• 203.145.95.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• City University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Island line (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tai Po Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• old ANI thread 1
• old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852) Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere, which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning.) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing , just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the range ([1]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia.. So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?

BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) 124.217.188.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem more clear cut disruptive by add obsolete place name New Kowloon. (@Ohnoitsjamie: Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)

• While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)

Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR

203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185

But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung#Geography) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be an abuse of WP:AN/I? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.

124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, these are not harassment after they fails to provide WP:RS Special:Diff/1055348314 .....Admit your own fault and stop pretend that you are always right. Matthew hk (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any reason why you would take things out of context this way? That was all about what you did, first, calling "flag station" a "slang" and second, disregarding the fact that the term appeared the HKU paper quoted. harassment after they fails [sic] to provide WP:RS? 203.145.94.111 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As of November 17, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. the use of the name Butterfly Beach to describe the entire surrounding area within Tuen Mun) without reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP is also stalking the most recent pages I have edited. For instance, I have most recently edited Shek Kip Mei fire and Eastern Express (newspaper). Immediately thereafter, the IP edited the same pages, making changes that I have objected to on other pages in the past (e.g. adding the obscure place name "New Kowloon" and changing the spelling of "Hong Kong" to "Hongkong"). Citobun (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't figure out what their agenda actually is, but I've reverted their edits on Shek Kip Mei fire, but their use of 'Hongkong' on Eastern Express (newspaper) seems to be justified as The Standard was actually named the 'Hongkong Standard' during that time period. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What Citobun's has been doing is at best out of plain unawareness (and at the very worst, though quite unlikely, whitewashing history with recent laypeople's understanding). From what I noticed that's what happened with the former name of the Hongkong Standard. In the case of Shek Kip Mei fire, it's common sense that back in the early 1950s New Kowloon is much less developed than Kowloon to the south of the 1860-1898 border (given it's part of the 1898 leased territory rather than the ceded territory of 1860 across this border). This distinction with Kowloon isn't something which ought to be left out. The Shek Kip Mei area is also the densest compared with other squatter areas in New Kowloon for it's located right across the old border. I thought I don't need to cite that the sky is blue but here are some relevant information for reference if anyone found them necessary: [2][3][4]. It was not until the 1950s that with the influx of refugees and the Shek Kip Mei fire that the government decided to develop the leased territory as much as Kowloon, especially New Kowloon and slightly later Tsuen Wan (inclusive of Kwai Chung), for their proximity to Kowloon. 219.76.15.133 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the continued personal attacks and irrelevant history lesson. I assure you I know Hong Kong history and place names. The simple fact of the matter is that you are pushing obscure, seldom-used place names and refuse to work collaboratively. Citobun (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents is that you should stay cool, make good use of the {{citation needed}} and the {{better source needed}} tags, bring issues to talk pages, rather than getting antagonistic and exasperating and beginning edit wars. Do not undo helpful edits, as you did in, e.g., Shek Kip Mei fire. 219.76.15.143 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padgriffin: You may want to take a look at what I just posted at WPHK talk. 116.92.226.246 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hk's personal attacks

(Continued from /IncidentArchive1084.)

@Johnuniq: Here you are: "Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice.", "Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that...", "Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion...", "You guy delusional really bad,". 219.76.18.80 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are four links above but two duplicates (that is, there are two different diffs, each pointing to Matthew hk making a comment at ANI on November 4 and 7). In the ANI archive, I asked for evidence of "an actual problem". What I meant was something substantive to do with article content, not squabbling at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes four quotes from two edits.

(If you aren't going to deal with PAs in AN/I, then an actual problem I had learnt from talk pages and observed in diffs is that Matthew hk has refused to proofread (whereas for Citobun it's been with his wholesale reverts and provocative editing style; and for Atsme and Valereee their unawareness or unfamiliarity in the subject matters and unwillingness to hold back their wrong edits).) 219.76.18.74 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt hk has been editing wikipedia for years, so forgive me, but I am confused and can't see what personal attack you're on about. Admin's are more likely to lean towards the experience editor than a jumping IP complaints. :/ (storm in a tea-cup again?) Govvy (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be systemic bias isn't it? But then fyi this bloke has been like this for a long time. Possibly all along. The personal attacks in the diff links above happened here at AN/I but that happened on and off too. 219.76.18.78 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On HandThatFeeds' merger of two "related" sections: [5] [6] [7] I was not aware of the other section about 203.145.95.x and I still don't think the two sections are related. What I reported deals specifically with the PAs by Matthew hk (and possibly others). 219.76.18.75 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As of 25 November 2021, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. at Shek Kip Mei fire). This has been going on for years and isn't going to stop. The IP is the one all along making personal attacks, not User:Matthew hk. Their accusation is a weak attempt at confusing the discussion. Citobun (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand the IP is continuing to add place names that have been challenged for lack of any citation despite being asked numerous times to provide a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP (most recently 203.145.94.139) is continuing to stalk my recent edits. This is harassment. Citobun (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone protect Tuen Mun South extension? The IP has added their made-up place name, still without a source, numerous times today. Citobun (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Citobun (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help? Anyone?

The lack of action here is really shocking. Here is a simple rundown of what is happening:

• Hong Kong editors are grapping with an anonymous user who changes IPs constantly throughout the day, pushing obscure and uncited geographic place names on various Hong Kong articles (e.g. Tuen Mun South extension)
• This person has been asked numerous times to provide WP:RS
• They don't provide any WP:RS, just constantly revert (or contribute sources that do not actually support the content)
• They make personal attacks (e.g. unceasing snide remarks toward Matthew hk's English (they have been doing this for a very long time), snide remarks toward my supposed ignorance of Hong Kong geography, etc)
• They are WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, stalking my edit history and editing the same articles (adding obscure place names), and at the same time pinging me with taunts

In summary: this person doesn't respect the WP:RS policy nor Wikipedia:Civility. They are extremely nasty to interact with and clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but stubbornly wage a campaign to promote obscure Hong Kong place names. As a start, please, protect the problematic pages. Then block any IP that continues to add uncited, obscure place names and other WP:OR trivia to Hong Kong articles. Citobun (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO This guy definitely isn't going to stop- their history shows that they'll happily wait out semis to re-add their stuff and it's likely that these IPs are operated by a single person rather than a Meatfarm. All attempts at engaging them to create some sort of dispute resolution has led absolutely nowhere, and something needs to be done at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth making an edit filter here for this. The effective of such all depends on how consistent the person behind this range is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced information, and then accuses me of edit warring multiple times, and then says that they are going to add references for their unreferenced contribution. Strange reactions despite their edit history. ภץאคгöร 16:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and now they are saying that I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced and that their reactions were "suspicious". Nice interaction. They claim to know "article development" but don't even cite refs. ภץאคгöร 16:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and remain truthful. When I called you out for low-level incivility, it was - as my comment makes clear - in response to you referring to "Suspicious IP activity", with no justification for commenting on me, rather than the article. It's rather odd that a very minor content kerfuffle which is being discussed on the talk page and being cleared up in the article needs to be discussed at ANI. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just Wikipedia:DDE at first, now incivility/NPA keeps growing ("try and remain truthful"?). ภץאคгöร 16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you posted a misleading comment above? "I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced" is not truthful, as I have pointed out. Why did you start by throwing mud on the talk page by referring to "Suspicious IP activity", without any proof or justification? Why do you think it acceptable to open an ANI thread just because you were reverted and I asked you to hold off for a little while as I updated the Reception section? (That's done, by the way, and the lead now is correct again). If you want to start throwing mud at people and then posting misleading statements at ANI, I do shake my head in disbelief... 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nothing is misleading. This editor is continuing to distort the facts. And apparently they thought adding one review for cinematography and three for costume design was enough for their unreferenced contribution. Instead of constantly dissing the editors, review whether your supposed work is complete. Also, stop the disturbing behavior. I kindly request the admins to take necessary action for this editor. ภץאคгöร 17:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "they are saying that I have "low-level incivility" because I wrote that unreferenced information can't stay on the page until it is referenced" isn't misleading, I can't take you seriously. My comment was extremely clear "As to "Suspicious IP activity", please comment on the content, not the editor - such low-level incivility is too common and always unwelcome." I am not dissing anyone and my behaviour is not "disturbing". I have updated the Reception section of the article so the lead is a proper reflection of what was written. That's not "disturbing", or even disruptive. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchroCat/Archive, this is the same IP range. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am SchroCat (or was before scrambling my password). I do not hide that at all. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:24BB:9FE5:EE96:7C05 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to continue to reply because of this person's behavior. Clearly this incivil editor thinks they own the article, basically calls me liar (see above) in addition to other things and then accuses me of "throwing insults", and their edits are disruptive. They continue to add unsourced information. The fact that they use their "oh I scrambled my password" as an excuse to use multiple IP accounts and do whatever they want is confounding to me, especially given their past behavior and attitudes. I believe a block is necessary at this point. ภץאคгöร 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop referring to other editors as "disruptive" when they are clearly not. You have done so here and here. This is throwing insults at people, as you are not commenting on the edits being made, just on me (and I an not an "incivil editor" - or even an uncivil one). Please stop. I am not sure how adding sourced material (from reliable sources) to an article is "disruptive". There is a talk page you are ignoring and any questions or comments can (should?) be addressed there. I do not "use multiple IP accounts": I am on a dynamic IP that automatically changes or updates and I have no control over that. Use of such IP systems is not outside Wikipedia's policies, and neither is editing as an IP. I have again left a message on your talk page this morning asking you to use the talk page to discuss, and I hope you manage to make your way there to discuss what you think is "unsourced information" that I have added, or what you think still needs sourcing in the article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are. One can use static IP. Pointing a mistake out even though you spelled "am" wrong yourself is hilarious. ภץאคгöร 08:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One can use static IP". No. One can't. One uses the system of one's provider, which in this case is dynamic. Again, I'll stress, this is not against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'll ignore the renewed dig. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One CAN use it. Do not change the subject. You don't own the article. You can't insult people. You can't add unreferenced information. You can't say "oh I retired and scrambled my password" and come back to disrupt the encyclopedia more. Bye. ภץאคгöร 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing any part of the subject: I'm replying to comments you've made. I'm also not insulting people - quite the reverse: I am showing some reserve in not responding to your continual accusations that I am disruptive. Only one of us is trying to communicate on the talk page and only one of us is adding sources and references to the article, rather than just edit warring. Only one of us is throwing out accusations about my IP address and only one of us is more focused in throwing insults. If you can't use the talk page to discuss the matter civilly, I can only guess what your complaints are about the article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be returned to its status before disputed additions were made. WP:BRD must be abide by. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay, It's not entirely clear what is actually being disputed though - this section is all an exercise in clutching at straws for little benefit. I hope he isn't complaining about the addition of reliably sourced information to the Reception section - that would be churlish of him in the extreme. Aside from that, I've tried to refer him to both STATUSQUO and BRD on other areas, but all to no avail. After a couple of forays onto the talk page (which provided incorrect advice) he has ignored the thread, despite repeated requests for him to return and discuss. It's all rather frustrating and disheartening. Cheers. The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't use "he" if you don't know the pronouns of the person you don't know. As anyone can see from what's written above, this IP editor has added unsourced information to the page and persistently added it back when this information was deleted. After a while, they added a few references and claimed that the work was completed. They have kept reverting my edits and done nothing but own the page and claimed that my edit for removing the unreferenced sentence was a bold edit and the status quo included their recent unexplained and unsourced changes. Although days have passed, this editor still has not been able to add enough sources required by the sentence on the page. During this time, I started a discussion on the talk page, following WP:DDE, but the editor insisted on "article development" and that unsourced information may remain until they add the source "soon". When I said this was wrong and their behavior was questionable, I was accused of "a low-level incivility" (and they turned out to be a supposedly retired editor who was previously blocked for "persistent disruption and uncivil behavior", "personal attacks or harassment", "edit warring", and "abusing multiple accounts"). Then when I mentioned their actions on the page here, I was accused of being untruthful, or a liar we might say. Then they claimed that I am in the wrong, and they still argue that I write things that insult people when the only thing I've written is that this editor is disruptive. ภץאคгöร 20:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What pronoun would you like me to use for you? For me, please don't use "they": I am an individual, not a group, so "he" or "him" are the correct forms. I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with your continual incivilities. I also think it shows a measure of desperation to try and use a block log as some form of 'gotcha' evidence.

This could all be avoided if you'd actually use the talk page properly to discuss matters, rather than go straight into incivility with "Suspicious IP activity" - and accusation with no justification behind it. If you have anything sensible to say about the article, please feel free to use the article talk page, because this thread is the usual pointless time sink. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? They is a gender-neutral singular pronoun. It is used when you don't know the gender of the person in question... ภץאคгöร 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see what I'm saying? This editor just won't stop playing the innocent. This could all be avoided if he actually added references in the first place. He is annoyed with my "continual incivilities" (because I only said he was disruptive), yet he just called me desperate, a continuation of his two days of incivility. "Suspicious IP activity" and all that, I've already explained everything above, this editor is ignoring it. ภץאคгöร 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyxaros, by the time of this revert by the IP, all those elements are pretty clearly sourced, it seems to me. I don't really understand what you're trying to fight over. It's a few words in the lead, and the lead doesn't need to have all elements cited as long as they're cited in the text. Now, you could wonder exactly what "production design" entails--but why can't you do that wondering on the talk page? Drmies (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the talk page at first. The original issue was that it was totally unreferenced. The editor gradually added the sources in the text. I think he still needs to add a few more references praising the cast. But now he just keeps insulting for no reason and expects me to discuss with him on the talk page. It doesn't make much sense to me to expect someone who has been insulted to be in contact with the person who insulted them. I don't know why he is allowed to write such things to other editors. Is it okay to revert to his unreferenced edits, own the page and misrepresent BRD and STATUSQUO? I don't know why he is at least not warned, too, especially given the fact that he has a long history of violations. ภץאคгöร 23:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked several times that you outline your concerns about any unsourced material on the talk page. Please feel free to do so. You have referred again to "unreferenced edits": what needs to be sourced, in your opinion? Drmies has already indicated that he considers the queries text in the lead to be "pretty clearly sourced", so what else is there? Please reply on the talk page with details. Thanks. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:45B7:DA9E:F1BB:44EB (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyxaros, again you’ve reverted without using the talk page to discuss. It’s increasingly tiresome to be given short, unhelpful messages by edit summary while you’re ignoring the talk page to revert to something that hasn’t been discussed on the talk page and hasn’t been in the page long enough to gain consensus or have a directly discussed consensus. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve asked you to discuss things, but you’ve been absent from the talk page, while continuing to revert, for a long time. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person, along with other things (as I stated above multiple times), expects other editors to accept the fact that they are the owner of the page, their edits are set in stone / the status quo, and for any changes to the talk page, everyone must reach the consensus approved by him. No one is obliged to discuss with you on the talk page before making any reasonable changes. Especially given your behavior and attitude... ภץאคгöร 06:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t expect anything of the sort, and the accusation of ownership is another in a long line of incivilities you’ve thrown at me - and that’s getting extremely tiresome. I don’t expect discussion before a change is made, and many reasonable changes have been made by other editors. What I do expect is that when there’s a revert, there should be a discussion on the talk page, not a long slow burn edit war with one person refusing to discuss things. Thank you for finally using the talk page (although if you could refrain from the pointy comments there it would make life easier), and I look forward to you providing the diffs and examples I’ve asked for there. I’m sure the section you point to isn’t perfect, so I look forward to seeing where the phrasing is “baseless, unexplained and terrible”. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising to see this editor, who has basically called me a "desperate" and "liar" and has made quite a splash here in the past (and still does to some extent, especially since he edits in retirement without creating an account), keep lying. ภץאคгöร 15:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a diff of exactly where I have called you a "desperate liar"? I'll ignore yet another uncivil comment you've made about me, but suffice to say I reject your assertion that I "keep lying". 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no!!! You forgot??? Read the whole section. Yet another "innocent" comment denying the facts and ignoring the actions... ภץאคгöร 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a diff of exactly where I have called you a "desperate liar"? I have not done so. It is a false accusation to claim I have said such a thing. I will happily withdraw the accusation of you making false accusations if you can provide a diff from anywhere on Wikipedia where I have called you a "desperate liar". If you cannot, I expect to see a withdrawal of the accusation. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting increasingly aggravated by this editor's grudge against me. There is yet another incivility with an accusation of ownership with this comment on a third-party's talk page. I am getting close to the end of my patience with ignoring the ongoing untrue accusations, insults and incivility. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad. Imagine how patient I am, who is the actual injured party here. Adding unsourced info then semi-realizing the mistake and trying to cite references for days, incivility/insults: it shows a measure of desperation = desperate / try and remain truthful = untruthful, dishonest, liar / and others..., misrepresenting or distorting the facts. It goes. ภץאคгöร 16:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the injured party here: you are not "injured" in any way, shape or form. Glad you've acknowledged that I have not called you a "desperate liar": it was not an accusation you should have made. You can knock off the rest of the insults, incivility, sniping and untruthful accusations too. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you did use the word "desperation" and the phrase "try and remain truthful". So while you may not have specifically called them a "desperate liar", you did imply that they are desperate and untruthful, which is pretty darn close to the same thing. EEng 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I can take words completely out of context too and, once quote marks are put around them, turn them into accusations of a direct quote that was never said or even meant. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You have been taking words completely out of context already, I didn't "acknowledge" anything yet you wrote that I did. Anyone can see your insults and behavior to this day. You never meant to retire, never meant to add unsourced info and then overreact to citing references, never meant to accuse others because they state the obvious, never meant to be rude, never meant to overlook your mistakes, never meant to distort the facts, never meant to violate any policy and guideline... You apparently do them unintentionally, it's just out of your hands. ภץאคгöร 13:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bye, bye. Your rants against me started off in a ridiculous vein and are going wider and wider off the mark. (And please don't change your posts if they've been replied to, as you did here - you should indicate that you've altered your comment if you do so). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the nonsense is finally stopping? What a relief! Hopefully I won't have to reply to this editor ever again! ภץאคгöร 13:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder how long this back-and-forth will continue? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, one thing's come out of this for sure: those IPs are almost certainly SchroCat (and if not it's someone who's carefully studied his trademark style of hairsplitting, beside-the-point argumentation). EEng 00:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since 29 October 2021 TagaworShah has initiated a lengthy, persistent attempt to change the origins of the Kingdom of Commagene into "Armenian", and to add WP:UNDUE weight in favour of a very small minority view that vaguely refers to Commagene being of "Armenian" origin. Just recently he brought a part of his attempts to WP:DRN; his stance was rebuffed there by the volunteering admin [8].

