CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I no longer feel so alone and inadequate. I have never been able to make use of the phone for editing or even viewing current content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to view my Talk page using my phone and the Wikipedia app, IIRC, and I could see section headers but no text. I have some tricky coding on my page, but still... DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, after all this discussion, the only viable option is to block. People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like anyone tried posting to his account on Meta so I did. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1001st attempt at throwing spaghetti at the wall, Do we have any ability to log an editor out? If so, do we have any ability to alter the "Main Page" they see or any messaging they would get upon logging in? I'm guessing not, but spaghetti meet wall Slywriter (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit mind-blowing to me that he'd be a senior database administrator for WMF but never check his WP-EN Talk page... DonIago (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Ironie: What makes you think this case (CejeroC) is connected with JCrespo_(WMF)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. At some point I got into the next section here, confused the names. Because there, editors were having difficulty reaching JCrespo_(WMF). I'm really off my game tonight. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I replaced User talk:CejeroC with a simple warning. Their lengthy talk page looked like something that I would ignore if I were a new user so it seemed best to make it clear. I would prefer some uninvolved opinions on whether a block would be appropriate if this continues but I'm prepared to implement a block if needed as the time wasting cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to have worked- they're STILL doing the same thing! Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And AGAIN. That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a series of edits to List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group to update the list of stations owned by Sinclair. As a source I use Sinclair's most recent 10-K filing which lists every station they own or operate. User:Neutralhomer insists without a source that they operate WDSI-TV. While Sinclair did purchase the assets of that station and transfer them to another station that they do own, they did not purchase the station itself and there is no proof that they operated it at anytime. It is is not part of their 10-K filing. NeutralHomer took the extreme step of reverting my entire series of edits and accusing me of vandalism. After I warned him that his bad faith behavior was borderline harassment, he reverted a second time and has now reported me for vandalism and demanding that I be blocked. His behavior is completely out of control and unacceptable. I made a good faith edit and accusing me of vandalism is straight-up WP:HARASSMENT. Aside from the fact that he is wrong about the disputed material, he is trying to weaponize what is a content dispute by calling my edits vandalism. There is no place for this behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can we turn down the over-dramatics? Sinclair has a history of making "shell companies". The above user took this literally and shouldn't have. For a user who edits TV station pages, they should know this. Anyway, when I warned the user, I provided the sources needed, especially for WDSI. Their claim they had no proof, is wrong and a lie. It was provided to them before their created the above ANI post. They reverted, claiming "harrassment" (which is hysterical), and I reported them to AIV. Their revert to the WDSI page hilariously included the edit summary "you failed to provide a source", when I provided it on their talk page within the warning. Something I didn't have to do. I provided the source. They have claimed my report at AIV is "bad faith".

What we have here is a user who is wanting to operate within their own rules. 1) Do whatever they want. 2) If they get called out, complain with wild overly dramatic nonsense. Um...no? This isn't the way this works. We all follow the same set of rules. I didn't have to provide those sources (which took a two second Google search), but I did. That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Over-dramatics????? You're the one who came to my talk page and accused me of vandalism! That's one of the most offensive things you can do here! Not only that, you reverted a whole series of edits not just over the disputed material. I made a good faith edit, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. Your two sources does not say what you think they say Source #1 does not even mention WDSI. If you read beyond the headline on source #2 it says Sinclair purchased the "purchased the programming and assets of WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV." They did not purchase the broadcast license and there's no mention of them operating the station. Why? Because they moved the Fox affiliate to their own station WTVC. It one thing to have a source, but you actually have to read the sources you're providing (and not just the headline). NeutralHomer is operating within his own rules. If he disagrees with someone's edit, he just accuses them of vandalism. No talk page discussion, nothing! More proof of NeutralHomer's ownership is in this other unpleasant interaction I just had with him. Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! Finally, that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing What has I been sanctioned for? The only sanction imposed on me was quickly rescinded by the community, so please don't make even more false allegations (you've made enough already). I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise, but your own block log is already a mile long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This just keeps getting worse, now NeutralHomer edited his post to include more "sources" [5]. Problem is that none of these mention WDSI nor prove his allegation that New Age Media (the owner of WDSI) is just a Sinclair "shell company". Zero proof has been provided that WDSI was ever owned or operated by Sinclair. They purchased the programming assets, moved the Fox affiliation to their own station, that's it. They do not own or operate WDSI, never have.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the most offensive things you can do here. = Over-dramatics. Trust me, after 16 years, that's the least offensive thing you can do here.

Now, what you got sanctioned for, no idea, I just can read your talk page. :) 1, 2, 3, and 4. I never said I was an angel. :) In fact, if asked, I would readily admit that I wasn't an angel. :) You don't get to be here for 16 years without going through a few pairs of horns. But I did something right, cause I'm still here. :)

By the way, we are verging on "content dispute" territory and "admins really aren't gonna care" and "take it to talk" territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone brings me to ANI is not a sanction. And the actual sanction that was rescinded, I have no obligation to explain that to you, so please do not talk of things that you have no knowledge about. What is important here is that you cannot edit my comments as you did here. Please do not do it again. Yes, this would have otherwise been a content dispute, but in content disputes you don't make bad faith accusations of vandalism which is exactly what you did and why this is now at ANI. And yes it is offensive to have someone like yourself come to my talk page and accuse me of vandalism on a series of edits I made in good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that that is called an edit conflict. It happens. Usually the system catches it and throws an actual edit conflict warning up, but in this case, it actually copy/pasted my edit over yours. Calm down, wasn't intentional.

Now, to once again, show you this and this proving that, yes, indeed, Sinclair owned or at least operated WDSI-TV and has since at least 2015. You've known this for at least 2 hours now, though I suspect much longer....but at least two hours. Stop acting like you have no idea about this. You've known for at least 2 hours.

The bad faith is, and continues to be, entirely yours as long as you continue to act like this is totally unknown to you. You still have not addressed any of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: A "sanction" is not someone taking you to ANI. A sanction is someone placing a punishment against you. Especially when ArbCom is involved or a TopicBan. That's not just "[being] taken to ANI", that's a punishment. You did something wrong and you got punished for it. Also in this post, the "sanction placed on you...is now removed". Now, why would someone say you had a sanction placed on you or had one removeded, if you were just "being taken to ANI". That makes no coherent sense.

In this post, an admin, warns you (they say "you should still consider this a warning") that if you continued to "[file] vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban." So, you have a history of receiving sanctions and being warned about coming damned close to getting them. Getting TopicBans and InteractionBans. Not cool, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

First of all, don't call me dude. Second, what the hell that that have to do with anything? I am not going to waste time here explaining previous sanctions that were rescinded (and for good reason). None of this concerns you, all you need to know is I'm not under any sanctions currently. Repeatedly bringing up the topic is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and you should be blocked for it. Here is Neutralhomer's block log and you have what seem to be active sanctions, proving that your record is far worse than mine, so cut the crap.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some Class A hilarity, Rusf10 removed the source with the edit summary removing false information, source provided does not backup claim that Sinclair operates station (or ever did), they simply purchased station's assets and moved them to their own station. No mention of master service agreement either. Just wow! Nowhere in the source does it say that. They just made that up in their heads. Without showing any evidence to back it up...except one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat since Sinclair has a history of shell companies.

Sorry, dude (it's a non-gender conforming "beach" term to mean any human who's gender is unknown...otherwise I would use "Sir" or "Ma'am"), but you have taken out a reliable source (I can add another) because it doesn't confirm to your world view. Just cause you don't like it isn't a personal attack. Oh, and since you bring up my block log (nope, not under any active sanctions) and make accusations about me (yeah, you just did), I can do the same. That's not a personal attack, I have receipts, as the kids like to say.

