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

I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[1]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[2] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[3]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [4] and here [5]

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

Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [6]: [7]

Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [8]

Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [9] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.

Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [10]

After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [11]

Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [12] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."

Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [13]

Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [14] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [15] [16] [17] but I know that's not the focus of this post.

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

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

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

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

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

• In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [18][19]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [20]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [21], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [22] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[23]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [24] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [25].

Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [26]

Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [27] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

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

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

• Proposal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every time I have come to ANI the discussion comes back around to me so it seems frustrating that there is no critical evaluation of other users. What I have done does not excuse this conduct from Nemov: [28] [29]. We are in active disagreement so there is an obvious COI with Nemov recommending sanctions for me. Desertambition (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would however suggest allowing them to participate in AFDs that cover articles they have created, if such AFDs are opened. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support indef. Today, they made an allegation that myself, Spekkios, FOARP, Ale3353, HTGS, and Ficaia are sockpuppets of Johnpacklambert. When this report was rejected, they doubled down on the rejecting admins talk page, and when that was rejected they doubled down again.

  This editor is incapable of understanding that editors can disagree with them in good faith, and that a consensus can form against their position in good faith. Instead, they believe that there has to be something nefarious going on, whether it is STONEWALLING, HOUNDING, TAGTEAM editing, or one of the greatest, most elaborate acts of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia history.

  I now fully agree with the assessments by Ad Orientem and Cullen328 above; This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. The best thing we can do at this point is show them the door and move on. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for notifying me of this sockpuppet investigation request. I would like to say quickly that I have purposefully remained out of this discussion after posting my rebuttal above, as I believe that the user can contribute to this project, and because my last negative interaction with this user was a month ago, which lead me to believe they were able to reflect on this discussion and amend their behaviour. This sockpuppet investiagtion request has of course ruined that notion, and while I will not !vote (as I am not a neutral party) I will say that I am disappointed and concerned by this latest event, and I also agree with Cullen and Orientem. --Spekkios (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Jesus wept! Desertambition posted on my talkpage earlier today, but thought no more about their comment, and I don't believe I've come across them before now. Then I see this thread at the top of ANI. Now while I might not be inviting BM, FOARP and JPL to a Friends of Lugnuts Celebration Evening anytime soon, to say they're all one and the same user in a huge sock-fest would be the biggest conspiracy theory since the single bullet! That whole SPI is laughable at best. Mercy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposed topic ban (though I would have preferred one limited to 9 months, instead of one he/she had to appeal). Since he/she got blocked on 22 March after making 4 reverts in 24 hours, he/she has mostly restricted him/herself to three reverts when edit-warring, and even self-reverted a 4th revert on 10 April after being reported. So Desertambition is capable of learning. He/she still has not understood why we have to put edit warring notices on his/her talk page after he/she has made 3 reverts to a page in 24 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were four reverts on 12 April at the Ora article, but either way I do get the impression 3RR is being seen as an allowance rather than a limit. CMD (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - looking through the examples (is this the worst we've got), I'm not seeing much that's actionable at a topic ban level. The edit warring seems more serious than hostility. Riot act has been read - move on. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: If this has been going on for a while, and no lessons are learned after several last chances, I don't see what else there is to do. I have seen some of their activity on this board and the accusations, in fact I was insinuated myself by this user today of wanting to get someone blocked in bad faith, and falsely accused of accusing someone of sockpuppetry when all did was saying I found the timing and circumstances suspiscious not directly accusing anyone in this ″friendly advice″. Support topic ban not indef. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you based on what I have seen from Desertambition, but regarding your link to the discussion where you see he accused you of wanting (Me) blocked for my edits, he never actually accused you of that. In addition you did actually call me a sock puppet of Desertambition, by slyly assuming such due to editing in similar times. June Parker (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we keep focus on what it should be on this report, your false accusations have a seperate thread. TylerBurden (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looking into this there seems to be a repeated and egrigreous violation of the rules here, as well as bad manners. As TylerBurden mentioned, he messaged me on my talk page trying to give me "Friendly" advice just because I so happened to make edits on racial issues and got into a content dispute. He's also shadowed some of my edits. I don't see what he has to do with the dispute I had with those users or what he had to gain from it but it was just really weird. June Parker (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure needed

Can an admin please close the topic ban proposal one way or another before this gets autoarchived?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping again... There's numerous examples and comments on this issue. Can we get a resolution on the proposal? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't had much to do with Desertambition and I opposed the AfD nom they made for Orania Representative Council. I considered the topic notable, but wouldn't consider the nomination disruptive. I think the comments on their userpage about racism on Wikipedia are unnecessarily critical. Something that suggests we actually don't tolerate racism was an ANI thread they initiated on 12 April regarding a long-standing, previously respected editor spreading white genocide conspiracy theories. Action was taken and the offending editor indeffed. This suggests we do take racism seriously and also shows Desertambition can bring legitimate concerns to community attention. I would say I disagree with some overly critical comments that have been made above. Desertambition has made some decent contributions and I note in their favour that they behaved appropriately at the AfDs that did not go their way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council). This doesn't seem to me like an editor unquestionably unable to work with others, even in case of disagreement. I think what we do need is commitments from this editor to remember the importance of civility and keep serious accusations such as racism for when it is deserved. I don't think anything can reasonably come from this discussion now and I'd honestly suggest a close with a clear warning regarding civility. AusLondonder (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Desertambition has now restarted edit warring on the Orania article. CMD (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to revert edits you disagree with. Editing != edit warring. Please provide reasoning on why you disagree when reverting and be specific as well please. Desertambition (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These are edits you have made before, have already been reverted before, and already has a talkpage discussion. Please understand that this is edit warring. CMD (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how despite all the evidence, an administrator is let alone to even make a comment about what should be done. Bump indeed. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating I am sockpuppeting (from the discussion below):

1. [30]

2. [31]

3. [32]

4. Right before posting on ANI: [33] Desertambition (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt to try and deflect away from your own report, start a seperate thread if you feel I have violated policies by mentioning that I was suspiscious about your relation with June Parker. TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Should I make a WP:RFCLOSE request to resolve this issue. There does appear to be consensus here, but there's a lot of back and forth that makes it difficult to follow. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Go ahead. This has been open for 21 days now. Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 16:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I've initiated a request. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Preventing this from archivation. Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below are the dates when I had accumulated the so called "DYK credits".

The WP:DYKRULE originally said, "users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt from making DYK reviews" and I have understood it as new users "lacking sufficient expertise of the compliated DYK process to conduct proper reviews". Anyone who looks at the dates on these diffs above, would agree that until 14 April, I was not eligible for making DYK reviews for nominations by others. Yet in the past two-three weeks I have faced continuous harassment and threats for blocks, topic bans etc for allegedly gaming the system. Those users seem to believe that I am against doing reviews, even though I am already doing reviews, as I am expected to do.

Please review the timeline of events below and let me know if the uninvolved users believe I have erred and liable for sanctions as some are baying for. My expectation in bringing this complicated matter to ANI is to seek an end to this ongoing harassment and denigration by some users.

Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

DYK rule were changed on 6 April without seeking wider consensus for a big and controversial change. The question due to the change was "Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations?"
Until 6 April, users who submitted DYK nominations were asked to judge a DYK Nomination if the nominator had 5 or more 'successful DYK Credits' (aka 'DYK credits' checked using this tool). A proposal to change this rule was made on 4 April , where it was proposed that users with 5 or more DYK nominations (Successful or unsuccessful or pending) be asked to start judging DYK noms that others have filed. The change demanded users with 5 unsuccessful nominations, to start judging DYK nominations. Asking people with failed nominations to judge is a major change in WP:DYKRULES and deserved wider community consensus before implementation. In my opinion I noted that nominating a DYK is mostly just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the old rule demands. This change in rule was significant watering down of the requirements without considering the ill effects.

So clearly there was a policy disagreement between users on WT:DYK. Accordingly I tried to follow Dispute resolution. I let the RfC lead the policy disagreement to a conclusion, but my efforts for a consensus via RfC were thwarted and the RfC was closed within 12 hours. (diffs in the table above)

Harassment

After my RfC was closed 10 days ago, I yielded and did not continue my objections on DYKRULE any changes further, also started reviewing DYKs as per the changed rules. Since I have given up and complied with the new rules, this inappropriate harassment against me should have ended. Yet the scheming against me and attacks on WT:DYK continued as of today (since 4 April). And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI.

To conclude, there is no ongoing (or ever) disruption by me on Wikipedia, nor have I expressed intentions to start any, there are no grounds for attacking me and this ongoing witch hunt being pursued by some of these users against me, must end. Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add diffs for the scheming, harassment, and attacks on you? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd It is in the collapsed table on row 7 April. I will add some more in next 5-10 mins. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; from the collapse header, I thought it was just your DYK work. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [58] [59] [60] [61], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I was criticized" ≠ factual inaccuracy, let alone slander. Stop whining and arguing and go do something productive instead. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanting the context of this thread should look at the two discussion threads Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#QPQ_freebies and especially Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination. The idea of a topic ban for Venkat TL has been floated there by several editors. --JBL (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Context threads User talk:Narutolovehinata#QPQ and
  Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_185#RFC: Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Venkat's table above, labeled as "harassment", are Schwede66's comments at Special:Diff/1081517890 and Special:Diff/1081535891. I'm more concerned by Venkat's comments at Special:Diff/1081527663 and Special:Diff/1081539768.

The content/policy discussion at WT:DYK can handle the WP:DYKRULES issue; that's not an ANI issue.

I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [62], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [63]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

I think a TBAN, if the DYK regulars want it, would help reduce the disruption they have to deal with. Levivich 17:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, There is no ongoing dispute, as I have given already given up 2 weeks ago. There is no ongoing disruption at WT:DYK, I have never ever said that I did not want to do QPQs, The WP:DYKRULES before it was changed said users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt and I understood it as "lacking sufficient expertise to conduct proper reviews". As noted in the collapsed table, at the time of writing of this comment, I have already done 3 QPQ reviews of nomination by others. Accordingly I have considered myself not eligibile to review DYKs of others and Some users are a conflating this as "Hostility in doing reviews" and while doing this they keep ignoring the fact that I have already done 3 reviews and listed them as QPQs. The policy disagreement is over, and I see no reason why these users even after 2 weeks continue to pursue that against me. Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a classic case of "Self-governing area of the 'pedia makes a minor change to its internal rules, user refuses to accept the consensus for that change, others in that area get frustrated, and the user runs to ANI." The "harassment" diff does not look like harassment, or even really incivility. If there's something I'm missing there, please point it out; otherwise you should rescind your accusation.
  DYK is an entirely optional area of Wikipedia. (Well, all areas are optional, but DYK is particularly optional.) It's also an invaluable area for encouraging content creation, and time spent arguing over procedural minutiae there is time taken away from its maintainers' work reviewing, promoting, and enqueueing hooks. If a significant portion of your time on-wiki is being devoted to arguing over meta-level things at DYK, you may need to reconsider how you're spending your time. If you've reached the point of thinking that a wiki-wide consensus was needed to change "fewer than five DYK credits" to "previously nominated fewer than five articles", you may be in too deep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please notice carefully and you find that none of those meta discussions on QPQ (you are talking about) were started by me. Others started those thread naming me in the original post and enforcing their own unwritten rule, clearly different than what was written in WP:DYKRULES of the time. You may have your opinion on the policy disagreement, it is more than what you claim it is, my position on it is explained at the RFC thread. In any case I have moved from past, and not pursuing any point from the two week old threads/issues and I expect that others should also move on. Venkat TL (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tamzin is correct here. DYK is supposed to be an enjoyable area of Wikipedia, where editors can get credit for their work, but is not so important as to be a topic for such wikilawyering, a word which, if it hadn't already been invented, we would need to invent for such behaviour. Just get on with editing the encyclopedia, Venkat TL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ... And I have already moved on. My last comment on WT:DYK was a week ago, so I am not responding there anymore, I even unwatched WT:DYK page, to stay awy until I was pinged yesterday on a plan to escalate it to ANI. Even now, in this thread I am not pursuing any of those past issues, Pray tell me @Phil Bridger how am I supposed to advertise that I have moved on? Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You started this thread today. If that's moving on, then I'm a banana. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why have you started this thread? It advertises that you have not moved on. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict with the two above) Not to be snide, but it would be a poor advertisement an editor has "moved on" to introduce a thread claiming harassment by DYK volunteers. This is gaming, and exactly the sort of behavior which has plagued this editor's DYK nomination templates. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger Kusma This thread coming to ANI was a forgone conclusion, Please check the thread linked below BusterD. The ANI posting was ready. The thread created by folks at WT:DYK uses a table with twisted timelines to build a false case against me. In this thread I have shared a clear timeline of the events so that folks can see that certain events I am being accused of happened in a certain sequence, when the rules were something else than what they are right now. If it helps you, I am willing to close this thread, since I am not pursing anything other than peace for myself and others. But all signs at WT:DYK show that the post "shooting for topic bans" was imminent, and if it does, then I would rather that this thread remains open. Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It seems likely that User:Venkat TL has seen this topic ban being drafted by DYK regulars and is trying to make their case before such a ban is discussed. I have had little direct contact with the user, but have seen sufficient to think a DYK topic ban is becoming necessary. DYK (like everywhere else on Wikipedia) is staffed by volunteers; if those individual volunteers were to choose to simply ignore any further DYK submissions from this troublesome contributor, it might be POINTY, but not totally out of line. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was pinged on that draft thread. In my original post I have said "And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI." The diffs are in the table. Yes I am referring to it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG

• Proposal: Topic ban, of duration to be decided, from all things WP:DYK, until Venkat TL can demonstrate proficiency elsewhere on the 'pedia, preferably mainspace, and a willingness to drop both the issue with DYK and their less than collegial approach to other editors in such a small corner of the project. Let them adjust to a project-wide perspective before returning to procedural minutaie. SN54129 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  [64][65] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally when I move on from things I do it by not opening threads at ANI, and then not responding to every critical comment. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't you ask folks who are building up ANI case at WT:DYK (using events that happened 2 weeks ago) to move on like me? This ANI thread would never have happened if I had not been pinged yesterday at WT:DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notice that those people aren't here making absolute fools of themselves trumpeting how they've "moved on" while responding to every single comment critical of them? Here's how you can prove me wrong: by writing "You know, you're right, my behavior here is the exact opposite of what the phrase 'moving on' denotes; I'm going to stop now and let this thread run its course without any more input from me." (And then doing that.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a topic ban of limited duration as suggested above (ALL things WP:DYK, including new content submissions). Gaming and battleground behaviors are undercutting the energy and industry of this otherwise promising new editor. I want to encourage Venkat TL to think less of winning, and more of helping. BusterD (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Venkat TL displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick (while hilariously proclaiming to have done so). I think BusterD is spot on with his comment about "winning". I'm not sure a DYK topic ban is the best possible remedy for this, but I can't think of anything better right now. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can count me as a supporter of the developing consensus for an indefinite topic ban with appeal no earlier than six months. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I also support (and agree with both of the above that a time-limited ban might be appropriate in this case). Venkat TL seems to need some assistance with moving on. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) *I have to note that the editor's civility issues on DYK were not just limited to the diffs link above. For example, on one of his DYK nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, he removed comments I made on the nomination regarding QPQ as well as a concern unrelated to QPQs (in this case, me noting that his preferred term at the time, "greenhorn", was jargon and probably needed to be replaced by a more easily understandable phrase). In another of his nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka, he accused DYK editors of having, quote sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list after it was noted by me and other editors that the article was unstable at the time and was unlikely to pass DYK. After I closed said nomination due to stability concerns, he started Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#DYK closed without proper review, where he continued making bad faith comments against me and others. To be fair, in said discussion, other editors did note that my closure was perhaps out of process as I had previously commented in the nomination and thus may have been too involved to make a proper closure, to which I apologize for. Nevertheless, other editors, including those same aforementioned other editors, noted that Venkat had engaged in bad faith and/or personal attacks throughout the proceedings, with quotes such as Please do not make this an ego issue and all you did was close the DYK with prejudice based on past interactions or my comment on DYK. In addition, during said discussion, the editor referred to all comments regarding their behavior as "off-topic" rather than addressing them.

To me, what is shocking about the editor is their lack of good faith when discussing with other editors, not to mention making personal attacks over disagreements. At the very least I'd support some kind of restriction such as a topic ban from DYK, mainly for the incivility shown and how it appeared that they continued to engage in such incivility and problematic behavior despite multiple warnings. As for the length, I don't know if indefinite would be advisable given that the editor had nominated some nominations that largely followed the processes and he has even started providing QPQs. I'm actually leaning more towards a temporary ban (perhaps at least six months), but my concern is that this limited topic ban would not address the wider attitude issues the editor has expressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that just on this very thread he has been expressing the behavior that other DYK regulars had expressed concerns above, as seen by the above comment Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. For the record, his retirement from DYK was never our intention, and the only reason ANI was ever considered on WT:DYK was due to the aforementioned battleground behavior that multiple editors, including several admins, had observed. If anything surprises me, it's that this wasn't brought up at ANI sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would have wanted resolution you would have opened threads on my User talk and not on WT:DYK which is sort of noticeboard for all things DYK. From my perspective, there was never ever any battle to fight. There was a Procedure disagreement that I had clearly WP:DROPed 2 weeks ago. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point here. The reason you ended up in this situation wasn't your opposition to the QPQ rule or even your disagreement of the Hijab nomination being closed. It was your attitude and lack of good faith, as seen by your multiple comments accusing editors of "pushing" you to retire from DYK, or accusing DYK editors of having an "ego" and failing nominations for "sadistic pleasure". Indeed, multiple editors had requested you to apologize for your comments, something you have repeatedly declined to do. Had you made an effort to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment and made an effort to have a less accusatory behavior, as well as heeded the advice of multiple editors regarding your attitude, I don't think Schwede66 and the others would have considered a topic ban in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the stuff you commented here are recent. I am not revisiting month old comments. If there is something that 'I had done' and you found disruptive and worth BLOCKS and TOPIC BANs in the last 2 weeks, I will be happy to discuss. Venkat TL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, even when those comments were new you declined to acknowledge them or apologize for them, even going as far as calling the requests for apology "off-topic". For example, Schwede66 and BlueMoonset both asked you to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment (and may I add that both requests for apology were made less than a week after the comment was made). The "sadistic pleasure" comment was most certainly not a "month old" when it was brought up by those two editors and yet you didn't apologize for it even then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for actions comments that can be considered disruptive or worth blocks within the last two weeks, your comment removal from the Mann ministry nomination (which was done on April 8th, so within the last 14 days) could at the very least warrant a warning, not to mention the battleground behavior and assumptions of bad faith in this very thread, notably with comments such as Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my edit summary, the comment was 'moved' to Article talk page, you raised this diff, by starting a thread on the WT:DYK noticeboard (instead of my user talk) and I replied there. I did not contest it when it was restored. If you would have asked this on my user talk, then also I would have self reverted. I have nothing new to add here than what I already said in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have moved the comment in the first place, even if you disagreed with it. The comment was on-topic to the DYK and raised concerns about the hook wording. Why did you move the comment in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied in the diff, I linked above. At that time, I (wrongly) assumed that thread to be offtopic from DYK as it was about QPQ and you explicitly noted that you were not reviewing the DYK. QPQ was being discussed at WT:DYK. Article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements, so I had moved it to article talk page. When others restored it and disagreed with my wrong assumption. I agreed with the restoration. I apologize if my moving of comment caused you any trouble. Would I do it again? No. Venkat TL (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there was a context to my comment you quoted, that is being ignored in this thread. My observations for which you are taking an offence were made more than a month ago, in that thread, I was upset that my DYKs were being closed without getting proper 'review-and-fix-cycles' as is expected with DYK nominations. Looking at the hindsight, I think I shouldn't have made it, I have not made any such comments since, and I will never make such comments again. Your objections about moving the comment to the article-talk-page, is valid, and I have agreed, but I believe it is probably an over reaction to use that incident to ask for blocks and bans on what admin Maile66 called "a prolific editor". In summary, I have moved on from what has happened in past. Neither have I repeated, nor do I don't expect those things that you found offensive to be repeated. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to where Venkat_TL has linked my calling him a "prolific editor". What he links that to, the reader needs to scroll up to where Schwede66 says "It does not usually happen that we have a newby with so many active nominations just as the QPQ requirement is about to kick in." My comment was in reference to her statement. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally think "indefinite with appeal no sooner than six months" is better than a six-month topic ban but I support either per mine and others comments above. Levivich 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef DYK topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. It was me who drafted the ANI notice at DYK but Venkat has beaten me to it by posting something themselves. Schwede66 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Kusma said in this subsection, Venkat TL "displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick", I can confirm this with my first-hand experience with them. From that experience I can also say that they either look down on other editors, or consider themselves superior than others. Because of such attitude, they had taken me to ANI not so long ago, where Abecedare had mediated. I support indefinite topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, it's this doofus! Makes it seem less likely that a topic ban will be sufficient, unfortunately. -- JBL (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jet Bropulsion Laboratory then there was this encore special:permalink/1077702496. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  also, this doofus who chastized me for using plain texts and not links...by doing the same. I'm not active at DYK, but I concur that a topic ban will just move the problem elsewhere vs. solving it. Would support one though based on evidence here. Star Mississippi 01:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([66] [67] [68] [69]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban/appeal in 6 months possible. Evidence is clear that Venkat TL's battleground mentality and incessant wiki-lawyering over what is supposed to be a light-hearted part of the encyclopedia is creating a hostile working environment over there. --Jayron32 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commnet I do not support an outright ban. A limited ban is appropriate. I also think that if Venkat TL agrees to abide by the rules and stop being argumentative, it would go to greatly shorten the ban. --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban as above. I already suggested this on the DYK talk boards, but I had been leaning towards the thought that maybe the discussion there might have convinced Venkat TL that their battleground approach was unproductive and to back down, making this step unnecessary. Unfortunately, Venkat TL's behavior in bringing this to ANI preemptively before someone else brought them there makes it clear that the battleground behavior is still ongoing. That is incompatible with the cooperative process needed to make DYK (or really any of the rest of the encyclopedia editing) work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef topic ban from DYK or Support topic ban from South Asia per diffs provided by Curbon7. The battleground mentality and comprehension problems with the user extend beyond DYK. I don't think that letting him off with a topic ban from mere DYK will do enough good given the continued display of WP:IDHT and battleground mentality in this sub-thread alone. GenuineArt (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have made a recent reply hereVenkat TL (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and before that comment, there was this. It looks like Venkat TL is using words of Vice regent. It also looks like they are under impression that this thread is about only the incident of comment removal. From their comment, and Maile's response, it looks like either: Venkat TL is taking the comment out of context, or: they still have mentality "admins are above everything, and everyone, rest of the editors are worthles and/or idiots". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that their apology only talked about the Hijab nom closure discussion but not about their attitude in other places, including this very discussion, I think the comment is a case of too little, too late. Had he realized it earlier and apologized for all his words, I don't think this discussion would have happened in the first place. In addition, I would note that although he mentioned that "I have not made any such comments since", he continued showing battleground behavior in comments made after that discussion, including in this very thread. At the very least I am inclined to support the topic ban with the possibility of appeal; if Venkat is sincere that he has learned from his experiences and has vowed to change his on-wiki attitude, he can prove so in other areas of the Wikipedia, then when he has successfully proven it in practice, he can always appeal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yup. I think they are failing to understand the difference between incivility and battleground behavior, or the reason for topic ban proposal (this subsection, and the discussion on DYK talk). —usernamekiran (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope the admins reading the 'entire' thread are able to see this slander campaign being run using over exaggerated recycled old stuff by users having an axe to grind. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battleground mentality unabated, I note. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the comments above claiming that they have moved on or have learned from their experience, their comment above still showing the incivility and lack of good faith that got them into trouble in the first place only further makes me feel that a topic ban is necessary. In fact, given their attitude in this discussion despite the promise to change and improve their behavior, not to mention the diffs raised by other editors, I'm wondering if a DYK-only topic ban is sufficient or if a topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed is also necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Venkat TL: Do you know what a topic ban is? Or what this particular proposal is about? Your recent comment confused me. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban as above. Their inability to AGF and refusal to apologize for their negative characterizations of others even when their uncivil behavior has been pointed out shows no sign of abating. Since "retirement" can end at any time, the ban should go forward. It can always be lifted a significant period of collegial behavior. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I came here from Venkat TL's talk page. I oppose a topic ban since they have apologized and said they would move on. Considering their successful DYK nominations, I would recommend giving them second chance. - SUN EYE 1 05:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they made a comment above claiming that editors had "an axe to grind" and accused them of "slander", and said comment was made after their apology, I have some doubts if their apology and desire to move on are sincere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suneye1: the topic ban is not proposed because of one incident, it was proposed, and is supported by other editors because of their overall behavior, like comments "sadistic pleasure", and battleground behavior. It is a topic ban, a very narrow one at that. They are free to edit rest of the Wikipedia which is around 99%. Nobody is stopping them from that. Like BlueMoonset said right before your comment, [the ban] can always be lifted [after] a significant period of collegial behavior. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Given what is here and what is there in the archives at DYK, I support an indefinite tban for Venkat TL. In case, they learn from this (no less than six months), I'd support for the removal of ban. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC) (Note: I'm changing my mind per VR's comments below. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 16:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I support a warning at this time, not a topic ban, as Venkat has apologized for their behavior and promised not to do so again ([70][71][72][73]). Venkat has been a prolific contributor so I'm inclined to give them another chance. If a topic ban is supported, I would recommend a shorter appeal time (3 months?). This is clearly a user who, as Levivich noted above, who makes a lot of edits and from their comments it seems they're a fast learner. So if they are able to demonstrate more friendly behavior in a shorter period of time they should be able to make an appeal.VR _talk 16:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support T-ban. Paul August ☎ 01:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban as a first step. However, it seems to me that the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach which Venkat TL has displayed wrt DYK is less about DYK and more about Venkat TL's difficulties with collaboration. So I think we need to be alert for the possibility that the same conduct will reappear elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is not pertinent to QPQ

I see this list used in error at the top of this whole thread. Please be advised, that this is not a list used to calculate who is eligible for QPQ. This list is compiled by individual editors of how many DYKs they have already had on the Main Page, and the list is used to award the editors according to the numbers they have there. On the far right-hand side is a column where the editors link to their user space pages where they've done their own list of what they have created.