Ever since, he still has been attempting to push the same POV in spite of the utter vast majority sources. The articles he has so far targeted are Mount Nemrut and Antiochus I Theos of Commagene.

Yesterday, he left a message on my talk page that he wants to case another dispute resolution case [9]. I believe this has firmly entered the realm of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:DROPTHESTICK, and hence, WP:TENDENTIOUS. This has to stop. I also believe he has engaged in WP:GAME, particularly WP:SANCTIONGAME. He has been extremely hostile from the get-go:

1. How about checking the talk page before reverting, you too could benefit from checking out WP:ONLYREVERT. You are clearly mistaken, how about you actually read the source and the quotes provided above. Canepa was unambiguous about the Pantheon including Armenian religious traditions, so how about instead of using your own assumptions you actually read the source, restore my edit per WP:RMV (it’s wikipedia policy), stop reverting disruptively, and actually discuss on the talk page, it exits for a reason.
2. It is so disheartening that editors that have edited for such a long time as y’all cannot let go of your own ethnic convictions to subjectively look at the sources.

Only to post WP:GAMEy comments like these:

1. How about you stop with the personal attacks, yes saying an editor is tendentiously editing without proper evidence is considered a personal attacks and the way you keep accusing me of that is borderline harassment.
2. Accusing other editors of battleground behavior for simply disagreeing with you and pointing out your mistakes is uncivil, as is reverting without discussion.
3. Also your “veteran editors” comment was extremely unnecessary, what was the the purpose of that comment exactly?

Unfortunately this behaviour eventually changed the tone of the discussion into a grim one, and thus no one is innocent in this case. Regardless, I would still like to point the origin of this out.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair assessment of our content dispute. First and foremost, where did I ever try to change the origins of the Kingdom of Commagene into Armenian? None of my edits or discussions even pertained to that in the slightest, it has always been solely regarding the ancestry of Anthiochis I Theos of Commagene. And how am I forum shopping? The first discussion that was taken to the DRN was pertaining to the inscriptions on the slabs of Mount Nemrut. I then started a new discussion on the Antiochus page specifically about his Ancestry per the recommendation of the DRN volunteer, it is a completely different discussion per the DRN volunteer, the 3O was about the ancestry of Anthiochus, not what the slabs on Mount nemrut say. I provided an abundance of reliable sources that can be found on the talk page which support the view that Antiochus had Armenian ancestors in addition to Greek and Iranian ones. If you look at the talk page I was completely open to giving these sources their due widget if they were a minority view however HistoryofIran refused to even have a fair discussion instead going on to throw Wikipedia essays and intimidation methods to make me stop discussing. This ANI was only opened now because I listed the dispute for a third opinion after nine days of no response. I did not edit war and my edits were of good faith and reflected what the sources said. I admit my tone at the beginning of the Mount Nemrut discussion wasn’t the best, and I apologize for that, but ever since the DRN and new discussion, I have tried my best to be as civil as possible and asked HistoryofIran several times to stop throwing around conduct accusations especially when he showed the same behavior I did; and instead actually talk about the sources and edits but that did not seem to work. I just want to make my position clear as this report is highly exaggerating it. I never tried to say Commagene was Armenian, and the second discussion was outside of the scope of the DRN per the volunteer who told me specifically to start a new discussion and when that discussion about a different issue came to a stalemate, I requested a third opinion. TagaworShah (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And while i’m here let me just clarify our discussions further by providing some diffs. These are the three changes I made to the Mount Nemrut and Antiochus I Theos of Commagene articles.

1. …two lions, two eagles and various Greek, Iranian and Armenian gods…[10]

2. These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who included Armenians, Greeks, and Persians.[11]

3. Antiochus was half Iranian and Armenian, a distant member of the Orontid dyansty, and half greek.[12]

Of course all of these additions were supported by inline citations of reliable sources, which can be found on the talk page and used to be on my sandbox but is now located here User:TagaworShah/Commagene. For the first one, HistoryofIran reworded the section and we came to a compromise, when I called it a compromise HistoryofIran refused to call it that and kept the hostility of the conversation going[13]. As we can clearly see here nowhere was I trying to change the origins of the Kingdom of Commagene to Armenian, I didn’t even edit that article, really the only point of contention was the ancestry of Anthiochus.

I would also like to note that HistoryofIran has been hostile from the start too and kept the hostility of the conversation going despite my attempts at cooling it down by suggesting we actually talk about the edits not the editors.

1.Reverting my good faith edits after I already started a talk page discussion, which is not what you’re supposed to do per WP:RMV as that can lead to hostility(which it unfortunately did).[14] Could have at least had the courtesy to discuss why he believed the citations didn’t match the information instead of being quick to revert hence why I recommended WP:ONLYREVERT.

2.He then went one to center the conversation about me instead of the edits which is when I offered an olive branch to cool things down “What we can do is stop this “uncivil” accusations mess and actually get into the meat of the issue. I implemented a compromise to the Armenian gods issue and you haven’t reverted it so I can assume we are good on that front.”[15] but he refused.

3.Also constantly accusing me of Tendeitous editing without any proper proof. I did not edit war, I started the conversation on the talk page immediately, my citations matched what I said in my view, if he thought that the citations didn’t match what I was writing he should’ve at least assumed good faith that editors can perceive things differently but no he went on to repeatedly accuse me of tendeitous editing.

Not to mention the only comment I made that could be taken as a light personal attack, although I was repeating the guidelines on Nationalism[16] and HistoryofIran does have a record of it[17], I should of been more careful when referencing that page and I realize that now. However, Historyofiran went right back and said the exact same thing to me:

1.”Antiochus in his own inscription word for word literally says Persian and Greek, yet you deny that as well? And you accuse others of being influenced by their own ethnic convictions?”[18] Let me note that none of my edits as you can see above denied Antiochus having persian or greek ancestry. Also in that same edit he called me incompetent for reading a source in a different manner than him, every editor has their biases, including HistoryofIran, calling someone incompetent for reading a quote differently than you is wrong.

2.Also trying to intimidate me with him and his colleagues being veteran editors as if flexing the time you edited somehow gives you more weight in a conversation. Also throwing around wikipedia essays that didn’t even pertain to me as a form of intimidation. The final form was reporting me, I never threatened to do that to him so I don’t understand how I was playing the sanctions game.

As for the DRN. the volunteering admin clearly stated that the DRN was specifically about what the slabs on mount nemrut said and not the ancestry of Antiochus.

THerefor- any inclusion of a statement that the slab confirms this ancestry is WP:synth and WP:OR. No compromise is possible without a RS that states the slab confirms Armenian ancestry. This mediator suggests that the filing editor takes this argument to Antiochus's page rather than continuing it at the Mount Nemrut page

[19]

As you can clearly see here, the problem was the slabs not saying his ancestry not the actual ancestry. She said the ancestry was not within the scope of the DRN and to start a new conversation specifically about the ancestry of Anthiochus on that talk page not about what the slabs on mount nemrut say. Also the volunteer saw no problem with my sources about Antiochus having Armenian ancestors, only that the SLABS didn’t mention that:

Okay- I have reviewed those sources- and I don't see anything wrong with them

[20]

So I took the conversation over to that talk page and tried my best to maintain civility despite getting threatened of being reported for simply continuing the discussion several times. Historyofiran refused to even have a fair discussion, he reverted my edit without actually checking the sources, he just assumed they were the same ones as the Mount Nemrut, which they werent. Even he eventually agreed that my sources did say Antiochus had Armenian ancestors. I offered for us to consider due weight but he simply refused any inclusion of the sources in the article despite them being by very reliable subject matter experts. That is when the discussion reached a stalemate and I asked for a third opinion. [21]

The third opinion was not about what the slabs on mount nemrut said but about the ancestry of Anthiochus which the volunteer confirmed that the DRN did not cover. So the accusations of Tendeitous editing because of “forumshopping” is wrong and to me looks like a WP:SANCTIONGAME on HistoryofIran’s part as he is exaggerating my point to make it seem nationalistic and unsourced by saying I claimed the entire kingdom was exclusively “Armenian” which as we can see above that was certainly not the case, and claiming i’m forumshopping for something already covered by a DRN but per the volunteer herself the ancestry was not covered. I urge the volunteers to take a look at the full conversation, as it looks like Historyofiran thinks he can just exaggerate what i’m doing to impose sanctions on me and the admins won’t look over the full conversation, literally WP:SANCTIONGAME. In almost a year of editing, this is my first time getting reported to ANI so forgive me if this was too long, also im a mobile editor so this was very hard for me to do, I just wanted to make sure the Administrators had both sides of the story so they can make a fair decision. Sincerely, TagaworShah (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute Complicated by Conduct

This has started out as a content dispute which is compounded by conduct, including tendentious editing and walls of text. As is noted above, there was a DRN case concerning an inscription at Mount Nemrut, which User:Nightenbelle closed, saying that any attempt to infer Armenian ancestry relied on synthesis amounting to original research.

So we have this continuation of arguments that is too long, difficult to read. Either:

• This dispute should be transferred to Arbitration Enforcement as a continuation of the Azerbaijani-Armenian wars, and the admins there can determine who is more at fault, or
• Some admin can take discretionary sanction action here, or
• The community can impose an interaction ban.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the DRN thread and through Talk:Antiochus I Theos of Commagene#Ancestry, and it appears to me that, though there's somewhat of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude from both sides, this is just a slightly heated and protracted content dispute. I believe both are arguing in good faith, and the main problem seems to be that they don't believe this of each other. It's nothing for ANI, let alone for WP:AE, if you ask me. Both sides should either try to be more efficient in working toward a consensus, or simply disengage. @TagaworShah: I understand that this is all very stressful, but please try to be much more concise in your comments, and sometimes not to post at all. Asking for a WP:3O was a very good move, but it's extremely discouraging for other editors to participate when faced with a wall of text. The likelihood that some uninvolved editor will step in to help solve a content dispute is inversely proportional to the amount of text present on the talk pages where it's held. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: I completely agree! Sorry for the long post, there was a lot of context behind the conversation and it’s my first(and hopefully last) time getting reported. I will try and make my future discussion posts more concise. Thank you. TagaworShah (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that TagaworShah initially attempted to push for a partial 'Armenian' origin for the pantheon of Commagene, which sources unanimously agree was Greek/Macedonian-Persian/Iranian. To do so he misused a citation which did not even support his addition [22] and even went against what the source itself actually said. He later attempted to do this in the same manner but just for the 'Armenian' origin of the Commagenean branch, which he was called out for by me and another user in the DRN [23] and Talk:Mount Nemrut [24]. This I believe is more proof of WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: How is that Tendentious editing? In my view, I interpret that quote, and still do, as supporting what I added, every editor has their biases including you, that’s why it’s important to Assume Good Faith. I literally accepted the way you rewrote the section and said it was fine so I see absolutely no reason why that would be considered Tendentious. In addition, as for the ancestry of Antiochus, I provided several sources which can be found here User:TagaworShah/Commagene; that support my claim, emphasis on the first 7 sources. Just because we interpret text differently doesn’t mean i’m tendentiously editing, there comes a time where every editor, including you, needs to consider their bias when reading sources. That’s exactly why I requested a third uninvolved opinion. All of this is explained in detail above, at this point this is just a WP:SANCTIONGAME. TagaworShah (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the DRN volunteer- I just want to add, It does appear that User:TagaworShah is determined to force issues of Armenian Ancestry in topics where maybe they don't fit or are WP:UNDUE However, I don't think that it is worth brining here..... yet. I think if they don't tone it down and back off, they will, eventually, face sanctions, administrative action, etc. and rightfully so. I also have seen User:HistoryofIran appear over and over and over in cases on this page or the DRN- and they are dangerously close to WP:OWN and WP:Battleground at times. Basically- It is my opinion that while nothing should be done now- both of you two need to change how you interact with other editors because there will come a point where your many positive contributions no longer outweigh the negative effect of your combative interactions. That day is not today. And both of you do enough positive editing- I would hate to see either of you reach the point where you are a detriment to the project. Please, both of you work on your interaction style and try to be more kind to other editors and inclusive of other perspectives. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Blocked indefinetely by Ymblanter. Panini!^🥪 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

EliProzes, alongside various IP addresses, have been WP:POV pushing on the article Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) for the past few months. In one contribution which they reverted, they upheld the falsification that this independent Catholic church was part of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. Additionally, on 24 November 2021, they returned reverting all contributions which were restoring a NPOV for the article against their notions with the following summary: "Some Asshole F*cked this page up. I just fixed it." Upon the involvement of others, I reverted their second revert of another contributor, and have opted to report this personal attack. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor continues to mindlessly restore their challenged content without discussion. Slywriter (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user indef, 8 edits and not a single one is good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infact1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Partly done. Blocked indefinitely by PhilKnight. Reporter still requests for revision history to be hidden. Panini!^🥪 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

This user (which I suspect is a sockpuppet) of either User:Salt.ent or User:ExtraDetails2021 copied my user page and pasted it onto their user page via this revision. I have previously reported both to WP:SPI via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ExtraDetails2021, however the conclusion is that both are non-related despite having similar edit summary of "fake news" and also removing extactly the same content repeatedly without caring about the warnings issued. Is there anyway to hide that revision that they copied onto their userpage so they don't restore it because the content is exactly the same as my userpage, I don't want to be accused that I'm related to this unknown disruptive user all of a sudden in the future.

Do note that I don't have interaction with this user before hence there isn't any reason to copy my userpage one for one and only change the first sentence of the lead and also certain template inclusion, hence my suspicion may be correct that they are either one of the two sockpuppet. I'm following Park Shin-hye and Choi Tae-joon articles which are my area of interest hence this is how I came upon this user when monitoring my watchlist. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infact1 indef blocked by PhilKnight -- Euryalus (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Euryalus Thanks for the update. Regarding the revision deletion/hiding, is that possible to be fulfil? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In my view it doesn't fit the WP:Revdel criteria, but will leave this section open for while in case anyone else has a strong view. I dont think you need to worry that anyone will think you're the same editor as this person, just because their page history shows they copied the userpage. But I do appreciate that their action was unwelcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus Ok understood, thanks you for the reply. Happy editing and have a great weekend. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmo Sentinel: keeps re-editing even though sources say opposite and now he uses an insulting language after I proved my points here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_manga&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderhymer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruderhymer, I've alerted Cosmo Sentinel about this discussion on their talk page, which you should have done. Woodroar (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and he is not responding.. So is @Cosmo Sentinel: allowed to use that kind of language on wikipedia?