Let's talk about my block log. The one in July 2018, I earned that, I was dick. The one later that year, that was an overzealous admin and was quickly overturned, still on my record. The one in 2020, definitely earned that one and I'm proud of it. Yes, that came with a topic ban, but a very "unethical" one in my and many other's opinions. I'll leave it up to you to find those discussions. But I'm proud of the issues we raised in that conversation and hopefully, one day, that topic ban will be lifted. If not, I'm OK with it. We did good work in raising attention to a major phobia and erasure here at Wikipedia.

So, yeah, pre-2012, I wasn't an angel....I readily admit it. Post-2018, I had blocks, but with I earned them in one way or another. Since you won't even discuss yours, consider my bringing them up a "personal attack", that says more about you than me. Says you'd rather distract from the real discussion, your actions, and spin it around on me, then actually deal with the problem. I'm not it....it's you. You haven't address multiple issues. Also notice, no admin has posted on this thread.....they don't care. They are letting us deal with this ourselves...or letting us "punch ourselves out". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained the content dispute and why you didn't actually read your source.it doesn't confirm to your world view No, this is a simple matter of fact. Either Sinclair owns and/or operates this station (even through a shell company as you allege) or they don't. one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat Let me try to educate you. The SEC filing is highly reliable since there are legal consequences for putting false or misleading information on such filings. If you actually read it Sinclair not only lists every station it owns or operates (and doesn't own), but discloses its relationships with these other companies you are talking about (and New World, owner of WDSI is not one of them).

It would be a waste of everyone's time to explain my previous sanction which the community rescinded because they found it to be inappropriate. It is also not related to the issue here and your repeated mention of it is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The fact that you're proud of your sanctions shows you've learned nothing and I am not going to waste my time trying to research them because quite frankly I don't care.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to you, the fact it is not mentioned in your precious SEC filing is moot (and at this point not even worth mentioning...repeatedly), as Sinclair has shell companies. Shell companies that they operate as completely seperate entities from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI), making that SEC filing...pointless. They give two shits less about FCC consequences (seeing as they have been fined repeatedly), you think they care about the SEC?! Look at the sources, I provided proof on two of those fines. The fact you'd rather overlook that, speaks more to you than I. Also, the fact that an SEC reference is "highly reliable", but FCC sources aren't highly reliable is just hypocritcal...and funny. :)

As for WP:SANCTIONS and WP:BLOCKs, I think you need to read up on those. You seem to have an issue on tell which is which. Yes, I am proud of that 2020 block and TopicBan. It was "unethical", it was against the rules of Wikipedia, should never have been issued, and I will wear it like a badge of honor until it is removed and the articles that were vandalized by the same users are restored. I have a fairly large and vocal community behind me on this one, so we'll keep at it. :) Oh, and your calling everything a "personal attack" is removing all meaning of what a personal attack is. Calling you out on your hypocracy is not a personal attack, it is what it is, calling you out on publically available information. You do it to me, I'll do it to you. You did, I "returned fire". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I never said the FCC was unreliable, I just said it didn't establish notability. That's two completely different things. I don't know what your personal beef is with Sinclair (I have no feeling on the company one way or the other, I just wanted an accurate list), but making the accusation that they are falsifying an SEC filing is very serious and I suggest you retract it. 10-K filings are not only are signed off on by company executives but are also reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm (In this case Pwc). I have not personally attacked you, but you continue to do it to me. Accusing me of vandalism for a good faith edit and repeatedly bringing up unrelated (and rescinded) past sanctions are personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your words were "They are not even close to be 'highly notable'". I have no "personal beef" and if you wanted an "accurate list" you would use the references given to you instead of using only ONE source. Multiple sources are generally expected under GNG and RS for not only an article, but any sentence. When faced with new sources, you must change the article, not ignore them. Sorry, this is Wikipedia. We include...>EVERYTHING!

As for your harping on "personal attacks" where there aren't any, I'm beginning to feel personally attacked.

As for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sinclair's Treasurer and Vice President Justin L. Bray, he used to work for them and in fact, still holds a senior management position with PwC. PwC isn't the most ethical company on the planet either (just this side of Deutsche Bank). So, they would definitely overlook Sinclair's shell companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, please strike this comment. As far as I can see, having looked at this, the SEC 10-K filed by Sinclair *does* capture stations where Sinclair operates (via an LMA) a station that is owned by a shell corporation (or a legitimate third party); those are the ones marked with "(d)" in the filing. I don't have a very high opinion of the truthfulness of executives, myself, but you've just alleged that a named, living person has engaged in a *particular* criminal action without adequate sourcing. This is a clear WP:BLP violation. There's now plenty of discussion on the article talk page that helps reconcile the apparent discrepancies in different sources about WDSI without invoking this sort of conspiracy theory. Please back it up before bad things happen. Choess (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Choess: Thank you for asking nicely. Honestly, in this mess of a discussion, I appreciate it and it's refreshing. :) I looked back on and yeah, you have a point. Never thought of the BLP aspect, so a definite point can be made there for a BLP violation (even though that person doesn't have an article), I'll admit to that. I'll take the ding for that one. So struck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Would an admin or three mind putting their 2 cents in and bring this to a final conclusion? It would be appreciated. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the wall and I'm running out of sticks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I am not even a particularly knowledgeable or experienced Wikipedian. I do know, however, that you two richly deserve one another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: Dear God no. I'm just trying to beat sense into an already dead horse. I'd personally rather go stand in traffic in the middle of my local interstate, but I have a strong dislike for people who just don't get it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I am terrified to even ask this, but here we go. I understand Rusf10's logic here (not that I necessarily agree), but I am having trouble following your argument. Certainly shell companies exist, but what sources are you relying on with regard to this particular edit? Apologies if I am being dense, but let me know at your convenience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: Why be terrified? These are the examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" including New Age Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? Apart from the personal vitriol between you (which could lead to both of you being topic-banned from the area) I don't see what ANI can do here. For the purpose of resolution, I will comment on the content dispute: while I'm not sure WDSI-TV even has a website, the co-owned WFLI-TV's website http://chattanoogacw.com/ has "© 2021 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: The website would be part of the Master Service Agreement referenced here. As for further content dispute resolution, does the previous source and this one cover the New Age Media sources (like WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV) and these examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" further source the edits removed by Rusf10 on List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, DRN won't take it. Both on the technicality that this thread is open, and because it appears neither of you have commented on any article talk page on this topic. Please post the sea-of-links on a talk page; if you can't prove your point in 2 links it's too complicated for ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力:New Age Media owns both WDSI and WFLI and Sinclair operates WFLI for them, that is not in dispute. Sinclair only purchased certain assets (the Fox affiliation, the studios, etc.) of WDSI, not the station itself. Then they moved the Fox affiliation to WTVC (a station they own). They never operated or owned WDSI. NeutralHomer is now pushing a conspiracy theory where Sinclair is able to falsify their 10-K filings with the SEC by exerting control over PriceWaterhouseCooper for the purpose of hiding their ownership in WDSI.
Understand that I wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI. That's not why this is here. This is here because NeutralHomer asserts that not only am I wrong, but I intentionally vandalized a page. He first asserted this on my talk page and then filed a false report at WP:AIV (links above). We are here because of his unacceptable behavior. I either want an apology from him for accusing me of vandalism or if he refuses, I want a block. The choice is his. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Aha, we do have something suitable for ANI. Content disputes are not vandalism, and Neutralhomer must refrain from claiming that they are in the future. (An apology might be nice, but I wouldn't expect one while you are arguing.) I must continue to insist that the content dispute be discussed on an article talk page, I will not respond to that part of your comment here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: Yeah, not apologizing. I have no problem taking it to talk (expected and predicted above, also called the "content dispute"), we are going to need a mediator as nothing will get done. I make points, he ignores them and jumps up and down about how I've personally attacked him and all about this SEC filing. This precious SEC filing. We can take it to talk, no problem, but an admin mediator is going to need to be required or this will never be resolved. This was not a content dispuite, especially when the two sources were given within the warning I issued. But it devolved into one when Rusf10 brought it to ANI, spun this into something about me, ignored every source I brought up as if the SEC filing was the end all, be all. What it was and what it is were two totally different things. Talk page, fine. But I request a mediator, I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down, I request the effected pages be temporarily locked during the discussion, else we have nothing to discuss. I have been quite polite, Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this. He brought this to ANI, I issued a warning and it was left at that. He chose to continue the behavior when he reverted. Talk page, mediator, fine. He chills out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I've started Talk:List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group#Dispute regarding WDSI. Please take your content discussions there. Admins might be the same people that mediate content disputes, but that's not part of the "admin" job for ANI purposes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力:I understand, but you've seen how this has gone. If you think this has been a devolved nightmare, I'm fairly certain that will be just as worse. :( But, here we go. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Continued false allegations

Neutralhomer continues to make false allegations about me. Let's set the facts straight.