The tool used to calculate QPQ can be found by opening any nomination, and selecting "QPQ Check' from the upper right-hand corner toolbox. Then input the user's name, and it returns the number of DYK's they have been given credit for. I believe there is also another tool, but someone else will have to list that. The one for Venkat TL says he has five credits already. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [74], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 I have copied the quote about WP:DYKRULES as it is, from the link I indicated in the original post. this is the link I copied the quote from. I have already shared the link of the tool to check successful DYK Credits. That link can be found as a diff on top of the table of successful DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: Understood. Just so you know, that list that Wikipedians update themselves is not the gospel of stats. I haven't updated my own stats there for a while. Some of those people listed haven't participated at DYK for years. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia

Venkat put a retirement template on his talk page and appears to have retired from Wikipedia. I do not know if this makes the topic ban proposal moot or if it will continue regardless, I am just mentioning this here out of transparency. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI flu. Star Mississippi 01:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody compiled a list of Wikipedia editors who posted a retirement banner and then came roaring back, it would be a very long list. Nobody should place much credence in a retirement notice by a Wikipedia editor or a rock and roll band. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or an NFL QB with five letters in their last name? Star Mississippi 01:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I would have chastised you harshly for using plain links and not WP:ANI flu, but the only reason I am using soft words is that you are an admin. ^{/end rhetorical sarcasm.} —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Had no idea about the actual page. Well done @Ritchie333 @EEng et al and thanks for flagging it @Usernamekiran. Back to my corner for me. :) Star Mississippi 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon loses 1962 election: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more." → Richard Nixon 1968 presidential campaign — Maile (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be time to close this discussion? It's been almost a week since it started and the consensus seem to be largely in favor of a DYK topic ban for Venkat. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will get closed soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at RFCL. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am curious, what happens when a user retires when he is on the verge of getting blocked? Does the community goes on andblock them? Akshaypatill (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They never used to. In the past, they would usually just drop the proceedings against that user and then proceed to lament the fact that their sanctions led a productive user to quit Wikipedia. Now, of course, it's become common knowledge that users who retire during an ANI usually come back when sufficient time has passed and thus return to their disruptive behaviors. As a result, retirement is usually acknowledged but otherwise ignored. WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• bump. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• bump and bumper. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  bumpier? Anyhow really an admin should please come and assess consensus here. JBL (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And please let's not reward flouncing out. If an editor is sincere about retiring then blocking does no harm. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  for the next bump, I was going to use "bump and bumperer". —usernamekiran (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoMadsen88 has been conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against me, with the most recent case being here. As you can see, the account does this via Talk pages that I frequent: Special:Contributions/BoMadsen88. There was an ANI raised about the account previously and the following was stated: "Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. signed, Rosguill."

Also, the timing is almost too coincidental between this post on Reddit and the above mentioned Talk page edit. QRep2020 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do tell me how I am harassing you. Did I contact you? I am pointing out what might potentially be a very big problem. With your edit history and behaviour there is unfortunately a very great risk of a strong COI. This has to be addressed asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoMadsen88, please don't use article talk pages to post conduct reports, those belong on a conduct board such as this one. Beyond that, QRep2020, this report provides a poor summary. You don't link to WP:DIFFs but rather to entire discussion threads. You're expecting quite a bit from a reviewer here in that sense (WP:VOLUNTARY). And maybe someone will do it (delve deep), but if this thread goes stale, that'd probably be the reason why. Also, I don't know what you expect us to tell from linking BoMadsen88 contribs. At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA. El_C 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What may also need addressing 'asap' is your continued use of an article talk page to engage in the harassment of a contributor, after being formally warned to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of warning? I must have missed it. El_C 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind, a year ago, I see it. El_C 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:BoMadsen88#Indefinite_block. El_C 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoMadsen88 sitewide block converted to a p-block, the exact same one as QRep2020's. See my notes at the unblock request. While it doesn't negate some of the problems mentioned above, I'm inclined to give them the option of participating in this thread. El_C 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at their edit history. Their "purpose" was to get me banned and, hey, they did it. Only a matter before they come to my Talk page and gloat again. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not banned. WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well.

I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore.

I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too?

QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down.

I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The bridge crew remark sadly on their unwillingness to give up their hate"... Begoon 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA"

Refactored from my talk page. El_C 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. If you look at my edits, they are not all negative. I've contributed 10 entries of my own. Please do no feed into this castigation. QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020, if by "entries" you mean articles, isn't it true that all the articles that you have created are related to Elon Musk and Tesla? Isn't it true that in the past 24 hours, you supported keeping the poorly referenced quote calling Musk a "total and complete pathological sociopath" in the article? Do you deny that your main activity on Wikipedia is to add negative content about Musk? Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deny it. Hindenberg Research has nothing to do with Musk. I've contributed extensively to the Fraud "article" (I was a little upset when I replied before and used the wrong word) and to the Trevor Milton article. Ken Klippenstein rubbed up against Musk but he is important reporter in his own right - same goes for Lora Kolodny. I can be obsessive sometimes, yes, but I always try to follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020, Hindenburg Research is an aggressive short selling operation involved with the electric vehicle sector, and Tesla is the market leader. You also wrote and are the main author of TSLAQ, an aggressive short selling operation focused on criticizing Musk and Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my limited interactions with QRep2020 I think they are a good faith editor who clearly has an interest in Musk/Tesla but also tries to follow the rules. Springee (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps QRep2020 should be advised (not instructed, advised...) that expanding their editing to a broader range of topics might be of benefit. It should make claims of SPA editing seem less credible, and maybe help build a sense of perspective. As fascinating/annoying Musk is, he isn't the centre of the universe (yet ), and I'm sure QRep2020 can find other topics of interest, if editing Wikipedia is their thing (which it need not be...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Strike that, per El_C below - I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On closer review, I've p-blocked QRep2020 indef from Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk (see block notice). There are so many other topics to write about besides just negatively, about Elon Musk and his companies. Too many red flags, like, in the edit (diff) about and header titled "total and complete pathological sociopath" (link) and the one that states [E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon (diff — quoting WIRED, but still). And these are just edits from April 18 and April 20, respectively! El_C 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the sociopath remark, merely defended that it was used in accordance with the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't. See WP:BLP, and in particular the section on tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is that this block was too hasty. ‎The "sociopathy" language went through a whole RfC and was present in the Good article pass version. Speaking of which, QRep appears to be one of the two main shepherds of the article through the GA process. There's been a lot of critical coverage of Musk over the past two years in reliable sources. I can't say I've reviewed QRep's editing pattern enough to say if they've outpaced the RS or not. I can say they've been quick to accept consensus and admit an error. I wouldn't be surprised if a warning sufficed to stem even the perception of disruptive editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just negative material, though, isn't it more wolf than shepherd? I realize there are a lot cheerleaders, too, but is doing the opposite really any better? I'll keep an open mind, though, sure. El_C 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't all negative material. It's a balancing act. I have stayed out of plenty of matters concerning Elon Musk that I could have "fomented" if I wanted to turn the article into a hit piece.

Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite. And I shouldn't have focused on the stupid line about sociopathy - I just saw people coming out of the woodwork and was reactionary. I am a grownup, I can admit that.

Please give me a chance to show that I am not who you think I am. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the protection request yesterday, which I declined (RfPP diff), and which is partly why this thread peeked my interest. In any case, these are only two pages you are restricted from, out of millions and millions. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite, but could just be undetermined length. El_C 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that one page and its Talk page are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each day, that is why balance is so important. And yes I stepped over the line, like I said, but when the subject of the article tells people to modify the said, there is a constant need to maintain some semblance of critical ratio.

I would also like to point out the irony here that, regardless of what I am "answering to" here, I do not deserve to be libeled on a Talk page that is viewed by said thousands and now I cannot even answer to it because I elected not to give into a baser instinct. Given my status, can someone please remove the BoMadsen88 text from the Elon Musk Talk page about me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk can say whatever (he can maybe even buy Twatter to make sure that it's his hivemind friend), but the fact is, as I mentioned in my decline of the RfPP request, that most of the users involved in recent disputes were extended confirmed, so it's unlikely they came from unReaddit. El_C 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Firefangledfeathers; I believe the block should be lifted, with encouragement for the editor to spend a little less time editing Musk-related articles and a little more time editing other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, new comments go at the bottom. Weird placement. Had I not looked at the revision history in passing, I'd have not seen it. Anyway, I'm not unblocking either user. They both can appeal their block in the usual way. Appeals which I'm unlikely to comment on, either way (because because). El_C 01:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[75][76][77], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on QRep2020's talk page, they should probably substantively address the possible WP:COI raised by Cullen328 (diff), who unlike me fumbling about, actually seems to have done his research. El_C 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, were you raising the possibility of COI there? I just read that comment as an elaboration on the SPA point, tying all the articles back to Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, I have not had the opportunity to read those more recent links so will respond based on what I knew at the time. I have seen no evidence of a clearcut conflict of interest though I am aware that some editors have accused this editor of being a Tesla short seller. I literally have no idea and even no hunch whether or not this is true. But following my criticism, they posted a denial on their user page. What I do know that this is a highly skilled SPA editor who seems to think that Elon Musk is a "very bad person" and is determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to negatively impact Musk's reputation. In the spirit of full disclosure, speaking personally, I think that Musk is a bizarre person who has received a lot of legitimate criticism. I am not a fan. He is obviously also a highly successful person with major accomplishments. He can deploy a troll army to have the Wikipedia biography say that he is a "magnet" instead of a "magnate" and I have opposed such baloney when it has come to my attention. But what I see is that this is an editor who by all evidence is here only to add content that reflects negatively on this living person and his businesses. Yes, there are a lot of negatives about Musk. But accounts focused on praising or discrediting Musk are equally disruptive. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy and editors who are here to push a negative point of view about a living person are inherently disruptive even if they try, on the surface, to comply with policies and guidelines. Contrition when an editor is sanctioned should be evaluated with a certain degree of skepticism, and the "I blew my stack" defense is not too persuasive, unless accompanied by persuasive assurances thst the disruption will not resume. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I was mostly asking for clarification on COI, but I also appreciate your thoughts on the SPA-ness of it all. My angle is: could we have prompted similar levels of contrition and (hopefully soon to come) assurances against future disruption with a warning or temp block (though I know El C is allergic). I've said my piece, and I'd like to leave space for the opinions of others. So, I'd appreciate your contemplative thought on the matter, but please don't feel compelled to reply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to take a few days off of Wikipedia before appealing and making assurances, but I do not want to invite a COI over my head too so I will say the following in hopes that it shows where my mind is at the moment:

Though I do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia - often narrow, yes, but not exclusive - I have no doubt grown obsessive about getting in front of what I came to perceive as a bend in the encyclopedia towards promoting Musk and his endeavors. In recognizing this, I promise to reread NPOV immediately during my small break from the site and assure that, if granted clemency, I will not make any updates to Elon Musk for a period of a month and will not push for any changes via discussions on Talk:Elon Musk as well. I also promise to not make any updates on other Musk-related articles during this time besides reverting obvious acts of vandalism or disruptive editing as a way of forcing myself to try and upend these assumptions I have cemented. Finally, I will force myself to spend time contributing to relatively distant topics on Wikipedia like @El C hinted at and will figure out a way to record any such non-Musk related updates I make on my Talk page as a testament to what I am doing to fix my behaviors.

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to assume good faith with your statement given that you do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia, given that your past 1,000 edits (dating back to April 2021) exclusively deal with Tesla and Elon Musk-related articles. Obsessive is one way to put it. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Look harder. QRep2020 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You're going to flat out lie about your edit history now? See for yourself: here and here. You're really going to still maintain that you are not obsessed with Tesla-Musk-related articles? What a farce. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Exclusively" has meaning to some. QRep2020 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not lying. "Exclusively" means all. Not all of them are. QRep2020 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found two whole edits out of your previous 1,000 edits, my bad. 998995 edits out of your past 1,000 edits pertain to Musk in some shape or form pretty much constitutes exclusivity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if anyone can explain User_talk:QRep2020#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion and User_talk:QRep2020#Tesla_short-selling_group_WP:COI_username, I'm all ears. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well link the COIN discussion itself too. Still reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure El_C. Maybe SPA-like activity coupled with the letter Q is enough to say "this is a clear COI"? I think the COIN discussion came to no consensus on that point. QRep2020 clearly denies having a COI and has an explanation for their username. I get some real "small world" vibes from the cast of characters there, that's for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Firefangledfeathers (RE: "cast of characters"). But just to clear things up: I am Q. Tremble before my stromzezes. El_C 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you messed up your link. I think you meant Q. Springee (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God! He admit it!