• No, he is not. Ravenswing 21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction; WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS, people are allowed to swear in proper context and when around people who tolerate it, as well as when it's necessary for discussing sometinh (such as an article that has profanity in it). Profanity directed towards someone in an incivil way is the no-go. I've warned them on their talk page. Panini!^🥪 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional eyes at Cher Scarlett would be appreciated. A SPA, User:Igotthistoo, seems to hold the opinion that Scarlett has been given an undue role in the various workers rights movements that have been ongoing in the tech industry lately, and has been attempting to turn the biographical article into a bit of a coatrack for other activists they feel have not been given due attention (see Talk:Cher Scarlett#Comment from Igotthistoo). They have edit warred to try to describe Scarlett as a "participant" in the movements that RS pretty universally describe her as a leader of, and have now begun adding unsourced commentary about Scarlett's tenure at various companies. There aren't many watchers on this article, and with both I and User:SquareInARoundHole attempting to abide by WP:3RR (and Igotthistoo apparently ignoring it, though I've warned them), the page needs attention from outside editors. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary request for help managing Cher Scarlett

As GorillaWarfare said above, User:Igotthistoo seems unusually invested in diminishing the work of Scarlett: adding in unsourced context that swings neutrality negative, unrelated individuals that are WP:NN to detract focus from the subject, and removing important context from WP:RS to further alter the neutrality to a negative outcome. User:Igotthistoo also added information that is easily corrected with the existing source material. I've restored the page to a previous version settled by GorillaWarfare and avoiding WP:3RR, but I imagine User:Igotthistoo will return to make similar or worse edits in the future, and this WP:BLP needs additional watchers to protect it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fully protected the article for a week to give a chance of the talk page discussion to progress.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third request for help managing Cher Scarlett

Cher Scarlett's wikipedia entry takes credit away from the work of many other women activists and exaggerates her contributions and leadership roles on multiple occasions. There are also false and misleading statements which support this throughout, and entries that are purely promotion with no verified data. My intent is not to diminish her work, but to simply see that the entry is made accurate in part so that the work of other women isn't diminished. I also hope that others will take a closer look at her entry and edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe anything has been misstated, please discuss it (with sources to support your changes, or an explanation of how the current sources do not support the statements) on the article talk page rather than warring your changes in. As for the idea that "Cher Scarlett's wikipedia entry takes credit away from the work of many other women activists"—this is not a zero-sum game where we must diminish the contributions of one woman to recognize the work of others. If there is adequate sourcing to establish notability, you could create articles about these other women, or add information about their contributions to the broader articles (Apple worker organizations, Google worker organization, or other company-specific articles; Unionization in the tech sector; etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my intent is not do diminish Cher's work, it's to make what's represented about her in article accurate. I don't think proposing edits is a form or "warring" changes and I made comments explaining most if not all of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't proposing edits, though, you were directly editing them back into the page after they had been challenged by myself or another editor. See WP:EW for more detail on what constitutes edit warring. As for your summaries, you did not explain many of your changes, including your repeated changes from "leader" to "participant". Regardless of whether or not it was your intent to diminish her work compared to how it is represented in reliable sources, that was the impact. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below about this Verge article that mentions Cher as as being "involved" in the founding of the #Appletoo along with 15 other current and former Apple employees. Referring to Cher as a participant is not inaccurate. Igotthistoo (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also made changes that were incorrect per source material already present in the entry. If your intention is to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of an article, please verify your contributions are reflected in cited sources. I suspect you are also IPUser 73.202.58.200 (talk), and based on the whole picture of your contributions, it looks like you may have an undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and/or those you have attempted to add to this WP:BLP, affecting the WP:NPOV and leading to WP:EW. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting & Signing your posts

Please read up on WP:INDENT & WP:SIGNATURE. Also, start showing interests in other articles, less you get blocked as an WP:SPA. PS - And start responding to posts & requests left at your talkpage. Lack of communicating there, ain't appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not block SPA just for being SPA. There are plenty of accounts which are only interested in one topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't block SPA just for being SPA, true. But we do block them for pushing a one-sided agenda. I've just taken a look at the edits User:Igotthistoo are pushing (disclosure: I never even heard of the subject before 15 minutes ago) and they're uniformly subtle attempts to discredit the subject: putting unrelated people into the mix [25], alleging facts from unreliable sources [26], stripping out statements from high quality reliable sources [27], and suggesting as often as possible that the subject's tenure/experiences were brief or ephemeral. The SPA claims that he's not seeking to diminish the subject's work. His edits are nothing but diminishing. Ravenswing 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits do not reflect a one-sided agenda, they are edits of the facts. For example, this Verge article mentions Cher as as being "involved" in the founding of the #Appletoo along with 15 other current and former Apple employees. And this article mention how most of the founding organizers remained anonymous for fear of retaliation. Cher's Wikipedia article neglects to mention any of these details inferring and projecting her as being the primary leader of the #Appletoo when in reality it was a collective effort of many. Igotthistoo (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally at least explaining why you are making the edits you've made. This is probably a discussion better suited for the article talk page, but I'll reply here, and no objections to people moving my comments there if this portion of the discussion is moved.

Regarding your concerns about the article showing it was a collective effort, the article is careful to write that Scarlett is a leader of the Apple organizing. Not the leader. It is quite clear from reading the article that she is not the sole leader of Apple worker organization.

Regarding the wording in the article from The Verge that you have linked: You are correct that it describes her in that way. However, you never actually added this source in your edits. You need to cite any sources you are referring to. Secondly, focusing on one source that says what you are trying to convey, when the majority of sources here describe her otherwise, is WP:CHERRYPICKING. To quickly outline all of the other sources currently used in the article that describe Scarlett's involvement with #AppleToo (omitting ones that discuss her organizing at Apple but don't mention AppleToo specifically, for brevity's sake):

• Washington Post: "[Scarlett is] leading a worker uprising at Apple", "Scarlett has become the face of the #AppleToo movement"
• Vox Recode: "Cher Scarlett, an engineer at Apple who joined the company during the pandemic and has become a leader in, among other issues, organizing her colleagues on pushing for more remote work", "Scarlett and several other corporate employee activists started a Discord subgroup and website called #AppleToo to discuss their grievances and coalesce workers."
• Gizmodo: "Cher Scarlett, a principal software engineer at Apple who co-organized [#AppleToo] on Slack and Discord"
• CNET: "Scarlett has become a public face of AppleToo"
• New York Times: "Cher Scarlett and Janneke Parrish, two Apple employees who help lead the [#AppleToo] group."
• Slate: "Scarlett, who worked at Apple for a year and a half, is perhaps best known for her work with #AppleToo... Scarlett was the last publicly known leader of the months-old movement still at Apple"
• Washington Post: "Among the Apple employees raising concerns is Cher Scarlett, who organized an employee wage survey to shine a light on alleged pay discrepancies affecting underrepresented groups."
• The Verge: "Scarlett withdrawing her complaint won’t necessarily leave Apple in the clear — the company faces a number of other complaints, including ones alleging wrongful termination from other employees Scarlett worked with to organize the #AppleToo movement."

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Igotthistoo:, I stand by my characterization of your edits. As GorillaWarfare correctly states, the article never claimed that the subject was the leader of the movement, only a leader; you can "infer" all you want, but that doesn't turn your inferences into fact. And good grief: if other "leaders" never came forward because they feared retaliation, not only do we have no knowledge of that (and come to that, how is it you claim to know better?), then they weren't really "leading" anything at all, were they? Ravenswing 21:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is known and can be sourced that there were other leaders who remained anonymous (at least outside of the company, not sure if they were known within it or how that works). But that is, rightfully, detailed at AppleToo, not in Scarlett's article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not people agree with the characterization of my edits is beside the point. Many of my edits were factual and added additional context making Cher Scarlett's entry less misleading and more detailed. This includes things like referencing Cher was among a group of many women in her role in the #Appletoo movement. While I do understand why some of my edits were blocked, it's alarming and questionable that most of my edits were reversed. I suspect there's an arrangement between SquareInARoundHole and GorillaWarfare in managing the entry and gatekeeping edits. Igotthistoo (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Igotthistoo: All edits must be factual, not just "many". In addition to being factual, they must be neutral, which on Wikipedia means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (and not cherrypicking the one source that portrays an individual in a way that reflects your personal opinions of her, when it is different than the bulk of other sources). It concerns me that you don't yet seem to see the issue here.

Regarding your accusations that "there's an arrangement between SquareInARoundHole and GorillaWarfare in managing the entry and gatekeeping edits", that's absurd. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. I see you have not yet addressed SquareInARoundHole's concerns about whether you have a WP:COI (either with respect to Scarlett or the others you have tried to shoehorn into her biography)—do you intend to? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Igotthistoo:, what's my excuse? Even if crying collusion wasn't the standard response of biased edit warriors who find consensus going against them, I can hardly be tagged with that smear: yet I agree with SquareInARoundHole's and GorillaWarfare's characterization of your edits. I advise you to learn more about how consensus works on Wikipedia, and that the relevant policies and guidelines governing neutral edits, biographies of living persons, and undue weight apply whether or not you agree with them or approve of them. Ravenswing 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Igotthistoo:If there are other people involved in AppleToo that can be verified by WP:RS, please contribute that to the proper article. A WP:BLP is not the space to work on an agenda. Furthermore, I ask you to disclose your WP:COI, if you have one. You continue to refer to unsourced information, or engage in WP:CHERRYPICKING that cannot be reconciled by the volume of source material available, and/or negatively affects the WP:NPOV. We are not "gatekeeping" your edits. Your edits introduced information to Wikipedia that was false and illustrated an agenda with the sole purpose of diminishing the subject of the article. This is an unacceptable use of the platform. We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

User:Thistechworkertoo has just turned up at Ifeoma Ozoma and begun edit warring and introducing similarly minimizing wording changes. The username is a bit similar. Is this a sock? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time for the community to show the sock-master & his socks, the door. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely. 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA US) showed special interest in only diminishing the biographies of Ozoma and Scarlett, so likely this particular user is trying to evade scrutiny with socks. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser says Yes. No comment on the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: (or another admin) Should a block be placed? I'm WP:INVOLVED here so certainly won't do it myself, but this seems like an attempt to avoid scrutiny even if the editing period doesn't overlap. Let me know if I should take this to a separate SPI report too. Happy to do it, just didn't want to fragment the discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV. My usual policy in these circumstances (ie first offence, no policy reminders, and no aggravated deception) is to block the sock, and gamble on an autoblock for the master. I've done this. A block for the main account shall be up to another admin, though I obviously note that I haven't done that (for the sock puppetry). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, anyway. I've page-blocked Igotthistoo indefinitely from Cher Scarlett. Bishonen | tålk 12:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This User continues to add unsourced content to Articles, their talk page is littered with Warnings since June and i would like to point out that they have shown neither an ability to address this issue nor to communicate in response to warnings on their talk page. Here is some examples of Leonold70's edits that are unsourced and where Leonold70 did not provide an a reliable source. The first three are the edited ones and the last three are the Current edits for comparison

edit # 1

edit # 2

edit #3

Chip3004 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful if you linked the diffs, rather than the edited versions. We cannot see from those links what this editor added to which you object. Ravenswing 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is partly copied from my report at AIV (you should at least have pinged me about, Chip3004), because this is rather obvious and long-term. @Ravenswing: Isn't there the area with those links, "(diff) ← Previous revision" (top left)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I linked the un edited edits prior to Leonold70 edits Chip3004 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? What’s an “unendited edit”? Your reply doesn’t make sense. Someone’s posted an explanation of how to do a diff in the box in the top right of this thread. You should post the edits you want to highlight using the instructions in that box. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I followed the instructions in the box Chip3004 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This user is seemingly editing in good faith, maybe they simply don't know how to add sources or see their talk page and pings? Examples such as these to Tobot, Jon Scieszka, and this one to a Thomas the Tank Engine spinoff all seem to be going in the right direction, albeit with no source. I don't see the problem with adding a citation needed tag to good edits like these (I remember one time I tried to remove a claim without citation and an editor reverted it and got mad at me). Users handle uncited additions differently, and seemingly only the ones who opposed it were the ones who reached out; this user made over 100 edits in the past couple of months, mainly to children's television, and has a relatively high revert rate. Most of their warnings come from users who edit articles related to the Thomas the Tank Engine franchise. This isn't to say that the majority of their edits, mainly ones involving a plot description or addition, aren't too hot in quality. Panini!^🥪 13:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Panini: Competence (and communication) is required. If this user has been warned multiple times about adding uncited information (including in BLPs), and they are not responding to such warnings, it does not change whether they're editing in good faith or not. At some point, if most of their edits are getting reverted, and they don't appear to be figuring out why, it's not our job to keep cleaning up after them ad vitam aeternam. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Dont forget the exclamation point; Panini on its own was taken. How have I never seen this policy before? That's disappointing, but policies are policies.

  Allow me to reconsider my stance, then: this user has been given persistent guidance and warnings over a period of six months. Whether or not they don't know how to see it or they are choosing to ignore it, it has become a chore for the editors that they are affecting. I would suggest pulling the plug. Panini!^🥪 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious that if Leonold70 continues to add Unsourced or Poorly sourced content to articles then he will need to be blocked if Leonold70 continues to do that. Chip3004 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Euryalus. Panini!^🥪 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

Could someone indef this account please? This account is very obviously just a kid screwing around - every edit they have made here consists of strange spam and vandalism where they are making nonsense claims that they are satoshi, the creator of bitcoin, and adding their contact details to pages asking people to email them to receive cryptocurrency (now oversighted). They have repeatedly vandalised pages with incomprehensible word salad, and they don't seem to have made a single productive contribution. They were blocked for a month for this previously, and are currently indefed on two other projects for the same behaviour, now that the block here has expired they have returned and created a nonsense userpage where they attack a living person describing them as a fraud and claiming that they are the real satoshi. Even if they weren't exclusively using Wikipedia for screwing around I don't think there's much chance that they'd be able to contribute here successfully, their English skills are so severely lacking that most of what they write is near incomprehensible. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Might not mean any harm but clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Response from said Crazy IP editor

First of all, to clear things up, Bodney, nothing in there was directed at you, and after skimming over that discussion section again, I will confirm that none of it applies to you; it was regarding sustained, low-level disruptive behaviour among multiple editors with a particular POV, but was never intended to be taken to mean that all editors who share that POV are engaging in disruption. I also will note that when other editors practise tendentious editing, it is very difficult for any of us to recognise if we happen to share their POV (and every POV has both good faith and tendentious editors in its ranks).

I am happy to strike out whatever parts in that comment you find objectionable; at least some of it was policy-based argument, and should not be suppressed. I will also say that I have no intention of engaging in any of the extended back and forth bickering on the matter; just the comment. I will leave a message on your user talk as well; just wanted to also leave a response here, for the record. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321 (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP made the ill-conceived choice to respond after the section was closed, I'm calling for a block based on their anti-trans (and misogynist to boot) rant in the aforementioned section:

females are weaker, only females can become pregnant, and only males can impregnate them, potentially against their will. None of that has anything to do with how anyone "identifies", and claiming it does is dishonest.

