in Islam related articles. Take a look at few recent edits for example. See this this this and this. This user is definitely not a vandal. However, they are changing these articles to match their own worldview, which is really concerning. I think right now they should not be allowed to make changes to Islam related articles. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: few other recent examples. Take a look at this and this as well. These are indeed massive damages to these articles. I am now hopeless after all of my efforts to fix these issues through discussion. And if the administrators believe this user can be left alone after considering all of these issues, then so be it. Mosesheron (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article on the Second Coming on my watchlist. User:SharqHabib edited the article to add "however in Islam, Jesus will come back for the first and only time, not for the second time unlike Christians." This is unsourced and inaccurate, given that Christians believe in the Nativity of Jesus 2000 years ago. It looks like the same user created a separate WP:CFORK of the article here in order to promote this inaccurate view. I think that his/her contributions probably need further examination. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the administrator reviewing this, I recommend that the content fork created by User:SharqHabib be merged back into the original article. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: This report was based on their recent contributions. Following your comment, I went over practically all of their edits. The phrase "massive damage" seems to be an understatement now. This user has removed and continues to remove valid content from numerous articles. On the other hand, he has fed, and continues to feed, unsourced and probably erroneous propaganda materials to many articles. I was going to show some diffs, but I don't think it's necessary because, with the exception of a few, almost all of their contributions seems suspect to me. Mosesheron (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently made this account for the purpose of researching during school. I am sorry if I had broken any type of Terms of Service on this website, and I am sorry for any damage that I had made (if I had I don't know at all though.) Please forgive for any thing I had done wrong. I am willing to come through with something and hopefully you can get back to me if you can. Heres my wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CB%A2%E1%B5%90%E1%B5%83%CB%A1%CB%A1%E1%B5%97%E1%B5%89%CB%A3%E1%B5%97%E2%81%B1%E2%81%BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop posting this here. This noticeboard is for issues which require administrator attention, not for apologies. If you have an issue then say what it is, otherwise go edit an article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:AGF is a non-optional policy". Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: do you have a point to make? Or are you just following me around looking for opportunities to annoy? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, just reminding you of WP:AGF and how to speak to new editors. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I wrote only yesterday that I was reconsidering my choice not to block you for harassing another user, and your response is to harass me instead? I don't know, I don't see the wisdom in it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts is correct, it was not okay for you to WP:BITE that new editor, his reasons for pointing it out notwithstanding. Please don't do it again. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else with an axe to grind would like to pile on here, may I suggest in the interest of moving forward that you post on my talk page instead? Your beef is with me, not this new user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they think they are blocked?That's the only explanation I can think of.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant editing permissons to User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (redone)

Hello, I have had an issue with the editing feature recently where If I try to create and edit my own wikipedia page for example, it comes up with this message: You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: ""Creation of this page (User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page.""

When I had just joined this website I am already blocked from even making my own page. Is there any way to fix this? --ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the message that I get when I look at the possibility of creating your userpage:

"Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:

.*[\x{1D00}-\x{1DBF}].* <casesensitive> # Phonetic extensions, almost never used in valid titles"

You have chosen to create a username using non-standard characters. I suggest that you abandon this account and create a new username using standard characters, as opposed to "phonetic extensions". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be why you were posting here, but couldn't be sure because you didn't say what the problem was and I didn't want to guess. Technically an administrator could create the page for you, but you're going to keep running into problems because you created an account with an emoji username, and you will run into many abuse filters as a result. I echo Cullen328's suggestion that you ought to just abandon this account and create one with a proper username. You can see what's allowed and what's not in our username policy. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not emoji, phonetic extensions are part of writing systems. There is no requirement to use characters that are part of the usual script of a language. Peter James (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair clarification, thanks. Unfortunately our filters that the new user is having problems with do not make that distinction. Perhaps a change is in order? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the title blacklist, not a filter; there is nothing in their edit filter log. A title blacklist entry that is only there because it was not expected that these characters would be used is not a reason to prevent their use. The only parts of the username policy that could be relevant are confusing usernames (although I'm not sure as the they don't look identical to the letters) and decorative names (which was not properly defined and consensus was unclear). Peter James (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Softblock and refer to WP:CHUN that username is going to be constantly disruptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm aware of the username issue, but I've blocked the user indefinitely for probable socking and for incompetence. If another admin wants to devote more time to discussion with this individual, they may either do so with the user blocked or they may unblock the user without consulting with me. I personally think it's a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on two admins' comments on the user's Talk page, I've unblocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone think that the advice at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit needs updating? Sending them to WP:AN, where the big shouty banner says it is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here (emphasis not added) and sends them to WP:ANI instead? Where the friendly admins will tell them to Stop posting this here and go edit an article and discuss their incompetence and maybe even block them for a bit, because who knows, they might be a sock? Do enough admins, template editors, or page movers watch WP:Help desk? That seems like a better target. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1, to such a strong degree I couldn't just let it go unremarked. (As a PMR, would there be any objection to me making a placeholder user page for the editor, or are we working under the assumption he'll get a name change -- or chased off, as it is -- too quickly for that to be a concern?) Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You missed where their request here was also reverted twice for being "obvious trolling". Sub-par admin behaviour abounds here, and I acknowledge my part in it. We certainly could create their page for them, but like Xaosflux said they're better off being renamed, otherwise they'll hit this same problem with their user talk, with any userspace subpages, if they ever need to make a subpage with their name in the title (such as RFA, as far-fetched as that may seem now), if they become a pagemover and want to do round-robin moves through their userspace, probably lots of other minor issues we haven't thought of. I'm in favour of changing the title blacklist instructions, too. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of observations. Firstly something should be done to stop userids being created for which the pages fall foul of the title blacklist. Secondly, and this would be my preference, userids should be in the script of the language of the project on which they are created, without any ornamentation. We get far too many of these threads about userids or signatures, which could be avoided if everyone would realise that this is an encyclopedia, not a social media site where such childish "self-expression" is accepted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Last time this happened (a couple of weeks ago) I suggested creating an edit filer to prevent creation of accounts with obscure ascii characters in them, but it was shot down as not being possible and it turned out the complaining user was a sock. I thought it would be possible to use a modified form of something like Special:AbuseFilter/890 to prevent account creation. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the signatures here are no better, with small text or lack of contrast, but we don't disallow them. Peter James (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Phil Bridger: Yeah, I had a similar problem once before too but in a much more problematic way. An account was performing vandalism and I couldn't create their talk page to warn them as it was on the page blacklist. They ended up being indeffed as a vandalism-only account but it was still a problem. In this case, the user welcoming the subject just happened to be a sysop so it didn't come up. If a page can't be created with a specific name, I don't see why an account should be either. Naleksuh (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it is imperative we find some way of preventing/warning against user accounts being created where the username would lead to title blacklist issues. I realise this issue is complex as the enwiki title blacklist almost certainly differs greatly from those at other projects and usernames are now 'global'. Nonetheless we must grasp the nettle and tackle it somehow as otherwise it will lead to issues such as this reoccurring, with a spectacularly bad first impression for the poor users concerned. firefly ( t · c ) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An alternative would be to maintain the blacklist properly. If that is not possible then it should be deleted; the global blacklist can be used if necessary. Peter James (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That particular entry could be adjusted so that it only applies to particular namespaces, which seems like it would solve the problem here. Also, checkuser data (if I remember right - I can't go looking for an example) shows when someone tries to create an account but is blocked by a filter, so I infer that it is possible to prevent creation of unsuitable account names. I don't think that's through edit filters though, I don't know how it works. I'm absolutely against trashing the local blacklist: it's very useful to counter abuse, and a title that's unsuitable here might be perfectly fine on another project, which would be a huge problem if we can only regex-mask titles globally.