I just meant that I see a lot of usernames in common between that January 2021 COIN discussion and recent discussions in the QRep2020-sphere, this one included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: dude, I've already been called a god (fondly, I'm sure) once tonight. Or was it not-a-god? Anyway, I'm not tempting fate!

@Firefangledfeathers: that's right, I have QR clearance. Erm, I mean, you suck, Paul! El_C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there was a serious part: I dunno, at a gleence, it seems like it had fairly limited participation, either way. Not sure what prompted what by whom when. Mind you, like with the ANI report that QRep2020 provided in their OP, I see HAL's sig and my eyes sort of glaze over. No offense to him, nice guy and good content editor, and hopefully he returns to the project soon, but I just find it visually jarring. Damn, I'm terrible. El_C 03:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is always either amusing or disconcerting to see such highly experienced editors stray so far from the substance of the matter being discussed. Is that the norm these days? Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i mean, have you read the responses on long anis? 晚安 (トークページ) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: for my part at least, notwithstanding the undoubtedly excessive levity (though hopefully not too tone deaf), I hope you know that I always give serious comments, from you or anyone, serious consideration. El_C 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, this case is really testing the breaking point of WP:CANVASS. See my list of evidence: Post at reddit of QRep2020 got partially banned; and r/EnoughMuskSpam where the pinned comment is featuring Criticism of Tesla, Inc. article. All I can say (as an editor mainly edit about SpaceX articles) that both User:Stonkaments and User:QRep2020 has been civil to me, and I think they are either from the most to least likely: simply growing obsessive at the topic, an activist, or a SPI/LTA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your first day at ANI? ;-) Levivich 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is QRep2020 agrees that no more than 50% of their meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc. My concern here is that, so long as the editor stays within the rules, I don't see a clear issue with an editor having only a narrow interest. It's OK to argue that some content is DUE etc so long as an editor is also willing to accept when consensus doesn't go their way.

Springee (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This block is warranted. There's a pretty big difference between "having only a narrow interest" and fixating on adding negative information. The latter falls into WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Honestly I think QRep2020 is nice enough, but the editing behavior is clearly problematic. It has been problematic since COIN, and in fact has only gotten worse. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence there is actually a COI? Can you point to edits you think are over the line? Springee (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([78], [79], [80], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing all of that out. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: Can you explain your last two sentences with a bit more detail? BOOMERANG against who, for what? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions:

1. The COI thread linked above resulted in no consensus and was from over a year ago. Does anyone have any new evidence of COI to present?
2. Being an SPA is not against policy. Adding negative information to articles is also not against policy. Can anybody post three diffs of "bad" edits by QRep2020? Because I'm not seeing the problem here, other than someone editing a lot about a particular topic, which isn't unusual at all.
3. Are we within WP:OUTING policy to link any Wikipedia editors to those Reddit threads about QRep2020? Because if so, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed. And if not, then it should go to arbcom via private evidence rather than be raised here on-wiki at ANI. Levivich 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth: A quick review of that WWW site indicates that people are not attempting to attach an identity or any personal information to the Wikipedia account, and are referring to it by the account name. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment do apply, and the account-holder has said "Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite.", though, so I think that people should be cautious about this. I think that great caution should also be exercised in trying to link the Reddit accounts to Wikipedia accounts, to the extent of not doing it, not least because it appears that the Reddit accounts are just trying to take credit for what someone else did. "We" did this? There's no evidence there of their actually doing anything. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that people have indulged in empty bragging. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Private evidence submitted to Arb. Schierbecker (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Breaking nonsense: James Randal buys Twitter (Shut up me). El_C 00:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. By the way, is Reaper_Eternal's interpretation, the one posted on on my Talk page, of what my violations consisted of accurate? QRep2020 (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why people keep pointing to this diff as a BLP vio when

  1. the line had been in the article for a year (since Special:Diff/1018696069)
  2. it was supported in an RFC (Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 9#RfC about Musk's treatment of employees), and
  3. it was in the version that was promoted to GA (Special:Permalink/1026867820).

  All of these three points have been raised in this ANI thread and also on the talk page at Talk:Elon Musk#"total and complete pathological sociopath". Turns out, consensus changed, and the line was removed, but that was after. No BLP violation that diff. Above I asked for three "bad" diffs, and this ain't one of them. Levivich 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It runs deep... I shouldn't have been involved in this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This, and your edits to Tesla, Inc. come close to WP:GRAVEDANCING - Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. If you want to overturn the consensus, then open a discussion, but the status of QRep2020 is not relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020 isn't even being "blocked" in the usual sense, which further invalidate JShark's argument. I have fear that this ANI thread is becoming (or have been per off-wiki Reddit posts) a place for people hate and love Musk clash together, and I hope some administrator would lose this asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If We're handing out topic blocks I think JShark has also gone out of their way to earn one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support partial block. The last few edits include [81][82][83][84][85][86]. Actually they don't include that, those are literally the last few edits (no cherry picking). A single purpose account whose sole objective is to add negative information to a BLP should not be editing that BLP. Good block. Aircorn (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Alden (talk · contribs)

SaucySoup (talk · contribs)

Both users are changing links on HSA Bank. While this might be some normal vandalism, my concern is that they are changing the link to this site that is very similar to the official login page that can be accessed by going to the official site of the bank. The phony login site is similar to the official login site, I am suspicious that this is a malicious attempt to get the login information of HSA Bank customers.

While this is just standard vandalism, I feel that this could have an impact on the public in general, and request admin action for an immediate block of both users, and if necessary, do a revdel on their edits. SunDawntalk 15:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does look decidedly dodgy. I have blocked, and I think I will revdel those edits as pure disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit beat me to the blocks. I did revdel the websites as likely phishing EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very prompt response Girth Summit and EvergreenFir! SunDawntalk 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Are these compromised accounts? One of them was used to make a couple of childish "I hate studying this at school" edits 2 years ago, and the other account was made 3 years ago but wasn't used. It might also be worth adding the site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's already been added to the global blacklist [87]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked martin to add it as a result of this thread - which brings me to my next task, figuring out a way to prevent this from happening again. It's not the first time I've seen similar edits to banking articles, and I think we've gotta figure out a way to prevent this whether it's by filter or something else. Especially on smaller projects. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to 192.76.8.70 for pointing out the age of those accounts - I confess I didn't look too hard at them when I blocked. Looking at them again, there's not much more I can say - from a CU perspective, they are  Confirmed to one another, but there are no other accounts that look similar operating out of the same range, so I can't connect it to anybody else. Can't say any more than that really. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit There's a whole load more accounts in the recent history of HSA Bank trying to get people to go to the same link via reddit. [88] These also all seem to be compromised, ancient accounts with normal looking edits that have been hijacked for spamming, are these the same person? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also accounts spamming the same stuff into user pages, e.g. User:Buccherese/sandbox 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the steer, 192. I have just blocked a lot of old accounts. This is obviously coordinated, but CU doesn't help - please let me know if you see anything else. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PRAXIDICAE: there are antiphishing sites that offer an api for automated requests. Wikimedia could cache the current list of "OK" sites and query the api for new sites. For example, https://www.ipqualityscore.com/threat-feeds/malicious-url-scanner . You could block attempts to add phishing and perhaps autoblock the user/ip address as well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the Talk Page of the Zamindars of Bihar relating to an unreliable Hindi language source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=1084449503&oldid=1019850101

I also started a discussion on Wikipedia noticeboard for reliable sources with consensus being that it is not a reliable source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1084582085&oldid=1084572904

The user @Heba Aisha: has previously reported me (on frivolous grounds) for being a sockpuppet (which failed spectacularly) and seems to have an issue with every edit I make. After I removed the source, he started calling me a vandal. I feel like admin intervention is needed as this user is repeatedly trying to start a fight even after discussion indicated it was not a reliable source.RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unreliable" and "Hindi language" are totally independent of one other. The language a source is written in reveals noting about its reliability. So some Hindi-language resources are unreliable, just like some English resources are unreliable. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RuudVanClerk, reporting any editor for assuming similar behaviour compared to a blocked editor is not any policy violation. The WP: Sockpuppetry is made for this only. Second, i reverted you on Zamindars of Bihar as you seems to be unaware of WP:RS, Hindi sources are also reliable and can be used. I would like to draw admins attention on some of your edits, which amounts to lack of competence and as according to WP:CIR, you should made yourself aware of basic editing policies

1. When you put the discussion on Reliable source noticeboard, you got [89] this comment from an editor and he also says that he has no reason to believe that that was not a reliable source. You should have waited for more comments, as these discussions could go longer.But without getting proper consensus, you removed it citing wrong consensus in edit summary [90] .
2. I would like to draw admins attention on WP:CIR issue with you. Let me just give an example: in an article related to politics you were putting image of agricultural caste group and despite being told about MOS:LEADIMAGE, you were not getting it [91], the image was finally removed by TrangaBellam [92] and you refrained from reaching that talk page again as you had no conclusive argument. Besides this you were involved in edit wars to restore same image on different articles without understanding properly about WP: MOSIMAGE, here [93] ,[94]
3. Also, i assume that you will bring me here anyhow as [95], here when the Sockpuppetry investigation ended, you were eager in asking the admin about any sanction in order to book me.
4. It seems that many a times you involve in WP:GAMING on talk pages. Like here you reverted and brought the matter to talk page [96], later admin himself jumped into the matter to disagree with the image you tried to use in the article. [97]
5. seems to have an issue with every edit I make, now this statement is totally frivolous as looking at your contribution and mine one can easily see that i have reverted one or two edits of yours and not following every edits of yours on various articles. After ending of Sockpuppet investigation, i reverted the edit on Zamindars of Bihar only and that too because you made mistake there. I didn't touched other pages where you are editing.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. About Sockpuppetry investigation i filed earlier: I don't consider it my fault. Both the users were editing and backing each other in such a manner that it was normal for anyone to think that they are related. Recently, i made this comment [98] on talk page of Zamindars of Bihar and anyone can see that this is a normal comment related to articles of same topic area. But, i was surprised to see the behaviour of both these editors.[99][100].
7. Don't Know why he is so eager. They filed another report here meanwhile we are discussing their conduct here [101]
8. Recently, I came across an article nominated for delition by @RuudVanClerk:, the article is about Churaman Ahir. Here, i came across this comment in the deletion discussion [102], this comment also clarifies that RuudVanClerk is novice with respect to various policies, in particular WP:GNG here. I would like to propose topic ban in the "South Asian social group" category as per WP: Boomerang for RuudVanClerk, untill they learn the basic policies. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Would probably help your case if you knew how to spell “delition”… Do be aware that this is the English-language Wikipedia and general competency in the English language is required. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:GOCE for correction and writing an article is a tough task unlike just reverting. Currently, i am not able to comment properly because of other reasons (i am on cellphone). But, with this comment you are getting involved in Persona attack. Please read WP:NPA. Requesting admins to topic ban RuudVanClerk to give him proper time to learn about Wikipedia and it's policies. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So after a failed attempt to have me banned for sock puppetry accusations, you are now attempting to have me topic banned for a notability template. We are also seeing off-topic comments on a deletion request involving me and threats of “scrutinising” articles I have edited. Looks like WP:Harassment to me. RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't filed this report. Please, be aware that the behaviour of all participants in this discussion can be scrutinized. I can see you disrupting a lot of pages, that's why it is necessary to give you time to edit other topic areas untill you learn basic guidelines.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment, urgent admin attention needed please

I have tried to get admins involved in this dispute with no luck and the situation has now developed further.

The user in question, @Heba Aisha: created a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against myself which failed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta/Archive). Following this they are now attempting to have me topic-banned for merely posting a notability template see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1085301718

They are also posting off-topic comments on a article for deletion discussion that borders on personal attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Churaman_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1085300935

They are also threatening to “scrutinize” articles that I have previously edited as some sort of tit for tat see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1085302717

As this demonstrates, I am being targeted on all angles and the admins seem to be turning a blind eye.RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion already going on above titled "Zamindars of Bihar, unreliable source". I don't see the purpose of putting several notices on my talk page for minor issues and accusing admins too of being biased. I don't know, why you are so eager.You should be aware that discussions need time to reach proper conclusion. For the admins who visit here, i would like to request that they should visit the earlier discussion first, where i have provided evidence misbehaviour and lack of competence on the part of user @RuudVanClerk:. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor occupying the following range: 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a crusade to purge all articles related to Belarus and Russia (mostly, but not exclusively) from of data that has citation needed tag, and has been doing so at an alarming rate for the past two months, with barely any attempt to actually add anything. User has received multiple warnings regarding this, spread across several of his IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc), and even engaged in a somewhat of a discussion (here), but their only response to everything is playing wp:burden card. This makes me wonder if they're actually wp:nothere to improve the wiki. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet WP:BURDEN is a thing and Citation needed tags are a courtesy. What I see are several editors re-adding unsourced content with belief that a cn tag is sufficient to allow unsourced material to remain. Along with editors mis-using templates to warn an editor whose edits are proper. Now, there choice of topic ares may be a concern, but that would be a discretionary sanctions issue. I don't see how it is WP:NOTHERE as editing includes ensuring the encyclopedia is verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please just block immediately, for gaming the policy. They are not helping. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is a valid policy. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" is in no way vague. In this topic area, during this time of war, unverifiable content has a very high risk of being misinformation.