• I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down The first person to request a block was Neutralhomer [6] Requesting block
• Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this The first interaction was [7] where I was accused of vandalism. I think that qualifies as an act of aggression.
• I have been quite polite [8]Do NOT attempt another completely moronic amount of vandalism like this again. Repeat this action and I report your account for vandalism and assure it is blocked. I shouldn't have to find the sources for this FOR you. You should find this YOURSELF. DON'T let it happen again. Again, same post to my talk page , sounds real polite.
  

This is why we are here, not the content dispute.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been a little over a year since you were last blocked for this kind of behavior, @Neutralhomer:. I'd kind of assumed you'd re-learned your lesson and put it all behind you. You are really in the wrong here (behavior-wise, I have no opinion on the content). I'm not sure you understand how close you (NH) are to being blocked here. This is not just a content dispute. I know you don't like me, but I've never given you bad advice. I really advise you to stop with the battleground behavior. Doubling down on it is the wrong move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Actually, what I don't like is admins not responding two the actual issues. "I have no opinion on the content" is what I have gotten from 力 and now you. Now, this is what happened last time and that vandal was allowed to run around roughshot for a couple weeks before he was finally shut down. Unless we are talking about 2020 and I don't think anyone wants to bring up the Asexual Erasure discussion that lit ANI/AN and many other pages aflame, leading to me and several other editors getting blocked and topic banned, while the people doing the erasing got nothing. So, have an opinion, either one of you. Cause not having an opinion isn't helpful. Pouncing on me and yelling the ever convenient "content dispute" isn't helpful. There are plenty of topics here, plenty of content, plenty of points. I urge you to have an opinion on those and not like my opinion on you cloud that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I do have an opinion, AND I WILL EXPRESS IT AT THE TALK PAGE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: Actually, that was a reply to Floquenbeam, not you. Perhaps it would be best served if Floquenbeam, unassociated with the discussion, or someone who isn't so, um, hot tempered (?) takes over the moderating. I believe that would be best, because that, my friend, was unnecessary. <_<? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Power~enwiki is not an admin, nor am I. (Floquenbeam is.) (2) This board is for dealing with behavioral problems. It does not settle content disputes, which must be settled on article talk pages or at WP:Dispute resolution. (3) When an admin tells you that you're close to being blocked for your behavior, it's probably best not to lash out at them. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• An admin will need to respond to the thread at User_talk:Neutralhomer User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Block Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to personally attack me on an article talk page [9] and repeatedly restore the personal attack [10] and [11] after I removed the personal attacks citing WP:TPO. Other users have become involved in the content dispute discussion and it has been productive. Everyone else has been respectful except Neutralhomer. He has attacked my character, misrepresented previous ANI discussions that I have been involved in (saying I was put under sanctions even when it was the other party involved that actually was or the sanction was rescinded), and now called me incompetent. This is unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT. Based on the fact that his last block which was also for harassment occurred only about a year ago and was for 72 hours, I am proposing a one week block--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. This will give myself and other users more than enough time to settle this content dispute peacefully. As I was about to post this proposal Neutralhomer unilaterally tried to close this thread [12]. He is out of control!--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response: User has previously reverted my edits for TPO violations, is engaged in an edit war over mysterious "personal attacks", because I dare mention his supposedly long expired "sanctions" (he did bring up my block log first...fair play). Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment.

Since Rusf10 wishes to bring up that block, but Cullen328 was heavily involved in a [Talk:Pauley_Perrette#Coming_out_on_Twitter massive discussion] regarding Pauley Perrette (actress, formerly on NCIS) and whether she came out as Asexual via her Twitter account. I was blocked by Cullen328 and topic-banned from the Pauley Perrette article. ArbCom, somehow, got involved and in a stunning display of Asexual Erasure and blocking, were allowed to place sanctions and topic bans on anyone who basically argued against what they were doing. I was subject to harrassment, both here and on Twitter, and anon's from the community basically demanded to answer their questions about her sexuality. A disgusting display all around. The entire Asexuality Community came together (which I wasn't apart of, but discussed the innerworkings of Wikipedia to that day and have formed friendships with) and fought against Wikipedia.

So, yes, I was blocked for "harrassment". Who I was "harrassing" remains unclear. I am proud of that block because I was on the right side of that block, I did my part, and we fought for what was right that day. We showed that Wikipedia isn't all Sunshines, Rainbows, Happiness, and Inclusion like they might want people to think. It's a LOT of erasure too. We might have lost that battle, but we fought, and they war against erasure sure as hell ain't over (on any platform) and I'll be there (I don't like bullies).

So, yeah, let's talk about my 2020 block. I'm more than happy to. I'm quite open about it. In fact, I share it with everyone. What I don't do is say it's a "personal attack" and "no one's business" and "they should be blocked" for bringing it up. Bring it up....I clearly don't have anything to hide. Does Rusf10? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Speedy Close and SALT this entire discussion (top to bottom) and BURN IT from space. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I was not involved in that 2020 matter when I blocked you, Neutralhomer, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. I acted strictly as an administrator enforcing BLP policy rather than as an editor advocating for content. You wrote at the time But since you did give me permission and since you have now violated another rule (WP:NOPUNISH, on top of INVOLVED) by continuing this block as it has now gone into the punitive state (I am topic banned from the page and the block is for "battlefield behavior at Talk:Pauley Perrette"), I will be more than happy to add this to the complaint I will file against you when the block concludes (remember, you did give me permission). I note for the record that you never filed a complaint against me as you said you would at the time. If you were to do so, I would defend myself vigorously. Yes, I gave you permission (not that you needed it) to file a complaint against me because I was fully confident that I had acted correctly and that your complaint would fail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the matter in a few words (rare at this noticeboard), your behavior regarding Pauley Perrette was way out of line, and your block and topic ban were entirely appropriate and proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please Cullen, we can debate all day whether or not you were involved or not (you were, you know it, you shouldn't have blocked me, you know that too), but it doesn't matter. You all won. You got to erase everything from all those articles. Ned got to have his fun, everyone else got to have their fun.|

Yeah, I could have filed a complaint against you. Would it have done any good? No. Would it have gone anywhere? No. Would I have gotten immediate flack from a couple 3 dozen admin? Yes! But I had bigger fish to fry...microscopic fish.

Look at the timestamps. One year ago just about. What happened a couple weeks after that? Yeah, the world fell apart. I was getting over Bronchitis (and a wicked case of the Flu...we think) and trying to do my job and keep kids and teachers safe (I'm a custodian for a public school). I didn't have time to play pretend world with you and everyone else. I had a job to do and to do something extremely important. Keep everyone safe. That complaint was the last thing on my mind. At that time, we had rising Flu A and Flu B cases and I was trying to keep that entire school clean. We were doing a good job. You didn't factor in. Wikipedia didn't factor in. Personally, I didn't think about any of this for a couple weeks. My edits basically fell off for a month. What do you think I was doing? So, I didn't really care.