Comments such as this have no place on the wiki, and serve only to drive off our trans editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor the IP was primarily targeting, caricaturing, and casting ASPERSIONS towards in their comments, I would point to this rant, which misquotes a comment I made years ago into almost the opposite of the intended meaning, as particularly revealing. To have seen that quote, the person behind the keyboard was almost certainly either (1) a participant in old gender debates, since indef-blocked or otherwise departed (there are a few of those) or (2) someone acting as a MEATPUPPET who was pointed towards old debates by one of their participants (or bystanders). Either way, the IP's actions are disruptive and should be stopped, as best possible with the tools available. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has the IP been vandalising articles or edit-warring? GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated WP:CIVIL violations are always disruptive, and editing in spite of a ban (whether by SOCK or by MEAT) is always to be stopped, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Emmentalist is a new user who nominated James Chapman (journalist) for deletion with their first edit. There is some blatant COI editing in that article's history. However, at the AFD, this user is accusing basically every editor of the article of paid editing, in particular the article creator DinosaursLoveExistence. That user's creations were the subject of a recent ANI thread that got derailed talking about other banned editors and had no resolution. Something is going on here that needs administrator attention, but I'm not quite sure what. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @力 Thanks for this. I've slightly amended the title, I hope you don't mind. I thought I'd explain a little further. I've put up quite a bit at James Chapman Talk and on the AfC discussion too. I'm a new signed-in user, having edited for a few months unsigned to try it out. I thought I'd concentrate on a small number of articles to learn the rules. Do say if I get something wrong re: good WP form. It's all very much in good faith. Re: @dinosaurs love existence: I started on an article 'Ros Altmann' which took me to the James Chapman article. I started to edit the second then realised it was all COI (it's how I learned what COI is...). I then looked at the page creator and on to what the creator created around the same time. I found article after article which had no real basis at all. I've flagged two for quick delete (again, it's how I leaned about quick delete). But there are many, many more. I see at @dinosaursloveexistence's talk page that many article are flagged for deletion and much else, without challenge or comment from dino. Dino seems to be creating very simple pages, mainly without references, on mainly un-notable people (although some could be notable if their page was properly created). Strikingly, there are lots of unreferenced biographical details about family and so on. My tacit conclusion is that dino has been paid to create simple pages, has done so, then has moved on. When pages are picked up years later for being un-notable, etc, dino just lets it go - having been paid for it years before. If James chapman is deleted (do say what you think at the AfD page) and the other two (Tom Alexander, Lynn Barton) are too, then I plan to put @dinosaursloveexistence up for an ANI discussion. I wasn't aware that there had been one, and thank you for flagging. As I say, assuming my deletions are followed through, I think that AfC discussion needs to be properly resolved. I also comment on two other James Chapman editors; but I qualify my comment. First, I note that @brownhairedgirl makes 1000 edits per day and has literally edited continuously, 24 hours a day, for years. I don't understand how that's possible, but would very much like to be educated on that. Finally, Phillip Cross, where I provide an external link, is flagged for the reasons at the link. I hope that all helps and I'm very keen to learn more by discussing any thoughts you have here. Sorry this is so long, but I think it's necessary in view of your (constructive) comment. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s a bit of a jump to assume COI here. The user is a prolific article creator and the vast majority just don’t look like subjects that anyone would pay someone to create. There are many motivations for users creating non-notable stubs in volume (and I’m not saying either way whether that’s what’s happening here) - I wouldn’t assume COI. You’re also way off on the other user you mention. It seems to me you need to calm down on attributing motivations to people otherwise you’ll end up sanctioned for WP:PA. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Decausa Now I've learned what WP:PA is. Hadn't go to that policy yet - working my way through. There's definitely no PA intended but I take your point in the spirit it's intended. Thanks. To be clear, I have put my reasoning down at the AfC discussion and at the Jameschapman Talk page and I don't think I agree with you about dino. I could of course be wrong, but a reasoned referral to an ANI can't be PA of itself or there would be no such ANI discussions. The main tell, I think, is the inclusion in dino's articles of personal biographical details which are not referenced nor likely available anywhere other than directly from the subject (the Tom Alexander (businessman) article is a good example). Actually, I think that particular subject could be a notable subject if a proper effort had been made to create a bona fide page, but the article definitely isn't that. It seems essentially a template created by dino which the subject can then alter if they wish. There are quite a few exceedingly obscure trade associations amongst dino's creations, too. Trade associations often begin as the creation of a PR agency, and the articles were created at the same time as the trade associations were. I also noticed that some such associations were associated with Bell Pottinger PR agency (see the James Chapman article AfC). Finally, I presume people who edit covertly for money create many other simple articles to obscure that fact in their 'contributions' history. I think that's what could behind all those other non-notable articles you mention. That's another reason I suspect COI. Re: the editor who makes a thousand edits a day and edits continuously - perhaps that's a thing and I'd really genuinely and massively appreciate it if you could explain it to me ('You're also way off on the other user'). My feeling was that the account might be used by people doing shifts. I could be totally wrong on that, though, so I'm merely raising the question for others to consider and maybe answer, and not making a claim. I do make that caveat wherever I comment. Emmentalist (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t do that, unless you have solid grounds. Read WP:ASPERSIONS. DeCausa (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DeCausa I presume you mean the last part. I've read that policy now. I think the best thing is to ask @brownhairedgirl about it. I'll do that politely then revert. Emmentalist (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, @DeCausa I've found out about semi-automatic editing tools like AWB. I asked at the editors site I mentioned in my last and was helped by @Qwerfjkl. Thanks so much, both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just to close this off, @力 Thanks for raising my stuff. I'm very new and have learned a great deal from our exchange. Lots of folks have come in to tell me about semi-automatic editing, including the amazingly experienced editor you alluded to at the start. Actually, I think I was running before I could walk, a bit. The AfD has, you'll see, duly been deleted. I'm going to get on with more straightforward editing for a bit! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:2C4:C401:3B30:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we get another rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2601:2C4:C401:3B30:0:0:0:0/64 from Texas? Nothing good comes from this range; it's all incompetent disruption and self-promotion. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor appears to be editing in good faith, but a large proportion of their edits are significant additions of unsourced material. Since being warned on 28 November their edits have continued unabated. I have reverted quite a few, and other editors have reverted or undone others. I suspect that the editor has not seen any of the warnings, and that this editing pattern will continue without a short preventative block. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has made roughly 100 edits over the course of one week since their first edit (1). Their edits usually go towards Chirstmas and world culture-related articles, but other topic edits, such as walk-in closet and sponge cake, have been made. While some of their additions are minor grammar fixes and word rephrasing (which has the lowest revert rate of their additions), the bulk of their edits come from new content addition, sometimes creating new sections entirely, and none of them were backed with sources. They've been warned 9 times on their talk page, 4 times on the 28th and 5 today, and 8 of them are from MichaelMaggs and 1 from Melecie. And yes, I looked into all of this before saying that, so trust that I'm right. I had all the diffs ready and proceeded to accidentaly close the tab and I didn't want to do it again. Panini!^🥪 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are continuing. The very next edit after this report was this one. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like now this user has been doing only grammar fixes and genuine other additions since this thread, including these to Visa requirements for Australian citizens (though slight problems with unsourcing still exist). I think they may have gotten the message; I would keep this open for a little while in case other problems arise. Panini!^🥪 15:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knightedblog0934, a sockpuppet of RK777713 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive), has previously claimed to be Ryan Kavanaugh and has threatened to sue editors of his Wikipedia article last week. RK777713's identity has so far not been confirmed, but I believe that this article published yesterday and written by Kavanaugh should lay any doubts to rest. I don't know how Wikipedia goes about lawsuits like these. I'm not sure if this is the proper venue, I just felt obligated to let the administrators know. Notifying Tamzin since they were involved with previous sockpuppet investigations. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia's legal team can be contacted here if you wish. There's an email address located near the bottom of the page. --Jayron32 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping, Throast. I'm happy to contact Legal if you haven't already. It does seem likely beyond any reasonable doubt here that RK777713 is either telling the truth about being Kavanaugh or is someone paid to act on his behalf; if it were a joe job one would expect him to have addressed this in the article. (Obligatory note that RK777713 made this claim implicitly on-wiki here, here, and elsewhere, and, as Throast alludes to, confirmed sock Knightedblog stated it explicitly here, here, and here, so there is no WP:OUTING issue with discussing it.) It would be good to see the text of the lawsuit to see to what extent he mentions Wikipedia, to know how much exposure, if any, there is for individual editors.
  At the same time, in the spirit of WP:DOLT, we should be aware that some of Kavanaugh's claims of improper behavior on Wikipedia have an amount of merit. I've already warned [53] [54] two users for harassing someone they perceived to be Kavanaugh (and whom I concluded at SPI was quite likely associated with him in some way, although not to such a degree as to violate MEAT) and, in one of their cases, for violating WP:BLP against Kavanaugh in the process. (See Special:PageHistory/User talk:Garen67541 for context, noting that the worst of it has been revdelled or OS'd.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Tamzin's concern over the possible merits of Kavanaugh's complaints. The BLP issue is more important than the other issues here. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I haven't contacted Legal yet, so if you'd like to, please do. You seem much better versed in all of this than me. Thank you in advance! Sidenote, having been personally threatened, I got the impression that Kavanaugh's legal threats were directed against the "negative" contributions to the article rather than the specific comments made by those two editors. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Legal. For full transparency, a copy of the email is below:

Dear legal team,

At this ANI thread on enwiki [1] (permalink [2] as of time of writing), 
a concern has been raised about a lawsuit filed by American 
multimillionaire Ryan Kavanaugh against YouTuber Ethan Klein; in 
Kavanaugh's blog post [3] about the suit (archival link [4]), he 
mentions concerns about his English Wikipedia article, which seems to 
confirm statements made by user RK777713 and his sockpuppets of being 
Kavanaugh. (Past ANI [2], ending in block for legal threats. SPI [5], 
resulting in various blocks for sockpuppetry and further threats.)

I write to Legal for three reasons: One, to apprise you of this 
situation if you are unaware of it. Two, to ask if there is any exposure 
here for individual Wikipedians. Kavanaugh's blog post doesn't seem to 
link the actual legal documents. And three, to request Legal's input on 
whether the community has taken adequate measures (through revdels, 
warnings, etc.) to mitigate the possibility of defamatory statements 
against Kavanaugh on-wiki that could lead to liability for Wikipedians 
or the WMF (regardless of whether he's actually suing over them). A 
comment at the ongoing ANI thread would be most welcome if possible.

You should also be aware of the existence of User:Garen67541 [6], 
previously User:88rising88. At the SPI I concluded that Garen is 
probably not Kavanaugh, but may well be affiliated with him in some way.

Thank you for your time,
Tamzin

Links:
------
[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ryan_Kavanaugh_appears_to_have_filed_a_lawsuit_implying_Wikipedia_editors
[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1058124674#Ryan_Kavanaugh_appears_to_have_filed_a_lawsuit_implying_Wikipedia_editors
[3] 
https://csq.com/2021/11/c-suite-contributor-ryan-kavanaugh-the-dark-side-of-the-power-of-social-media/
[4] 
https://web.archive.org/web/20211201163906/https://csq.com/2021/11/c-suite-contributor-ryan-kavanaugh-the-dark-side-of-the-power-of-social-media/
[5] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RK777713
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Garen67541

Since I've mentioned Garen67541, I will notify them of this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request #34039 according to the response, if anyone else plans to write in. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke5044 has been adding lots of non-notable information about Boston University Academy to the page and edit warring there (there’s more stuff, that’s why I didn’t go to AN3RR). He also added articles about Bowman Elementary School (a clearly not notable elementary school) and a random landscaping business in Eastern Massachusetts. Both of which were quickly A7’ed. I don’t think this falls under blatant vandalism or spam.

Thanks! Noah ^💬 12:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is apparently student attempting to expand coverage to the university they attend, which would constitute a WP:COI. It'd also be fair to note that they also made some relatively okay additions to other Massa...Massassa...Mattachssas...Massachusetts-related articles (12). While they probably simply don't know about WP:INDISCRIMINATE when repeatedly adding this to the BUA college article, they been given numerous warnings, some even personally written. C.Fred (pinged here), an admin who had some run-ins with this user, I would like to hear your thoughts about how to conclude this situation. Panini!^🥪 13:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the COI issue is particularly relevant and we should try to protect minors who might expose their personal information on Wikipedia. Can we wait to see if they respond here, or if they continue making troublesome edits? Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't suggesting that immediate COI actions should be taken, that was misclassification on my part. WP:EXTERNALREL, the relation between an attended and a school isn't too drastic. Their editing pattern has also died down as well; no edits today and only a handful in the days prior. The user might just be checking back onto the article, seeing that their edits are gone, and reverting them and leaving again, without much interest in diving into Wikipedia further or interacting with others while they're at it. I'd support waiting for further issues Panini!^🥪 14:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the ANI Notice template failed on his talk page, and I'm typing one out as we speak. Please extend the grace period for him to respond. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat continues his unsourced reverting at List of the oldest people by country by falsely asserting that personal interpretations of editors are sufficient to outweigh WP:RS. We've had a talk page discussion [55] on this matter lasting for over a month, where no one shared his view. I had provided an unambiguous reliable source [56], but Chicdat left a message on my talk page arguing "Wikipedia editors [i. e. first and formost Chicdat himself] have interpreted "night of 21 October" as "in the early hours of 22 October"" (My source doesn't state "night of 21 October", but simply 21 October, that's why I chose it!). I don't have to reach a personal "consensus" with him and we already had a discussion at his talk page where he accused me of a personal attack for disagreeing with him. Hence, I have decided to take this dispute to the ANI. He is also lying in the edit summary [57] that it will be his " first, last, and only revert", whereas in reality he made this edit just four days ago [58]. Renewal6 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, first time in a while any longevity disputes have made it here. I'll never understand why this subject, of all things, raises people's blood pressure so much. Since Gerneth himself only had alcohol at celebrations (yes, that was in the article), would it be too much to ask everyone here just have a cup of tea? I think Chicdat was referring to this being the only revert after you added the source, the first one was before you added the source supporting October 21. Since I see no discussion since November 5th I don't mind keeping an eye on any further discussion, and if you need outside input I'll just drop a followup note to yours at WT:WikiProject Longevity. (And no, "you're wrong" was not a personal attack, maybe a little gruff but nothing sanctionable) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source that unambiguously states 21 Oct. If Chicdat wants to revert my edits, he'll be obliged to provide a source that unambiguously states 22 Oct. Reverting my edits by referring to a personal interpretation of an ambiguous (let‘s assume that) source, is plain disruption. His comment at my talk page (see above) totally misses the point and fails WP:NOR: On Wikipedia, we should go by the reliable sources, not by dubious interpretations of "longevity editors" contradicting them. Renewal6 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: you should take a second look. This edit looks to me like it misrepresents the source [59], which says "Wenige Tage nach seinem Geburtstag verstarb er am 21. Oktober 2019.", machine-translation "A few days after his birthday, he died on October 21, 2019." I don't see how you're getting Oct 22 from that. Levivich 18:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note for context that the OP and Chichdat have an extensive history of edit-warring with each other on a number of pages, which I have previously warned them both for ([60][61]). --Blablubbs (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: Yes, but in the meantime I took the dispute to the relevant talk pages as you had advised ([62], [63], [64]), so this fact does not delegitimise my arguments put forward above. Renewal6 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want help with content, I'm happy to point you the right direction. Dispute resolution is so overly complicated even the historic citizens of Byzantium would weep just trying to figure it out, but it's your best bet for working out a content dispute; I'm happy to help with that, I know it's frustrating to have something drag on for a month but it sometimes takes a few tries to get everything sorted out. (And despite the name, WikiProject Longevity is actually a product of resisting the legacy of the "longevity editors"; trust me when I say there's no love lost, I personally have been the topic of plenty of tirades on The 110 Club and similar, so the people who see your messages there won't be the drooling fanboys who treat longevity as some sort of quasi-reality-show contest to stave off death the longest) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want help with content, I want help with Chicdat's disruptive editing. Contentwise everything has been said and the source I added to the article is unambiguous (see Levivich's comment above). I would support a no action closure of this thread, if Chicdat promised not to revert my edits again without providing a reliable source. Renewal6 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, when the source says "21" and Wikipedia says "22", that's a black-and-white WP:V error. If there were multiple sources and some said "21" and others said "22", that would be a content dispute. But I searched yesterday and could not find a single source that said "22". "Editors decided" can't be a counter argument to WP:V, per WP:NOR. In my view this is basic, basic stuff. Levivich 14:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the simple question is: @Chicdat: can you show where in the source it says 22, or what you mean by Longevity editors tend to interpret the source's wording as 22 October? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Chicdat is currently topic banned from editing in "Wikipedia:"-space, I would like to clarify if he is allowed to respond here under WP:BANEX point 2, "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, after extensive searches yesterday, was able to find Gustav Gerneth's official death certificate (FEW's comment, third down from top), which unambiguously states * 15 Oktober 1905 † 21 Oktober 2019 Therefore I would like to sincerely apologi[s/z]e for all reverts I made, and will not ever change Gerneth's death date to 22 October again. @Renewal6: I'm sorry especially for reverting you about 25 times on seven different pages. I hope this discussion can be closed without action, and I would like to finally say: (sorry for the all caps) THIS FALLS UNDER WP:BANEX (LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random Haste (talk · contribs) on Kempegowda International Airport has been adding their own analysis of destinations in the Airlines and destinations section. Lots of reverts of rationale reverts by other editors by the Random Haste. One such example, Air India never operated to Addis Ababa from Bangalore, Adithya003 reverted this addition here, but Random Haste has been reverting this removal: [65], [66], [67]. They have also violated WP:3RR on several days on the page, recently, today, 1 December as well. They are also adding travel websites as sources for airline destinations when in fact these are clearly not a verifiable sources. Majority of their addition of resumption of international flights from this airport are purely based this article which solely states opening of international borders in India for scheduled flights, so basically making all the addtions a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH.