  @Peter James: I'm terrible at regex but you seem to know what you're doing. Can you say how to adjust the mask so that it only prevents creations in reader-facing namespaces, or specifically excludes User: and User talk:? The new user posted the current entry up near the top of this subthread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector: Blocking creation of accounts is done through normal edit filters, e.g. 890 blocks random typing in usernames, 887 blocks excessive reppition in usernames, 102 blocks abusive usernames, 579 puts a limit on account creation rate from a specific IP address and 874 prevents account creation matching specific LTA phrases. A filter to block account creation using decorative asci characters along with a message explaining that usernames should be written in script would probably be the best way forward, as even if we allow these users to create their user page they're going to end up having to change their username anyway, and being allowed to create an account only to be instantly blocked and told that you need to change your username is not a good first experience. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Depends on the circumstances - if there is no consensus to disallow these globally, there could be users from other wikis unable to create an account here. A more appropriate response if not disallowed globally would be to warn and provide an opportunity to have their username changed first, and only to block if they continue to edit from the account without requesting a change. Filters 887 and 890 should be set to warn, not to disallow; there can be a new filter to disallow the names that are disruptively long. Peter James (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peter James: The filters are already set up to account for this: createaccount and autocreateaccount are different filter conditions, so these do not run when an account is automatically created. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not certain but some entries have (?!(User|Wikipedia|File)( talk)?:|Talk:) which allows User, Wikipedia and File and associated talk namespaces, and article talk (but not article). I don't think the |File part would be useful here, as these shouldn't be used for files, and |Talk: is probably unnecessary as talk pages of single characters are on the whitelist. If it's possible to create a username, it should be possible to create user talk and project pages (SPI, MFD) containing the username. Peter James (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Done that seems to have done the trick. I get the admins' blacklist message when trying to create ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ, but not when trying to create User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ or Wikipedia talk:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ. Give it a try and see if you get the same result. We did already advise the user to abandon this account and start with a new one and for all we know they already did, so let's not actually create these pages, just see if you get a blacklist message on them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... but also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewcoolitback: our new user is a confirmed sockpuppet. I think bringing the title blacklist in line with the username policy is a good thing regardless, it at least means that the clerk didn't have to be an admin to tag this sock's userpage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That this turned out to be a sockpuppet must go near the top of the list of least surprising revelations ever, but, as you say, we should try, if it doesn't turn out to be just too difficult technically, to sort things out so that people don't create userids only to find soon afterwards that the pages that go along with them can't be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I edited DJ Vlad. All I did was update subscribers and views stats, that were more than a year old. The stats have no references. Even though the updated stats were accurate, they were reverted with the edit summary "unE/unS". I had no idea what that meant. WP:E is editing policy, and WP:S is a help page about searching. Since my edit was constructive and "unE/unS" unclear, I undid the reversion, with the edit summary "What are you doing? What's wrong with my edit? And what does "unE/unS" mean?". My edit was once again reverted, with edit summary "entirely unsourced". This again, made no sense to me, because - yes, it's unsourced, but I'm merely updating unsourced content. Since when is that not allowed? I can now only update unsourced content when I find a source? So, if someone adds "grass is purple" without a source, I change that to "grass is green", then it gets reverted because I must first find a source? Either way, I decided to give in. If - apparently - I'm not allowed to improve unsourced content, let's start by marking it with "citation needed", so we can first get the ref. I marked it as such. Which was accepted! (The article has pending changes.) Although a log of this appears to have disappeared(!), since it was then reverted after all. With edit summary "Ur edit was unExplained and unSourced. Re-adding with cite needed tags is not how it works. Go find some refs". In other words, an editor who uses "Ur", now tells me to "Go find some refs". To add insult to injury, this editor then edited my talk page to first claim I'm making "unconstructive edits", and then immediately after that a second claim that I'm in an "edit war", and that I may get blocked. My opinion is that the behavior of User:Thewolfchild is entirely uncalled for. I did not make unconstructive edits, so I don't deserve that warning. And I'm not in an edit war either. I clearly gave in and refrained from re-adding the content, and decided to add the "citation needed" tags instead. To then have someone write "Go find some refs." really hurts. All I wanted to do is update some stats. To then to get all this poured over me, and the end-result being a Talk page with how bad of an editor I would be. I don't think I deserve this. Unjustified right? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, don't get your feelings hurt about this. It's nothing personal. When edits are made, especially if they're regarding statistics. Wikipedia requires sourcing when changes are made, and the one making the change is supposed to supply the sourcing. If you can supply inline sourcing at the time you make the changes, maybe they won't get reversed. If not, you could post the information on the article's talk page, rather than in the article, and explain where you got the information from. Also, I think the messages on your talk page were pre-worded templates, which a lot of people use. — Maile (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are outdated, inaccurate stats, which means Wikipedia is spreading misinformation, can I mark them as contentious material in an edit summary, with the edit itself removing the stats per WP:BLP + it being unsourced? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sufficient to ping TheWolfChild from your talk page, you have to notify them at their talk page. P-K3 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already did, they reverted that. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: your input is needed on this issue. Please respond here and engage in the discussion. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To admins and others here. If no response is made by Thewolfchild here, I would suggest we revisit their block log history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. After years of temporary blocks for harassment, personal attacks, and edit warring, @Bishonen: applied an indef block for "Disruptive editing, newbie-biting, frightening people" in April 2019, and @Nosebagbear: unblocked them in October 2020. What is happening now appears to be a repeat of the behavior they were blocked for. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@143.176.30.65 - First, you're complaining about the abbreviations I used in my edit summary, when you didn't even bother to add an summary at all with your first edit. Typically, (as per WP:BRD) when you're reverted, if you disagree, you should then start a discussion on the talk page. Had you done so, I would've been more than happy to explain the reasons for the revert, namely the WP:RS policy that you need to follow, and clairfy any abbreviations used, at that point. But you didn't, you instead just reverted again. You were then reverted by a different editor (Chicdat). You then made another edit to that content again, this time with a somewhat hostile summary, and still without any attempt at discussion on the article talk page. (I reverted, but have since self-reverted, as it was only tags being added, and no changes made to actual content.) Yes, I did add a disruptive editing notice, because I felt your editing was disruptive. I also added the edit warring notice because I felt you should be aware of the policy. These are just notices, they're not punitive, and you are free to delete or archive them (as you have done with the many other notices and warnings you've received). And finally, even though I posted to your talk page, you did not respond there, or post a comment on my talk page, or on the article talk page, or try dispute resolution, or contact an available admin... any of the alternatives clearly listed at the top of this page to try before posting an ANI. - wolf 00:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related to WP:Discussion and IMO therefore not WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: you should use a differently styled signature. Per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, your current way of signing posts is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Its markup (with the "color: black" span) essentially hides the link to your Talk page. The link is only visible to those who hover over the word "wolf" on a desktop computer. You need an easily identified link to aid others in communicating with you; a signature that facilitates discussion by identifying you without the apparent requirement of navigating to the page history. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterize my asking about your edit summary as "complaining about the abbreviations". Then you unjustifiably blame me for not using an edit summary for my first edit. Also, per WP:BRD, when reverting, you need to "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed", which "unE/unS" - particularly without internal links - is not. As for WP:RS, in this particular context, it does not require me to "go find some refs". I am aware of 'the policy'. My editing was not disruptive. The reason I took this to WP:ANI is because you were steamrolling over me. In two consecutive edits, you added an orange tag and a red triangle warning, claiming I am respectively disruptive and edit warring, which are the first steps towards me getting banned - essentially out of nowhere. Other than the self-reversion, nothing about your response here indicates your willingness to view this experience from my perspective. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. I'm quite unimpressed by TWC's demeanour in this conflict, and even more with their defense above. Their statement that in these edits they "reverted, but have since self-reverted, as it was only tags being added, and no changes made to actual content" is technically correct but misleading. It looks more like you hastily/carelessly reverted the addition of tags, having misread it as edit warring. (Your edit summary shows that you misread it: "Re-adding with cite needed tags is not how it works." My italics. The IP had not re-added.) Then you posted an edit warring warning on them, though they had only reverted once to your own twice. Only then, when the IP had gone to ANI, and had (indeed) notified you on your page, and you had read their narrative here, then you self-reverted. I base this reading on the timestamps involved. This is poor treatment of an IP editor, and acknowledging your own mistake would have been more becoming. Your statement that "I also added the edit warring notice because I felt you should be aware of the policy" is also pretty misleading. That notice doesn't just make people aware of the policy, it accuses them of being "engaged in an edit war" and of "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree". Not true; they changed it once, not repeatedly. By the time you posted the above, you knew this; an apology for your mistake would have been more becoming than evasiveness. Of course you know you take responsibility, as a Twinkle user, for what Twinkle says; that's your business. And I suppose you're aware that Twinkle offers a "softer wording" edit warring notice. As for BRD, please note that it is optional, and that the typical use case it describes could hardly be more different from this case. Note also the section WP:BRD-NOT. Telling the IP that all would have been well if they had only gone to the talkpage to get your personal mystery abbreviations interpreted is again evasive. Next time you're trying to save time with nonce abbreviations, please consider how much time they have the potential to waste for other people.

This is a poor show so far, but hardly rises to a sanction. However, your attempt to poison the well by mentioning the IP's deleting or archiving of "the many other notices and warnings you've received", is just shameless, and pushes me over the edge to a block. The IP has archived their page once, yes. I invite other admins and editors to look for the non-existent "many other notices and warnings" that thereby disappeared from the page. Hint: the only trace of anything like that I found were some polite message from XLinkBot about external links. Barnstars, kittens and constructive discussions do not qualify as "warnings". Did you fall into the trap of thinking there must be something nefarious hidden by the archiving because the user is an IP? I have blocked you for 48 hours for disrespect and lack of candor. And please read WP:IPs are human too. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thewolfchild I remember speaking out in favour of unblocking you last October, and I'm glad you're back to editing. I just edit conflicted with Bish here - I was going to go with a warning and some advice rather than a block, but I essentially agree with her assessment. I appreciate that, when patrolling recent changes, you see lots of IP editors tinkering about with statistics without touching sources - many of those changes are vandalism, but many of them are just people trying to keep our content up to date. I don't see any reason to revert a change to an unsourced figure unless the new figure is obviously impossible - if it's the sourcing you're worried about, then the version you're reverting to is no better than the new one. On top of the questionable revert, you then went overboard with warning templates; what was really needed was a quick note on talk saying 'where is this info coming from?', or even just checking for a source yourself quickly. And now we're here - we all make mistakes, but when that happens you need to recognise it quickly, and offer an apology. Please take time to reflect on how you could have handled this better, and come back stronger. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block in my opinion, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block duration change. I've been mulling over this, and changed my mind about the 48 hours. Changed to 31 hours (from now). Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned by anyone but the IP at least on this page, can I say "unE/unS" is a terrible edit summary? I've been here for many years, and I would have great trouble figuring out what it meant. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 I hope Thewolfchild stops using it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, and I did complain about "your personal mystery abbreviations" above. "Next time you're trying to save time with nonce abbreviations, please consider how much time they have the potential to waste for other people." Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  Out of curiosity, has anyone worked out what "unE/unS" means? Narky Blert (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  from the edit summary: unExplained and unSourced. — Ched (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't have guessed that either. I'd have guessed unEncyclopedic because that's how "E" is often used on nlwiki. For example: Dat er eens per jaar een wielerwedstrijd overheen dendert maakt de wegen niet E. ("just having some cycling competition roll over them once a year doesn't make the roads E.") But on enwiki "E" means nothing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block Unsourced additions should be removed straight away. There is no excuse for addition of unsourced material in 2021. The job of the the admins is to protect the content creators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block Unsourced additions should be removed straight away. There is no excuse for addition of unsourced material in 2021. The job of the the admins is to protect the content creators. ——Serial 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there an echo in here? Who's on first? EEng 08:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. These aren't "unsourced additions", the source is right there in the infobox, a few lines above these numbers: Youtube. The numbers given by the IP were correct and easily verifiable (the 4.57 million is visible stright from the Youtube link in the infobos, the number of views is one click further away, here). I've reverted the article to the IP version, and added this link for the hard-of-hearing who don't believe the link right above it is sufficient, and who prefer "unsourced" outdated or imprecise figures given by, uh, no idea who, to "unsourced" correct, precise figures given by an IP. And as Bishonen indicates, the block wasn't for the edit war or the obscure abbreviations, but because of the doubling down, the reaction given here. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fram, the ref is now added automatically by {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! Fram (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to revert a personal attack [37], but an administrator, who was siding against me in a polemic article content discussion, reverted it. Here's the sentence from that post that had me concerned: "That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." It states that my user dislikes Muslims, which isn't true. Can I appeal the decision not to revert the personal attack here? Benevolent human (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "dislikes Muslims" appears to be referring to Donald Trump, not to you. ST47 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron's not an administrator either. And you haven't notified them, as is required by the big red notice. Clarified now.Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent human, that wasn't a personal attack, it was a discussion about the situation. One might argue Trump is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I guess, but deleting the entire comment was inappropriate. Why did you go straight to AN/I to report this rather than reply in the thread or ask me about it on my talk page? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fuller quote that makes clear it's directed at me: "Could it be that the real issue for them is not anti-semitism, but rather Israel? That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." Moboshgu is the administrator who reverted my revert: [38]. I gave both Moboshgu and NightHeron a notice, sorry for being slow, this is my first time posting to ANI. Moboshgu, I went here because it didn't ochttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48cur to me that there was any room for misinterpretation, I thought it was pretty clearly a personal attack accusing me of bigotry towards Muslims. Benevolent human (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it purely as a comment about Trump disliking Muslims, which could be a BLP issue on its own, but not a personal attack on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reminded NightHeron to abstain from the polemic BLP comments.[39] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, I'm just trying to get the attack against me removed since it's defamatory. Benevolent human (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent human, you have a nice username but you seem to be incorrect here. I have read that comment over and over again, and it is not a personal attack against you and it is in no way defamatory. It was a criticism of Trump and not directed at you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the compliment at least. I'll certainly need to let the matter drop if the ANI folk don't see an issue. Just to defend my intentions here, my interpretation was that I was giving Trump "a pass because he...dislikes Muslims", which to me implied that I wasn't editing Trump's biography because I like people who dislike Muslims, which seems to imply that I dislike Muslims. Benevolent human (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real stretch. Every editor chooses which of our millions of articles to edit. I read it as a critique of the way that some people in general apply standards inconsistently when discussing Trump and Omar. It is a bit "forumy" but not directed at you personally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for carelessly violating WP:BLP in one of my comments on Trump; I've struck that phrase. Concerning WP:FORUM, I don't think that applies to my comment. Another editor had commented that WP:ARBPIA should apply to the RfC in question, but its OP is not an extended confirmed user. My comment made a case that the broad context for the fervent efforts to focus on alleged anti-semitism in the Ilhan Omar article is really Israel, not the question of whether or not a congressperson from Minnesota is anti-semitic. Applicability of ARBPIA is supposed to be "broadly interpreted". So I don't think my comment was irrelevant to the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, thank you! Also, thank you for bringing up the scope of WP:ARBPIA, I was also hoping to get that clarified. My mindset at the time of opening the RFC is that it didn't have to do with Israel/Palestine, it had to do with allegations that Omar was using anti-Semitic canards that predated the conflict. But yes, the dual loyalty charges are related to dual loyalty to Israel, so there's some connection to Israel, albeit indirect. My reading of WP:ARBPIA is that it doesn't apply to things about Israel that don't involve the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm happy do whatever the folk here think I should do going forward if that interpretation of the relevant rules isn't correct. Benevolent human (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When people say "criticism of Israel" by Omar or anyone else, as far as I'm aware you can assume they're talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israel has some great scientists and (in my opinion) makes the best feta cheese in the world; people are not criticizing Israel for that. When criticism of Israel for its treatment of Palestinians is the context for an issue discussed on Wikipedia, it seems to me that ARBPIA applies. NightHeron (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you (and feel free to share that feta cheese recommendation on my talk page, I'd be willing to give it a try). I could see why you would think that, I appreciate your outlining your thought process. Mine is that dual loyalty implies people doing nice things for Israel because they have dual loyalty for Israel, but the US has done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Palestinians (such as massive, massive economic aid, recognition of the Golan Heights annexation, Operation Nickel Grass, some of the Iran stuff, etc.) Benevolent human (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that @67.167.223.47: appears to be making a legal threat on The Kiffness. Can this be revdeled and dealt with accordingly please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a legal threat persay, however it is unsourced info on a BLP. I don't see a need to revdel or sanction the IP over this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a legal threat (as in, the IP is not threatening to take legal action) but a pretty serious BLP violation - they're essentially accusing someone of having committed a criminal act with nothing to back it up. I've hidden it. I've also blocked the IP for a month for a long pattern of adding their opinions and other unsourced derogatory content to mostly films but also some other BLPs, and it's pretty clearly the same user on the IP that was blocked a year ago for the same reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeas116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JESCaales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jearbne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jab Arne1120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Recent related discussion, courtesy ping JalenFolf and ToBeFree