Their edits would be valid in a vacuum. Their edits would be valid in any topic area, from vintage trains to bulgarian atoms. However, they seem especially useful in a topic area where information warfare is being waged using our beloved encyclopedia as a battlefield. The user is not only abiding by policy, but is actively protecting and improving the encyclopedia by removing unreliable and unsourced information. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This conversation continues, with one of these same above editors, but not with Slywriter or ☢️Plutonical☢️ or 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671, or User:Ponyo who is mentioned in a link in the below linked conversation, in the below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_deletion_on_Russian-themed_articles. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6030:709B:3761:F435 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @2603:7000:2143:8500:6030:709B:3761:F435: Would you like to defend yourself in the discussion linked, or do you just want to troll? 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 08:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They have no need to defend themselves against anything. They could quite easily say "Yes, I'm guilty as charged, of upholding WP:V". Just like you could say "Yes, I'm guilty of making a personal attack (calling someone a troll with zero justification), just because I don't like their edits". 86.4.163.59 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please comment on the other (linked) conversation. Commenting here will just make the conversation have to be repeated. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:21D9:DCEA:CAAC:2DF6 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the article Gerald Ward (biker) while correcting cite errors, and just manually reverted it back. The first ref I came across was <ref>Mr. Ward </ref>[118], and the second <ref name=":0">Mr. Ward did not buy any drugs from the Hells Angels.</ref>[119]. I went to user:Grasshopper1970 talk page to leave them a message, but there are three messages already there about the same subject. They don't appear to understand how referencing works, or what Wikipedia is for, and I suspect they have a close link to the subject. I think it would be a good idea to partial block them from the page until they showed some more understanding, or a willingness to respond to messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All their edits appear to be mobile. I'm wondering if this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? (Also, anyone else getting increasingly frustrated with this issue?) Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I personally believe the mobile client should have the ability to edit non-talk pages disabled until the communication issues are addressed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely ridiculous, and noone appears to be listening. Maybe we should block the Devs until they fix it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has been seriously proposed before. As I remember, it gained some support. casualdejekyll 21:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is more astonishing is that the devs who have commented WONTFIX on the Phab tickets don't appear to actually understand why it's an issue. This suggests that the mobile interface may be improved soon, but not the apps. Perhaps simply blocking any edits from IP app editors (which would be trivial via an editfilter) might make someone in the WMF actually take notice, but I doubt it. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block all app users with a notice directing them to the phab ticket, see if they'll fix it when they're getting unending messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my personal peeve. I have been editing on Android smartphones for over ten years, and I use the fully functional "desktop" site, which works perfectly well on almost all contemporary mobile devices. I have written and expanded hundreds of articles including several Good articles, all on my phone. I have long been one of the most active hosts at the Teahouse and also highly active at the Help Desk, all on my phone. I agreed to run for administrator, succeeded per WP:300#Requests for adminship on my phone, and since then, have blocked thousands of spammers, vandals and trolls, all on my phone. My user talk page has an archive with 87 sections, and a large majority of those discussions were on my phone. I have proved that the misnamed "desktop" site, which should be called the general purpose site, works on modern smartphones. For at least ten years, experienced editors have known that editors struggling to use the mobile sites and apps are severely restricted in their ability to collaborate on this highly collaborative project. Not on purpose. The vast majority of them have no way of knowing that there are problems that should be discussed with their fellow editors because there is no effective way for them to communicate behind the scenes. The WMF just automatically directs them to a shitty site instead of a fully functional site available instantly, for free. So, ten years have gone by, the mobile site and app developers are all drawing paychecks, presumably generous ones, and the underlying problem still has not been solved. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then I get condescending feedback like "you must have excellent vision" or "nobody other than you can possibly edit that tiny type", as if people cannot swipe diagonally with two fingers to enlarge type, like they do all over the internet. The fact of the matter is that I have had serious vision problems in one eye since childhood, and increasing vision problems in my other eye. My problems include but are not limited to amblyopia, glaucoma, cataracts and complications of cataract surgery. And here I sit, prolifically producing text on my phone, as literally billions of people do worldwide on countless social media websites. Somehow, my ability to edit Wikpedia's desktop site on a phone at age 70 is seen as something strange, when it should be seen as routine if the WMF was really welcoming of new editors, instead of continuing to employ failed careerists working at lifetime "mobile editing" sinecures. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same all my edits are on mobile, using the desktop site. It works perfectly well on mobile. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Screw the WMF, hold them hostage until mobile app is solved :))) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete agreement: this is an absurd situation, and I really don't want to think that the WMF just doesn't want to put any obstacle in the path of the poor darling smartphone users, but what else is there? This just plain pisses me off. If I just willfully ignored all talk page messages, I would (sooner or later) be blocked until such time as I got off my ass and communicated with other editors. Period.

  IMHO, the path to a solution is this: ANY time a mobile editor gets taken to ANI for failure to communicate, the MOMENT WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU gets cited, automatic indef block. Once enough mobile users stopped editing Wikipedia in consequence, perhaps then the WMA and the devs would be motivated to do their damn jobs. Ravenswing 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to me the far more sensible solution is just to treat them like other editors. If their lack of communication becomes a problem we block them as necessary. This is generally not indefinite unless it's been enough to require that. As someone who has used the mobile web editor a fair amount and prefers it in some situation for editing, (and most situations for reading), IMO for cases like this with accounts people assume too easily it must be the problem. While I'm not saying the current setup is good enough, in reality it's something a lot of people notice. And a lot of people either don't notice or ignore new messages on the desktop site too. We really have no way of knowing why this editor hasn't responded to any messages. (For the mobile web with IPs that's different.) I mentioned email below, IIRC email notification for new talk page messages is on by default. None of this is to say the system shouldn't be improved, simply that "editor hasn't responded - it's the WMF's fault" that we see all the time is a little silly IMO. I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with mentioning theycanthearyou when this issue comes up, many editors still aren't aware of it and it helps editors to understand possible problems. (Ironically I seem to recall before the helpful guide existed I think in 2020 or maybe 2019 one time when there was a fuss over blocking an account which was permanently using the minor flag because maybe they just never saw the messages I pointed out that it was a little weird everyone was so concerned because at the time we seemed to block IPs without considering such things even though for them the situation was far worse. How things have changed since then...) Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative proposal: Disable use of the mobile site and the mobile apps on the English Wikipedia until WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU is fixed. We might be able to implement that for mobile site users ourselves, but the rest we would need to go to WMF and point at a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not that difficult to implement responsive design, even the Monobook skin has that feature. Try it! It works like a damn charm. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why the right noticeboard for BLP problems is the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There's less chance there of getting diverted into a discussion about the Wikimedia Foundation and losing sight of the fact that an editor with an account is challenging biographical errors in a biographical article that claims someone to be a part of various criminal enterprises, and all that any other editor is doing is using vandalism reversion tools. Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually try engaging with users in this situation, and your right that BLP should be the main concern, but how to do that when the user can't see any messages left for them. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The account of concern seems to have e-mail enabled so if someone feels we really need to communicate with them they could try that. But I'd mention that at BLPN we often have people complain about articles. Sometimes they stick around, often they leave a post and never come back or at least not for a long time. Similar to WP:DOLT we should try our best to help them if possible. If they just say there are problems without specifying what they are, there's often not much we can do unless it's obvious but if they give some indication of problems we can look into them. In this case the editor has made a bunch of changes, often with edit summaries explaining their concerns so we do have something to go by. For example, one of the issues which is probably least important but was the first thing the editor tried to do is change the year of birth to 1947. This was reverted for being unsourced which might be fine if the 1948 year was sourced. But it seems to lack any inline cites. (This is one of my pet peeves which happens at BLPN. Someone complains that the date of birth or year of birth or something simple is wrong. Someone else tells them we need sources. But you check the article and find there are no sources for this info.) While IMO it isn't required for BLPs, I had a quick look at several of the online sources we used and none of them seemed to give a year of birth. One [120] did give an age which doesn't seem to rule out 1947 as the year of birth if born after March (I said before in my edit summary, sorry got confused). I also removed the place of birth which also lacks inline cites. (Another thing which comes up a lot at BLPN and something editors need to be careful with since people have a tendency to assume where someone spent their early life was where they were born.) There are other stuff which IMO are probably simple to deal with. E.g. anyone with access to Langton may be able to help with the year of birth dispute and especially whether "Starting in 1965 when he turned 17" which our article says is accurate or the 18 the editor wanted is. If Langton doesn't specify either with a precise date of birth and time of conviction OR an age at first conviction, we should just remove an age at 1965 since the online source just says 1965. Langton would also help deal with this [121]. Someone can confirm it says he didn't know how to ride a motorcycle in 1997. Of course as always, sometimes we just don't need to do anything, e.g. the article seems to make clear he joined so [122] isn't necessary IMO although by the same token also seems harmless, and [123] seems to come from something the editor of concern wrote. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading more carefully, it seems likely saying he agreed to join in 1997 is likely inaccurate since the article suggests his chapter wasn't formally part of the Hells Angels until 2000. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW checking sources I found another issue mentioned by the editor I dealt with (including the sources having died in the ~1 month or so since creation) as outlined on the talk page. Anyway mostly wanted clarify I'm not saying there's anything wrong with telling an editor who wants a "correction" to some allegedly wrong info that they need sources if none were provided, I do it myself. However especially in the case of a BLP and even more when it's someone who says they're the subject or similar, we normally shouldn't stop (or probably start) there. Instead, it makes sense to check that our current info is cited. If it's not then, just remove it & tell the editor that. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree about the absurd situation this creates, an incident on WP:ANI is not the place for this discussion. I'd suggest starting a discussion on meta, although it's already discussed a bit on the aforementioned phab. That ticket is still open by the way. Oz\^InterAct 08:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the matter at hand. I have pblocked the editor from that article for 48 hours to see if that gets their attention and will investigate why they can't edit. Oz\^InterAct 09:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion about the communication issues with mobile editors is currently pinned on WP:VPWMF. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LRP19PT (talk · contribs)

This editor recently came to my attention following this talk page comment for which I issued them a level 2 warning for personal attacks.

They were also challenged on the article talk page, however persisted with making further personal attacks. As such, I issued a level 3 warning.

The user responded to me on their talk page, and continued to make uncivil comments.

I responded with a personalised warning explaining why their behaviour was not appropriate, and the impact it could have on other editors. I considered that this personalised message was in the place of a level 4 warning, and I advised that I would report them if the behaviour continued. They blanked these messages, so I'm aware that the user received them.

Since that time, they've continued with personal attacks and uncivil comments on talk pages, doubling down on their earlier contention that their messages are not inappropriate; see 1, 2, 3, 4. It's for this reason that I'm raising this issue at ANI.

It's also worth mentioning that this user has been indefinitely blocked on fr.wiki and is currently blocked on pt.wiki per Special:CentralAuth/LRP19PT.

I've notified the user of this thread. Thanks for your assistance. — Manticore 11:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with the reported user. How is calling somebody's viewpoint stupid and ignorant a personal attack? Uncivil wording, maybe (or maybe not), but certainly not a personal attack. – ².O.^Boxing 12:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is policy here, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Also, "ignorant" is a quality inherent in a person, not in a "viewpoint". I have blocked for 60 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I feel the goal posts for what is a "personal attack" have been moved somewhat last 20 years. Thanks Internet. :> That said, I support Bishes viewpoint. Oz\^InterAct 12:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've also vandalized a talk page when in a disagreement, and deleted an ANEW discussion about them. Edit warring with mild BLPvio in the summaryhere, dummy edit to make more BLPvio statements[124]

Basically, their editing is significantly disruptive, and if you disagree with them, you're met with edit warring and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. They still weren't personal attacks though. – ².O.^Boxing 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy the difference between "uncivil wording" and "personal attack", but the example below crosses the imaginary semantic bar. There's plenty more disruptive editing as well.