Please refer the article history for the level of disruptive edits that have been going on since a while. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi....I would like to bring to your notice, LeoFrank (talk · contribs) that i was trying to remove some content that this user called Random Haste (talk · contribs) had added by his own analysis.....i was trying to explain him that these flights were temporary and unsourced additions and not regular flights....but he was going on reverting my edits marking them as vandalism by providing some booking engine sources.....i was fed up of explaining him and he threatened me not to revert his edits again otherwise i would face the negative consequences...actually he was adding vandal content and marking my reverts as vandal

And one more thing....i was trying to add some sourced content in the article Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and was constantly following the edits done in both the airport articles....he was reverting my edits in the BLR Airport article was saying that this is BLR airport's article, is the third busiest airport india (which he was assuming i don't know), this article is not meant to be vandalized like this (which was being done by him)....and that this was not like HYD Airport,..which is still the sixth busiest accorsding to him (but actually 4th)...so in his view bigger airport articles cannot be added content without his persimission...but that a bit smaller airport like HYD...can be vandalized, spoilt...anything...

I just wanted to explain you the level of self assumed authoritarianship took by Random Haste in BLR airport article that nothing should be added in that article without his permisssion

so i would suggest you to take action on him. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:C001:D0A0:6D01:161C:5D83:2BA (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per Random Haste's message on my talk here, they have indicated clearly of their WP:COI with the article and also still don't seem to show any understanding of citation. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 07:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor has repeatedly resubmitted this draft and been advised to wait until the film is released. It was declined on 7 September, 11 September, 16 September, 21 September, and 11 November. Maybe the editor thinks that if they submit it enough times, the community will get tired of the requests and will accept it instead. The reviewers have gotten tired of the requests. I reported the submitter to WP:ANI on 12 November after yet another resubmission and requested a partial block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Buck_Wild

An IP address, probably ZX2006XZ logged out or their little brother, resubmitted it again while the ANI thread was in progress. I Rejected the draft. That WP:ANI thread was archived with no final action.

Now ZX2006XZ has asked at the AFC Help Desk if someone will re-review again because "it's been quite a long time since the last submission. Care to review?" They have edited the draft, primarily to enter a blurb from Disney, but are basically beating the same dead dinosaur.

This may be a breaching experiment. No action was taken three weeks ago, and so now they are trying again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing any breaching experiment, with all due respect. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I haven't been resubmitting it constantly since it got declined on November 16, 2021. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZX2006XZ, no, that is a very short time, not a long one. Just wait until this film has been released and has gathered some independent reliable coverage, such as reviews, showing notability and the article about it can then be accepted. If you cannot wait until then then it's very likely that you will be blocked from editing it again and/or the article will be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, I understand. It's just that I didn't submit it. The person who did was Naraht. ZX2006XZ (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger. I didn't submit it, I expressed the opinion that it might be notable an asked someone from WP:FILM to chime in. I also haven't resubmitted it for AFC. I've been an editor for about 15 years and don't do much over in Films. (My area of focus is Fraternities and Sororities)Naraht (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like now we have an investigation on our hands; which would be who submitted it for AfC. I’m asking out of curiosity, can’t the admins just check who did so? I mean if they can’t, I wouldn’t really know why not. You would think that they could be able to check who did, but if not, I think we should take a better look into this, seeing as one user has blamed another in-which the accused has denied doing so. I’m not sure if admins will need to intervene here, but that’ll definitely be the case if this de-escalates any further. Bombastic Brody (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the draft's history declares that Naraht has never submitted this draft for review, and only edited the article once to leave a comment noting to check in with WT:FILM. This editor might've just been under the false impression that this comment meant they were submitting it to WP:FILM to review themselves, and that WP:FILM was something that would review it. Was that what you meant by Naraht submitting it, ZX2006XZ? Panini!^🥪 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. That was what I meant. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZX2006XZ, WP:FILM (as you might know now) is Wikiproject Film. Here is their talk page; Naraht was referring to leaving a message at the Wikiprojects talk page to see what other contributors of film projects thought of it. They declared that it passes some criteria of film notability guidelines, but it has yet to satisfy the general notability guidelines (GNG) of Wikipedia as a whole. The future films section states that animated films need sources that confirm they are out of the pre-production process, and that might be what WP:FILM is referring to as passing their film notability guidelines. The film simply needs more before posting, and reviews when the film releases will satisfy that. I suggest leaving the draft be until then, and take their advice and wait things out. It might also be safe to mention that when the film releases, make sure the reviews are included in the draft before submitting again. Panini!^🥪 17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: No one has actually submitted the draft since 16 November, when I rejected it after User:ZX2006XZ resubmitted it while the previous report was pending here. User:Naraht inquired about it. That was the only involvement Naraht had with it. ZX2006XZ then asked if it could be re-reviewed because it had been a "long time". It is ZX2006XZ who is being tendentious about it, and appears to be trying to blame another editor, maybe because they have run out of little brothers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I am not trying to blame anyone. ZX2006XZ (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TE(æ)A,ea. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The diffs are as follows, the date and time is in IST.

• 08:14, 1 December 2021 The edit restores a blacklisted url by bypassing it through Internet Archive. They are aware of the need for whitelisting. On 07:22, 1 December 2021, they had requested a different blacklisted url to be whitelisted for the same talk page which was declined.
• 19:49, 1 December 2021 Restoration of the same bypassed blacklisted url, this time in specific.
• Special:Diff/1058114237, I ask them, "can you explain why you are repeatedly bypassing a blacklist by using internet archive?" They respond in Special:Diff/1058131042 by stating that "I have not done anything "repeatedly."
• In reponse in (Special:Diff/1058134550), I point out the two diffs to them, link them the place where the consensus is (WP:OPINDIA) and ask them to self revert. They respond in Special:Diff/1058135346, by again asking me where the consensus is and saying that I am to blame for their reverts. Beyond this specific incident, through the entire discussion, they kept ignoring my comments and asked me the same question even after I have answered those questions in increasingly elaborated terms.

This also doesn't appear to be the first time something like this is happening, considering that they were previously explained in detail how to ping people and not to copy other people's signs (see User talk:TE(æ)A,ea. § Replying to someone) but they don't seem to care about it as can be seen in Special:Diff/1058044906. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The top of this page states, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." That is not the conduct represented here, even taking this user's assumptions as true. The above report misrepresents most of the events at hand. During the recently concluded deletion discussion regarding "Mass killings under communist regimes," a number of news outlets reported on the discussion. One of those was OpIndia. Upon seeing this coverage, I added the OpIndia article to the Press template on the discussion's talk page. I attempted to add the URL, but was unable to do so; the IA URL was added later, by a different user. Now, to the current dispute. The accusing user removed most (10/13) articles from the Press listing; I reverted this, as it came after no discussion. (This is the first revert in question.) After this revert, the user started a discussion regarding press coverage, in which I engaged. During this discussion, this user again removed most press coverage; this was reverted by a different user. Later, while the discussion was still ongoing, this user removed for a third time part of the Press listing. (This is the second revert in question.) In neither of these reverts did I consider myself engaged in devious, rule-violating behavior; I was merely maintaining the status quo while a discussion on such material's inclusion was ongoing. Regarding the word "repeatedly," I did not restore the OpIndia reference repeatedly; I restored it once, and multiple references were restored twice (once by myself, and once by another user, as I mentioned). The consensus regarding OpIndia refers to discussions regarding OpIndia's reliability as a source in articles; I did not use it in the "Mass killings under communist regimes" article, nor did I intend to. I asked this user, on two occasions, for the consensus regarding a different matter: whether source reliability is relevant to inclusion in Press template listings. This consensus was claimed, but not provided. As my relation shows, this user is to blame for my reverts, as it was his action that caused the reverts. You have repeatedly refused to articulate a rationale for not including the sources in question; you have not "elaborated" on them in any sense. I kept asking you the same question because you kept refusing to answer it. The incident mentioned on my talk page is not relevant, and I will not respond to the comment made so off-hand; but if requested I will respond. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do we need more Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) drama here? Can we just look the other way and move on? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't really pertain to the AfD itself but is about bypassing a blacklist on a url. I'd rather not have someone's IDHT/CIR issues or whatever this is, heighten the risk for editors that OpIndia has already doxxed or might try to dox in the future. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not an article, and it's not even an article talk page. It is the talk page for an AfD which closed several days ago. It is hard to understand why this an issue of such great concern. Overall, there seems to be a lot of reverting and not a lot of discussion about the reverting on that page. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to talk about their proposed changes to the page, and try to reach consensus prior to making these changes, including @Tayi Arajakate: and @TE(æ)A,ea.:. jp×g 02:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  JPxG, I can't keep repeating myself. What part of "links must be whitelisted before they can be used", do you not understand? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: I'm referring to these diffs, from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). jp×g 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, carefully read their edit summary. I guess, I'll repeat myself. What part of "links must be whitelisted before they can be used" and "do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content", do you and TE(æ)A,ea. not understand? As you say its the talk page of an AfD that's over so it's unlikely to receive further input. At this point, this is just status quo stonewalling for something that violates community consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about, as I do not have a particularly strong opinion about the dispute in question (both you and TE(æ) seem to be engaged in edit-warring). I am referring to the diffs I linked in the comment above (this one and this one). jp×g 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I am referring to the fact that the press coverage includes an url to a blacklist website that has doxxed editors. Their personal information is still visible on their website. The url was not whitelist but instead inserted by bypassing it through Internet Archive. In addition, much of it violates both the general practice and the explicit documentation of the template. This is very clearly explained in the edit summaries there and I did try my best to explain that in the discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: I do not understand what this has to do with the issue at hand. The URL you're referring to is 135 bytes long, whereas both diffs show you removing 3,995 bytes from the template (containing some eleven sources). jp×g 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, alright, just remove the url then and I wouldn't be bothered to continue this. That's the only thing I have a strong opinion of, here. I did try it once but that was reverted (alongside with signpost since that is mentioned twice in the header). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first comment is a technical requirement, not a policy concern. The second comment is, as I have already stated, irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: both users have now reverted each other four times over the press links on this AfD talk page (albeit not within a 24-hour period). jp×g 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have some recent history with the named user, whose comment to the poster "The blame in those two reverts lies with you, not with me" [TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)] is a familiar enough approach. The unreliable sources they are stridently arguing has special emphasis on OpIndia, whose call to arms tags on the injustices against their organisation, and was amongst the most offensive to read. That said, it also should be obvious I am declaring coi due to having skin in the game. ~ cygnis insignis 03:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OpIndia article was brought to the forefront of this argument by the accusing user, not by myself; I consider it of relatively equal importance to the other sources at hand (although slightly more valuable as an early, well-known source). In addition, I did not add the hyper-link originally. Also, I think you misunderstood me here; I don't have the capability of extracting images, and I would like you to do so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Your first comment in the discussion was this one where you emphasise that OpIndia in particular must be included. This was before I had raised the concern regarding it in paritcular. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering accusations of off-site canvassing especially, the other articles should be kept, OpIndia in particular 03:28 & However, none of the other Web-sites should be removed, especially OpIndia, as that article came at an important time during canvassing &c. 03:49 & I have already stated why OpIndia should be included; your only counter-argument was that "we certainly don't need to link" OpIndia. 17:19,

    is what they said. ~ cygnis insignis 04:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that their comment (22:49, 1 December 2021 (IST) or 17:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC);...I have already stated why OpIndia should be included; your only counter-argument was that "we certainly don't need to link" OpIndia...) comes after I had made this comment (10:20, 1 December 2021 (IST) or 4:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC);...There is also a fairly clear consensus through general practise that we don't include any of these in our press coverage. OpIndia, in particular has canvassed on multiple pages such as its own article OpIndia, 2020 Delhi riots, Love Jihad, etc etc, none of which mentions them in press coverage. They have also doxxed Wikipedia editors and one of the reasons for its blacklisting was to avoid furthering their doxxing effort, i.e leading more people to be able to access their attack pages. That justification still stands here.) What does one call this other than IDHT? I don't know how one is supposed to proceed after they respond like that, to me it looks like a plain attempt to frustrate in order to stonewall the discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The above is an objection to the use of OpIndia as a source for articles, which I have already allowed as true; what it is not is an objection to the reference of OpIndia in this case, relating to the deletion discussion. The cases are differentiable, and I asked for your objections to this OpIndia article used here. On the topic of not getting the point, you refused to answer this question, and repeatedly removed the content while a discussion was ongoing regarding the content. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Okay, how Adding responseabout this: we just remove the URL to the OpIndia article from the talk page. TE doesn't seem to care a whole lot about it, Tayi doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the other sources, and a discussion about the rest of the stuff can proceed (either at the talk page or at Template talk:Press). Is this acceptable to everyone? @Tayi Arajakate: and @TE(æ)A,ea.: jp×g 03:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elli: Your opinion (per this edit)? I understand the objection to OpIndia, but not to the link itself. Is your only objection on the grounds of the link being to OpIndia? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I added the link because I thought it'd be kinda silly to mention the article but not link it -- that particular article does not dox or even name any Wikipedia editors, so while it shouldn't be used as a source, I didn't think it'd be problematic to link. Especially given that /pol/ is linked without any apparent controversy a few lines down. I don't care that much if the entry to OpIndia stays or not, but if it does, I think it makes sense to link it. If it did dox editors, it wouldn't be appropriate to mention, but since it doesn't, I don't see why linking it is particularly harmful, as that is the reason the site was blacklisted. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Take that up on the talk page please. ~ cygnis insignis 04:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please lock the talkpage to that AFD?

Never mind the fact that AFDs don't usually have talkpages; the AFD has been closed (by a group of four admins) for nearly two days now, and that now-pointless talkpage is nearing 190,000 bytes. Any further discussion belongs on the article's talkpage, not there. The whole quibble, therefore, between the OP and the reported editor is pointless, and thus this ANI thread should be closed as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the talkpage of that AfD should be deleted, as the AfD is closed. IF they want to argue? do it on the actual article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to even take a superficial glance at the "quibble", you would realise that it has nothing to do with the contents of the article itself and would not belong on its talk page. I personally have no interest in the article itself, however I do have an interest in not platforming a blacklisted website that has doxxed users (and continues to host their personal information) in the topic area that I do edit in. I would definitely not mind if the talk page of the AfD is deleted though since that would solve the issue. That said there is also some serious issues with the reported user's conduct regardless of the specifics here which should be looked into, by my estimation at least. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read this entire thread more than once before I posted the request I did. If you can't see that the quibble and edit war between you and the reported editor on the talkpage of a closed AFD is pointless (certainly not an ANI issue), then that's on you. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closed AfD still has high visibility so no, it's not pointless to prevent the url from being linked there. If you do not understand how that jeopordises the safety of editors the website has targeted and by extension the third pillar, then no it's not on me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, after this edit (Special:Diff/1058402220), I'd think your conduct needs to be examined as well. Why exactly are you reverting my clearly marked redaction of my own comment? Ymblanter has raised no objection to it. I removed my comment in order to not provide directions to the blacklisted link. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Was my next edit [68] a satisfactory solution. ~ cygnis insignis 09:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really unless someone went and redacted it, since a specific bit of information would have remained visible. That's the only purpose of it, I'm quite amazed that even this has encountered resistance. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a different discussion, a separate proposal, that may deflect from any other concern raised. I'm very involved, so that is merely a view of the wounded. ~ cygnis insignis 07:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up the standard deletion archive banners. AfDs are meant to exist in a point in time and not be a continuing discussion. If there's a problem with the close, there's Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Late to this discussion, but... I think this is a bit of an overreaction. It's unusual for AfDs to have talk pages, but it's not unheard of, and for the most part this one is being used as a projectspace talk page ought to be: to discuss the project page it's attached to. – Joe (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My suggestion to protect the talk page was opposed by two users, with one of them suggesting it would be abuse of my administrative privilege. Whereas I obviously disagree, I am not anymore willing to protect the page. I have more interesting things on Wikipedia than to argue that my routine administrative actions are compatible with my administrator status.

• Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bill Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Talk:The Wall Street Journal §§ Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary., WSJ's Reputation, and Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body

As of 16:36, 1 December 2021, the amount of comments by each user in the discussions is as follows (excluding users with less than 10 comments):

The fact that Bill Williams has written more comments than the next two editors combined, I think, speaks for itself.