But you were involved and that was a year ago. This all has nothing to do with what is going on right now. Rusf10 is trying to deflect from his current behavior. So, focus on me...fine...or focus on the real issue....him. This time, have an opinion, you didn't before either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR? Malarkey! You were. Rusf10 is deflecting. Let's focus on the actual issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer does not get to continue to lie about me and attack me! He is the worst type of editor, he created this problem by attacking me and now he wants to be the victim. It doesn't work that way! #1 mysterious "personal attacks" no they're not mysterious, its all right here What we have here is a user, who is borderline CIR, and who has, been, repeatedly, sanctioned or topic/interaction banned (though he will call it a "personal attack" for me to even mention it and ask I be blocked, yet again pushing the rules. #2he did bring up my block log first...fair playNot true at all, its right here on this page. I already quoted it once, let's do it again [13] That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. Bringing up years old sanctions that were quickly rescinded to attack my character and try to get his way in a content dispute.#3Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page No, I've been participating there and the others have mostly agreed with me that Sinclair does not own or operate the station with User:Sammi Brie doing an exceptional job with research and I thank her. #4and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment. He closed the thread himself, he can't do that! (see WP:NACINV) Finally if Neutralhomer wants to re-litigate his dispute with user:Cullen328, he can do it elsewhere. Whether that past block was right or wrong, Neutralhomer still deserves a new block based solely on his unacceptable behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You brought the block up. You are re-litigating it by bringing it up. If you didn't want it brought up, you shouldn't have brought it up. Dude, project much?!

Actually, no one has agreed with you and Sammi has agreed with neither of us. We were both wrong. New Age Media owns it (you were right) and Sinclair has some programming on the station and has some operating control (probably master control), I was right. No one was 100% correct. We were both wrong. I willing and perfectly able to admit that I am wrong. Yeah, I was wrong. But so were you.

You took all of this way too far. You had the sources in front of you, you were given them within the warning, you were given them in the ANI thread, and yet you turned this into a 2 day WP:ICANTHEARYOU-athon. Yes, it has become borderline CIR when someone is constantly telling you something over and over and over and over and over again ad naseum and you don't seem to get it in a spectacular display I'm not listening and I'm right, you're wrong!

Now, the two main points (the WDSI-TV article and the List of Sinclair stations) have been taken care of by the amazing Sammi Brie....who I owe a big thanks. I think that should end this entire thing and with that we shouldn't have to EVER speak to each other again. Now, I'm going to go over to this other side of the internet. If you want to continue this, that's up to you.

The ball is officially in your court. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Just an uninvolved observer here to say- this is one of the most ridiculous, and yet entertaining threads I've seen in a day or two. You both look silly. My recomendation- walk away for 24-48 hours, then go to the article talk page and have an actual good faith discussion instead of this childish hissy fit. But what do I know.... Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Yeah this does seem like a case of WP:Harassment. This does not seem like a constructive message Waqob (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: After reading the long thread, Neutralhomer seems to have a point. TBH, there's nothing personal when he warned Rusf10 despite going out of line with his warnings. Rusf10's edits may be in good faith, but he refuses to admit that he's wrong even if Neutralhomer provided the sources are there. Instead, he keeps on throwing hissyfits, making this situation worse. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is misrepresentation of what happened.If my edits were in good faith (as you say), then accusing me of vandalism is completely wrong (in other words, no warning should have been issued at all). He just reverted my edit and immediately accused me of vandalism, no discussion. I already laid out the content dispute above. Further research which was not done by NeutralHomer revealed a technicality where Sinclair provides master control operations, but does not own or program the station. His sources (which were only provided later) did not even show this. So if you're saying I was wrong on a technically, fine, but NeutralHomer was not even aware of that at the time. His argument was the station was being controlled by Sinclair though a shell company, which turned out not to be true.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know other users would appreciate this as well, but there is an extreme backlog at WP:AIV. Currently 30+ deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:16 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

• Great Khaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.153.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new IP used in the meantime
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Last time I made a report I was reprimanded for writing it too long, so I will try to put together report as short as possible. Few days ago I reported IP for extreme language and tone on the article Talk page, which resulted in blocking the IP. However, editor behind the IP immediately returned with the username Great Khaan, and resumed with more of the same - walls of ill-formatted text, full of statements like these, with lots of it in all caps:

First post today:

• What you are doing is pointless and will not pass. This is a Wikipedia editing, not a kindergarten.
• and you continue again. you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)
• The only place on the planet where that term does not exist (more precisely - the term has been ignored) is extreme-right historiography in Croatia.
• And isn't it inappropriate for you to behave like a child whose toy has been taken away?
• You mention the Bosnian Wikipedia non-stop, and when someone else mentions that YOU ARE ACCUSED OF VANDALISM THERE (also you are trying to implement it here, on the same article), then it is inappropriate. AGAIN DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONTRADCTIONS. (Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia)
• Since you started talking about religious affiliation (again without the necessary knowledge) I will list several Orthodox churches and monasteries that Kosače built (Completely misconstrued, off topic, nationalistic)

Second post today:

• I warn you once again - this is not a courtroom. There is no place for lawyer manipulations here.
• (I)n the articles you edited on Wikipedia, you referred to Flavius ​​Biondo (on the article Red Croatia). Despite the fact that he presented the information he copied from Dandolo (and Dandolo copied it from the Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin), you took it as relevant information. However, when the same Flavio Biondo mentions DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE, you ignore it, however, I have never put a comma at that article, nor referred to it in any way - things like these are norm every time editor attributes something to me!
• once again confirms that you do not know what you are talking about.

This is just a fraction from today.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – The following boxed content was deleted in this revision and has been restored per WP:TPO guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Santasa speaks untruths and half-truths. He took a sharp and intolerant attitude towards anyone who did not want to obey his biased editing. He has been accused of VANDALISM on the Bosnian Wikipedia and is now trying to divert attention from it. Since he made a series of claims based on personal views (which can be seen in the TP discussion "The Duchy of St. Sava"), he tried in this way, by manipulation, to achieve some result. Whoever sees this should first look at the talk pages and see what it is about. Now he is trying to make a trial here and divert attention from his activities and biases. I proved on TP Duchy of Saint Sava that he does not know the topic he wants to write about well enough. And he perceives every correction as enmity despite the fact that they are supported by historical sources of the first and second order, as well as scientific papers. He is not interested in the truth AND approaches editing Wikipedia too personally.

As for the article "Red Croatia", the editors who edit the article Duchy of Saint Sava also edit Red Croatia. I saw the same names on both articles. I explained the whole problem around that article on TP Duchy of Saint Sava pointing out the inadmissible practice of DOUBLE STANDARDS. My desire is to improve Wikipedia as much as possible. With double standards, that is very difficult. BTW What I said can be seen in the article"s editing history. Few of them argue from the same positions on the article Duchy of Saint Sava. I can't always know who I'm talking to. It's like talking to the same person.

What I have noticed is that the same editors always appear on problematic articles. in this regard this stand my remarks on DOUBLE STANDARDS. All this needs to be examined.

If necessary, next time I will quote his inappropriate behavior more thoroughly. It will take more time to prepare it all. It would also be good to observe the TP discussion. Santana will not accept the arguments. The discussion always returns to the starting point trying to make it meaningless which can easily be seen from the very course of the TP discussion. No need to retell it here. Whoever is interested can look there. They are not interested in arguments at all. Even the books they refer to "speak" against their claims. Also, Santasa99 resents me when I quote quotes from Google books (although he does the same) and then he is bothered by photos of paper books.

P.S. One example of not telling the truth. Santasa says: "Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia"

I am quoting his accusation addressed to me (which is incorrect as can be verified by comparing IP addresses). Santasa wrote (14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)):

"You are probably AnToni, which, if true, means that you are an admin of one of the WMF's project, namely Wikipedia in Bosnian language. That would put you in a position where you should know better how to keep decorum and personal conduct at tolerable minimum."