Calling other users "ignorants" while edit warring, specifically targeting contributor not content [125][126][127]

Admitting to being banned on another wiki for the same behavior [128]

Saying they won't read discussions [129] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I said your viewpoint is stupid, that would be borderline uncivil (depending on how stupid said viewpoint was). If I said that you are stupid, that would be a personal attack. The OPs initial diffs weren't personal attacks (the three you provided above are, but I'd question the user's understanding of the word 'ignorant'). I would say that any opinion to the contrary, IMHO, is silly. But that would apparently be a personal attack, so I'll just face palm and shrug. . – ².O.^Boxing 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on if biting my thumb is the same as biting my thumb at you, sir. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to criticise that analogy in case it's construed as a personal attack. Oh, the times we live in. – ².O.^Boxing 17:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's fine to call the silly thing uncivil rather than a personal attack. I'm far less convinced about the "ignorant" thing. If an editor says someone's viewpoint is racist or homophobic or whatever, from my experience this will often rightful be dealt with under the bounds of NPA rather than civility. Saying it only applies to someone's "viewpoint" doesn't make it less of a personal attack. One complexity is that similar to the way we deal with "vandal" or "vandalism", we will normally consider whether such statements are reasonable. If an editor says something which most editors agree is racist or homophobic and is called out for it, we aren't generally going to block the editor who called them out. OTOH, if an editor says something innocuous like 'I don't think there's strong evidence to support the notion if most ancient Egyptians were alive in the present day, they'd be considered "black"' and someone says it's a racist viewpoint, that's something which we are unlikely to just let pass. Unlike with incompetence which is specific term of art here which has and does cause offence but we're likely to keep, I'm not sure there's any use for calling someone generally "ignorant". If an editor doesn't seem to know something, it may be okay to say they seem ignorant of something specific. It's not quite as bad as low intelligence, still not something we should tolerate IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, when I say something specific I mean if someone outlines something an editor is ignorant of. For example saying someone is ignorant of BLP IMO is probably not the best thing to say, but IMO isn't necessarily a personal attack. Saying someone is ignorant of US politics likewise. Saying a viewpoint is ignorant, that's not specific. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently become involved in discussions about 160 year old photos of members of different castes in India, and I wouldn't have considered it a PA for someone to point out that I was ignorant of the issues surrounding using the photos, because I was (and still am to a fair extent) ignorant to the considerations at play. That said, it's always better to explain a topic to try and educate editors who aren't familiar with a topic or the considerations around it, rather than just call them ignorant. That's neither here nor there for this type of behavior though. That's just a general insult because they aren't getting their way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree. There's a lot of shading to incivility and personal attacks. Also, in my opinion, the ratio of uncivil/PA style responses to not is a large consideration as well. If the only responses to disagreement are calling another editor's ideas stupid, or calling them ignorant, then there's a problem. If in the course of a substantive discussion someone were to say that a particular idea was stupid, or another editor was ignorant of part of the topic under discussion I don't think that would be a problem. YMMV of course, which is why civility issues are so difficult to handle. I don't even report obvious incivility, because generally, I just don't care enough. If someone brings up a disruptive pattern of it, however, it should probably be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this is an issue of WP:NPA, but an issue of WP:CIVIL. I think a very harsh warning or temporary block (week or less) should be given. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user is requesting to "global de-admin" (sorry I really don't know how likely if this could be happened) @Jusjih: which in requestor's claim, has many disruptive and abusive behaviors in several Chinese-language projects and Meta-Wiki, the requestor is also mentioned en.wikipedia here where Jusjih is also an administrator, but didn't say anything else on their en.wikipedia's behaviors. Do any of our adminships that may or may not familiar Jusjih's works know how to resolve it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am primarily familiar with Jusjih through working with them at Wikisource, where we are also admins. They can be a bit of a pill at times, but nothing that I would consider disruptive, abusive or otherwise rising to the level of de-adminship. BD2412 T 06:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for trusting me so much. Yet I found an abusive page as Meta has a request to suspend an abusive administrator pending an orderly discussion.--Jusjih (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like WP:MFD is the place to discuss, if that page is abusive? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tennisedu joined Wikipedia as an IP user in April 2019, and immediately started making edits to the article of tennis player Lew Hoad. He created his account in January 2020. Despite early and repeated warnings about WP:NPOV and WP:V, he has continued to this day to add false information, speculation, and WP:FRINGE interpretations of well-understood facts in order to inflate Hoad's achievements and diminish those of his rivals. A full quarter of his 7300 edits have been to Hoad's article or talk page, with his other edits being primarily to statistics articles featuring Hoad, or to the articles of Hoad's contemporaries, indicating that he is acting as a WP:SPA, with the single purpose being to boost Hoad's standing on Wikipedia. His relentless promotion of this player through any means possible requires perpetual monitoring and correction to stop all articles in this subject-area (pre-Open Era professional tennis) from "going down the drain". An enormous amount of knowledgeable-tennis-editors' time is wasted countering this biased editing that could otherwise be spent substantially improving Wikipedia.

Evidence

Warnings given regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V violations
1) May 2019, 2) Jun 2019, 3) Jul 2019, 4) Jul 2019 (2), 5) Dec 2020, 6) Mar 2021, 7) Jun 2021, 8) Sep 2021, 9) Nov 2021, 10) Feb 2022, 11) Apr 2022

Hoad inflation (key examples)

• Falsely claimed that Hoad, not Rod Laver was first to reach $1 million prize money based on original research. [132] [133] [134] (proof the $1 million is widely accepted: [135] [136][137][138]) (relevant discussion).
• Repeatedly added mid-career prize money tallies after consensus among other editors [139] concluded that these were unnecessary bloat: [140] [141]. Added false information that Hoad made $140,000 in just six months in 1957: [142]. Again he misused one source, in contradiction to all other sources (proof the real figure was $33,600).
• Added the false information that Hoad held the record for most major doubles titles: [143] (proof this is false is in The History of Professional Tennis, Joe McCauley, (2000), pp. 256-257).

Hoad rival diminishment (key examples)

• Removed Rod Laver's landmark achievement of being the first to earn $1 million prize money [144] under the guise of "consistency" (relevant discussion).
• Repeatedly changed name of several editions of the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships to "Cleveland World Pro", thereby attempting to strip them of their major status (Hoad never won that tournament) [145] [146] (proof this is false) (relevant discussions: 1 2).

Other false info (key examples)

• (2022) Repeatedly added the false information that amateur tennis players were actually professional before the Open Era, e.g. added to Ramanathan Krishnan the claim that he was a "registered professional" before 1968 [147] [148]. (proof he wasn't: Krishnan participated in Wimbledon, a Grand Slam, in 1967, but "until 1968 tennis was divided into professional and amateur circuits, meaning those paid to play were barred from competing in the Grand Slam tournaments" [149]) (relevant discussion).
• (2022) Misrepresented a source for Pancho Gonzales' prize money in mid-1965 by adding $8000 to the figure listed under the assumption that it excluded prize money from the Dallas tournament [150] (proof the source lists $18,945 not $26,945). Also added false, unverified speculation that Gonzales was the top earner for the year [151] (proof he wasn't), and used this as justification to remove the true statement that Gonzales wasn't the top pro from 1965-1967 [152] (relevant discussion).

50+ other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Lew Hoad in the past ~12 months

• Not all of these are major, but they collectively show the need for constant monitoring of this user's edits.
  [153][154]*[155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189] [190][191] [192][193][194][195] [196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209]

25+ other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Hoad-related pages in the past ~12 months
World number 1 ranked male tennis players: [210][211][212][213][214][215][216]; Pancho Gonzales: [217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225]; Jack Kramer: [226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236]

Relevant talk pages

• Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 1, Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 2, Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 3, Talk:Pancho Gonzales, Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 6 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 9 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Therefore, as he has demonstrated over a period of years that he cannot edit neutrally within this topic area despite repeated warnings, we request that he be topic-banned from articles related to Lew Hoad, broadly construed.

Signed:

• Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Krosero (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Letcord (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The issues raised above were resolved long ago, and this complaint made above is not about recent editing. Many of my recent edits were related to other tennis articles such as World Number One, Tennis Pro Tours and Tournament Series, Tony Roche, Bob Bedard, Jack Kramer, Luis Ayala, Frank Kovacs, Pancho Segura and many other tennis players. I made some edits recently to the Major Professional Tennis Tournaments article showing a record achievement for Gonzales, a pro-Gonzales discovery. I have received "Thanks" notices from other editors, such as ForzaUV, Wolbo, Tennishistory1877, Fyunck, Rard, and other editors as can be seen on my notices page. The recent edits which I made to the Hoad article have not been challenged by anyone. I would like to know why this issue is being raised now, when recent editing has not been challenged. The attempt above to revive old arguments is irrelevant. The issues surrounding conflicting newspaper reports about earnings were not relevant to the article and nearly all of the financial discussions were removed from the Hoad and other tennis biography articles by consensus, some time ago. Why should someone try to make an issue of this now? The attempt above to renew these old discussions is not relevant to current editing. I notice that someone above claims that we are still debating the status of the U.S. Pro at Cleveland, but then adduces evidence taken from discussions in 2019 and 2020. That is old news, the discussion has moved well beyond that point, with new evidence, as can be seen on the U.S. Pro article tables which we currently have and which are apparently accepted by the editors above. If consensus has been achieved, as on this point, there is nothing to be gained by dredging up old arguments and trying to create an issue.Tennisedu (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent of the major issues listed in the complaint was last week. There have been regular problems with this editor throughout the three year period he has been editing on wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of material I posted with which there is no problem is enormous, and all the issues you have attempted to dredge up from previous years were resolved. That is how responsible editing proceeds. Take a look at the Kramer, Hoad, Tennis Pro Tours, and other articles where I have posted material recently, I do not see any unresolved issues there, despite the large amount of material added. I notice that you referred to the Hoad article where last week you removed the reference to the Sydney Herald, that was not a false edit on my part. You just did not think that it was a good enough reference. That is a matter of personal opinion, but I did not make an issue of it. Why you would try to make a "major" issue of that now is beyond my understanding. You seem to be searching hard for something to complain about. However I notice that you "thanked" me on my notice page, Tennishistory1877? Obviously you must see something of value in my edits. Tennisedu (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tennisedu: To make this easier for everyone, have you made POV edits to the articles in concern in this discussion or were every single one of your edits in your view good faith edits with no agenda? I have a feeling (though I can't guarantee it) if you admit that you've done wrong there would probably be leniency for you and you would be given a second chance to be better. I know you like editing in the area. If you are found to be POV pushing, you'll likely be slapped with an indeff topic ban on the articles you've shown much interest in. With that said, if you truly believe you haven't done wrong hold your ground. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was never an intent to promote or POV push, but I did see a lack of content in the Hoad article and found quite a bit of material which I believed should be included. I did notice that many of Hoad's most important achievements were not mentioned in the article, and elsewhere I managed to find sources which described those achievements. That might appear to others to be POV editing, but I think that it was more along the lines of discovering achievements which were not previously noted in the standard tennis histories. Because it was new material, some other editors perceived it to be agenda or POV based. However, I think that those additions have now been sufficiently sourced and citations given to establish their place in the article, plus other articles which deal with tours and rankings. I have taken the same approach with other tennis biography articles, such as Bob Bedard, whose article was extremely short on data before I added some new material, and also with the articles on Frank Kovacs, Jack Kramer, where I added new material which was well sourced. I do not see any current issues with this material, which now appears to well accepted in the Hoad article and the other articles.Tennisedu (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This editor has apparently engaged in some POV pushing in this area. Many of the edits appear to be promotional content, and I understand the reporting users burden of having to monitor this users edits. This could potentially be a case of WP:Civil POV pushing, which generally makes it more tricky to identify, but the reporting users have provided a good array of evidence. With that said, I don't know what remedies should be done because I just don't know how egrigious this users conduct is since I'm not an expert in this area (Tennis related stuff). I would like to some more content-experts voice their opinion here or another relevant forum (see point 2 at WP:Civil POV pushing#Suggested remedies) before any sort of sanctions are imposed. If civil POV pushing is established firmly in this case, I believe a topic ban of tennis related topics broadly construed would be a good call to make; maybe with like 6 month to 1 year expiration date since not all of this editors edits are bad. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The vast majority of my recent edits have been on pages not related to the Hoad page, however the complaints above are focused on that Hoad article. I would suggest that the Hoad page be frozen for a six month period, no further editing done on that article for that period of time. That should resolve the source of these complaints, and focus attention on other tennis articles where the bulk of my attention is currently directed. I do not see complaints related to my edits on the Jack Kramer, Bob Bedard, Tony Roche, Ashley Cooper, Frank Kovacs, or other tennis articles such as the Tennis Pro Tours article, where I have made many recent contributions.Tennisedu (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is good to hear you admit that there have been issues with your editing, because there is a very long list of your problematic edits that Letcord has listed in this complaint (and that is not anywhere near a complete list by any means). I do not think admins like to lock individual wikipedia pages for long, so I do not think that is a viable option. When I asked for and was granted a page lock on Hoad last year, the page lock only lasted a few days. There are two main issues with your editing. Firstly there are your unintentional errors, which effect most of the pages you edit (including pages such as Bob Bedard) and require correction by other editors (often me). Secondly there is the biased editing which effects pages for Lew Hoad and his rivals (this also extends to other major pros in the pre-open era, ie Jack Kramer, who were successful at winning the annual world pro tours which Hoad never won and you seek to belittle these tours at every possible opportunity). I am tired of your biased narrative on Lew Hoad and associated pages, from major factual errors right down to the slight alteration of a sentence so that it favours Hoad and if I could be sure that you were no longer editing these pages this would be a very big step forward. I have noticed on the pages that are not connected to Lew Hoad's pro career (ie Bedard) when I have made corrections to your errors, you have accepted these and you have not restored your edits and you have not argued. This is in stark contrast to Hoad and associated pages, where you have restored your edits and argued cases on talk threads with myself and other editors without any evidence to back up your cases many times. This has wasted a lot of my time and caused me a lot of stress, as I detest daily rows of this kind. I do not trust you to voluntarily stop editing on Hoad and his rivals, so I propose the following: that you are banned from editing the Lew Hoad page and also the pages of Pancho Gonzales, Jack Kramer, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Frank Sedgman, Bobby Riggs, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Manuel Santana, Neale Fraser, Ramanathan Krishnan, Ellsworth Vines, Hans Nüsslein, Bill Tilden, Frank Kovacs, Pancho Segura, Tony Trabert, Ashley Cooper (tennis), Mal Anderson, Alex Olmedo, Andrés Gimeno, Butch Buchholz, World number 1 ranked male tennis players, Top ten ranked male tennis players (1912–1972), Top ten ranked male tennis players, Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era, Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series, Tournament of Champions (tennis), Australian Pro, Wembley Championships, French Pro Championship and U.S. Pro Tennis Championships. You have edited most of these pages already and I can foresee problems with those on my list that you haven't edited if you were to start editing them. This leaves you still able to edit many hundreds of pages for male amateur players, quite a number of pages for minor male pros before the open era and all male players that began their careers in the open era plus all female tennis players. Also, the majority of the pages I have listed for you to be blocked from editing are pages that have been substantially upgraded already and should not require any further substantial edits. In exchange for you being banned from editing those pages, I will voluntarily agree to leave all of these pages alone from now on. I can not say what other editors will do, but most of these pages do not have many substantial edits made to them often. That is my proposal. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a couple of years ago I linked to the Civil POV essay as the best way I could think of to describe the situation on these pages, so I'm pleased you've linked to it yourself. The essay describes good editors dropping away from such an unsustainable situation, e.g., "disillusioned by the never-ending problems," and that's been my main worry about these pages from the beginning. My own activity has dropped off for the better part of the last year, and do not see myself being active again without some sort of solution or step forward. I've watched @Tennishistory1877 growing ever more frustrated with the constant necessary monitoring, and though I think his proposal to drop out altogether is too high a price (he's our best historian, and never posts misinformation), I won't oppose his proposal if others agree that's the way to go.