These are a series of obviously connected accounts (the header is taken from the first account's first edit, "Jeas116 is the meaning of Jack, Esuyy, Aldan, and Slaoiuamn") which for the past five years have been drafting articles on their user pages and sometimes user talk pages. When other users have intervened to move these pages to more appropriate locations (like Draft: space, or their sandboxes), they respond by copying & pasting the content back to the original location, creating a split history. There are numerous such splits in the four accounts' histories, including deleted contribs, and it's possible there are more accounts. The drafts also commonly duplicate existing articles, for example User:JESCaales/sandbox1 is the same topic as 2021 FIVB Volleyball Women's Nations League; two of the accounts have contributed to the sandbox (which has no sources at all) and none have contributed to the existing article. Also, I'm less concerned about this but they are all clearly meatpuppets. I came across this situation via TfD where JalenFolf has nominated a pretty long list of templates they've created which are only used in their drafts.

Combined, the four accounts have 3,733 edits (as of this edit), of which only 360 are in article namespace, and (anecdotally; we don't have a tool for this) a large percentage of those were edits to drafts and sandboxes prior to being promoted to articles.

This appears to me to be a giant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, in that the users are creating a walled garden for their own sub-project which would be more appropriate on a site like Fandom, although there are a handful of good-faith article edits, and a handful of edits which were eventually incorporated into articles without the users' involvement. There is at least a large task here to find and merge page histories, but what else if anything should we do about it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, Thanks for this. My first encounter with this series of accounts was with an IP edit in Recent changes under the "mw-removed-redirect" tag, though at the time I didn't take notice of Jab Arne1120 and the Template edits. I took notice of the Template editing when Jeas started editing one of the group's templates again on 31 May. Just checked back on the group's contributions just now, and digging deeper, have also found similar edits from 2016–2018 by Pomi112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yuyu333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Evyang132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JAIC1120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Bashman1120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With this discovery, I will also courtesy ping Berean Hunter as blocking admin for JAIC for input. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft that JAIC1120 was building on their talk page was also edited by Pomi112 and JESCaales, which suggests there's a connection between these groups. I don't have much more time today but running all these accounts through the editor interaction tool would be informative. If I have time I'll compile something at SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeas116, JESCaales, and Jearbne are identical from a CU perspective, whether that's as socks or meat (you know, brothers/neighbors/cousins). As far as I can see, the balance between playing around in user space and making article edits is way off, and that suggests NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeas116 and Jearbne went around removing the TfD notices from several of the nominated templates today, and Jeas116 has tried to remove this section repeatedly. I think this pushes them over the line into "disruptive sockpuppet" territory. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, even Jearbne is continuing this same TfD removal behavior, completely ignoring this ANI altogether. Definitely needs a block at this point. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a very similar recent case, with a user who made thousands of edits to their sandbox to create a set of fake sports tournament results. They had little or no edits outside of their sandbox. The end result was the sandbox was deleted and the user blocked (WP:NOTHERE, IIRC). For the life of me, I can't recall the user, but that might jog someone's memory about it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chiming in briefly. I noticed via watchlist some of this activity without noticing the ANI was open. I had asked @NinjaRobotPirate: if he'd take a look but looks like Drmies already has. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-delete drafts and sandboxes?

• I've blocked the whole lot; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeas116; they have also started creating new accounts so expect that this is not the end of this. I think it is probably reasonable to mass-delete their sandboxes and userspace drafts, since they're not really contributing anything other than less-polished versions of articles we already have, but I'll leave that for consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this as short as I can. The TL;DR is that MjolnirPants is edit warring to prevent an RfC closure from being implemented, which is a conduct issue, not a content one, as they have refused the suggestions I've made that they dispute the closure at a proper forum.

This RfC on whether to include any of the material in this edit was closed by Buidhe with a summary that began There's consensus to remove the disputed material. MjolnirPants (same user as MPants at work) is arguing that part of the edit, sourced to WordPress, is not covered by the RfC statement, which read in full: Should the content re-added in this edit, which is partially unsourced and otherwise sourced variously to user-generated websites like Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress, be included in this article?

MjolnirPants engaged in edit warring to prevent the result from being implemented by myself here and here, and no doubt would continue to revert further if anyone engaged them in the edit war, based on the intent expressed here. The user claims here that the closure is invalid, but they are of course involved and have refused to follow my suggestion here that they dispute the closure at WP:AN, the proper location per Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Addressing objections.

Throughout discussion, the user has made a steady stream of hostile comments that I can only presume are intended to fall just slightly below the WP:NPA threshold, which you can read at their talk, pre-RfC discussion, the RfC and my talk. They include some of the Top 40 Greatest Hits of ANI: "go find something better to do", implying my talents are better suited to the Simple English Wikipedia, confidently asserting I hadn't read a source when I had and How long did you spend typing that big ole hunk of text? 2, 3 minutes? Did it ever occur to you [to do something I had done]. Most persistent is the claim that I am deliberately lying (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), which is a comment on contributor, not content. There's also a lot of stuff like this, in which my comment "We have some confusion here about whether your comment is meant to refer to ..." is misread as an assertion that "there is 'some confusion'" as to reliability of a source. I understand that the user has a history of personal attacks and edit warring, and was only unblocked in April this year after a February 2019 oversight block by TonyBallioni, the context of which I'm unaware of.

Some actions that could be taken here: re-open the RfC; overturn it with a different outcome; establish consensus that MjolnirPants is not permitted to edit war indefinitely to prevent the implementation of an RfC result; or enact editing sanctions against some subset of myself, MjolnirPants and Buidhe for reasons of conduct. The action I support is the third, consensus that the RfC result must be implemented (which could be enforced by a partial block of MjolnirPants from Self-referential humor).

By reading the associated pages with this conflict, you will be able to pre-empt MjolnirPants's inevitable response about why the above summary (already too long, for which I apologise) misrepresents the situation—and I urge you all to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just note that the RfC Bilorv opened was done after both EEng and I indicated our willingness to remove much of the material, and that three editors pointed this out in the RfC. It was also me who actually removed most of them. And I'm also not alone in pointing out that this example is different. I'll further note that Bilorv has explicitly refused to discuss this particular issue after asserting without evidence that the source is am imposter and rejecting evidence that contradicted him out of hand, and has been otherwise misrepresenting not only the RfC but the discussion thus far.

As if that weren't enough, the edit war is two-sided: ([46] [47]), and apparently Bilorv can interpret the questionable close however he likes, but I'm "not permitted" to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in full the reason why the WordPress source is not reliable, and that you persistently ignored and misrepresented my comments is not a refusal to discuss on my part. You continue to do this, as my position is not and never has been that "the source is am [sic] imposter". We received clarification from the closer that your claims about the other RfC participants' comments and the scope of the RfC were not correct and I did not edit war, but reverted once, after new information became available about the closer's intention. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• An edit war over a disputed RfC ending up at ANI - all concerning the page Self-referential humor? Is this some sort of performance art? If so, I'd like to be the first to buy y'all a drink and congratulate you. Can we all meet up somewhere and unwind? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Girth Summit, There's a little bar behind my house that serves a local microbrew that'll blow your mind. Plus there's karaoke! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  MPants at work, sounds great! Please invite EEng and Bilorv too - you're all good people, I'd love to have a drink with any/all of you. Can't understand how it's come to this. Perhaps everyone take a deep breath, remember that all the content is in the history so can be easily retrieved, and head back to the talk page in a few days to focus on what should stay in, and what should come out? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Girth Summit: Four editors walk into a bar.^{[citation needed]} But the last thing we need is more discussion. We need implementation of the results of the first three discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bilorv: well just after I wrote below you came along to prove MPants isn't the only problem..... Given the limited discussion that has taken place thus far, it's very hard to say WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to further discussion. I think it's unfortunate that MPants doesn't agree with the developing consensus especially since they were one of the ones objecting to the RFC in the first place. But they are entitled that to that view. So no Wikipedian should be demanding that discussion must end. As I said below, if a clearer consensus does develop then yes Mpants has to accept that. In other words, if you are demanding discussion must end, then yes you are part of the problem. Note that discussion continuing doesn't mean you have to be part of it. IMO there is close enough to consensus already that it's perfectly possible the views of others will either convince MPants they are wrong, or at least convince them consensus is against them. In the even no one else is willing to contribute to the discussion or try to convince Mpants, well meh is gets complicated but let's just see what happens. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nil Einne: I am in favour of further input, hence why I raised this at ANI. I would be delighted if the RfC was re-opened and we got further opinions for proper clarity. I support the suggestion you made. My comment above, too hastily written to be clear I guess, refers to further discussion amongst the same small set of users (which is what the comment I replied to suggested). — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe the RFC should be reopened? I don't fault User:Buidhe for closing it, there seemed to be a consensus of sorts and several editors had said there was no need for an RfC. But since it was only open for about 10 days and the las reply was about 3 days before closing, it may be better to just reopen it and hope a clearer consensus is achieved. I don't understand why User:MPants at work claimed there was no need for an RfC but then seems to be acting as the sole barrier against consensus but whatever even given their history, I'm not sure this is enough for action against them so probably best to just make it clear, or not, that consensus is against them rather than wasting time on an ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why User:MPants at work claimed there was no need for an RfC but then seems to be acting as the sole barrier against consensus It's this particular joke. One of the jokes was well-sourced, but Bilorv decided (after EEng and I had expressed fondness for it) that it must go because of reasons they literally made up from whole cloth. As for the rest of the examples; as seen in my comment above, it was me who removed them from the article. Hell, I'm not even as opposed as EEng to removing this joke, I just find it well sourced, and Bilorv won't discuss the sourcing since I proved him wrong about it being an imposter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You chose not to remove the content during the period I was waiting for one of the two of you to make the removal, and only did so after I opened the RfC that I said would be my next step, and then attempted to argue the RfC redundant because some of the content in scope had been removed, without making clear in your comment that you had chosen not to remove all of the material. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to reopen the RfC if that's the best way to resolve this situation. (t · c) buidhe 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think reopening the RfC and continuing discussion would be a good thing. I'd also beg everyone to have a beverage of choice and chill out - we do not need to be at each others' throats over this. MPants and Bilorv seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with each other. I've seen you both at work in other parts of the project though, and I know you're both Good Peoples. Is there a reset button I can press anywhere? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted for a reopened RfC with further input from uninvolved users, and no further badgering and repeated accusations that I am lying by MjolnirPants. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, you know, if you don't like being called a liar, maybe you shouldn't make an argument that the blog is run by an imposter and then turn around and claim that you never made that argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread the first comment you link to. I did not argue that the blog is run by an imposter. (My personal opinion is that it is quite likely that Stamp does run the blog.) I argued that the evidence you presented does not prove to the standard required on Wikipedia that it is run by Stamp. Stop making personal attacks like the above and please re-read my comments so as to avoid further assertions of falsehoods about me. — Bilorv (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPants at work, in fairness, your initial diff isn't Bilorv saying that they think the site is run by an imposter, it's Bilorv saying that it might be, and the onus is on the person wanting to use a self-published source to prove that it's not. Now, one could argue the toss about whether there was ever a reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (per WP:ABOUTSELF criterion 4), but calling Bilorv a liar over that is going too far. There has been too much snark in that talk page discussion and the RfC already - any chance we could draw a line under that sort of thing now? (I'll buy the first round.) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Arguing that "it might be" and then dismissing out of hand the evidence that it's not is no difference than arguing that it is. See "Just asking questions". Given the deceptiveness of the RfC (pretending there was a disagreement over all of these examples when there very clearly was not), my ability to trust Bilorv's integrity was rightfully diminished.