"since your first sudden appearance in English lang. wikipedia few days ago (after dispute at Bosnian language wikipedia)" (15:09, 29 March 2021 )

On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to his inappropriate tone and belittling of respected scientists. - Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić - they analyzing old cartography in "THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE UNA REGION FROM THE 17th TO THE 20th CENTURY ACCORDING TO ORIGINAL CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL"

He quotes books (cheripicking) that he has not read and when those books confirm my claims then he gets angry. And then it starts discrediting writers and scientists. When he receives a warning about his contradictory behavior he pretends that nothing happened.

This is only a small part.

Great Khaan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have placed a Discretionary Sanctions Alert for the Balkans and Eastern Europe on the talk page of Great Khan. Santasa99 received one in July 2020. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that someone is going to put an end to this (latest) kind of abuse of Talk page, aspersions and targeted wp:harassment, (U)ntil I started corresponding with you, I had no idea that people with prejudices could degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, so much. I am glad to contribute to solving this problem., commenting on my report with Is that your tactic? Choking discussion with procedural issues, attempting to intimidate by reporting to the administrator?, by a sock 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs)-Great Khaan (talk · contribs), who has not put a one letter or comma into article space except four initial reverts without explanations as IP. After article got protected on my request same IP continued on TP, but as soon as IP range got blocked on my request (ANI linked above), they appeared as Great Khaan. No editor shouldn’t be put through the ordeal, and I haven't even respond let alone provoked them in any way - I asked once for more consideration with enormous ill-formatted posts, however, of 66 edits on TP as Great Khaan and 19 as IP in last fourteen days almost all came behind my reply-posts to other editors, completely choking my discussions with walls of text containing diatribes that are one step from insults. Actually, some are personal insults (you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santasa99 stifles the debate. He is unable to accept evidence to refute his claims. I am asking for the supervision of that article (more precisely, article and TP discussion) to assess the situation.

He cannot answer me with arguments and tries to make this TP discussion a problematic "case". What he is doing there is an insult to the logic. There is no source, scientific study (not even the ones he quoted and probably didn't even read) that will convince him that he is wrong.

I said in my previous post that he brought out a series of untruths and half-truths. He blames me for no reason for everything (btw he is,also, accused of vandalizing this article in other languages). Administrators must ask themselves why he is behaving this way. This is not about editing Wikipedia. This is obviously not about science, but about personal prejudices that he publishes on Wikipedia. He selectively quotes literature (cherry-picking) and when I prove to him by argument that he is mistaken, he gets angry. I suppose, he expects you to solve a problem he made himself.

He provokes with his ignoring all the facts that speak against his claim. He belittles all dissenters. He is bothered by quoting Google books, he is bothered by photos of ordinary books. This situation must be clarified. I post relevant historical sources and literature. He provoked a slightly sharper discussion by belittling highly esteemed names in the world of science. The reason - their scientific work does not agree with his view of the world.

And now he’s complaining trying to blame me for everything. If you pay attention, he has had conflicts with others before. He presents some conspiracy theories: tells me I'm an editor from another Wikipedia. He mentions various names of these editors, etc. If it’s not an insult and a malicious accusation I don’t know what is?

It is very important to make an assessment of the conversation on the talk page as well as the arguments. In this way (With these complaints to administrators) he is trying to prevent me from giving my contribution because I have started to expose double standards.

He despises all the highly regarded scientists I quote. Only for one reason because they do not support his delusions.This guy talks about things and events that he doesn't know enough about. on the other hand, He is probably trying to play the card - that he is very experienced on Wikipedia and will try to stop me from contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia with procedural issues. Since there are no arguments, he has no choice but to try this. I find it very bad to constantly complain about everything.

I think the misuse of these reports should be prevented.

Great Khaan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear the air, I am not the only editor there who object their persistent abuse of the process and complete disregard for policies. These persistent misconstrue of words or actions is norm in their discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever looks at the debate there will understand what is happening. I'm posting arguments you're insulting scientists. As for the others you mention, the 2-3 editors from the controversial Croatian Wikipedia are participating there. I have pointed out double standards and a selective approach to editing articles. I have posted an abundance of unbiased sources and scientific studies from around the world, I have even quoted the scientific papers you have cited. And after that you started complaint. It is obvious what is happening here. It's your way of trying to censor the truth. I will continue to publish historical sources from all over Europe as well as scientific papers from all over the world.

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/

Great Khaan (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point Great Khaan trying to solicit support for this ANI on the article Talk page [14]--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption on Wikidata by Santasa 99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duchy_of_St_Sava#Disruption_on_Wikidata Great Khaan (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This on my talk page appears to be WP:CANVASSING by Great Khaan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken It's not. Didn't I get a message from you to discuss with you on your page? I don't get it. Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

That was part of the DS Alert. I did not write it, it's part of the text of the alert. And, for that matter, you didn't discuss the alert or what Discretionary Sanctions means for you, you just pointed me to the dispute with Santasa99, which is not relevant to why you received the alert. I gave you the alert simply because you have edited in the DS subject area of the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken It would be good to warn the user Santasa99 not to abuse the possibility of appeal. In case there are no arguments, he complains (as far as I have noticed, this is a common case here). In this way he tries to enforce censorship. Doesn't anyone see that? I did not know that there was a possibility of appeal, nor was I interested in that possibility. It's hilarious. But Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand.

P.S. I deal with facts, not complaints. ::Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, here are some facts:

• (1) Anyone can place a DS Alert on an editor's talk page, not just an admin.
• (2) I am not an admin, never have been, never will be.
• (3) I am not interested in becoming involved in your dispute with Santasa99, so I will not be warning them about anything, even if such a warning was justified, which I'm not sure it is.
• (4) However, that being said, I see no "abuse" of the "possibility of appeal" by Santas99.
• (5) On the other hand, your edits on this page have been very aggressive, which is odd for a brand-new editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
• (6) That leads me to think that it's possible that Santasa99's complaint about you being a previously blocked IP might have validity.
• (7) I see no "censorship"; please read WP:FREESPEECH, which basically says that you have no right of free speech on Wikipedia, which is a private website.
• (8) Your expressed philosophy "Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand" looks to be to be in violation of our WP:Civility policy, and if not, is certainly contradictory to the Wikipedia philosophy.
• (9) I am asking you not to ping me again. I am aware of this discussion and will come to it when I wish to, not at your beck and call.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken As for ping - like I said, I'm new here. I need time to understand all the wiki terminology.

I would like you to read this carefully but not to misunderstand. I don't know if I'm asking a lot? Aggr. are biased claims and accusations (5 and 6 + Canv.). You have an a priori hostile attitude towards me even though I am new here. You need to look at Santana99 aggressiveness on the TP . A whole new level of aggression.

I post the facts and when he saw that he was wrong, he started with "wiki-data disruption" →→(it was not me who noticed it but other editors)and he is trying to divert attention from his illegal activities with unfounded complaints←← (i.e. tries to make a "case" here). I have already proved that he is lying (this is the right word) when he said that he never mentioned the Bosnian Wikipedia (there are quotes above) which he tried to vandalize. And no, no one ever blocked me. I don't know what you're talking about. And as far as I can see, Santana99 blocks opponents when he has no other arguments. He acts from covert extremist positions (this is the right word). And he deals with some conspiracy theories while at the same time accusing others of it. I see that he has already had conflicts with other editors and that he even accused me (at the above-mentioned TP ) of being two or three of those editors. Hilarious. It's all easy to check. Conspiracy theories are always easier than thinking with your own head. And if aggression is →→insisting on scientifically based facts←← - wouldn't it be better for all of us to be more aggressive because those who place various conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and wider false news (like Santana99 and co.) do so very aggressively? We get tired of unimportant things and procedures while the world disappears in a sea of false news and claims. Pseudo-science, charlatans and extremists (left and right) are taking over the world.