His arguments can be divided into two types. Those were repeatedly rejected by other editors, yet he continues to repeat them (WP:IDHT). Note how he repeatedly uses phrases like once again and its synonyms:

There is also this personal attack:

• 19:28, 24 November: "Maybe learn how to read as well next time"

I am not the first person to notice Bill Williams's bludgeoning:

• Maybe you could also have a look at WP:IDHT. After you have grasped all that, then you should read the reasoning responding to your "decade-old" fluff and ponder on whether it is wise to repeat your already-refuted "decade-old" fluff.
  — User:Hob Gadling 08:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• You continue to badger and bludgeon.
  — User:Soibangla 23:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please stop bludgeoning this RfC with straight-up lies. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS.
  — User:Snooganssnoogans 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern: in the previous RfC (Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 5 § RfC on Editorial Board Scientific Claims in the Lead), for example, he has written 27 comments—more than Hob Gadling (17) and Springee (7) combined. The same is true for Talk:Paul Gosar: 36 comments by Bill Williams, 22 by Soibangla, 6 by Sarysa, 4 by WakandaQT and 4 by Pokelova. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bill Williams has been shown WP:IDHT a couple of times on the Wall Street talk page. Panini!^🥪 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the IP editor who posted several suggested changes on that page, and interacted with Bill Williams a few times. I do have to point out that Bill Williams has acted in a way that suggests a desire to follow rules and improve the page, having directed me to participate in the RfC instead of trying to change it while the RfC was ongoing, even though my proposed changes didn't pertain specifically to the topic of the RfC. See: [old talk page]. There is definitely "bludgeoning" behavior on that page by editors who think a consensus means a majority vote, Bill Williams definitely seems to be a prolific commenter there, and does seem to have "bludgeoned", but it seems to have inspired an uncivil backlash. As someone who seems to have made a suggestion that was seriously entertained by editors with varying views, I'd like to plead for civility and humility on that page. I don't think anyone there is downright malicious, but the recent devolvement into incivility eliminates the chance of turning what I thought was a myopic discussion into a productive one--it's antiproductive. "Consensus by runaway toxicity" may be a thing, but there is no way the end result is a quality encyclopedia. Having an agenda on here beyond making knowledge accessible as a sort of community service is a joke. People who change the world don't edit Wikipedia; have some perspective. 2600:1012:B00B:759D:6C35:8E78:A042:D766 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you guys actually gave me a single answer to my question, AKA one recent reliable source that backs up your claims that the editorial board promotes pseudoscience on asbestos, pesticides, second hand smoke, ozone, or acid rain instead of decades old random op-eds that nobody else cares about besides you, I wouldn't have to repeat myself every time. Also consider how more editors have agreed with my position than yours, and then come back to me about "bludgeoning." The editors you mention have repeatedly personally attacked me, with just a few examples below of them attempting to scream through the screen at me, saying I am a lair, and that I am just on Wikipedia to spread propaganda:

They did this on multiple other occasions even though they simply personally disagreed, and I misread what one person said, while another misread what I said, and yet that is how they responded to me. The IDHT link states "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive" which is false when over half the editors agree with me and use actual logic instead of putting undue claims in the lead of an important article. "Those were repeatedly rejected by other editors" lacks context when over half the editors in the RfC agreed with my logic and the only people who rejected it were those who also repeated the exact same things that they already believed. Bill Williams 00:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe if you guys actually gave me a single answer to my question ..."—see WP:BADGER.

I like the way you write "over half the editors agree with me and use actual logic". Of course everyone who disagrees with you is a rambling madman, and you are the sole bearer of Truth, Logic and Rationality.

"I have not done so to them a single time"—what is Special:Diff/1056991697, then, if not a blatant personal attack? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you have removed my notification of you about this discussion with the edit summary "I'd prefer you stay personally attacking me on the WSJ article than editing my talk page". Surely you understand that baseless accusations of personal attacks are themselves a personal attack? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page, so I can remove whatever I want that is in the way of future important messages, and clearly I was personally attacked by someone who accused me of being someone who I was not, because they misread, so I told them to read better. Bill Williams 01:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm somewhat involved here, but I would just point out Bill Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked four times since 2019 and was at one time indeffed for sockpuppetry. Calidum 00:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the reason for the four blocks, but the fact that you bring up sockpuppetry, which is irrelevant to this topic, makes me think of WP:ASPERSIONS. I'd rather not bring up recent high profile criminal trials as an analogy, but since the topic at hand is the WSJ, it would be thematically appropriate to say, "past guilt does not guarantee future guilt". I'd say passions can be more productively directed elsewhere: to those who feel the lede attacks their sentimentality toward the journal, buy a subscription to show your support. To those who despise the editorial board, get a NYT subscription. And everyone, please chill out. If everyone involved in this dispute went out for beers, despite the boost of ethanol, I think everyone would quickly find each other equally awkward, petty, and insufferable--proving there is a common humanity that pervades the entire Wikipedia community, no matter how heated the discussions here appear to be at times. 2600:1012:B006:D547:F97D:6915:5154:1D15 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that an IP account with no prior edits comes here of all places to complain about another user mentioning sock puppetry. Speaking of which, the editor who initiated the RFC in question Stallion55347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account in February but only began editing last month. The vast majority of their contributions since then have been to the WSJ article and its talk page. Calidum 14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor discrimination is the final unaddressed civil rights frontier in this country, but I can't condone "bludgeoning" behavior, especially if done by means of "sockpuppetry". I posted earlier here, apologies for not disclosing, I have a dynamic IP. In hindsight, there were a lot of "red" usernames participating there, which could be indicative of tomfoolery, but it seemed disorganized. What a bummer if it turns out there was a cabal inflating the commentary there. If the WSJ editorial board is living rent free in some editors' heads, the lede of the wikipedia article sure does live rent free in a bunch of other editors' heads...heh heh. I'll wait for the dust to settle and open a new RfC with my proposed change (that involves just better summarizing per WP:LEAD). 2600:1012:B048:16A5:88F1:D553:2FCE:6875 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Wikipedia, rights civil you! (You specifically, IP.) El_C 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bludgeoning? Questionable in regard to the RfC. Perhaps the number of responses is leaning that direction, but I don't think it's there yet. But in the other two threads? That claim is more dubious, especially regarding Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body in which Bill is the subject of the thread. Multiple editors there are discussing the matter with Bill, so naturally, he is going to respond more often than any single editor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm involved in the article discussion and my views with regards to the RfC are similar to BW's. I don't think BW is going to change the minds of any of the editors with whom they are arguing. In terms of uncivil or antagonistic comments, I think the other side has had more than their share and that level of hostility likely dissuades input from editors who might otherwise weigh in on the topic. I've disengaged from the discussion for exactly that reason. To me it looks a bit like BW is suffering from a pile on case. As a group those who oppose BW's POV have made a number of rude or otherwise divisive comments. Individually none of those editors has crossed any lines but the cumulative effect is hostile to those who might offer disagreement. It's worth noting the !vote consensus seems to be about evenly split so this isn't a case of a single editor off in left field. Where to from here? I would suggest BW slow down and not bother trying to convince the editors in question. I think the several of the editors on the other side should assume good faith and, more critically, civility even if they are frustrated (for example accusing editors of lying is never a good talk page plan). All should relax and this ANI should be closed. Springee (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee I realize that and apologize to the editors who have accused me of disruptive editing, but as you stated, the reason I responded is because slightly over half the editors in the RfC agreed with me, and I was attempting to convince those who disagreed using the same logic of those who agreed, but those who disagreed repeatedly accused me of being disruptive, propaganda spreading, and lying just to name a few, so I felt a need to respond to explain and defend myself. Going forward if I have to restate my claim like this to the point where they clearly think it is disruptive, I will refrain from continuing any further. Bill Williams 04:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't Bill Williams have a topic ban from American politics? Should he be participating in a RFC about a conservative newspaper's handing of a major US political football (global warming) at all? - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a stretch given in this case. The extensive RfC discussion hasn't touched on the political aspects of the topic. Springee (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware that he was topic banned from AP. If he is, this is a topic ban violation in my view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Does Bill Williams have a topic ban from AP? Firefangledfeathers 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a three month block in his log for violating a topic ban last year, but I can't find it in the enforcement log. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  His last block was also for "Violation of...talk page restriction (one post per day) placed by El C," which seems relevant here. I do not know, however, whether that restriction is still in place. Maybe @El C: would know? Calidum 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That sanction was rescinded in Feb. El_C 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Gracias. Calidum 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Disclosure: I watch Bill's talk page which is how I found this discussion.
  I mean I wouldn't have recommended BW dive into such a controversial topic area, but he's not disallowed from doing so. I would like to echo 2600:1012 in saying that a calming of tensions all around would generally be appreciated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not getting involved in the discussion, but I see no topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log where it should have been logged. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the complaint may be poorly framed, though I am sure it is filed in good faith. Simply counting edits is not a good way to analyze a discussion. Please show diffs with three examples of bad behavior, the worst three. That's a good way to start the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Close and remind everyone to be civil. Plenty of rudeness abounds in the threads and others could have diffs cherry-picked to show they are not acting in a collegial manner with dismissive and borderline personal attacks. Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no enjoyment in arguing, in fact quite the opposite; all I wish to do is improve the articles I edit. I edit things I come across, and in fact I wish that I did not have to engage in these discussions, and wish to edit more demographics for example (the third largest state, 20 million people, has an article with outdated demographic information, which shows how far off many demographic sections are on Wikipedia). There are plenty of other topics I wish to edit, but I am stuck responding to editors who bring up the same arguments while I bring up the same arguments as well. Every one of my opponents did this yet none of them want to mention their own behavior. Considering they chose to single out the WSJ of all newspapers in existence, that is why I am editing the talk page. I have no interest in defending it, just representing claims as stated regularly in reliable sources, not by one or two a decade ago. I read the WSJ less than the NYTimes and WaPo and taking a basic look at their comment sections shows hundreds to thousands of comments with hundreds to thousands of "recommends" insulting any right-wing op-ed, making them always controversial. But this original research is completely undue for the lead of those articles to say something like "The NYT/WaPo editorial board has controversially promoted right-wing views", and some random sources that vaguely relate to this of the style that my opponents provided would use [69][70][71] for the NYT that I found in a minute. Bill Williams 01:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I find it interesting how when my opponents disputed my proposed content removal, instead of resolving it civilly, they resort to insulting me (e.g. call me a liar, disruptive, or malicious), brought up the fact that I sockpuppeted a minimal amount over two years ago, which I have already apologized for and not done since, and mentioned that I was topic banned over two years ago from something completely irrelevant to what I am editing, even though that topic ban was removed ten months ago. How does doing any of this provide a benefit to the discussion or the article? Bill Williams 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Woah, Bill needs to step away and take a break. This is clearly bludgeoning, by the shear number of comments. The content of the comment shows how involved they are personally. Even if it was brought on by uncivil comments, you cannot fight fire with fire. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree with everything RandomCanadian has said above. BrandonTRA's entire purpose here appears to be the insertion of poorly supported content into a single rather sensitive article. Their response to opposition to the addition of this material has been denigration of the multiple editors pointing out its flaws, improper templating of user talk pages with warnings, ([72], [73]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([74]). I gave them a minimal block under the circumstances – limited to one article, for one week – but they seem inclined to learn nothing from it. I've seen enough to expect that they never will. BD2412 T 21:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same editor as BrandonTR? The tone is certainly the same. BrandonTR has been a belligerent and unhelpful SPA on JFK assassination articles for over a decade. Here's an ANI complaint I made about him in 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Long_term_incivility_from_User:BrandonTR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly seems like it could be a sock situation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider myself uninvolved with a spare mop, and already issued a warning to leave 331 alone yesterday, and another warning today, before this report. They have not mentioned 331 since then, just some venting and bluster on their talk page. I'm assuming they got the message. The only edit they've made since then outside their talk page is this. A 7/10 on the obnoxiousness meter, but yours might be calibrated differently, particularly if there's a long history of unprovoked stuff like that. I've got their talk page watchlisted and was planning to block indef if they kept it up, but thought I'd give a final warning a chance. If another admin wants to short-circuit that approach, don't feel like you need to get my OK. In particular, I was unaware of the existence of BrandonTR; if they've been doing this a long time, with previous warnings not on the new account's talk page, then I'm much less inclined to wait to see if the behavior changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As an erstwhile target of this user's harassment, I would like to say that their editing on the JFK article is combative at best, harassing at worst. I would describe their attitude as "flippant" and "dismissive of the perspectives of others as always in bad faith."
  Here are some choice diffs: [75] ([76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]
  If the original BrandonTR account is the same person, then this is a decade-long pattern that has not improved in the slightest. And in my opinion merits a WP:NOTHERE indef. If these are not the same person, then I think a TBAN would probably be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If these are not the same person, then the new editor has chosen a username almost identical to that of the old editor, in order to edit the same article in the same style, which is problematic conduct in and of itself. BD2412 T 03:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I would personally call it astronomically unlikely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In my books, anyone oblivious enough to attack multiple editors and admins while he's under a block is someone who can't be trusted to make constructive and competent edits. Ravenswing 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose indef block

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

Support as this is a WP:SPA who is interested most of all in pushing their POV. And they do so in such a way that makes collaborative editing all but impossible. They are very much WP:NOTHERE. They've thumbed their nose at this thread, saying "That's nice" when notified [84]. I cannot think of a clearer case of NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support:  Looks like a duck to me. Rest assured, I read the whole thread. /gen Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ambivalent about a block vs. a final warning right now, and won't vote, but 2 clarifications: (1) after this thread started, they removed their most recent snark in several places, which I suppose is a step in the right direction, and (2) we shouldn't be talking "duck test" or anything sockpuppetry-related as a reason to block; the accounts didn't overlap, and the naming scheme doesn't indicate an intent to deceive. This is the kind of thing people do when they lose their passwords. I agree their long term behavior absolutely needs to change immediately and substantially, if it isn't already too late. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article on David Collier (political activist) in good faith with the belief that the subject met notability standards. It's currently in the process of AFD with mixed results. I only learned after the fact that there's drama between him and some users.

In what might be our first interaction ever, Huldra says in the AFD I should be topic banned for creating this page.[85]

Later, I left a message on her talk page informing her that accusations she's made against the subject of this article[86] could be a BLP violation and in AFD discussions in the future to please stick to notability instead of sharing her personal thoughts about the subject. Her response was to revert my message.[87]

On another talk page, she seems like she's being intentionally combative.[88] I ask her if she's trying to start a fight. [89] She claims that by creating the page I'm the one who started the fight, and that I could end the fight by deleting it.[90] I give her a final notice to please apologize, or at least agree to stop this fight, or else I'd take it to arbitration.[91] Her response was to ask if I'd delete the page.[92]

The suggestions that I be topic banned, plus saying she's fighting me and won't stop until I concede to her demands to support deleting a page, certainly go against any spirit of assuming good faith and cooperation.

Note - In retrospect, Arbitration was 100% the wrong place for this relatively minor but annoying incident. I apologize for wasting anyone's time with that. So we're here.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking be done? I didn't check all your links but if the first couple are a guide I don't see anything particularly problematic. I gather that the subject of the article is "controversial" in a highly charged topic (Palestine-Israel articles) and candid commentary should be expected. I see some talk-page comments claiming that the person attempts to OUT editors on the other side and that links to their website should therefore not be added to Wikipedia. I haven't investigated that, but if there is any truth to it, anyone adding those links or hinting how they can be found should be indefinitely blocked (until they commit to never repeat the attempt). Why not let the normal processes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist) apply? Is there an ongoing problem? Anyone (apart from those who have been topic banned) is free to suggest that someone should be topic banned. The only problem would be making a fuss (e.g. by repeating the claim excessively) as it is an issue for WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are statements like this within an AFD really okay, or is it an intimidation tactic? Especially if others are saying the same thing?

"The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area"

The next quote is overly combative, especially when I was talking to someone else, seem to come to an agreement and she just injects trying to stir up problems.

"Lol; and then you start an article about one of the worst doxxers out there? Do you really expect anyone to believe you? Do you take us all for morons?"

Lol, you started the fight by starting an article about a well-known doxxer; you might end the fight by asking for a deletion of the article,

These comments weren't in the AFD. She decided to harangue me on some other talk page. Certainly that's a violation of WP:GF and WP:NICE. I understand that things get heated and everyone can make a mistake once in a while. But she has indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, and apparently violating these principles, until I cave to her demand that I support deleting this page. And that's not okay.