I would also note that his claim to have been arguing about "the evidence I presented" is demonstrably false: I presented evidence in response to this, not prior to this comment.

That being said, I'd be happy to discuss this particular case and come to an agreement on whether to keep it. But it's Bilorv who needs to engage here: either by accepting that the blog is Stamp's, or presenting some other rationale for exclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I pointed to five instances in my initial statement where MjolnirPants has made a similar comment about me deliberately lying, three of which claimed that I believe something I never said, but the user won't stop, and literally accused me again of lying in the response this comment edit conflicted on. You told me above, take a deep breath ... and head back to the talk page in a few days, which I tried twice already before bringing it to ANI. I want a specific and clear answer: how can I get MjolnirPants to stop making personal attacks like the above and misrepresenting my opinions to other users? — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, I'll tell you definitively right now:

Stop trying to defend your earlier comments. You got heated during the discussion just like me. You stretched the truth a bit, something I don't do, but lots of other people do. It happens.

It's not worth me commenting on once it stops.

As I just said above, either accept that this is a well-sourced example, or give me a good reason to exclude it that isn't about the quality of the sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPants at work - I think there are things you could both have done differently in that discussion. I'd be happy to talk to both of you, individually or together, about my views on what those are, if you like. Right now though, it would be brilliant if everyone stepped back from accusations of lying and other bad faith editing, and focused on moving forward, letting water flow under the bridge, etc. Please would you be willing to retract that, accept that Bilorv was acting in good faith (while continuing to believe they were wrong), so we can try and get this back on track? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I respect and appreciate your efforts here, and I respect your opinion on Bilorv.

But we've gotten to this point because Bilorv has been stonewalling the discussion about this source with repeated, unjustified (and frankly, unjustifiable) claims that the ownership of the blog is in dispute, while refusing to even acknowledge the evidence that it isn't.

If Bilorv will drop that nonsensical position, then there's no problem left to deal with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: was that comment meant to be a reply to I want a specific and clear answer: how can I get MjolnirPants to stop making personal attacks like the above and misrepresenting my opinions to other users?? I am not seeing an answer here as to the simple question of by what means WP:NPA will be enforced for a user who is continuing to call me a liar here and elsewhere, misrepresent my position, and is specifically refusing to retract any of these comments when asked by an admin. Point me to a comment I've made that you think is a personal attack and I'll be willing to engage with you and retract it if I agree. But has MjolnirPants not made it clear several times over now that they have no intention of voluntarily stopping the clear personal attacks? — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, briefly, because I'm making dinner: I do not assert that you have made any personal attacks towards MP - I thank you for that. However, MP's statements are supported by diffs, and if there is a venue where it is permissible to make accusations of bad faith editing of another user with supporting diffs, this is it. I don't agree with his assessment, but he is permitted to voice it in defense of his own conduct and in response to your accusations.

As I've already said, from where I'm sitting you are both fantastic contributors, and I'm perplexed about how we got to this position. I am not going to unilaterally impose any sanctions here, and I would be very keen to try to mediate this between you, if you are both willing to proceed like that. Other admins might feel differently, and they may well do so before I come back online again tomorrow. All I can do is reiterate that I hold you both in very high esteem, that I think this has come about because of some sort of personality clash, that you could both have done things better, and that I hope that we will be able to find a way through the woods that does not result in anyone being hit with any hammers. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, For the record, my last comment should be read as an implicit yes that moving on is ideal.

I don't think I can, in good faith, retract anything because I just don't buy that Bilorv honestly believed that the RfC was necessary, or that, for example "you can't be serious" somehow refutes the evidence I showed them, or that they're permitted to interpret that close however they like, but I'm not.

I am, however, more than willing to drop the matter and not bring it up again if we can just move on from it. And I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have been too confrontational in addressing that behavior.

If you'd like to come to the talk page and help suss it out, that'd be great. Schazjmd has joined in with a question, which is much more helpful than it might appear, as it's moving things forward. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I have pointed to six diffs throughout this discussion to where MjolnirPants said I was being dishonest and/or lying on pages other than ANI, and such comments were, in context, a personal attack. I don't understand why you are communicating the implication that the situation is equal parts hostility from me and MjolnirPants when you do not think I have made any personal attacks. I'm glad that this thread has raised further scrutiny and action at Talk:Self-referential humor, but I won't continue contributing in a venue where I am expected to tolerate persistent personal attacks and avoid making any personal attacks myself, only to be told that I should be more collegiate to the person attacking me.

No doubt MjolnirPants is delighted to hear that their persistent rudeness has succeeded in its desired effect, but it is clear that there will be no action taken to prevent continued incivility. You are, apparently, permitted to keep misrepresenting my opinion and accusing me of lying, acting in bad faith, and being so stupid that no reasonable human could have the views I hold, with no consequences. Have some fun with it. To Girth Summit: since you think my conduct was imperfect, if you want to email me with descriptions of what you think I did wrong and what I could have done differently then I'll read that and consider it for future content disputes. The following applies to everyone: do not ping me again to this ANI discussion or to Self-referential humor or Talk:Self-referential humor in edit summaries or in comments. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pondering what to do for the best for the last couple of hours this morning, since waking up and seeing the last couple of messages. I intend to respect Bilorv's request that nobody ping them, but I will expand on why I don't see this as an obviously one-sided case which can easily be resolved by applying sanctions to one party. Apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy post.

• Bilorv started the talkpage thread with an edit that suggested that EEng must have reverted them in error, and that expressed an unwillingness to discuss the matter. That was Bilorv's first ever edit to the talk page - it's not like they had been engaged in a long discussion that was going nowhere. 'Either it's my way, or we need an RfC' seems like a very confrontational way to start a talk page thread.
• EEng and MPants both responded fairly positively - they both agreed that a lot of the material that Bilorv wanted to remove should go, but they both believe very strongly that at least one piece of the content should remain. So far, so good - we have three editors who want to remove stuff, but they don't all agree on exactly what. This could have been a fruitful discussion.
• Bilorv's next response was again confrontational - to me, it reads as snarky - and again it says that everything must go, or it's straight to RfC.
• The thread then goes off the rails a bit, and Bilorv starts up an RfC, about 24 hours after the discussion started. That RfC was premature, and the way it was worded, Should the content re-added in this edit, which is partially unsourced and otherwise sourced variously to user-generated websites like Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress, be included in this article?, was completely inappropriate. It's a moot question - nobody was arguing that all of the content should be in the article, there was just disagreement over whether some parts should have been retained. The proper thing to have done would have been to get the discussion back on track, agree on which bits definitely needed to go, make a list of the bits that there was disagreement about, give time for people to look for better sourcing for those bits, and then, if agreement hadn't been reached, open an RfC about those particular bits.
• During the course of the RfC, MPants started cutting away at parts of the content that he agreed didn't belong on the page. While he was doing that, further discussion about one particular bit of content and its sourcing took place. The discussion had, by this point, become quite snarky, but it does cast further doubt on the wording of the RfC (there is disagreement over one of the sources is regular UGC, or whether it's an acceptable self-published source written by a subject-matter expert).
• Buidhe then came along and closed the discussion, finding consensus to remove the material. I don't really understand why the RfC was closed so soon after being opened when active discussion was ongoing, and I don't really understand why Buidhe wrote her close in the way she did: the question was simply 'should this material be included', but Buidhe's close went beyond that, and she appears not to have understood some of the comments that people were making. In my view, it was a bad close of a bad RfC. What then happened was people disagreeing about how to interpret the close, edit warring my multiple parties, accusations of bad faith editing from MPants, and the opening of this ANI thread. In short, to put it bluntly, a clusterfuck.

So, here we are. We have two excellent, productive editors at loggerheads over whether or not a particular example of a joke should be included in an article about jokes, we've wasted hours of time, and nobody has gained anything. I think that Bilorv could have been more collegiate in the way that they started that discussion, I think that everyone should have tried harder to keep the discussion on-track, I think that RfCs ought to be written much more carefully than that one was (and ideally discussed and agreed upon before being started), and I think that closes need to be done more carefully than that. Buidhe has self-reverted her close, which I thank her for, and MjolnirPants has accepted that he should be less confrontational in the way that he addresses what he perceives to be gaming of the system, which I thank him for (while believing that an apology for going overboard would be helpful).

My suggested solution for what to do now is this: trouts all round for getting into a fight about something so trivial; the reopened RfC should be closed as badly worded and largely moot; and for anyone who still cares about the disputed content to start a new, civilised discussion focussed specifically about whether or not the one particular joke that sparked all this is sufficiently well-sourced to be included as an example in an article about jokes. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, This is a pretty good breakdown of the situation.

I'd be willing to kiss and make up, as it were, but Bilorv's latest comment here makes me think any effort to reach out on my part (or on yours, on my behalf) would likely only make things worse.

P.S. I really appreciate your offer to mediate and your efforts to resolve this through discussion. It's a rare thing to see on this page, and I'm a little disappointed we weren't able to pursue that.

I won't ping Bilorv, but if they want to show up and engage in some productive discussion, my offer to act as if this tiff never took place stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have only read this ANI thread and the only diffs I've looked at are the first four in @Girth Summit's summary above so I admit that I am far from well versed in this conflict. But reading that summary of events, I don't understand the conclusion that Mpants gets a trout. That summary lists nothing wrong they did, only battleground behavior by Bilorv. Now I think this thread suggests that isn't actually the case nor what GS believes. But it seems like there has been an unwillingness to actually take seriously Bilorv's (diff supported) claims, not even to say "I've looked at them and don't believe they're justified". Instead the focus from the very start seems to be "let's all have a pint" which I get to be a very British culturally appropriate way to defuse a tense situation and is perhaps a natural response to Bilorv's having have come into this article hot and heavy rather than collaboratively and to have escalated it (quick RfC, coming to ANI). By handling it this way, Mpants basically off the hook with no stated scrutiny because they agreed to have the pint. If Mpants is innocent here we should say that rather than both sides it with a double trout. And if Mpants isn't innocent, we should not just effectively tell Bilorv to chill but acknowledge that by a minimum acknowledging and naming it, and then find a way forward which in this case seems clear and already in progress which is great. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, apologies for not being clearer. My statement above was intended not to be a complete summary of the whole situation, rather an explanation of why I dont think the blame is one sided. I thought I'd been clear about that in the first paragraph, but if you didn't pick that up then obviously I wasn't clear enough. For the record, I think that MPants accusations of lying were uncalled for, I think that he was at least as responsible for the snark and the derailing of the discussion as Bilorv, and I have called on him to apologise. It is not, and has not been, my intention to vilify Bilorv. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you saying that. Knowing you the way I do, I suspected that was your thinking all along. However I think (having now read this thread twice) that was the first time anyone who isn't Bilorv explicitly suggested that the accusations of lying by Mpants were uncalled for. I think this kind of conflict resolution, that is attempts to get two experienced and respected editors to move past past issues without ever seriously examining the past, is a common tendency at ANI isn't actually productive. There's a reason that in real life we have truth and reconciliation commissions rather than just reconciliation commissions. That and what I suspect to be a bit of American/British cultural differences in how to handle these situations is why I choose to comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I'd like to push back on that slightly. If you read through all of my comments, I think you'll see the I've told MPants that I think the accusations of lying were uncalled for more than once; I've also asked him to retract them, and said that I think he should apologise. I've tried to do that in a reconciliatory manner, and I've indicated that I think there is some fault on both sides - but I have told him that I think that was out of line. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​I should add that, while pushing back against that particular observation, I appreciate the other thoughts. As you know, we get no training in dispute resolution when we become admins, so I'm very much feeling my way in this area. Other people's perspectives are always worth listening to and reflecting on, and I'm always grateful to receive yours, so thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Barkeep's an arb so you have to say that. EEng 20:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, Barkeep took me through NPP school before he was an admin, he nominated me for RfA before he was an arb. He has given me reliable and consistently good counsel for almost all of my time here. To say that I trust his judgment would be an understatement, and that's got nothing to do with him being an arb. As you know, I have a high regard for you (and for everyone else in this thread), but that comment was beneath you. I hope you will retract it. I genuinely don't want any hard feelings between us.