→→Important NOTE←←

If I am ag., as you say, because I am →→fighting for scientifically based facts←← and I do not allow myself to be intimidated by any threats then I do not know where this world is going. Are sycophants a desirable type of person? I have never been and never will be like that. I am not able to pretend and act like Santasa99.

The CONCLUSION would be (and you correct me if I'm wrong): is it enough for someone to understand the procedure well (and abuse it) and to be right regardless of the fact that his claims have nothing to do with the truth? Aside from the fact that he is very, very aggressive (Santasa99 and co.).

As for you personally, if it's easier for you to block me by uncritically accepting Santana99 claims - feel free to do so. I will not be at a loss. I will save myself a lot of time that I have dedicated to editing Wikipedia.

→→Important NOTE←←

As for my "way of writing", I speak several languages ​​(and I use few classical ones). English is just one of them. And not the first language. Language determines the way we think and act. In my native language, things are called by their real names. I probably pass (subconsciously) those habits on to the foreign languages ​​I use. Besides, this is not malicious. I think it can be healing for everyone to understand that the world will be a much better place if people stop being hypocrites and sycophants.

If I'm not "suitable" for you (EW), then aggressive manipulators like Santana99 (and his co.) are the right guys for EW. In that case, this is not the place for me. So I have no problem with that. Wikipedia has a problem. Santasa99 has been editing Wikipedia from covert extremist positions for several years (with the support of editors who switched from the very NOTORIOUS Croatian Wikipedia to EW and none of you /administrators/ have noticed.

THEN, HE IS A CHAMPION. He can laugh in our faces. I can only tell him - well done master. Great Khaan (talk) 14:02 01 April 2021 (UTC)

Users latest ping, following my attempt to communicate with other editors (I refused to communicate with them from the beginning) is to inform me that: You will not pass falsification and aggression (practice from the Croatian Wikipedia). Just one look at the →→historical sources and literature that I publish is enough for any impartial observer to see that you are wrong←←. You are acting from an extreme right-wing position., and that they are going to continue "to publish the source" on TP, which is at this point almost unusable, as being completely overwhelmed by long posts with diatribes, such as here on ANI above, and even longer lists of irrelevant links of scraped key-words and key-phrases from the Internet and Google Books, which they believe are exactly what RS are all about.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophant?! A frikin hypocrite and sycophant?!? I just read all the way through, and is there any slur that you somehow accidentally forgot and left-out when referring to me in the last 2+ weeks?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just read through this thread. Didn’t know anything about the users/issues beforehand. Very puzzled by how Great khaan hasn’t been blocked already. I must be missing something. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play victim Santasa 99. For 3 weeks, you have been insulting all the world's scientists and historians who are not to your liking. BTW I will refrain from all comments until the situation around Santasa99 "Wiki distruption" is resolved. Only then can we talk.

P.S. A sycophant is a general description of some people. When I wrote that, I had in mind the general picture. I didn't mention you. If you recognized yourself in those words - it's not my problem but yours. Great Khaan (talk) 22:17 03 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Great Khaan for block evasion and for personal attacks and bludgeoning here and at Talk:Duchy of St Sava. Woodroar (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef per Woodroar. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• NOT Support any block of Great Khaan. It seems that the Santasa99 was the first to start insulting everyone who does not think like him. It seems that the Santasa99 himself started the conflict and "stretches" the debate indefinitely despite the arguments. On this occasion, I have to ask myself why is he doing this? Clementine2015.2015 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have indef'ed Great Khaan, and the user above boldly, as this is rather obvious sockpuppetry going on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good call! Although Clementine2015.2015 posting here 6 minutes after creation wasn’t subtle! DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have  Confirmed Great Khaan (talk · contribs) to Clementine2015.2015 (talk · contribs) and MireyaThePrincess (talk · contribs) per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan. No comment on any IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure which noticeboard to post this as it falls between two stools (Undisclosed paid editing and abusing multiple accounts). If this is the wrong place, then I can only apologise and learn from the mistake. But here goes anyway.

Accounts:

Hooising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SOPHIASONGPANDA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hooising started editing on the 7th Feb 2021. All of their edits fall into one of three types.

1. Changing any reference to the old company name of Agilent technologies to the new company, Keysight technologies.
2. Adding spam links for (what I suspect is) their company, Keysight technologies. Often in the form of an in-line URL within an article but nearly always for a particular product rather than any specific claim.
3. Changing an existing reference to one that points to Keysight's advertising website (often removing any actual support to the claim(s) made).

No edit that does not involve Keysight has been made.

Suspecting paid advocacy and as the editor is relatively new, I added a comprehensive note to Hooising's talk page about undisclosed paid editing with reasonably comprehensive advice on how to comply with the Ts&Cs. That note can read here.

No declaration or response has been made. However, following my post, a new account, SOPHIASONGPANDA was created and has carried on making direct edits on behalf of Keysight technologies that fall into the three types outlined above.

The suspicion is all the more obvious because of the reference to 'sing' and 'song' in the account names.

Both accounts have been notified of this referral (or they will be once this is posted) CliveDunford (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I indef blocked Hooising, they were spamming the Keysight website. User:SOPHIASONGPANDA might be the same user, but I'm not sure. The edits are to change the name from Agilent to Keysight, so this is possibly another person but given a similar task. I've left a notice about paid editing. Fences&Windows 22:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's meat, both UPE (can't disclose on-wiki how I know). They're a big company, so presumably they have a large marketting department. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of it, both accounts have the task of updating external hyperlinks to point to the right portion of the company's WWW site. Hooising lacked competence and mucked things up, some of which I have just cleaned up or reverted. SOPHIASONGPANDA seems to be someone else brought in who actually knows how to edit a wiki, and doesn't, at least after a quick review, seem to be doing more than adjusting external hyperlinks that are already there but wrong, as ironically discussed by another editor entirely at Special:Diff/834103883. Edit summaries like Special:Diff/1015010159 are quite clear, so I don't think that we can complain that the competent editor is not being up-front about what is being done. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to question: Editor creating sock account to avoid Paid editing disclosure

Hello, Team, First of all, thanks for your questions and great suggestions! My name is Sophia SONG. SONG is my family name. I am a newcomer here. I setup my account 7 days ago (March 26,2021). I am not a paid contribution. I am an employee of Keysight Technologies. I try to clean up broken links and redirect links due to website migration starting from March, 2021. Our goal is to improve users' experience on Wikipedia and make sure all links are valid to avoid customer dissatifaction.

Another reason is that Keysight was spun off from Agilent Technologies in 2014. Agilent does not offer or support any test and measurement equipments and softwares anymore, those went with Keysight when the company split. That's why we change Agilent to Keysight to avoid misleading our readers. You can see a sample page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_integrity There are a lot of PDF files here on this page should be updated and a couple of dead links need to be fixed.