I feel it's almost needless to say, but freezing any pages means placing restrictions on users whose edits are not a problem, so I couldn't support such a freeze. I agree with the list of pages given above by tennishistory1877, as far as any block that might be decided upon. Our petition above explicitly refers not just to Hoad's page but to pages about Hoad's rivals; our list of reverts come from a wide range of pages; and our list is not intended to be thought of as a full list of all problems.

As for your request concerning tennis content, we are a very small group here, posting on a subject that is not widely studied, and I'm not sure how many others will be willing to drop into a proceeding of this kind which can be intimidating, but I'll try to find others who can speak to the tennis content issues.

The more specific you can be with what you want to know or would like to see in terms of the tennis content, the better I may be able to provide it. Krosero (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement that the pages that Tennishistory1877 refers to are essentially complete and probably do not require any further editing. It is difficult to see where any further edits are required on those pages, so I am agreeable to staying away from those pages. I still see some possible further need for editing of a few players, such as Tony Roche, Bob Bedard (I am still looking for some further information) whose articles were extremely short and needed more material before I added substantial material. I have already added much to the other articles mentioned in Tennishistory1877's list, so I think that we have enough there. That sounds like a good list to me of articles to stay away from, so I am agreeable to that list. I hope that no one takes it upon themselves to obliterate the valuable information which has been assembled there at present. There has been some removals in the past which required extensive discussion to arrive at a conclusion, which conclusions are now present in those articles and seem to be acceptable to everyone at this time.Tennisedu (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So here's the thing. If this is still up this weekend, I may sit down for a couple hours and review all the evidence to see if I believe civil POV pushing is present. I'm being cautious because I don't want say a user is POV pushing when they actually have good faith content ideas that are just not always accepted by the community, and this user has not strictly made bad contributions. Even then, I'm not an admin, so I can't really doing anything about this, but I can make a recommendation. If a solution can't be resolved here an appeal to the arbitration committee may be the next best option. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we may have reached a resolution above. I do not see a need for further editing of the articles mentioned by Tennishistory1877. I am willing to not edit these articles further. I hope that other editors do not take it upon themselves to obliterate the material which is currently there, and which entailed much hard work by myself and Tennishistory1877, that would create an issue. I suggest that this represents a suitable agreement to end whatever problems still exist with this material.Tennisedu (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goweser has, as their only three contributions to Wikipedia, been revert-warring to restore a blatant WP:NOTFORUM post by an IP (1, 2, 3). The user has made no other contribution, is not signing the IPs comments as their own, and has made no justification for why such NOTFORUM violations should be retained. I am hoping to avoid Talk:Israel becoming a forum to discuss one's personal views of a "no you started it" level, and I cant imagine an editor revert-warring to include such comments without making any other contribution to this place shouldnt be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. nableezy - 14:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer more data points for a NOTHERE block. I'm going to block the account temporarily for disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharontse121 (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE, their talk page is a compendium of serious warnings stretching back to basically their first edits which pile up unaddressed until blanked. They repeatedly push hardcore PRC doctrine such as here earlier this month where they changed the lead of Taipei to "Taipei officially Taipei City, is a city in eastern China located on the Taiwan island. While internationally recognized as in the People's Republic of China, the city is under the de facto administration of the Republic of China, which claims it as its capital city."[239]. Just today they sneakily (no edit summary) edited out a key aspect of the history of the [[East Asian Youth Games] [[240]] [241], again Taiwan related. Going back to their early edits we find significant disruption to a number of China related pages like 2022 Winter Olympics [242], Uyghurs[243], Kazakhs [244], Xinjiang internment camps [245], List of mosques in China [246], Hotan prefecture [247], Tashi Lhunpo Monastery [248], 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony [249], etc. I really could go on forever, the majority of their edits appear to be disruptive. I propose an indefinite block for Sharontse121 as they are an extreme net negative to the project and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the need for an indefinite block, as Sharontse21 has long been violating WP:NOTCENSORED and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Michelangelo (computer virus) he made the comment that "the Jews run the News. More fear = More Shekels! Wake up sheeple!"^[1], as you can see here. This is a clear violation of WP:NONAZI which says suggesting "That there exists a massive or even global conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of others" counts as Nazism. Please block User:Smathers90 immediately. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked per WP:NONAZI Oz\^InterAct 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Woka Henry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nosakhare Okuons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ikoabasi Umoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These three users are all making very similar edits to health and Nigeria-related pages, adding citations or wiki links. Most of these edits are redundant citations ([250][251]), or overlinking ([252][253]). Woka Henry has already been warned by Escape Orbit, EngineeringEditor and Arjayay for adding citations to dictionary definitions of random words in the article. All the accounts also have similar user pages and edit summaries. I would like to AGF and assume that these accounts are part of some editing contest or event, such as Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria; however, there are no edit summary tags being used this time. I am requesting admin assistance in dealing with this since there is a high volume of edits, and they cover many pages. Yeeno (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a problem covering a number of editors, not just those listed above. They are all editing the same articles, medical and Nigerian, and are dropping references in at random with little thought to their relevance or need. A case of competence rather than anything else, they seem to be confused about what references are supposed to be. But it is covering a fair number of articles over the last month. Because these are inter-spaced with each other, and with other editors, rolling them back is time-consuming. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonnyspeed20
• 81.98.196.96

I suspect that blocked user Jonnyspeed20 (see previous ANI - [254]) is evading their indefinite block by making IP edits.

81.98.196.96 has been making edits indistinguishable to those of Jonnyspeed20 on the same UK town articles, removing information associated with counties, and using the same wording. Also worth noting is the fact the IP has edited R/GA, a page frequently edited by this user. The user has previously resorted to IP edits (see previous ANI), and IP blocks for this user have previously been made. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonably likely to be block evasion based on the behavioral evidence. In the future, sock puppets should be reported to WP:SPI with evidence in the form of diffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting block on user User:BradRob16. This user has persistently added unreferenced content to the page The Rising (TV series) and despite having been warned twice and reverted several times, they continue to make repeated identical posts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets their attention. In future, these types of reports can go to WP:AIV Oz\^InterAct 14:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range 49.196.0.0/16 appears to be engaged in a lot of subtle vandalism by changing factual information on pages. This range has partial block from editing Pete Smith (announcer) which I noticed when reverting fact changes on Shane Warne that came from two IPs in the range. Looking at edits coming from that IP range, there seems to be a number of cases of subtle vandalism or uncited changes of information that'd be likely to go unnoticed, such as tweaking the runtimes of films by a few minutes (see Diamond Girl and Another Cinderella Story). Reviewing these is likely to be annoying and I suspect many would go unnoticed by standard recent changes patrolling. It seems likely a single user is making some of these edits but it's unclear if other users might be contained in the CIDR (and of course, a v4 /16 is pretty large). Not sure what the right action is here but thought I'd notify admins. (Also, I'm putting the ANI notice on User talk:49.196.227.4 but have no clue what the right way to notify an IP range is, if there is any) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deluge of small edits from that range but I couldn't see any that are definitely wrong. Something strange is happening at User:Sampyu/sandbox (see its history) but strangeness is normal at Wikipedia. If anyone can see a bad edit please produce a diff. While I would favor requiring shifting IPs making unexplained changes to communicate, there is not yet an appetite to enforce that given no evidence of bad edits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes do seem to be definitely wrong; changing the death location on Shane Warne disagreed with sources (this is the one that initially caught my attention), and on Jacob Muir they changed the birthdate on from "2002" to "2010" in the infobox only (existing sources disagree, but also, it's unlikely a professional footballer is 11). The adding of leading zeros on single digit months and days in birth/death date templates is weird—it has no visible effect on the page, and may be masking subtle vandalism by burying it alongside "good" edits, though who can say for sure. That said, I agree it looks more strange than malicious, and the range definitely has also made good edits (like this birth date change on Mitchell Ryan, which is corroborated by the NYT obituary). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Over at Brad Wira, they changed his position to peanut, that's vandalism. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got an interesting situation here. A few days ago, Draft:Pepul (social network) was created by Muthukumarsivan (talk · contribs), and on the 30th was moved out of draftspace and into articlespace by one Athiselva (talk · contribs). Ordinarily I wouldn't second-guess a reviewer, but looking into it gives me the impression that (1) Athiselva shouldn't be reviewing any drafts and especially not this particular one, and (2) Muthu is a sockpuppet of Athiselva.

Two previous drafts existed on or around the 23rd, both made by Athiselva, but were both deleted as G11 and a WP:UPE warning given. Cue Muthu popping up on the 26th to re-create the draft, and Athiselva "reviewing" it with their autoconfirmed account on the 30th. Both users are only interested in this article. I'm currently assessing its sources right now, but given the apparent deception here I'm asking for blocks (ideally pblocks) of both Athiselva and Muthukumarsivan from the draft and mainspace titles to prevent any further moves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 11:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have pblocked both users from both the draft and the live article pending investigation into sockpuppetry and SPA. Oz\^InterAct 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. SPI filed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems to have come back as I figured, plus two less-used accounts as well (Ramae013 (talk · contribs), Selva2pepul (talk · contribs)). I'm now asking for outright indef blocks of the lot of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Star Mississippi 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M E 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently edits without edit summaries, has never edited a talk page and has repeatedly added unsourced (or poorly sourced) content to articles. Despite numerous warnings on their talk page, they continue this behaviour. To be clear, I think *most* of their contributions are perfectly valid, but I want some acknowledgement from them about whether they know some of these edits are problematic and if they're working on improving, so I'm hoping this discussion will prompt them to do that.