I am pressed for time right now, but would like to make more comments on this thread tomorrow. This one stuck out as being important to address immediately. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath me? I'd ask you, sir, to bear in mind just who it is you're addressing – nothing's beneath me! Now look, Summit, my comment was in the exact same spirit as the photo caption here [48] (for which I was briefly blocked, actually [49], but of course I never learn). Surely at a second look you can see it's a tease. Once you're an arb it's like being a movie star – you can't just go into a restaurant and be treated like a normal person. EEng 02:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking with someone on the Wiki Discord yesterday and during that conversation they went out of their way to ping Oshwah to do something for them. It was great to not be recognized by someone and to simultaneously be in the presence of someone more wiki famous (at least on discord) than I. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies EEng, I was having a sense of humour outage there. Tease accepted. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to the best of us, and I've got the blocks to prove it. EEng 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GS:, you're right that you did say at one point that calling Bilorv a liar over that is going too far which I had previously missed. I think you're suggesting that you reiterated that here where you ask everyone to step back from the accusations of lying and bad faith and for Mpants to revert. Though what you're asking to be reverted isn't clear to me as I originally read it that you were asking Mpants to revert their most recent comment where they wrote in bold that Bilorv needed to retract everything in order for things to move forward. I thought that's what you were asking to be reverted because it seemed consistent with the bulk of the comment about having this be water under the bridge. In your subsequent reply to Bilorv you say you don't agree with Mpants assessment while also suggesting there is no need for Mpants to stop because we're at ANI.

The next message is your summary that lead to my initial comment. Why does Bilorv get thousand of bytes pointed at them instead of Mpants? Seemingly because rather than saying they want to move on at the RfC (as Mpants does here right after saying they won't retract anything despite saying they went too far) they're saying they want to move on by leaving this whole dispute behind. Why is one of those acceptable and the other not, or at least not so acceptable that it requires a mammoth point by point detailing of what they did wrong? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Having now actually examined the diffs, I do think both editors were wrong. Bilorv was too quick to to launch an RfC. An RfC is a method of dispute resolution but it is a costly one and especially since there two editors in Mpants and Eeng who were willing to make changes which could have been discussed. Maybe there's history not presented here why that approach wasn't taken but not taking it comes with a cost. This is short of an ideal but is not, as an isolated incident, a violation of any policies or guidelines. MjolnirPants repeatedly calling Bilorv a liar, including here, and being unwilling to retract any of it is a violation of policies and guidelines. Saying they went too far in the abstract while defending every specific is no mitigation for me. Since Bilorv has indicated they're withdrawing from the topic area I don't think a block is justified as it would not be preventive but similar behavior in the future, or a pattern of this behavior, would certainly be sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, I never once called Bilorv a liar. I called much of what they wrote dishonesty, and if you can't understand the difference between "you lied" and "you're a liar", then you've got no business weighing in here. Now, if you're done pointlessly dragging this out, I for one am more interested in working on this project than debating your opinion of me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr Pants, try not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. EEng 19:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly am not asking you to debate or even interact with me, which is why I did not address my comments to you MP. You wrote above Bilorv, you know, if you don't like being called a liar so at least in that moment you seemed to accept that was a fair characterization of what you did say. So I stand by what I wrote. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, Those were Bilorv's word being repeated back to them, a common rhetorical device with which most people have been familiar since childhood. If you're not familiar with these sorts of common turns of phrases, you'd do better to ask for clarification than to draw conclusions from your misunderstandings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We're at ANI and I am an admin acting in an UNINVOLVED capacity so the content of these last two messages from MP to me are within community norms. However it is these kinds of messages, presented clearly in diffs by Bilorv, why I have come to the conclusion that future such behavior, when addressed in the moment, or a pattern of such behavior, presented at an appropriate conduct forum, would be sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, Not sure what you're hinting at with the comment about community norms, but if you're implying that there's some personal attacks in those messages, I'd strongly advise you to get a second opinion.

  As for the rest, well... The "pattern of behavior" you keep pointing to was me responding to blatant gaming and dishonesty by pointing it out. I've already acknowledged that the way I pointed it out was not ideal, and indicated my willingness to make nice with Bilorv. What more do you want? You want me to lie about what I believe about Bilorv's repeated refusals to discuss things that made their argument look bad? You want a pound of flesh and maybe my left pinkie as penance?

  And what do you think that's going to accomplish? I'll tell you something worth thinking about: Before you commented here, I was planning on asking Girth how best to approach Bilorv to get them to come back and discuss improving the article. I was eager to set this behind me, try to make up and start over with Bilorv and move on.

  But since you commented I'm pissy again, because I came here to see what Girth might have said in a closing statement, and instead got to read your comments complaining that I wasn't punished harshly enough to suit you. And now Bilorv's back, re-litigating things again.

  I sure hope for your sake that's what you were aiming for, and you've got a long game here. Because otherwise, your participation here has been nothing short of disruptive. You'd do better to take notes from Girth's handling of this than suggest they take notes from yours, because progress was being made right until you showed up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I will agree that this thread was headed towards a resolution before I showed up. That resolution was that your actions and Bilorv's actions were being labeled as equally disruptive, or Bilorv's as worse, and Bilorv had decided to leave the area. I found that resolution unsatisfactory from an initial glance and reading more deeply saw nothing to change my mind. So I did decide to say something rather than let that be the resolution, especially because I knew that the editor I would be addressing my remarks to, GS, was a friend of mine and so we'd be able to have a productive conversation about our thinking.

  What was I hoping for when I wrote that comment? I was hoping that the outcome of the thread would be to say that Bilorv's actions were less than ideal and that your actions violated our behavioral policies and guidelines which would hopefully cause you to not repeat those actions in the future with a different editor. I am pleased that Bilorv below gave an unreserved apology to Eeng; that was appropriate and Eeng deserved that, so that's a more positive outcome of this discussion than if I had said nothing. As for the rest, we'll see, but my hope is not for you to be punished - or at least not that you are punished in the WP:PUNISH sense - but to be warned appropriately. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, I'll repeat what I said above: There's a difference between "you're a liar" and "you told a lie," and I've seen that difference get highlighted many, many times on this page and elsewhere by many, many editors. In fact, I see the difference between "you're a Nazi" and "Your edits look like Nazi edits" being pointed out to an IP in the very next thread below.

  In your view, those were personal attacks, but there's evidence all over the place that your view is outside the norm.

  And I'd like to remind you that accepting a resolution to a conflict which you find unsatisfactory is far more in keeping with our norms and policies than stirring shit up again in the hopes that you'll be satisfied by the outcome. In fact, I'm pretty sure that WP:STICK covers that exact situation, and I've never seen where any exception is carved out for admins. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't expecting or hoping for the kind of response you gave in reply to Bilorv below @MjolnirPants but would say that's a fine statement that is helpful in genuinely moving this towards a productive outcome. Credit to you for saying it. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Barkeep49, Just keep my last response to you in mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict on anything post-19:00) @Girth Summit and Barkeep49: I'll leave one more comment to describe things from my perspective that other people don't seem to have worked out. First, my initial message on the talk page was curt—because of every 100 I write of those, 75 people go "great, fine, restore your edit" so spending five times as long would simply be a waste of time in 75 cases. I thought the most likely option was, as I said, that EEng literally misread my edit and thought I edit warring over a different piece of content I had earlier tried to remove. (This is based on the fact that regularly, someone will revert me after misunderstanding what my edit did, or vice versa; this isn't an assumption of bad faith or stupidity because such mistakes are made by everyone.) However, I thought the second-most likely option was that EEng was stonewalling and aiming to make me a punching bag, and that mentioning escalation to RfC would prevent that. This was an unacceptable assumption of bad faith for which I apologise. Nonetheless, the next action taken was EEng using a pun to call me "confused" in this edit that triggered (to quote EEng) World War III (initiated by the other editor pinged, who seemingly agreed that we were being called "confused").
  Anyway, there was more horseplay but neither of the editors had removed any content they ostensibly agreed should go, and I assumed bad faith that they wouldn't, another mistake. I opened the RfC just to draw more attention to the discussion. (Such a thing could have been better achieved by a WikiProject or noticeboard message, perhaps.) I now agree that I attempted escalation too soon. As to the RfC wording, no-one had pointed to Gage as a case that had stronger sourcing (merely as something so "Not negotiable" as to not need a reason). The next mistake is that I replied with hostility when MjolnirPants engaged me in hostility. I should have stood back a lot more. The reason I didn't was because I thought they would conflate silence with consensus or use silence as an opportunity to misrepresent what I had said or believed. Anyone who has read this ANI thread has seen that they did do this the moment I stepped away. Still, there were other ways I could have acted.
  Anyway, that's several mistakes of mine: careless initial comments, assuming bad faith, reflecting back hostility and choosing the wrong way to bring further attention to the discussion. However, the situation on the table is that when I brought this matter to ANI, and during the discussion, an editor was making personal attacks about me and claiming I said things that I never said both to an admin on ANI and on other pages, after being asked to stop and retract such comments. No-one believes that I was, by my reading of the comments above, continuing to make disruptive actions, but MjolnirPants was. The situation remains that MjolnirPants has offered to "kiss and make up", but has still not said that they will stop saying to other editors that my actions were deliberately duplicitous or my beliefs on the subject matter so "nonsensical" that I must be lying. The only comment they have made that even touches on admitting wrongdoing is I may have been too confrontational in addressing [that Bilorv lied intentionally and behaved maliciously]. Their most recent comment at Talk:Self-referential humor, after I made it clear that I was not going to participate further there, is a fresh claim that I said something that I never said. Meanwhile, they are jovial when referring to every other editor in this conversation, and switch to extremely hostile when talking to or about me. Despite a large number of comments I typed out but didn't submit because they were too hostile, or a number of personal attacks that I refrained from making, and a number of other ways in which I chose not to level up the hostility, I'm being given the same trout that someone who is continuing to make personal attacks as of this comment is getting.
  I will not return to the discussion and engage in dispute resolution, as it is simply not worth the time, but I will apologise directly to you, MjolnirPants, and make sure no grudge is left behind if you describe the ways in which you believe you have acted wrongly, and I feel like that addresses the concerns me and others have raised with your actions. To EEng, I owe you an apology either way for assuming bad faith of you, and while I remain in disagreement with your "confused" page, there has been an MfD on that and this is not double jeopardy. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I did not say or imply that anyone is confused, as explained -- not by me -- here [50]. EEng 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilorv, I am sorry if this was not clear in my comments but I don't think you deserve the same trout as MP. Or more accurately I think you deserve a "was less than ideal" (maybe that's a trout) for the reasons you note above, while MP needs a warning. I'm pinging Bilorv in hopes that they at least read the edit summary where I am underlining the "not the same trout" message even if they choose to ignore the rest of this, which I write for other uninvolved editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilorv, there's a lot wrong with what you've said here, but I'm ignoring that to address your last paragraph: you don't have to apologize. You don't have to make it up to me, to recriminate yourself or count your sins. None of the stuff either of us accused the other of is important. The bad news is, both of us could have handled that better. The good news is, we've still got the chance to go handle it better.