Thanks again for your time and help to reveiw my edits. I will try my best to follow all related guidelines. Sophia SONG SOPHIASONGPANDA (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SOPHIASONGPANDA As noted on your user page, if you are making edits related to your employer, you are a paid editor and must disclose it. You don't have to be specifically paid for your edits to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• People will no doubt explain at length that if marketing and dealing with "customers" is your job then you very much are being paid to edit Wikipedia. I think that Fences&Windows has made the right decision with respect to both of these accounts. This account is in your own name, and you must treat it as your own. If you do things like let anyone other than yourself use it, or start doing company things that are more than fixing link-rot, you will get into hot water; and it will be publicly associated with your name for a long time. I hope that editors will help you to make an appropriate disclosure on your user page. Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide some closure: as this is a new editor, I have added a comprehensive note of advice on how to comply with the paid editing requirements on SOPHIASONGPANDA's talk page. CliveDunford (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on since October 2020: they continue to do one of two things: updating footballers' statistics without updating the date, or updating the statistics while the game is going on (violating WP:LIVESCORES). Multiple people have tried telling them to stop, to no avail. Whether they are purposely going against the messages on their talk page, or just choose not to read them, something should be done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is a mobile editor, they may be unaware of the comments. A logged-in mobile web editor is more borderline than either a mobile IP or an app editor, as they have some indication of alerts, but it's quite subtle and talk pages in particular are difficult to find. I can believe someone with a poor grasp on technology would miss them. Vaticidalprophet 23:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: What do you think the best course of action is in this case? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not reading talk page messages is not an excuse for continued disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 13:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) When mobile editors are blocked, do they see block reasons? If they do it might be worth blocking them to let them know to check their talk page with a link to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Increasingly, I suspect "indef every mobile editor on sight until the WMF starts paying attention". Vaticidalprophet 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that the user very likely is unaware of their messages on their talk page (they're probably unaware of even having a talk page; to be honest on my phone I always see a red icon indicating a notification, but ok). However, as GS says, if we just turn a blind eye in the name of assuming good faith, nothing will change, and editors will keep on having to clean up after the (voluntary or not) mess. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, should no action be taken? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agastya11 (talk · contribs) has been here since 24 July 2020 and have over 2,000 edits. During this period, they have been warned dozens of times, made aware of discretionary sanctions in the IPA area, and despite all of this still continue to regularly violate a range of policies and guidelines.

Diffs of issues for which they were warned, in the last month alone.

• Special:Diff/1009450827 – MOS violation, warned in Special:Diff/1009633913.
• Special:Diff/1010744305 – MOS violation on same page, warned in Special:Diff/1011552180.
• Special:Diff/1011486865 – Unsourced addition, warned in Special:Diff/1011493237.
• Special:Diff/1013520352 – First of a series of reverts with no explanation, warned in Special:Diff/1013545969.
• Special:Diff/1014470856 – Removal of material with no edit summary on same page, warned in Special:Diff/1014482521.
• Special:Diff/1014673753 – Removal of material with the edit summary "Not reliable source", there is consensus otherwise, warned in Special:Diff/1014738007.
• Special:Diff/1014779163 – Removal of the same with no edit summary, warned in Special:Diff/1014785389. They repeat this removal in Special:Diff/1015368560 stating in the edit summary that it is an "opinion report", when the cited article is explicitly not one.

One of the most concerning and overlooked aspect of their pattern of editing is however that they don't seem to be understand copyright. From their additions to articles within the last few days that I checked, I could find two major instances of copyright violations on N. V. Ramana and Arvind Sawant respectively. There is likely to be many more copyright issues going by the pattern of their other violations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blocking indefinitely. This has gone on for far too long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you able to file a case request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? I can, if you'd like or are unable to. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for showing me the CCI process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. The Inquisition appreciates your assistance. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBrownIreland (talk · contribs) has moved the page Violent Thing to Worst Song Ever, in what I can only assume is an attempt at humour or poss April Fool's joke. The humourless git that I am, I tried to roll back the move but couldn't, and didn't want to move the article again in case that creates more problems than it solves, not without checking here first at least. Any advice? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved it back without a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shoot, is it April Fools' Day already? Can't we shut down en.wiki for April 1st? This will be my 15th one and it's gotten to be pretty damn boring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even on 1 April vandalism in article namespace is not allowed. I looked at their contributions, and the last several ones are indeed not good, but others seem to be ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • tbh, I don't get why people aren't happy with what we already do, which is more than sufficient. the main page is always a blast. I'd support pending changes protection + no IP editing every April 1, but I think that'd get quite some pushback. especially as a lot of this stuff is from experienced users, sigh. OwO (what's this?) 08:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Experienced editors need to have experiences like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climbing jack. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't we put a banner on the mainpage that says we have closed down WP because April 1? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: that is the most evilly ironic compromise solution I have ever seen Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you are all quick to assume here based on little to no evidence that this is related to April 1st. Vandalism is vandalism... things like this happen on any given day of the year. What makes vandalism occurring on April 1st any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Well one outcome of the vandalism at Special:Diff/1015428810 and elsewhere from this account is that I've discovered that Osaka, Virginia (Special:Diff/1015428685) was indeed a coal mine. One drop in the ocean of mass-created GNIS article problems. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Add copyvio to the problems at Kovic (musician) 97% similarity. When the CSD A7 tag was removed a couple of times by a 1 day old IP I was going to start and AfD for the article and the BEFORE search found copyvios so re-tagged as G12. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tastypotato0932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite a plethora of warnings on their talk page for repeated unsourced edits, Tastypotato0932 completely ignores them and continues unabated as can be seen in their latest range of edits. I've rarely come across a talk page where so many warnings have been issued and though they have had a single 24 hour block, they totally ignore these warnings. As such, I have not bothered to issue one for these latest edits. This editor desperately needs a severe reminder that ignoring warnings, lack of communication and continuing with their highly disruptive edits come with consequences. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thanks. Robvanvee 09:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated warnings, a 24 hour block, and absolutely no effort at communicating with anyone... yeah, that's grounds for an indefinite block. Any unblock would be contingent on showing understanding of how to properly source material, maybe this will finally get the user's attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blade. Robvanvee 14:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Äggpizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user rapidly reverting edits, without explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Bizarre; I didn't see an obvious pattern. They seem to have stopped for the moment, and I followed up your warning with one of my own. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @Mackensen. I assumed that they were following recent changes, and randomly reverting whatever appeared there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BrownHairedGirl, Mackensen, please see this edit. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashleyyoursmile, I would say that's unconstructive, at best. Anyway, they kept reverting so I've indeffed them. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block, @Mackensen. Äggpizza's latest edits ([23], [24], [25], [26]) show them to be clearly WP:NOTHERE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which guideline or policy is relevant here, but is this sort of edit summary by Honey-badger24 (talk · contribs) beyond the pale? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their edit is fine - the previous description of someone on the lam for child pornography as a "wayward Floridian" is itself obnoxious, but I've revdel'd the edit summary and left a note asking them to keep edit summaries to the point. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's the edit summary about which I was concerned, not the changing of my obnoxious contribution. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should not use ridiculously flippant words when describing pedophiles? How did you even think it was a good thing to say???? "Slanderous" LOL. Grow up. Amazing how you care about words used when they refer to yourself, not when it's words you yourself used that were inappropriate. Cope harder. Honey-badger24 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[27] Blocked for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going on holiday right now so don't have time to look into it, but Small country syndrome appears pretty much the same as what was deleted in 2017. Schwede66 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so I deleted it. If anything, it's a slightly inferior copy of the original. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User:FrontRoadGirls posted a prod on Comedian (artwork) with the message "In order to delete it, you need to buy it for $150,000". Obviously spam, I reverted. The editor then came to my talk page and called me a "B*TCH" for reverting their "April Fools joke." This editor is clearly not here for building an encyclopedia or working in conjunction with others. --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I tried to participate in the april fools day thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontRoadGirls (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Day jokes are supposed to be funny. This wasn't. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now a bad faith AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedian (artwork). MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about me editing Comedian, not something i am sincerly sorry for doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontRoadGirls (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked indef, to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's funny. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another reason to ban April Fools' "joke" edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why because 1% don't bother to read the rules? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because there shouldn't be any rules which allow one to f**k around. I'll tell you what, let's make some rules for what vandalism is acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Example - Note the text before the timestamp in their sig. That's the worst of the bunch. Most of them just say "fartcunt." Also, they're signing their talk page posts as "Muffturd." Squeakachu (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The offending User has been blocked indefinitely. Dolphin (t) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana (talk · contribs)

Hi there. The user in question has used uncivil language when talking with others. They have also been accused of personal attacks and I believe they have been rude to others. Here is evidence:

On the user's talk page:

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Techno, gentlecollapse6 in good faith leaves a warning message to which they reply with It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually when referring to gentlecollapse's actions.