Some diffs on their recent problematic edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. FozzieHey (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I already gave him a final warning. What's so wrong with those edits, though? Obviously, I was upset over something, probably unsourced birth dates or real names in a BLP. That's what most of my BLP warnings are for. One of the edits looks like it's replacing a citation to the IMDb. The IMDb is listed in WP:USERG as the canonical example of an unreliable source. The website cited says "Adriana Sivieri, attrice (100 anni)", which is "Adriana Sivieri, actress (100 years old)" according to Google Translate. What's the problem? Is it that the website is unreliable? What's the point in reverting back to the IMDb, then? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IMDb is an unreliable source. I probably should've spent more time looking at what sources were being replaced for that particular edit (the Roma Daily News one looks fairly reliable (more so than IMDb anyway, I think the argument here is whether the article says that they were alive then, or whether they've simply just got a list of birthdates and published it based on those), so I've now restored that, the other one in the edit seems more like a personal website) but the purpose of posting those revisions was simply to highlight that the editor continues to add either unreliable sources or no sources at all despite them being warned about it repeatedly for many months. As I said, the majority of edits are completely fine (hence I raised this here, and not at AIV) but for the few that aren't, they should be relatively easy to solve with a simple discussion. Obviously this is the whole point of talk pages, which I'm hoping we can get them to participate in with this discussion. FozzieHey (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack M E 01: Given that you've continued to edit mainspace since this discussion has started, it would be good to get some kind of acknowledgement here. You should see a reply button next to this comment which makes it easy to reply. Otherwise, if you're not sure how to edit talk pages then make sure to read Help:Talk pages, basically you can just add your response directly below this comment, make sure to sign and date your comment using four tildes (~~~~) FozzieHey (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been told by multiple editors that the addition of Ontario (and to a smaller extent, Quebec) cases, recoveries, and deaths to an international COVID-19 timeline page (e.g., Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020) does not have due weight, and had been given the suggestion to improve COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario and COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec instead. To the best of my knowledge, Andykatib had been working with them to improve those articles, and I thought that was that. Their grasp of the English language is tenuous at best, and I am not sure they fully understand what other users are telling them (the introduction and readdition of grammatical errors, and not understanding how to sign or use talk pages correctly). It's only today that they learned how to use the reply button.

Yesterday I was pinged by 220 of Borg at User talk:S201050066 about the user's persistent additions to the timeline pages, and I went through those pages to remove those lines and make other small changes. S201050066 then reverts my changes without an edit summary several times while I discussed this on their talk page. For example, on Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020:

• First reversion
• Second reversion
• Third reversion

Though none have gotten close to breaching 3RR like the aforementioned page, reversions have also occurred so far on:

for which one can find the reversions on the history pages.

If the issue was only edit warring, I would've gone to the edit warring noticeboard (warning given here), but their conduct extends beyond that. After that, S201050066 gave me a templated warning for making personal attacks, though nowhere have I done that. After giving them a firm warning, they removed it and my reply, claiming that they would do better with [their] behavior for [sic] now on. After admonishing them one more time for their conduct, S201050066 said I was free to re-revert their reversions and that they were leaving Wikipedia, and after I did so, they changed their mind and started reverting my reimplemented changes with a fuck you; I gave them a warning for that. They finished with a "leaving Wikipedia for good" comment.

Addendum: S201050066 left a veiled threat. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with you guys if you had let me continue putting the Ontario and Quebec covid references on the timeline pages we would have not had been in this mess I think you guys had owned me an apology it should've never came down to this S201050066 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted another month of the covid 19 timeline page S201050066 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who said they were leaving Wikipedia forever, you seem to be hanging around. You do not get an apology, as multiple editors have said that Ontario is too insignificant to be on the international pages. Canada as an entire country is fine; Ontario as a province is not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False user warnings, edit warring, and editing against consensus are all disruptive to the project. S201050066, why should you be permitted to continue to contribute to Wikipedia? Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you guys don' want me on Wikipedia anymore just block my account forever and that is it S201050066 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be taken as an admission that you have no intention of changing your behaviour? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schazjmd so what happened was that I was putting the CP24 references into monthly timeline pages and then I went to bed I woke up in the morning and I saw the edits so I undid them and they kept doing it and then I decided to resign I did not resign from Wikipedia and resigned from the COVID-19 project and then they reverted edits again and they kept doing it and I fired back at them and told them to stop but they didn't listen to me Tenryuu then threated to report me I feel like I am getting harassed on Wikipedia and my right to edit was just getting trampled on and I don't know what to do. S201050066 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last November you acknowledged the problems that other editors had identified with your edits: thank you for letting about the policy I know it was not an easy decision to make but at the end of the day it national cases only I should've listened to you guys back in July when this was brought to my attention.[261] Yet you're continuing to repeat the problematic edits (such as adding Quebec and Ontario to global COVID articles). On your talk page, I see multiple editors have put in a lot of effort to try and help you improve. If you're not willing to listen to them, learn, and improve, you're simply making a lot of work for other editors who have to fix errors that you introduce. Your comments here don't give me any confidence that you're going to make any changes in the way you've been editing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here: no one has a right to edit; it's a privilege that can be rescinded if it's being abused. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

when did you guys change the policy of allowing non country's onto the monthly timeline pages and who told on me about the issue S201050066 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Update: S201050066 has reached the 3RR limit at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2022 (1 2 3), and has received an edit warring warning from Manticore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and they've breached 3RR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that S201050066 is continuing to put Ontario data on the timeline even now, along with some other trivia (e.g., football players getting COVID). I believe an indefinite block is needed until we get a sincere demonstration that the disruptions will not continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The disruption[262][263][264][265] is just too much Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a wimp, I have issued a final warning at User talk:S201050066#Warning. Let me know if further action is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, they just reverted again.[266] (and again[267][268][269]). I'm afraid they don't intend to stop until they're blocked. Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're continuing to edit war. See Special:Diff/1085521191 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've also done something like 5 reverts in the last hour. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, was just about to report here I was immediately reverted without explanation in violation of 3RR after the final warning. Needs an indef block and a cleanup of all these edits. Singularity42 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, they've done it again! I'm not going to try to fix the page yet again, as it'll just be reverted by them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reversion has a misleading edit summary—Undid revision 1085522041 by Rsjaffe (talk) no Ontario references should be on here—where they reintroduced said Ontario references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that was a missing comma? ("No, Ontario references should be on here") Singularity42 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has become kind of sad. I feel sorry for the user, but I don't think the user is rehabilitable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This person definitely seems to need a timeout. Zaathras (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, we may need admin action here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Ontario References on there S201050066 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S201050066: You have been told multiple times that references to Ontario should go in COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, not the timeline pages that cover multiple nations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest in a volley of reversions by S...: Special:Diff/1085535343 "Tenryru started this war and I will fight until the very end" — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I filed this at the edit warring board to make it formal. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring across multiple pages, and declaring that they had no intention to stop. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Live long and prosper. 🖖 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely topic banned S201050066 from COVID topics, broadly construed. Sorry I was away from keyboard since my last post. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the discussion at User_talk:S201050066#Message a little concerning, where @Andykatib:'s well-meaning but misguided notion about getting the topic-ban lifted when it hasn't even been a day since. Doubly-so in that S201050066 does not acknowledge that they did anything wrong, and even requested Andykatib restore the material being edit-warred over! Zaathras (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's approaching WP:PROXYING territory, and the doublespeak from this comment (I will stop with the COVID case reporting from Ontario and Quebec on the monthly timeline pages from this point going forward) and this one ([...] I will put the Ontario COVID Cases back onto the monthly timeline pages at a later date [...]) does not instill me with much confidence that S201050066 understood what has happened, and I will use it as evidence if they try to appeal their topic ban. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think that S201050066 is gradually becoming WP:NOTHERE. After making a comparison between me and Donald Trump for threatening to report and claiming they have free speech here on Wikipedia, they are starting to spout nonsense about being affiliated with a fictional hacker group and allegedly had their account hacked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: S201050066 is now threatening to violate their topic ban (and restore the content that they wereedit warring over) as soon as their block ends tomorrow: [270]. Singularity42 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That entire talk page discussion is a violation of their TBan; I don't think they really understood what a TBan is however, so I've warned them to desist. If they carry on, the next block will be substantially longer. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mm. So, their response to my warning about that was this. Indeffed, with TPA revoked. I think we're done here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry for what has happened. It seems I was deeply mistaken about believing there was still good in S201050066. Their unwillingness to see the error of their ways and personal attacks on other users shows that they are not willing to play by the rules. I am not going to do anything for S201050066 given the amount of disrespect they have shown to other Wikipedians and their disregard for rules and warnings. I think they are slightly unhinged given their statements and threats. Will be careful to avoid violating WP:PROXYING in future interactions with S201050066 and other troublesome users. Andykatib 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was impressed by your patience, Andykatib, I'm just sorry your faith in that editor was misplaced. I'm just glad that Girth Summit put a stop to it all so everyone can get back to more productive stuff. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin @El C: revoked my page move user right after my close of an RM at Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation (link to the RM see also User_talk:Vpab15#Page_move_user_right_revoked). I thought there was a consensus that "Russian" should be removed from the title so I chose one of the many options that corrected that. But even if the close was really bad (which I don't think it was), removing the user right for one mistake seems like a huge overreaction and totally disproportionate. To be clear, the revocation was done without any kind of discussion with me about the close. Honestly, if any mistake when editing will be harshly punished, I don't think I want to bother contributing. To sum up, I'd like to have my user right reinstated and I think admins shouldn't punish other editors for good faith edits without giving them a chance to correct or explain themselves. Vpab15 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a punishment, it was to prevent future disruption (AEL diff). And I'm also not sure it's just one mistake, as they claim, seeing as pretty much the only discussion threads displayed on Vpab15's talk page right now are about contesting their closures. This user did not make a substantive effort to show that they understand the reasons for why it was a bad close and provide assurances against repeating it (here). They don't seem to understand what a WP:SUPERVOTE is, still. Which displays a fundamental misunderstanding on their part, one which I continue to argue needs to be sufficiently addressed if they are to be given back this use right (which used to be part of the admin toolkit, lest we forget). El_C 21:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked WP:ACDS#Awareness. I wasn't aware of the discretionary sanctions. Can I be sanctioned in that case? Vpab15 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this might be confusing, but I didn't invoke WP:ACDS for that sanction, but rather for the protection actions (diff). I just made a note of it in the log because it was an integral part of related events. Basically, this was a WP:CIR revocation. I had no idea whether your editing at WP:ARBEE/WP:APL is problematic (I still don't). Did the fact that it was a contested ARBEE/APL page (and currently at AfD) exacerbate the problem? Sure, but it wasn't about the topic area, specifically. And again, you didn't inquire about any of that till now. El_C 22:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Any misunderstanding is my fault because I didn't inquire. On the other hand you can revoke someone's user right without giving them a proper explanation. Very reasonable. Vpab15 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation was provided: WP:BADNAC WP:SUPERVOTE close/move, the basis of which I still don't know if you understand, even now. El_C 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still don't understand it. Neither WP:BADNAC nor WP:SUPERVOTE mention anything about revoking someone's user rights. WP:SUPERVOTE explicitly says If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. Vpab15 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. El_C 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supervoting seems like it would be covered by Wikipedia:Page mover#Criteria for revocation #1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #1 mentions a pattern of controversial moves. The revocation was done in response to a single move, so I don't think it applies. Vpab15 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves. And you still haven't demonstrated that you understand the problem with the move/close I overturned. You've basically just been arguing procedure about the revocation, but you've said nothing about why it was problematic, what you'd do differently next time. It's a wrongheaded approach which, I'm sorry to say, does not inspire confidence. El_C 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am arguing that the procedure to revoke the user right hasn't been followed. If so, I don't understand why it is not restored. Aren't we supposed to follow the procedures that are in place? Regarding the other contested closes in my talk page, I am happy to provide more info if needed. One of them was taken to a move review that was endorsed, so hardy a smoking gun. In any case, if there is a pattern of bad closes (which I strongly reject), the investigation into them should have been done before the revocation, not after. Vpab15 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves on the other hand, only one of those (George I) was actually taken to MRV, and in that case Vpab's closure was endorsed by the community. Colin M (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vpab15 The criteria for revoking page mover rights are laid out in the appropriate section of WP:Page mover, WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation. This right generally does not require any process or notice prior to revocation. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This won't be a popular thing to say, but El C's made more than one mistake and no one removed any of his perms. Removing page mover over one bad close (or even three bad closes) seems overly harsh, and punitive, since removing page mover won't prevent future bad closes (you don't need the perm to close an RM). If there were to be a sanction, a TBAN from closing RMs would make more sense, and there are useful things one can do with page mover other than closing RMs. But I think we should respond to bad closes with education/advice rather than removing perms or other sanctions, at least as a first step. Levivich 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (Not unpopular --> (in response to Levivich’s comment). I believe regular editors are cautious and detour criticizing an editor with more powers over them. Anyway, here is my humble opinion. So prompt removal of rights was a very bad administrative decision even if the action of the closer was a mistake (was it?) (sorry El C, people make errors in their judgements, yes, you too.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• El C, I'm not sure this was the best way to handle this. If you think the close was bad, I think it would have been better to go through the established WP:MRV process. If you think there's a systematic problem of Vpab not having the competence to close RM discussions, maybe you could open a discussion to see if there would be community consensus for a topic-ban against them performing RM closures? Removing their page mover right doesn't actually prevent them from continuing to do RM non-admin closes - they can always close a discussion and then list the move at WP:RMT. If this were a truly clueless editor jumping in to RM closure and making an obvious mess of it, then unilaterally overturning their close would be reasonable, but this was a good faith closure by an editor who has been closing RMs for a couple years. (And I say this as an editor who has challenged Vpab's closures in the past, even taking one to MRV.) Colin M (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm dealing with a medical emergency, so for expediency, I'll just quote myself: Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. Thanks. El_C 20:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to hear that, take care - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]