  At the beginning there, I was being playful, not hostile. I love joking around, especially when I can do so while simultaneously working on improving an article. I understand that it didn't come across that way, and I surely regret that. I'm not out to win fights or put anyone in their place or tear anyone down, and if anything I said came across that way, then it's on me for not being more clear. I also have a particular dislike for sneakiness and game-playing, so I tend to react strongly to anything that comes across that way, sometimes more strongly than is warranted.

  Now, it'd be nice if you were to look at the things I said you were lying about and try to understand why I saw dishonesty there, but like I said: I'm not out to put anyone in their place. If it rankles you too much to do that, then fine. The only thing I want from you is for you to come back to the page and work towards improving it. Or not. If you're burned out with talking to me, that's fine, we can go our separate ways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Now, it'd be nice if you were to look at the things I said you were lying about and try to understand why I saw dishonesty there – I address this at numerous points in my comments above, including descriptions of what I did wrong. However, it strikes me that you are still accusing me of lying and having malicious ulterior motives that would contradict what I described as my reasoning for such edits above. Anyone reading this discussion top to bottom (firstly, has my deepest sympathies, and secondly) should take note that this comment accusing me of "blatant gaming and dishonesty" comes after my comment above. Finally, my comment do not ping me again to this ANI discussion (etc.) still applies (and has nothing to do with whether I will or will not choose to respond further). — Bilorv (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp. I tried. Girth Summit this is what I meant when I said trying to reach out now wouldn't go over well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 You say you don't think a block is justified "... but similar behavior in the future, or a pattern of this behavior, would certainly be sanctionable" which may mean you're unaware what's gone on elsewhere, e.g. quotes of MjolnirPants on the the Nicholas Wade talk page: "That edit was not even close to a compromise, and in fact, resembles more the sort of edit I might expect from some random edgelord IP who decided to troll this discussion." ... "I literally have nothing more to say to editors who insist upon lying about policy and making WP:POINTy edits. I don't care what you think about any of this. The only proposal that's gotten any traction here was mine, so I'm implementing it, and ready to call in an admin when the inevitable edit war starts." ... "The continued arguments against it are not persuasive in the slightest, and do more to undermine my faith in the editors making them than anything else." ... "To call the quotes from actual scientists about Wade's misrepresentation of their work "attacks" is complete and utter bullshit." ... "It's not about what I believe, as I've said countless times thus far, and which should be obvious to anyone with the competence to work on this project, but what the actual experts in this subject believe." ... "Wait, strike that, you absolutely are suggesting that, what I mean to ask is if you've got the cajones to state it outright, so we can just get the WP:AE ball rolling on your impending topic ban right away." ... "Read the way I had to poke and prod to get them to contribute anything helpful for three fucking days." I'd appreciate it if TonyBallioni would say whether the removal of the indefinite block of MjolnirPants was per the common unblocking reason. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I’ve been pinged multiple times: the {{OversightBlock}} had nothing to do with anything content related. All oversight blocks are immediately discussed after blocking on the list. There was even at the time of the block agreement that unblocking should happen relatively easily. Several months ago someone asked me about unblocking MPants and I raised the issue on the functionaries list. There was consensus to unblock if he wanted it, but he didn’t at the time based on his email communication to me. He emailed me the day I unblocked him, saying he wanted to be unblocked. As there was consensus amongst the group of individuals who had the ability to review the block reason for an unblock, I unblocked him at his request. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Barkeep49, I think your criticisms of the nature of some of my comments above are justified. In my mind, I thought I'd made my opinion clear that MPants' accusations of lying were unfair, unnecessary, and needed to stop; the much longer exposition of what I saw as being wrong about what Bilorv had done was intended to explain why I didn't simply click the block button - I didn't see it as a one-sided issue, and I wanted to explain why. I'm grateful to both editors for acknowledging that they could have done things better, and I hope that they will be able to move forward. I can see however that the sheer volume of commentary on one side, and not the other, does look imbalanced, so I apologise to Bilorv for that. (I'm going to continue to respect their wish not the be pinged, but I hope they see that.) I'll add that my 'trouts all round' suggestion was not meant to be a reflection on how far I thought each user had transgressed policies/guidelines/behavioural norms during the dispute, but about their mutual decision to get into a snarky content dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of a joke in an article about jokes. I can understand why someone might get emotional, and even jump to conclusions about bad faith, when they're editing about race and genetics, gender identity, political subjects, or similar such contentious areas: articles on subjects like that have great potential to offend, and the project does suffer from bad actors in those areas who wish to skew our coverage to align with their own POV. In this area though, I'd have thought that a great deal more GF could have been Aed all round right from the get-go, which is why I suggested the fish. If anyone wants to serve me with one for how I've handled this, I will find a home for it in my pond. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The score so far

In the past two weeks, this one article has spawned...

• One MfD
• One RfC
• One ANI thread

... all initiated by Bilorv. I think it's time he quit WP:Diffusing conflict and concentrated on working towards real consensus with other interested editors. EEng 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Just realized it was Bilcat who initiated the MfD. I get him confused with Bilorv. EEng 01:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, You should add them to that page. Might be helpful in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Ironic, isn't it?) Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of irony... EEng 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is terrible. I can't tell from it whether any of the following is funny.
  1. In Soviet Russia, bar walks into Phineas Gage.
  2. In Soviet Russia, Phineas Gage walks into a bar.

I demand (DEMAND!) you improve the article to GA standard before I have to look at it again. And also, that it contains an answer to my questions —Kusma (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, the first is funny, the second is confused, per the principle of never breed a hybrid joke without careful scientific study of the product, lest you release an abomination upon the land.

But in all seriousness, I agree with you. Pages like this can be difficult to work on, as sources which directly address the subject are rare and esoteric, whereas sources which use the subject are so prolific that simply sorting out the wheat from the chaff is tedious work. I've got a promise from my local librarian to do a comprehensive search later this week for sources on the philosophy, psychology and history of comedy, with an emphasis on self-referential comedy, but there are no guarantees they will produce results (I was unable to find anything useful in the library, myself). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan that is better than my jokes. Good luck! —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bilorv that MjolnirPants may have engaged in edit warring and may have failed to accept consensus, and also may have been uncivil in discussions. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

66,892 characters in this section by my count (not including this comment). Is someone already slotted in to write the WP:LAME entry, or can I call dibs? jp×g

User:tgeorgescu left a notice on my talk page with a link to a 'no nazis' essay claiming I was vandalising. My edit was to undo the adding of 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' to the lead of the Julius Evola page. I am not a wikipedia editor or anything. I am Jewish so the accusation is definitely done in bad faith. I checked his/her page and saw that they have this immediately to welcome you: 'A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were not accused of being a nazi vandal. You were indeed accused of vandalism and pointed to an essay, but that's not the same thing. You also failed to notify tgeorgescu as required; I will do so. The correct course of action here is to obtain consensus for your suggested change on the article's talk page; I see you've already started the discussion. I don't think there's anything more to be done here. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, notification happened right around the time I posted this. Regardless, tgeorgescu has been notified. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you seem to be edit warring at the article on behalf of Editorofthegods. Are you related to that user? Do you have an account at all? If not, I'm very impressed that you found your way to this noticeboard. Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Just to note, the presence of "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" in the article is a favorite complaint among Evola's fans, however it is well supported by citations, and its removal has been rejected in talk page discussions numerous times [51], [52], [53], [54], and possibly other times I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mia4121 (talk · contribs) inserted a large amount of material that was either poorly sourced or only loosely related to the subject of the article at Council on American-Islamic Relations. I removed most of the material while retaining a small amount that was constructive, immediately beginning a discussion on the talk page five days ago. Another user also partially reverted to remove poorly sourced material. Despite several requests on User_talk:Mia4121 and in edit summaries, Mia4121 has only continued to reintroduce the material with reverts and has refused to engage in any discussion:

• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert
• Fifth revert

Snuish (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snuish2 (talk · Snuish2 has repeatedly deleted the entire section on Internal Controversies at the Council on American-Islamic Relations page, despite repeat warnings. He has a history of deleting content that is unfavorable to the Council on American Islamic Relations. The section was edited by a third editor and the poorly sourced and loosely related material was removed. There is no reason to remove the current content under Internal Controversies, other than Snuish2's bias and favorable opinion of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia4121 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved user, I had a look at this and must say neither Snuish nor Mia4121 comes out looking good; both users very actively edit war with each other. Jeppiz (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would have been a better course of action on my part in addition to requesting the user's attention on his talk page and the article's talk page? Even after requests on the user's talk page, (s)he would do a fly-by revert and ignore any requests for discussion. I waited a day after this request to see if the user would engage in discussion. There was nothing and I reverted after waiting. I also waited at least a day after this notice and, after noticing no effort to engage in discussion, I reverted. Snuish (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except you're insisting on retaining a large amount of material concerning an employee's personal life and this is the first time you've bothered to make a post about it. Snuish (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected two days, both of you please go discuss at the article talk. Mia4121, consider whether details of the news about personal details of people associated with a single chapter belongs in this article about a national organization. Snuish2, consider whether various scandals-around-the-country are worth mentioning. IMO this is a content dispute, not a behavior issue. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. For the record, this was brought up before at requests for page protection, where an administrator suggested this was a behavior issue. Snuish (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snuish2, hahaha...okay, sorry for the runaround. Well, the page is temporarily protected, and I've removed that content as a BLP concern from the protected version. If @Mia4121 continues to refuse to discuss once the protection expires, ping me and I'll p-block from the article to force them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP has resumed the same disruptive behavior that got them blocked for 6 months, which now includes linking to draftspace in violation of MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. Courtesy ping Scottywong for this one as previous blocking admin. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP continues to be persistent in their disruptive efforts that now the edit filter is tripping from their edits. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm they are literally disruptive editing faster than I can revert. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 year. —valereee (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when the person gets unblocked, if he resumes his disruptive editing, will he get blocked permantly? 107.146.244.150 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not administer indef blocks on IPs in case of possible shared devices, unless in extreme special cases. See WP:IPBLENGTH. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​Hi there, I came across the page as I wish to tell you that there's a similar IP address I suspect that that is done by the same user aforementioned because of the similar pattern of editing I noted about two weeks ago (69.126.206.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and I believe it was the same guy, but I had already left a message in the talk page and he won't reply. I worry that if the same user do that again but what you all guys think? Anyway, thanks for helping one out. TVSGuy (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MinecrafterDE15

This user keeps adding some false information about the television channels. Administrators advised the others to report this user here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_Perez#Block_user --162.222.81.217 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that MinecrafterDE15 (talk · contribs) has had several edits reverted. However, please provide some details so people here, with no knowledge of the topic, can see what the false information is. Before posting here, someone should have posted at the user's talk explaining the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user added some false details about the televisions channels broadcasting in Switzerland, but only in France. --162.222.83.108 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through their latest edits since Tuesday...and I found nothing wrong. They're merely clearing up that Switzerland gets several versions of children's networks in different languages from different countries and domestically, which are easily confirmed by the CHE cable systems that carry them (Switzerland has four official languages, so this is all proper). The same edits in mid-May also clear up that systems in CHE carry German, French and Italian versions of the networks in each country. Basically...I'm not seeing a welcome message. Or a teahouse invite. I'm seeing someone looking at a certain name and immediately trying to block them on very shaky ground when they're being a quiet WP:SLOTH. There's no reason to block here, and at that, the May and April contribs are WP:STALE. Nate • (chatter) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand, Several televisions channels like Nickelodeon France are not broadcasting in Switzerland. In Switzerland, it's Nickelodeon Switzerland who is broadcasting, not Nickelodeon France, also for Disney Channel France and others. --162.222.83.108 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox shows it on Swiss cable and satellite systems and its easily confirmable on their site...it simply isn't vandalism. The only issue I found in any of their edits was likely a simple mis-translation of one of Nickelodeon's French competitors which I didn't even need to bother with a mention of. That's it. There's no vandalism here at all. Again...Switzerland has multiple languages and carries multiple language versions of networks, including the domestic French and Italian versions of those networks beyond their regular German versions. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I watched these channels but no commercial in Switzerland. --162.222.83.250 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk to this user if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grasshalm3. --162.222.83.250 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back your edits...it's clear that you're not listening to my read on the situation that there is no vandalism here. Stop harassing this user, or you're going to end up with a WP:BOOMERANG block here. And Grasshalm3 has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account, User:Sanjayunv, has basically been adding nothing but unsourced info to the same page over and over. I wouldn't say its a vandalism only account but its a border-line propaganda only account. Here is the user's contribution history, [65], and diffs [66], [67], [68] [69]. After being asked to stop [70] the IP address 2001:44C8:44C9:C021:94B9:C22C:4CAC:3169 has basically continued to add the same unsourced content to the exact same page. [71]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a warning at their talk: Sanjayunv (talk · contribs). This relates to Mano Laohavanich. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elan Morin Tedronai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Elan Morin Tedronai is being disruptive, mostly about science fiction genres, but also with regard to copyright:

• adding unsourced content: Special:Diff/1025898747, Special:Diff/1026002599, Special:Diff/1025992414, Special:Diff/1022017071, Special:Diff/1023366139
• restoring unsourced examples with the edit summary "this time it's sourced": Special:Diff/1026391192
• restoring it yet again, this time just because he wants it in the article: Special:Diff/1026424495
• copy-pasting content from the "history" section to a new "criticisms" section so that the content is now duplicated: Special:Diff/1026419749 (do a search for "condemns the space Western" using your browser)
• his response to why he's doing this is to flatly deny that it's duplicated: Special:Diff/1026429146
• copy-paste moves: Special:Diff/1025920236/Special:Diff/1025920203
• copy-pasting content from one article to another without attribution: Special:Diff/1025925962 from Galactic empire (which he's already been warned about before)
• personal attacks: Special:Diff/1026418180 ("don't be such a prick")
• citing wordpress blogs: Special:Diff/1026450848

I can probably find more if it's truly necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Really, I have nothing to defend myself. I'm probably guilty, yet Wikipedia is transitional people's encyclopedia and everything changes pretty quickly. I guess I'm probably guilty, however Space western and Space opera articles just pass through a lot of changes. Transitional thing as I said and there's always a passage of time. I just wish if NinjaRobotPirate has personal issues with me, in name of Space western, Space opera and Science fiction as a whole: just to talk about them and don't get to flaming and offending each other. Let other administrators look at the articles and see for themselves, just I wish to talk about if people have issues with me and don't get blocked from my favorite pass time encyclopedia. Like it happened on Midkemia, Osten Ard and Kelewan, however I just wished to keep the information and don't redirect the pages. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

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

Nearly every one of Bachovan's 197 edits has been to add a "short description".

Short descriptions provide a summary of the article for those using a mobile device, and they are the "first impression" many readers have of an article. Accurate short descriptions are important, and need to be well-constructed and free of errors.

Nearly every one of Bachovan's edits has been low-quality, has not improved the article, and has not met the criteria outlined at WP:SHORTDES, because they are inaccurate, misspelled, or have awkward formatting or capitalization.

I have reached out to this user on their talk page, but no reply.

Today's edits:

• [72] - "French jurist Nobel prize winner"; the word "prize" should be capitalized.
• [73] - "Vice president of the USA 1925 -1929"; use of "USA" and spacing around dash.

Past edits:

• [74] - "Millitary officer".
• [75] - "Founding father".
• [76] - "American buissness official".

• [77] - "Jacobite king disputed".
• [78] - "1804 - 1878 Us Senator".
• [79] - "indoor display of trains where I have been to".
• [80] - "Militia of New york Alexander Hamilton"
• [81] - "A millitary officer".
• [82] - "American physichian and Patriot".
• [83] - "3rd Governer of Pennsylvania".
• [84] - "Brother of John Trumbull".
• [85] - "Tv show".
• [86] - "Scotish peer and colonist".
• [87] - "American Anti federlist lawyer".
• [88] - "Holiday celabrating Abe Lincolns birthday".

Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677, unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. The user edits with the Wikipedia iOS app, which is not fit for purpose. —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit filter a while ago -- 1139 -- which can be used as a hack to send a message to a named iOS app user. I've only tested it on myself, but in theory it should work to forcefully guide someone onto their talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677, @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know if anyone has done anything here, but the user has now made some non-mobile edits and started the Wikipedia Adventure so we may not need to resort to ProcrastinatingReader's ingenious solution, but should remember it for the next case of iOS editing. —Kusma (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) is being brigaded. This seems to be being canvassed on Twitter. The outcome of the AfD was never in any question but the flood of IPs and SPAs is generally disruptive and is preventing the grown ups from discussing the (admittedly meagre) merits of the AfD properly. Please can we block the most blatant SPAs and maybe consider semi-protection, if that allowed for AfDs? Failing that, maybe strike out all the SPA additions and then close it as a SNOW keep based on the clear consensus already apparent before this clownery kicked off. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blocking a whole heap of new editors who aren't exactly editing in bad faith (maybe better described as miguided or misled), I've gone the other option and semi-protected the AfD, and will move their comments to the talk page to restore some level of order to the discussion. Daniel (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Umer Bin Waseem. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making all the usual "Ahmadiyya ‎aren't Muslim" noises anyone familiar with WP:CALIPH disruption knows about, and doesn't appear to be here to write an encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Contributions/2003:C0:6F22:6318::/64
• Special:Contributions/2003:C0:6F31:7E13::/64

The above has repeatedly, despite warnings, tried to use a WP:PRIMARY source to argue for their preferred point of view. Despite multiple warnings about our policies on original research, our preference for academic, peer-reviewed sources, our strict requirements for opinions to be those of reliable sources, not editors, and multiple reliable sources being shown to them that their selective reading of the primary source they write was lacking context and was inaccurate. @Bakkster Man, Hob Gadling, and Terjen: (editors who have made more than one comment about this subject at the relevant section of the talk page). They've been given warnings about GS/COVID (me being thorough, on the current one just to be sure, although I think I've already given it to them previously), and they are not stopping their disruptive, WP:IDHT-style arguments. I think it's time for some sanctions (recognising that this will likely only be a temporary solution before yet another one shows up). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notice above refers to a vivid discussion with user RandomCanadian on the talk page (there was no edit on the main article) on whether there is anymore a scientific consensus on the origin of COVID-19, given a recent letter by the topmost scientific authorities at the Science magazine, where the scientists declare that a lab leak is a viable and serious hypothesis that must be investigated. In contrast, the above user decided to entirely ignore this stance of the elite segment of the scientific community, because in his intepretation the Science letter is a primary source, and as such, the opinion of these scientists does not change the consensus of the community they belong to. In other words, according to the user, the community has a consensus on the matter, despite the fact that the most elite segment of the community disagrees publicly on a consensus. For the rest, as you can also read, the impartial stance the user had on denying the lab leak as a viable hypothesis made it hard to communicate with him. I simply provided my polite and correct contribution on the talk page, and avoided insulting the user by not replying to multiple personal accusations, and his "bossy language". 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Science letter is a primary source, that's not controversial (the footnote to WP:PRIMARY is quite clear and common-sense: "Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, [...]") , and it doesn't say anything about what the consensus of the scientific community is (just checked, the words "consensus" or even "majority" do not appear in it), so, yes, as the IP has been told many times, the above is about as clear of a textbook example of WP:OR and POVPUSHING (from an SPA) which is not compatible with what the sources, listed to the IP many times over, say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave to admins decide who is pushing a WP:OR by intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. As you see notice here, too, it is not easy to communicate with the above user as he immediately accuses others of POVPUSHING. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require much interpretation when you have sources saying it explicitly, sources which you have deliberately chosen to ignore. AGF isn't a suicide pact, in either case, and all of your edits have been solely to push this POV which is not supported by the sources. I'm done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. This is the core of the dispute, potentially conflating "viability" with "likelihood". Specifically, can an explanation be "viable, but unlikely" according to mainstream sources, and if so what thresholds do we need to apply to such a determination? The additional policies generally referred to in the discussion include WP:FRINGE/ALT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, and WP:GEVAL, all relating to how we handle mainstream versus minority views.

I'm too close to the discussion (and it's gone on for so long) to know if this is a case of good-faith discussion surrounding a difficult to communicate topic being contentious, or otherwise, and I'll leave my thoughts on the topic itself out of this section. Ping @Stonkaments, Forich, and Horse Eye's Back: as additional editors who can provide additional context and perspective. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that i) we lecture the accused user with the relevant Wikipolicies; ii) he creates an account; iii) Ask him if he has any motivation to push a POV in this topic; iv) If he acts on good faith, watch his edits so that they are not disruptive; and v) if he becomes obnoxious on talk pages, well, those get archived fast its not a big deal. Maybe advise him to take a break from talk pages. Forich (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information regarding the user and an account.[89] Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there are plenty of secondary reliable sources reporting on the letter in Science that is the core of this dispute, such as the May 13 New York Times article by Carl Zimmer et al: "Researchers urge an open mind, saying lack of evidence leaves theories of natural spillover and laboratory leak both viable." Terjen (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The primary discussion thread involved, for those looking for a quicker way to view the dispute, is Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any behavior from IP that I would consider disruptive or worthy of sanctions. Frankly I'm surprised this was brought to ANI; it seems very premature and unnecessary. Until recently, the lab leak hypothesis was being characterized (on WP and elsewhere) as a fringe, racist conspiracy theory. Whether or not the hypothesis turns out to be true, it was clearly wrong to characterize it as a meritless conspiracy theory. I think we should learn from that, and be extra careful not to repeat the same mistake by being too quick to proclaim a scientific consensus. In light of these earlier missteps and premature declarations, some vigorous pushback and defense of the validity of the lab leak theory is understandable, and very welcome in my opinion. It's bound to be a contentious subject, and barring any egregious or blatant disruptive behavior, I believe the discussion will benefit by giving everyone enough WP:ROPE to make their case. Stonkaments (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other

How'd you deal with this kind of aspersion casting? I've been personally harassed on my talk page by sockpuppets, meatpuppets and SPAs; I've been the subject of dubious complaints by the same; now this. I'm considering just fucking off, if this is as bad as it's gotten. That or dragging it upstairs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin should take action on this unacceptable comment linked in the diff. It would be a shame to lose RandomCanadian over this. starship.paint (exalt) 01:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. That's flat out not acceptable, and a statement needs to be made against it, irrespective of the recently-filed Arbitration case. I welcome a review of the block by the community; I will be away from my computer over the next 12-18 hours, so any administrator is free to alter the block if they wish. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this post by Tinybubi is very suspicious. An account, created in 23 March 2021 [90] [91], says We have seen many accounts like yours before, and you almost always end up getting banned and never let back, and Tinybubi uses a diff from 1 March 2021 [92]. Smells like a sockpuppet. starship.paint (exalt) 07:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tinybubi/sandbox is also suspicious, because I've seen that page before (and it's one of their very first edits; showing either that they're the same person; or colluding off-wiki). Now I can't remember (other similar tables pushed by sock-puppets include the first edits of this one) where exactly, but 100% this isn't the first time I've seen this. @Drmies: I might have contacted you previously about something similar (for BEANS reasons). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got nothing for you, but given the likely amount of meating that doesn't mean much. Daniel, thanks for the block. I think it's time for discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cent opinion here on this matter, although I do not know the user Tinybubi, and I definitely condemn any type of harassment against the user RandomCanadian, despite our heated exchanges on the article above. On the other hand, RandomCanadian, although you seem to be a knowledgeable editor (and I believe a very fine person) I witnessed that you are rigid in accepting opinions or interpretations that differ from yours (or from what you believe to be the right way) and you aggressively attack newcomers who try to reason an opposing argument, by quickly accusing them as POV-pushers, SPAs, or by trying to end an ongoing discussion with ultimatums "do as I want or I sent you to ANI". Definitely, some of the IPs you have to deal with are likely trolls and perhaps quite annoying, but remember behind the IPs you have many proper human beings that are by no standard inferior in reasoning just because they are not senior WP editors. The world does not have only "good" editors and "annoying" trolls, there are billions of clever and proper individuals outside these two categories. I was once an editor at WP and quitted due to time management issues, but, you have to relax a bit and not take discussions with a hot-blooded attitude. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question falsely accused me of “canvassing” in here [1], without even understanding what canvassing is. They’ve been clearly warned to stop casting aspersions on other editors [2], or their account will be reported. They have also been told to assume good faith [3], but that didn’t change anything in their attitude. Later today, the user proceeded with “…you're not the one to decide whether I should be banned or not” in their [reply], which I never claimed. Followed with absurdly characterizing my [vote] in the talk page as a “partisan view”, and that I don’t want to answer them since supposedly “it would weaken” my view [4]. Recently, the editor was also involved in an edit-war about an irredentist concept article [5], [6], [7].