I'm still learning these processes, but I think I'd like someone from a position of authority to give her an official reminder that she needs to play nice and obey the civility rules. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has become a fan site, as was to be expected. The subject is a blogger who is popular in some circles due to his exceptionally strident opinions. And, yes, the outing claim is true. There is nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that we are better off without the article. Best to make that argument at AfD, though. Zero^talk 07:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 has a feud with Collier: "Collier tells lies about me". Zero0000 is wrong to edit or comment on Collier because of WP:BLPCOI policy and his feud. This probably applies to other editors that are emotional in the AfD. Free1Soul (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collier claims that I block people for disagreeing with me. Pointing out that this attack on my integrity as an administrator is not true doesn't create a feud. Zero^talk 10:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because an unreliable source making wild claims about an editor here makes it so the editor is who has a COI. That is absurd, and the group of editors who are attempting to silence others on the basis of lies told about them on a blog should be ashamed of themselves. nableezy - 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: No one has objected to saying "we're better off without the article." The issue is that Huldra is acting with anger and hostility toward me, and unrepentantly violating the principles of civility toward me outside of the AFD.

Should I not be free to say "the article should stay" without being harangued for it wherever I comment? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bounds of WP:CIVIL do get stretched a bit in this area, nature of the beast, possibly you have done the same thing yourself? And we have had several discussions about WP:DR and the best way to go about that so maybe close this and move on? Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I've ever crossed that line, I've apologized. I have never indicated that I'm going to keep fighting someone, and keep violating civility rules. She indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, around wikipedia, until I cave to her demand to support deleting that page.

This is what I find unacceptable, and why I think she needs an admin to step in and make it clear that these rules need to be followed, irrespective of how you feel about someone's views. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usual practice when one feels things might be getting problematic in some respect is first to raise the matter on a user talk page, I believe I explained this to you not that long ago. I have looked at the page and I see first only a wrongly put together notice of "arbitration" and then that corrected for this board instead. You are of course entitled to raise a complaint as is anyone but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.She indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, around wikipedia, until I cave to her demand to support deleting that page. Do you have a diff for this?Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think at such contentious area there should be higher standards for discourse and the admins should enforce the WP:NPA specifically Comment on content, not on the contributor--Shrike (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having been the subject of countless death- and/or rape-threaths for over a decade (Here are the logs for over-sighted threats on my talk-page; virtually all editors who are not obviously pro-Israeli have logs of similar length). ---I take an extremely dim view of people who try to dox me, or any other editor in the I/P area.
• Bob drobbs starts an article about one of the most notorious doxxers (and bloggers) out there, now up for deletion;
• Bob drobbs use the fact that the article is not (yet) deleted, as an argument that said doxxer/blogger's views are notable link
• Bob drobbs, after he gets informed about his subjects doxxing, states "because if the page survives deletion, I'm sure a link to his website will be added at some point" (ie a link to a doxing site)
• Bob drobbs is offended by my words. I am offended by his actions.
• And yes; because of his actions of facilitating and enabling a doxxer; I think Bob drobbs should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I don't see anything in this response that show an understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Do you understand those guidelines and are you willing and able to treat me with respect, despite our differences of opinion?

P.S. David Collier has engaged in doxing. I don't support it. But it also has zero bearing on his notability. And it seems to be a misnomer to conflate the entirety of a website that has a couple of instances with a "doxing site". There are other websites which have instances of doxing which Zero0000 said it was fine to link to. Finally, I didn't say I'd add a link to it, just that it would happen someday. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure how saying somebody should be topic-banned constitute fighting. Having said the same, and having had the same said about me, Ive never considered that a personal attack. I dont see anything actionable about Huldra here, at all. nableezy - 22:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

🙄 In an AfD, saying the article's creator should be tbanned for creating the article is obviously not cool, let's everyone skip all the "I don't see anything wrong here" nonsense. Of course an AfD is not the place to be calling for sanctions against editors. How about these comments get struck and everybody moves on? Levivich 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Levivich. Obviously I don't think the article meets notability standards; I said so at AfD. But Huldra needs to ratchet back the rhetoric, promptly. Wikipedia is not the anti-doxxing police, and Bob drobbs has every right to create articles on convicted war criminals, if he so chooses -- he is not "facilitating" or "enabling" anything by so doing, claiming that he is with that as evidence is highly uncivil, and calling for a topic ban on that ground alone is near to hysteria. Ravenswing 23:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing; with all due respect; you have a clean log-page (no oversightings), and no editor were ever named Ravenswing the Judeophobe toŕtured and buried alived1, or similar. So excuse my "near to hysteria", as you call it. But if you knew wp-editors who have had rape-threats against their pre-teen daughters, people contacting their place of work, old parents harrassed; all because of doxxing from the pro-Israeli crowd, you just might understand where that "near to hysteria" comes from. And Bob drobbs himself says that he expect a link to the doxing-site will appear, iff the article is kept. (And actually; I agree with him there), Huldra (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL have opt-outs for editors who've been harassed. It's regrettable that you have been, but that doesn't greenlight you to lash out at random editors -- or call for them to be sanctioned -- because they have stances you dislike. My opposition to the article hangs only on its lack of reliable sources about Collier himself; it is just as obvious that there are many reliable sources which discuss his work/opinions in considerable detail. Would you call for me to be topic-banned if reliable sources about Collier to materialize, and my vote be changed in consequence? Ravenswing 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: ^^^This sub-thread is on-topic. Most everything else now seems totally off-topic.^^^ -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said he should be topic-banned for violating WP:POINT. I think that manifestly true, given this. nableezy - 23:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly true that the impetus for creating the Collier article was to enable support to his editing at a different article. Not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bob didnt link to an outing site, User:Inf-in MD did (here). That is probably the better grounds for a topic ban/indefinite block as oppose to Bob. nableezy - 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any rulings or consensus anywhere that say you cannot link to a site that has doxing on it, or the official site of someone who has engaged in doxing? I understand linking to a page that has doxing is a clear violation, but pulling basic biographical details from a primary source that has a couple of pages of doxing buried somewhere does not immediately appear to be a violation. I asked Zero0000 this and couldn't seem to get a clear answer. And if no such thing exists, maybe people should stop throwing around these implied threats of bans too? -- 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. nableezy - 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had/have no idea that is an "outing site" and certainly didn't mean to out anyone here, merely to provide a WP:ABOUTSELF link to an article. The link, to a page which contains no outing information, is gone now, regardless, so stop trying to weaponize this against your opponents. I find such suggestions coming from someone who is actively involved in attempted outing of Wikipedia editors off-wiki to be bad faith, to say the least. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any such attempt. nableezy - 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sure you are. If any admin is willing to take action on this, please e-mail me and I will send the info privately. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that one. Im pretty sure I know what Im involved in though. nableezy - 00:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are invited to e-mail me for the evidence. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me you are making a very public accusation here, without allowing a public rebuttal. If you want to mail someone, you are free to do that, aren't you? No need to ask for an admin here, is there?Selfstudier (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The public rebuttal was made, he denied it. If anyone wants the evidence they know where to go. While we're at it, do you have a comment regarding the link you've posted, to a clear cut outing site?Inf-in MD (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I feel like we have a arbitration decisions about this or something. nableezy - 01:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try , by I won't be baited into linking to the outing site with the evidence. Admins can e-mail me. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to make public any evidence then your accusation very much is an aspersion, and you should strike it. Or have reason 12 for why you should be removed from this website. nableezy - 01:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. I have the evidence, and hence have good cause for the accusation, as required by the links you posted. It can't be shared publicly because of other concerns such as linking to harassment sites which would be a violation of polices, but I can make it available in private to admins who are interested. I'll strike the accusation, but invite admins who care about this site to e-mail me. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are making matters worse. Stating that you "have the evidence" when said evidence cannot be verified is exactly what arbitration decisions is about. There is no need to ask admins to mail you, the harrasment policy explains what to do, you are simply making use of this forum to float your allegation (repeatedly).Selfstudier (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a question, above. Please respond. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is free for editing. I suggest you start there.Selfstudier (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the direct relevance to what is being discussed here (same article dispute, same behavior I'm accused of) , I'd rather you respond here. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you would. Your question has been asked and answered.Selfstudier (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inf-in MD: You have two choices. (1) Immediately email your evidence to Arbcom (see User:Arbitration Committee) and state here that you have done so. Or (2), strike all your above claims. I will indefinitely block you for harassment in a topic under discretionary sanctions if one of these is not done before you continue commenting or editing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the evidence to the Arbitration committee. Inf-in MD (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq - Those were appropriate instructions given. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. User temporarily blocked by Johnuniq. Panini!^🥪 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

WP:Vandalism-only account 97.122.95.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism of my user talk page --InternetScavenger89 04:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I applied a short block. Let me know if it persists after that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. I'm a sysop on zhwiki. Due to a strange bug phab:T244635, users who have no local account on enwiki will be logged out on zhwiki. Could you use Special:CreateLocalAccount for User:Kenny023. Thanks! Xiplus (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. User blocked indefinitely by HighInBC. Panini!^🥪 12:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Hi, I have been publically and falsely defamed by an admin. What recourse do I have through Wikipedia before I go to law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Payne (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step you need to decide whether to pursue this through Wikipedia or through the courts. As explained at no legal threats we do not discuss issues where there are impending legal threats. As a second step, if you decide to pursue this through Wikipedia, you need to provide evidence. At a quick look it seems that you are the one abusing others in places such as here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no libel, merely a reasonable warning in repose to this edit of yours. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combining the above diffs with earlier edits from September like this and this, I feel confident saying you have a major attitude problem and I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have been blocked. Indefinitely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised they were not immediately blocked for a comment like that. Now blocked, they'll have plenty of time to pursue any public defamation action. So it's a blessing for all concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the editor lots of luck in pursuing the libel action in the courts. It will certainly not succeed without it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

49.178.110.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps inserting a news item about a rape in Government of Assam ([93], [94], [95]) This news of a rape in not appropriate in a article on a government. Could the article be protected? Chaipau (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this article; looking at the edit history, the article in question receives little too much actual edits, and cconsists mostly of IP vandalism. Chaipau, the proper place to request for page protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

In the context of the IP user; they've been editing for about 4 days and has a very high revert rate. Editing-wise, they usually add new content (mainly new sections) to articles that are broad in purpose with specific events. See Walford Anglican School, Legislative violence, and Government of Assam. When these are reverted, they engage in edit warring and call the reverter disruptive. Other cases of reverts include poor additions. The IP editor has been warned today and yesterday on their talk page. Panini!^🥪 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. User blocked indefinitely by Bishonen. Panini!^🥪 15:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Egon20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user at Talk:Islam insisting that Allah should be spelled with 3 L's in English. This user also has (largely based on their own interpretation) insisted that the Koran says the world is flat, added a bunch of Italian monarchist propaganda, and insisted Napoleon was Muslim. I don't think they're here to constructively build an encyclopedia. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from Egon20 about this... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick browse of their recent edits finds nothing even vaguely constructive, including stuff like [96]. I would recommend blocking them as WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked their contribs, and indeed, their plan, indeed, does seem like a bad joke. Support WP:NOTHERE block.Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This is one of the strangest incidents I've seen at ANI, on par with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Talk_page_misuse?. Who on Earth seriously believes the sources this guy's cherry picking? I see, in particular, that the sources used in the linked revisions are mostly self-published sources like forum posts. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit JBL pointed to, this editor then put it in again, which I reverted and is when I saw their edits. They also made the same edit at misogyny. I agree that this user seems WP:NOTHERE. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At best this user is time-wasting with their fundamental lack of understanding of sourcing requirements or Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia, and their pushing of extreme fringe views with unreliable or no sourcing is disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I declare myself innocent, whatever I am accused. Egon20 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what a classy way to go out. --JBL (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

• Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated, unexplained reversions of valid contributions by multiple editors, mostly to TV and broadcast station articles. In many cases, another user has removed factually-wrong information and this user has re-inserted it. For instance, WBLU-LP contained a claim that "WBLU-LP as a low-power station would have been able to remain on the air with an analog signal up until July 13, 2021 at the very latest" which is nonsense because the station was on analogue U-62, which falls in the 700MHz band which was auctioned to mobile telephone companies, per Digital dividend after digital television transition#700 MHz Auction, 2008 United States wireless spectrum auction and the sources cited by those articles. This editor reverted a valid contribution to re-insert the false info. A review of this user's contributions reveals many edits like this, to different stations in both the US and Canada, which have been ongoing for months and somehow slipping just under the radar. The user's talk page history shows many complaints and many warnings from the people whose valid contributions are being reverted; the user merely brushes off the complaints and the conduct continues unabated. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@66.102.87.40: I reinserted your info with a few tweaks. And my edits are in good faith and merely intended to correct erroneous information. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • That was actually my bad, IP; I wrote the original statement, and I should've clarified that if they moved to a 2-51 channel between 2011 and 2021 (which most 51-69 LP stations did if they survived into the digital era), they would have been able to stay on the air through that means (and they would have had to, which is likely why Daystar didn't want to deal with that hassle and took it dark). Regardless of your dispute with the above, that was 100% on me, and I'll clear that up ASAP. Nate • (chatter) 03:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago the Mass killings under communist regimes AfD had been closed, and the admins panel noted serious disagreement about the article's neutrality. Almost immediately after that, one user started an RfC where a complete removal of the POV tag from the article was named as one option (an option A). Taking into account that no significant steps have been taken after the AfD closure to resolve POV problems, there is absolutely no reason to expect that the article's neutrality problems have been fixed in these few days. In connection to that, can this RfC be considered legitimate, or that is an attempt to use a vote procedure as a substitute for a normal discussion? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, more Mass killings under communist regimes drama. The RFC is fine, maybe people just disagree with you that the article has a neutrality problem. The RFC will, after even more drama, probably not resolve this. High fives all around. I eagerly anticipate the panel close to the RFC and the RFC closure review at WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm? ~ cygnis insignis 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user that started the RfC. The framing of this as some dubious attempt to use the RfC to quash neutrality issues is rather silly; if you actually take a look at the discussion, you will notice that what I am advocating for is to put the NPOV labels in particular sections that have contested POV. The fact that option A, which I included for completeness, does not seem to be a good option is not a breach of civility nor any other behavioral issue. I’d encourage people here to actually read my !vote I left in the RfC in terms of my rationale. This is a board meant for persistent behavioral issues, not complaints about neutral and brief RfC prompts. If the option is a poor one one, then this can very easily be resolved by making good arguments against it in the RfC. There is no reason this should have been brought to ANI. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the tag cannot be removed until the problem has been resolved. Is there any indication that that has happened in last few days? What is a reason to draw attention of external users, who, most likely, are not familiar with all details of the conflict? To try to resolve a content dispute by !voting? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're saying that yes, they acknowledge that A was extremely unlikely to get consensus (they didn't even support it themselves), they just included it for completeness. If something utterly bizarre happened and A somehow had a clear consensus, that would mean the dispute was resolved - while that is vanishingly unlikely, there's nothing wrong with including an unlikely option in an RFC, since it produces more clarity in terms of ruling things out and focusing the discussion afterwards. It doesn't waste much time or energy to add it as an option that almost nobody will choose, and it means that later on people can point to the RFC to clearly establish that removing the tags entirely has no support. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a serious and thoughtful discussion, join DRN, as I proposed. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mhawk10 here. These arguments against moving the tag can and have been made at the talk page. I personally think the tag should be kept and maybe the RfC was hasty but does it really require posting at a page for 'discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems'?. The user is not mandated to join a time-consuming and so far fruitless DR to edit the article discuss a potential edit to the article, especially as the user has indicated not wanting to join. I have no reason to believe Mhawk10 was acting in anything other than good faith in a way to constructively improve the article - which is what we should all be trying to do Vanteloop (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. I don't see any signs that user made any reasonable attempts to discuss global issues of this article.