Honestly, this harassment cloaked under ridiculous assumptions and aspersions towards me is enough, hence I’m making this case. The editor clearly doesn't take into consideration Wikipedia guidelines, and continues with their accusatory and presumptuous language. I think the user needs to get a warning. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Tarsus American College has been focused on by SPAs who I presume are associated in some way with the school, and while their arguments are largely spurious I would prefer some more discussion from non-SPA accounts, since thus far we have only one or two arguments otherwise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now opened a new case regarding recent, persistent, widespread disruption at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Feel free to participate, the given list of participants is non-exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent long term WP:BLP violations regarding the obvious. This merits indefinite protection, and probably a lot of rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You can take care of this here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 03:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto, I'm very familiar with that noticeboard. Per the above explanation, since this also involves generous amounts of WP:BLP violations over a long period of time and a request of rev/deletion, it is a more complex situation than merely locking the article temporarily. ANI is a good place for administrative attention to just such occurrences. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted tables on Marvel Cinematic Universe page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik0laX18 (talk • contribs)

As this is a content dispute it's something you should be discussing at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe, rather than here. This doesn't appear to be an admin issue. — Czello 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For quick overview see this user interaction report and click on timeline for articles described below. (Stoopid Buddy Stoodios,List of massacres in Bihar,Rathore,Dabhi,Bhati,List of Gurjars)

Ravensfire is constantly following/WP: HOUNDING my edits reverting my edits on content disputes i have with other editors , with clear intention of harassing me and not letting me contribute by constantly reverting me on different articles i have interest in.

• Today I edited List of Gurjars , Raven who usually follows my edits too edited it today.

• I edited Stoopid Buddy Stoodios  here, Raven followed me here only to revert me.

• I edited Dabhi page they followed me here too only to revert me

• My edit on Rathore page [94] Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute  [95] [96]

• I edited List of massacres in Bihar  here  Raven who never edited this page before hounded me here too and reverted my edit for no apparent reason.

• I removed some content on Bhati page due to content dispute  and Ravensfire followed me here too only to revert me for no reason at all

• When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

This is very serious WP:HOUNDING,admins please take action.Ratnahastin^talk 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastin^talk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.

• Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [97]
• List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [98]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
• The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [99], [100], [101] - and plenty more.

He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.

• SPI against Heba Aisha [102], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
• SPI against Chariotrider555 [103] declined by CU due to lack of evidence

His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[104],

• WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [105] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.

This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny that you're accusing me of not assuming good faith when you're constantly refering to my contributions as POV caste pushing and following my edits to revert my contributions.

My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.

Thats not first interaction the first interaction was here when i removed some content with well explained summary  it was reverted by you to build the Consensus although you never participate in the dispute on the talkpage.

I've removed that content on rathore because of the sources dont support the claims the sources were actually WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple non WP:RELEVANT citations I have explained reason for removing almost 3times on the talkpage of talk:Rathore the others who dispute it dont have any answers to issues raised by me, but you never took part in the dispute on the talkpage, my edits were based on wiki guidelines but still You've accused me of POV and caste pushing isn't that lack of WP:ASG on your side from the very first interaction i had with you? 

I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior.

Thanks for accepting that you follow my edits from the very first interaction i had with you. because you consider my edits as pov pushing without any evidence or participation in those content disputes.

The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives.

Please participate in the relevant discussions about content disputes on the talkpage of Talk:Rathore , i've explained my removal many times as WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple citations if you bother to verify the citations intead of reverting you would have not refered those sources on Rathore as facts. And stop these WP: ASPERSIONS please, and how is that  WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS of multiple citations WP:NPOV ? Since you have reverted me there the WP:BURDEN falls upon you to prove that those citations are not synthesis or violating any policies,but you haven't participated in those disputes, instead You're following my edits on multiple pages which, you yourself accepted, this proves that im being hounded, it appears that you have content disputes with my edits i request you instead of following my edits you participate in the content disputes please.Ratnahastin^talk 06:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits and attack on established editors by Ratnahastin

This report is frivolous as were other against me and other editors like LukeEmily and Chariotrider555. The reviewing admins please note, Ratnahastin had been involved in attacking caste editors of wikipedia, ever since they have joined in order to do their POV edits on Rajput caste related pages. I have been observing that using loopholes in wiki policies, they have opened various cases against established editors in past. I was drawn into a sockpuppet investigation case, and editors, whom i mentioned above were drawn respectively in WP:UAA and WP:SPI on frivolous ground. Interestingly, all cases were closed as they lacked solid proof. But,the user was successful in making this place unfavorable for us. This report more probably is motivated by same intent. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Ravensfire above, all such reports were baseless, but were problematic enough to send us to inactivity for some period of time. Recent report against Chariotrider555 also resulted in sending him to inactivity. As those who face it, gets exhausted by it naturally. After doing this Ratnahastin tried to remove this content from Rajput, on the ground that it is repetition. Similar attempt were made to remove, what he considers "derogatory" from all Rajput caste related pages. On the talk page of Rajput, he often showed how non neutral point of view for Rajput caste through this comment. It is better to ban him from editing all Rajput related pages to stop wasting the forums for retaliatory actions against editors who donot share their view. This comment shows that they have some affiliation with Rajput caste and interestingly all the reports and dispute in which he is involved is related to Rajput related pages only. It is an issue of WP:COI, if you tell me to sum up my words explicitly. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [106].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Alex Mili has made a very large number of reverts recently on Kosovo War. 10 reverts in the last 3 days, including 6 in the last 24 hours. They did edit warring over the same content a month ago. They were blocked some time ago for edit warring, and warned again today by two editors, including admin @EdJohnston:. I could take this to the 3RR noticeboard, but I wonder whether this editor should be sanctioned for POV pushing too. Apart from the POV pushing on the Kosovo War article, other POV pushing edits include [109][110][111][112]. They were alerted some time ago about WP:ARBEE on the Balkans [113]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, I am not involved in the content dispute with them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone do sth as the reverting cycle continues [114]? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user's been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. I would think if this continues after a block from the article itself may need to be issued. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comedy of Special:Contributions/2601:405:4880:E200::/48 has to stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu, pretty static IP range, seems to be just the one user, gave 'em three months. Lemme know if the show goes on after that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link.[115][116] Please block him. This is probably a user that is harassing me also on Turkish Wikipedia. Also please remove the edit from my page history and protect my user page.--V. E. (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion, but I would like to point out this and the fact that all of the user's edits are on talk pages. aeschylus (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a sockpuppet of Tarik289 Tarik298 Kizilokwave Kiziloksea and Hezars which are globally locked accounts. Because the user harassed me after I had made 2 sockpuppet accounts related to Tarik289 blocked in Turkish Wikipedia.--V. E. (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma, the user just got CheckUser blocked, which means that they were misusing multiple accounts. So yes, you may be right. Pinging ST47 as they may have more information on this. aeschylus (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I just opened my account. I don't even know who were they, I just saw this user's biased edits on some Turkish history-related pages. Can't I write what I feel about the other users? There is any bad words, harassment etc. He is complying with no logical reasons. I want this case to be dismissed. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kölscher (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were CheckUser blocked, you must have some pretty big evidence of ties towards those other accounts on your head, hm? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

74.221.181.213 (talk · contribs) has resumed disruptive editing after their temporary block expired. They disrupted at numerous articles and would continue to reinstate their edits without any justification despite reversions from myself and other users. Articles included Kim Yo-jong (diff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Kim Jung-sook (diff 1, 2), Mamie Eisenhower (diff 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6), Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (diff 1, 2, 3, 4) and more (you can see their contribution history is full of reverts). They received multiple warnings on their talk page.

They were blocked for 31 hours on 3 June. (I also suspect them of sockpuppetry and opened an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/74.221.181.213.) The block has expired and they resumed their disruption at Kim Yo-jong (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an article on an actor how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.120 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although this isn't an admin issue, I can answer that. See WP:NEW or WP:1ST for information on how to create an article. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Dani33Para and I have been working on Alin Stoica in the last couple of days and for the most part collaboration went fine. They seemed to feel the article was overly critical of the footballer which I understand to some extent. I tried to make sure content is in line with our guidelines and policies.

We discussed a few bits at their Talk page, User talk:Dani33Para. Unfortunately, Dani33Para couldn't do without repeated casting of aspersions and baseless accusations:

• Wikipedia is not a gossip website to denigrate a person like this. (3 June)
• I am sorry i cannot let you turnish or minimalize his achievements. (4 June)
• If you want your name to appear last on this article go ahead (5 June)

I've found these parts of our interactions really disappointing and they have made the last couple of days of editing much less enjoyable for me. I'd like an administrator to let Dani33Para know these kind of comments are out of line. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This would appear to come within the realm of the discretionary sanctions under WP:BALKANS, Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

No comment on the edits in question but this appears to be an WP:SPA, with:

• Strong nationalist opinions e.g [117],[118]
• Revert warring [119], [120]
• Editing other users comments at User talk:Drmies [121]

Requesting an admin look into this to prevent further disruption. WCM_email 11:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by VukMNE: May I just add: "Bravo!". You are actually forbidding Montenegrins to write history about their country. This is going to be an issue, and it is already trending on Twitter...Go ahead, ban me, I regret donating for your website... This is a joke.

[122] I see Black Kite has partially blocked this editor whilst I compiled this report, so immediate problem may have gone away. WCM_email 11:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• VukMNE, any time someone is edit warring admins get wary. Any time someone removes chunks of apparently verified information from an article, admins get wary. Any time someone has a hobby horse, and edits one single article consistently in the same way for as long as they've been here and never seeks the talk page, admins get weary. You did all three--that Black Kite only blocked you from editing the article was an act of mercy AND an invitation to discuss your proposed edits. Black Kite could have simply blocked you indefinitely for edit warring, vandalism, disruptive editing, and just incompetence (since I just had to correct your unblock request). So, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, this is what you do: you stop cussing at people, you stop accusing people of whatever, you stop making silly and false statements like "you're forbidding Montenegrins etc.", and you start having a rational discussion on the article talk page, with other editors, whom you will treat with respect. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a article on actor please help i left a comment last time but i think it was removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.72 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query answered in "Article creation" section. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u but i tried to create article but it doesn't work it doesn't let me create one page help

86.27.177.114

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

IP is pushing massive edit warring since 30 May, insisting to add a list of 'Pashtun' (some of them are not even Pashtun) rulers and generals onto articles which it has no relevance to.

[123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul afghan

Abdul afghan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, who has a history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] just restored the IPs edit [144] and even added it to his own userpage [145], same person much? I did previously report the user [146], to no avail however. He has now renewed his previous disruption; [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Another editor just opened a report on Abdul afghan at WP:ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from an ANI perspective. Since the user is changing content about unrelated areas to refer to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and/or India, would this make their edits IPA-related, broadly construed, for the purposes of discretionary sanctions? —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]