As you probably noticed, I am not requesting for any actions against any user. I am asking if that RfC is legitimate, because I have strong reasons to conclude that this RfC must be speedy closed. In my opinion, that is a right place for such a request. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a wise RFC, but not a misuse. Certainly not enough to justify ANI. Aircorn (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's clear they included option A purely out of completeness (since even they themselves didn't support it.) Keep in mind that an affirmative consensus would be needed to remove the tags completely - it is both reasonably longstanding and that's generally how dispute tags work, since a lack of consensus plus recent discussions or RFCs indicates an active dispute. Any admin closing this would know these things, and the RFC's creator reasonably knew that. More generally, when writing an RFC it makes sense to include all obvious options, since, if nothing else, that produces more clarity by letting you say "ok, we had this as an option and it did terribly, so if someone wanders in and removes the tags entirely later on we can point back at the RFC." If anything the fact that they included option A (a change from the status quo that is extremely unlikely to occur) when they themselves supported option B (a change from the status quo that it is at least plausible a consensus might support) could be seen as a sign of good faith, since it makes it more likely that the RFC will deadlock and leave C as the status quo - ie. if they left out A entirely, it's reasonable to infer that people who would otherwise support A would instead support B, since that makes the tags less visible. A closer might follow that logic and lump A and B together if they reach the threshold of a consensus together but not separately - but they might not, depending on how the comments are worded and such, so if anything including A makes the outcome they wanted less likely. --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the RFC be withdrawn? I don't know (even though I was surprised by its sudden appearance), but I participated in it. Will we need an RFC on the RFC? It's quite confusing, overall. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. User partially blocked for 72 hours by EvergreenFir. Panini!^🥪 15:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Shrek99178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user's only edits have been to List of films banned in the United States, where they have persistently added unsourced and highly dubious entries, e.g. [97]. The entries do not specify where and by whom the films were banned, since in the United States films are protected by freedom of speech. Non-automated edit summaries are short and nonsensical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User partially blocked (from List of films banned in the United States) for 72 hours. Almost blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE but thought the partial block might prompt discussion by the user. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Done. Blocked for one week by 331dot. Panini!^🥪 10:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Offensive material:[98][99][100]

Please check here for other possible offensive material.--John the Janitor (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the characterization that I am doing the harassment. Instead I will accuse some Wikipedia editors of playing team sports and harassing me because I believe some of them are manipulatively framing their politics and prejudices as "human rights' here on Wikipedia. None of my points of criticism of talk pages I have edited don't have solid evidence what I say is true. For instance, there is only one "pushback" page for Greece. Is anyone with a straight face going to claim to me Greece population 11m, is the only country in the world currently trying to discourage further migration? Rather than address that lack of consistency the creator of the page, who lives in a country 30 times the population of Greece and also engaged in pushbacks, made a lame excuse he doesn't have time? Or is anyone going to claim to me that certain Wikipedia editors aren't, after framing Greeks as "nationalists" for objecting to name recognition, today trying to whitewash half the former Yugoslavians little switch of identity into antihellenic founders of the Hellenistic period and ongoing irredentism? WTF? And there is no mention on the Wikipedia's alleged "human rights" page of how 'human rights" definitions are being followed a-la-carte even at the highest levels? The current members of the alleged UN human rights council fricken doesn't follow its own principles towards migrants. How is that not a valid point? Instead of addressing my points, certain editors keep repeatedly trying to silence my criticisms on talk pages because I disagree with their definition of alleged "human rights" which is at the heart of the issue (I haven't even touched a single wikipedia article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you here to argue with editors that follow those articles, or are you here to collaborate with us? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question you frame is combative and doesn't address a single point I've made above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not about discussing your points, but your behavior. Your lack of an answer actually answers that question for me. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??? Again you're combative by creating a false narrative. You can't analyze my behavior without first addressing what I've written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If asking a question is "combative" that says more about you than me. You are treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "question" was patronizing. It's blatantly obvious you had made your mind up even before you posed your "question". I would point out you have yet to address a single one of criticisms above. How exactly are you going to determine "my behavior" as you put it without actually first confirming what I say isn't true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your views or position are not relevant to your behavior; you could be arguing that the sky is blue. It doesn't matter. What matters is how you go about arguing your position, and right now you aren't going about it the right way. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I profoundly disagree with your personal moral theory that what I have to say is not relevant to the discussion. . In law, courts examine evidence they don't just accuse someone of bad behavior without ever addressing the substance of what they have done and said. Presumed innocence.. not guilt as your initial patronizing "my behavior" question implied. Granted online communities are prone to tribalism among editors which often leads to shut down divergent viewpoints, especially outsiders. My understanding is here on Wikipedia that the articles come first though. Instead of more evasion, why not show me what I've said is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, again. It does not matter what your arguments are when you're stomping around talk pages and user talk pages calling people "bigots", "leftists" "biased", etc. You simply need to stop doing that, and perhaps people will engage with you. If you don't, there's a simple remedy for that. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is you that are missing my point as my criticisms are valid. Once again not a single attempt to address any of my points. Instead you are accusing me of slander without checking to see if its slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's enough, I think. Blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Beeswax21412 has been repeatedly removing sourced information from the R1b page based on their personal WP:OR, completely refusing to engage, and ignoring all explanations or Wikipedia policy. They did so/edited initially here: [[101]]. I reverted them with an explanation here [[102]], explaining that their deletion, baded on their explanation for it in the notes, was WP:OR/WP:POV, that those are against Wikipedia policies and we edit based on what the sources explicitly say. They ignored this explanation and simply reinstated their edit with no explanation, instead merely, confusingly, claiming in their edit summary that Wikipedia had " been sabotaged" (here: [[103]]).

I reverted them again, again explaining that deleting information based on peronal opinion was against Wikipedia policy, again linked them to the essays on OR and POV and quotes from a source, and warned them thay if they continued edit warring they would be reported. I then provided quotes from the sourced in two edit summaries supporting the information they had deleted to. Nonetheless Beeswax reinstated their edit a third time, again removing sourced information, with no explanation, an misleadingly marking their edit a "minor", here [[104]].

Beeswax continues to edit war, ignores explanations, seems completely unwilling to engage, either in Talk or elsewhere, and shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy when explained to them.

Here is the page's edit history for referrence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_R1b

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a brand new user, I'm inclined to leave a note about citing sources. If it continues after that then look for sanctions, but that's a bit drastic right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm not sure, given that they have had policies explained to them more than once and been asked to use the Talk page, but absolutely refuse to engage, continue to edit war and cast aspersions (about Wikipedia being "hijacked"), completely missing every point. In doing so, they seem unwilling or unable to understand the problems with their edits and to show strong indications of being WP:NOTHERE (seemingly having begun with a single-purpose account used for disruptive editing/edit warring). Skllagyook (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I get your frustration, but this user has a grand total of 3 edits. I'm willing to at least take a chance here, it's not hard to block if it continues after this point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

User:Cornerstonepicker is canvassing on this RfC [105] for Nicki Minaj. They have canvassed before on RfCs relating to musicians, including Cardi B and Nicki Minaj. The last time they canvassed, they were given a written warning by another editor. [106] [107]

• Previous canvassing on Nicki Minaj: [108] [109] [110] [111]
• Previous canvassing on Cardi B: [112] [113] [114] [115]

This is related to the second issue at hand.

Stonewalling and other problems

Their efforts are to keep potentially contentious information that isn't usually seen on other articles about musicians (such as Taylor Swift). They have not given any policy-based reason to keep said information, only giving patent objections in edit summaries such as "no need to remove this". [116]

There are times where I tried to make edits to Nicki Minaj, and Cornerstonepicker has stonewalled a majority of them through reverts. When I discussed it on the talk page to avoid any edit wars, a discussion would seem to start, but then Cornerstonepicker would not reply back. The discussion would not receive any more activity from them or other editors, and I would restore my edits given the inactivity, [117] only to be again reverted immediately by Cornerstonepicker the next day telling me to "go on the talk page." [118] I would then try to engage on the talk page again, and I tried making a new edit per WP:BRD that hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. [119] However, that was also reverted by him with another edit summary telling me to use the talk page. [120] and revert all of my changes. Other editors have noticed this stonewalling pattern as well. [121]

Here's another example. I suggested this change on the talk page to merge two redundant sentences in the lead per MOS:REDUNDANCY. [122] It received no response, and after seven days of inactivity, I try to make the change again. The day immediately after the change, Cornerstonepicker reverts it. [123] He brings up his passed lead RfC from July as a reason for why my changes to the lead are reverted. (Also, notice how in the first reply of this July RfC he is pinging specific people to comment, which may be WP:VOTESTACKING)

They are treating the previous lead RfC like it is written in stone, and that any and all changes require a new RfC themselves, when all that the previous RfC for the lead did was allow it to be re-written. The previous RfC does not prevent other editors from making policy-based improvements. An example of which is this very necessary edit to remove 17 citations from the lead per WP:LEADCITE. [124] In addition, this is the same RfC that Cornerstonepicker canvassed other editors to vote for, so the validity of this RfC is questionable. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a pattern between the users they advertise the discussion to? As in, are they advertising to top contributors of music artists (or rap, or some other connection), or is it to users who share similar opinions as them? If the latter, that's when canvassing becomes a problem. Panini!^🥪 16:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd also be helpful to note that the eight examples linked all pre-date the two warnings the user receieved, half by a month and the other by two days. Panini!^🥪 16:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Panini!: If you go to Diff 114, you can see above that he is canvassing an editor to vote on the Cardi B RfC. That was the canvassing that robertsky warned him for at the time, as far as I can recall. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Usually it seems to be the same group of people. I don't know these editors specifically so I'm not sure of their editing habits, but one thing I did notice is that they usually ping people who voted the same as them in RfCs. For example, in the most recent canvassing they pinged ChicagoWikiEditor, someone who, like Cornerstonepicker, also opposed the Cardi B RfC. [125] Something more blatant is how, in the afromentioned talk page discussion down below, he randomly pinged ChicagoWikiEditor to comment on Minaj's occupations in her infobox, despite ChicagoWikiEditor previously not being involved in this at all. [126] Why that editor specifically?

He also pinged Binksternet, another editor who was uninvolved in the discussion until that point, in another Nicki talk page discussion recently here. [127] Binksternet also voted in support of Cornerstonepicker's July RfC. [128] Again, the question of "why that editor specifically?" happens here again. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarize the chain of events:

• A TBAN was imposed on The Pollster on 26 November 2021, which reads like this: "Per consensus in this thread The Pollster is topic-banned from articles and article content relating to opinion polling, broadly construed." This was specifically noted to them in their talk page (02:29 Nov 26), with the following wording: "you have been topic-banned from articles or article content relating to opinion polling. As with most such bans this is "broadly construed" which is an elaborate way of saying it should be taken to cover the entire field of polling-related content in Wikipedia and not a specific list of articles." (This included the links to the appropiate guidelines on this issue, which explain in a very clear and straightforward way what the implications of a TBAN are).
• Today, TP clearly broke this TBAN by conducting further edits at Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election‎ (14:38 Dec 3 and 14:41 Dec 3), which involved the inclusion of an additional polling chart in the article (note that this chart was a part of TP's contested edits that got him into trouble the first time).
• TP was reverted by DeCausa (14:51 Dec 3), who then went on to ask TP for an explanation on this TBAN breach on his talk page (14:51 Dec 3).
• TP reverted DeCausa by arguing that "this edit has nothing to do with polls. I added an additional chart that shows mfg-exclusive polls" (15:44 Dec 3) and by replying in his talk page that "Yes, I added an ADDITIONAL CHART. It has nothing to do with polls. The chart shows trendline excluding MFG, while the existing chart shows trendlines with MFG (which is not in parliament yet). Both charts must be shown." (15:48 Dec 3)
  • (Yes, weird to claim that an edit has nothing to do with polls, then immediately thereafter acknowledge the edit adds a chart that HAS to do with polls... anyways, remember that a TBAN applies not to content, but to pages as a whole).
• DeCausa replies, obviously perplexed (15:54 Dec 3), while I myself reverted TP's latest edit in the article (15:50 Dec 3).

We are basically seeing a repetition of the previously-exhibited behaviour that brought TP to be topic-banned in the first place, as well as an apparent inability or unwillingness to get the point (in what constitutes a clear case of WP:IDHT, even after the community's consensus has already decided on the measure to be adopted to curtail his behaviour). Instead of seeking to learn from his errors and to show that he is able to re-gain the community's trust again so that the TBAN is lifted, we see a return to edit-warring. I bring the issue to the community's attention to see what should be done in order to avoid further disruptions and TBAN breaches. Impru20^talk 16:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The violation is clear and so I have blocked The Pollster for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I crazy? Jimbo has posted a thread on his user talk page promoting an auction of some of his stuff, which he has refused to confirm would not benefit him personally. This is self-promotion 101, right? I've told him if he doesn't remove it, I will. That's policy, right? There's no Founder carve-out, is there? Just because the WMF told him to post to his user talk page (I'll take him at his word they did), doesn't mean he can actually do it, overriding our self-promotion policy, right? Can I get some quick feedback on the appropriateness of my removing this thread, if he doesn't? And whether (I can't believe I have to say this) I'd be justified in blocking him from his talk page if he restores it? If any one of us tried to pull this, they'd get a warning and a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Jimmy - I was instructed to inform the community by the Board of the WMF and advised by the Foundation comms and legal staff that a post to wikimedia-l and to my talk page would be the right way to do it. Characterizing this as "self-promotional" or "advertising" is frankly silly, as I don't think anyone would plausibly imagine that I'm hoping some random talk page reader is going to be the buyer. I can equally imagine that if I had defied the board and refused to communicate with the community about it, someone would be getting inflamed over that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Informing people is one thing. What you wrote was an advertisement. I doubt the WMF told you to write an advertisement. "Inform" would have been "fyi there is an auction of my computer coming up [link]." Levivich 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing this as "self-promotional" or "advertising" is frankly silly, as I don't think anyone would plausibly imagine that I'm hoping some random talk page reader is going to be the buyer. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "frankly silly", and I don't see how the latter part changes anything. Who would want such an NFT? A big fan of Wikipedia, probably, and one who's invested (emotionally) in its history and inside baseball. If it's advertised in lots of other places, then that cuts the odds that the eventual buyer will have learned of it from that specific place, but each advertisement is still, well, an advertisement. And yes, if you'd defied the board and refused to communicate with the community, someone would be getting upset, too. But that's just a sign that both courses of action were not good. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You dare to go up against the emperor? GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever noticed that the "i" in "Incidents" looks like a camera? He could be watching... Panini!^🥪 16:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give him a carefully crafted Topic-Ban please. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal - No an editor can't advertise an auction of his property on his user page. Obvious violation of NOTPROMO and should be removed. Same rules for everyone. I would treat this the same way as we would for any other user. We don't even allow Patreon links on user pages, right? Cuz if this is allowed, I'm gonna start selling shit on my user talk page. $5 for a Burma-Shave, $10 to join your content dispute, $20 to stay out of your content dispute, etc. Levivich 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we allow Patreon links on user pages? Maybe I'm out of date here but the only similar conversation I remember was on Commons The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Commons does but enwiki does not. Levivich 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wales is way out of order, and you will get shat on from a great height if you try to do anything about it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have they received the requisite number of twinkle warnings for Spam/promotion yet? Yes, it should be removed if they're not confirming it will not benefit them personally. Also, can he actually auction off the first edit as a NFT? Isn't that public domain? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. If Jimmy had added it to Jimbo Wales, that would be a firm No under our self-promotion policy. If he'd offered to edit Wikipedia for whoever buys the NFT, that would be a firm No under our COI policy. I don't see that we have a policy against mentioning on a User (or User Talk) page something that a user is doing that (potentially) earns them money. There is >1 Wikipedian who has written a book which is on sale for money and they receive royalties from, and has mentioned the fact they've written a book on their user page and/or in talk page discussion. This situation seems analogous? Plus, I'd much prefer to have Jimmy (or indeed anyone in a similar position) communicating with the community about this kind of thing than not. The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The only thing I can add to that is that I have zero expectation that posting to my user talk page is useful way to promote the sale of anything. Transparency with the community is really important to me and I won't apologize for that!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We block dozens of people daily for promotion within their own user space. It doesn't have to be in article space. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't seem worth making a fuss about. There might not be an exception made for Jimbo's founder bit, but there certainly is for WP:JIMBOTALK, which people use for all sort of off-topic chat, often with a much looser connection to the project's goals than this. – Joe (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Much ado about nothing but a nice talk page notice about what's occurring with an important piece of Wikipedia and internet history, Wales' personal computer from the time of the site's creation. I hope it sells for as high as it can and is placed in a major museum. Jimbo has a sense of history, which is how he put his attention into creating such a place and, fortunately, that same sense of history resulted in his keeping the computer, a modern day Syng inkstand. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If he wants it in a museum he could donate it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  His property his business. Jeez, green eyed monster stuff coming out here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Who's jealous? Personally, I'm a bit entertained at what looks like poor judgment, and yet another instance of the WMF being disconnected from the editing community (surely they'd know that somebody would get upset and would suggest a better alternative). XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)Green-eyed monster? Rubbish. If I owned something I thought ought to be in a museum I would donate it, not sell it. What's the saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And if I owned something related to a good cause and I thought somebody would want to buy it, I'd donate it to a group (a charity, a foundation, whatever) who could auction it off, so that everybody is absolutely clear that the money never enters my pocket. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Like Caesar's wife. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not care if he wants to auction this stuff. WP is famous because of the work of editors, and Jimbo is possibly going to make money off the backs of that work, but it wouldn't be the first time. But it seems reasonable to draw the line at him violating WP policy to publicize it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]