• Actual quote - "stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of consulting citations you have been provided with. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually".

• Under User talk:Acousmana#May 2020, they reply with the somewhat rude comment You do know the English speaking world is not just America, right? to the good faith MrX.
• Under User talk:Acousmana#January 2021, they reply with the uncivil comment using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something? to the good faith Walrus Ji.

• Actual quote -"bombarding folk with notices like this rather than using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something?" Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory they reply with the sarcastic and uncivil comment of welcome to the circle jerk: you agree, go you. which I believe refers to the sexual act of circle jerk (reading the article it appears to have metaphorical connotations but I was still unsure as to the exact meaning so I thought best to point this out).
• Under User talk:Acousmana#Personal attacks, they are accused of WP:NPA by Springee ([37])
• Under User talk:Acousmana#March 2021, most recently, they reply to VQuakr with are you aroused now after that display of authority?, which I find to be quite rude.

Elsewhere:

• [38] here, they use the terms plain stupid and Dumb. Uncivil language that doesn't help a discussion.
• At Talk:PragerU, the user was questioned by a number of users for their response to a good faith statement from Hipal. The user said don't be so dramatic, a comment which they later put a line through.

• Misrepresentation, the entire contribution to the discussion was struck to withdraw a content proposal, it was also in response to an accusation that "hand-waving and goal-post-moving going on here to push content" which is clearly not AGF. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Later at this talk page, under Talk:PragerU#Uneccisary Credits, they made the comments laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. and so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes.. While not uncivil or rude towards a particular editor, these comments aren't appropriate for a talk page and don't help the discussion in the slightest. EytanMelech then replies with Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them.

• again, misrepresentation, an editor characterized a WP:RSP source as a "hit-piece," this reply summarizes substantive issues highlighted by source. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More a note to self, but also feel free to discuss (I know the more appropriate place is RFD), the redirects of Post-modern conservatism and Postmodern conservatism seem inappropriate. striked as not place to discuss. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Inappropriate? see The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism, 2020. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is sufficient evidence for you to see a pattern of behaviour. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a warning here: With the caveat that some of the content here is fairly stale, there is a pattern here that needs addressing. Acousmana, at a minimum these recurrent denigrating allusions to your rhetorical opposition feeling aroused need to stop absolutely immediately, as this sort of thing is easily taken to fall under the umbrella of harassment--and just plain weird and uncomfortable, to be frank. There are other additional notes of less than collaborative or respectful tone in the diffs as well. You seem to engage of largely contentious areas here, and if you are going to do so, I think you are going to run into problems if you can't moderate the heat-to-light ratio of some of your input. I wouldn't support a sanction at this juncture, but I think you're likely to end up back here if you can't augment your adoption of the considerations of WP:CIV a bit. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Something should be done. A warning is probably sufficient but I wouldn't object to a tban. That said, I am involved in a number of topics where Acousmana has become active and we typically do not agree on content questions. Willbb234 noted an attack against me at one of those. "the extent of your willingness to delude yourself knows no bounds," Perhaps such a comment was said in frustration but on their talk page they denied it was a personal attack [[39]]. Perhaps Acousmana's view was changed when another editor called it a clear NPA violation. Such incivility makes constructive edits on challenging topics that much more difficult. Springee (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, fair enough, an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. But I find it odd that this editor has clearly gone out of their way to string together out of context material, and actually misquote and misrepresent in the process, this is in itself not AGF. The motivation here is to my mind questionable. But, if the community sees it fit to place a ban, so be it. Acousmana (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never misquoted you. As for misrepresentation, it would be inappropriate to copy and paste a whole comment or discussion onto ANI and the links to the discussions will suffice. This isn't misrepresentation. As for why I reported you here: I don't like seeing editors being uncivil and I will investigate even when it isn't directed at me and so I decided to gather some evidence. I don't see why this should be a problem. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. No, I have a real issue with the language you are using not just a problem with your tone. I also wouldn't like you to "dial it down"; I'd like you to stop altogether with being rude and uncivil. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise if were offended by my language, I can you assure that going forward you, or the community, will not be troubled by this. But, can I ask, and this is a genuine query, do you regularly report editors here for language usage you find disturbing?
• I also have to ask, what is it you find particularly problematic about this re-direct when it is sourced to academic literature? Acousmana (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (non-admin comment) "I apologise if [you] were offended" is the classic non-apology apology. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• not sure how casting aspersions helps any here, AGF. Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll strike my comment regarding the redirect as this isn't the place to discuss this. The reason I had concern was because a search for "postmodern conservatism" shows up nothing about the right-wing or right-wing populism. Also, simply put, conservatism isn't the right-wing. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The community is fortunate enough to have users and administrators who are quick and effective at dealing with language that is disturbing and the policies have little tolerance for this. This means that I don't regularly report users for this behaviour although I do recall having done so in the past. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you willing to accept my assurances on this matter? Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So as one of the very few that patrol the "mw-removed-redirect" tag in Recent changes, I came across some redirect overwrites by IPs on pages created by Oguzkaan76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) within minutes of creation. This pattern is confusing me and makes me curious as to why this user would do this since August 2020. I have sent them messages on their Talk page regarding this, but they've seem to have gone unnoticed. I do not expect any administrative action as this appears to be done in good-faith, but why overwrite your own redirects while logged out and expose your IP address like this? Jalen Folf (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they're using the account to lay the ground for an article using a redirect then otherwise editing as an IP user. It cannot see why anyone would do this, but perhaps they don't like accounts but are forced to use one to avoid going via AfC. WP:LOGGEDOUT and WP:IPSOCK seem to permit this. Fences&Windows 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ibadibam, and any other editors,

Firstly, in regards to discussions where communication is paramount, I believe it is preferable to use verbal and visual communication.^[1] I am available for approximately 4 more hours from posted time. If any editor wishes to set up zoom meeting, please put message on User_talk:Yaakov_Wa. and this meeting will be open to all editors. Up until verbal/visual communication is achieved, I will do my best to understand and respond via non-verbal communication.

Now, in regards to situation:

I will lay out response in three parts. a)will lay out general background of editing Messiah in Judaism, b) then discuss edits over break. c) will discuss rational for keeping proposed structure until discussion at talk page.

a) In regards to general background, started editing feb 19. Was advised to discuss at talk page. I discussed proposal at talk page feb 21^[2][3]. Was given feedback on this proposal^[4][5] as well as support^[6]. and feedback discussed^[7][8][9]. After feedback was inputted and WP:consensus achieved, began overhaul on feb 23. With lots of discussion about content in edit history.

b) Up until the break, the page had the organization[45] along proposed overhaul^[10], with exception of etymology which was discussed^[11]. Ibadibam, and other Editors chose to keep organization mainly along proposed overhaul.

Then, during the announced break, as Ibadibam mentioned above, major changes in organization were done. I found this peculiar because these changes in organization started during week when I announced I would not be editing. There were ample opportunity for editors to request changes in organization before the break.

c) Based on the above, I believe that the article should be temporarily kept according to prior consensus of overhaul (with exception of etymology). I am very open to discussion and feedback. Ibadibam appears competent(I have probably asked at least 10 users to give assistance and feedback to this article). I welcome Ibadibam's future discussions and contributions. I encourage any editors (preferably with hebrew and technical skills) to make proposals and edits to this article. However, as Dennis mentioned, we must go according to WP:BRD, which in this case requires us to temporarily have Messiah in Judaism at prior consensus.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• the response above rather than alleviate concerns only increases them in particular that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The editor is attempting to over-represent a one-sided accounting of the issue according to a particular religious sect. They also claim a consensus for an overhaul when really, one lightly active editor gave a message of support. Maybe this can be solved at the talk page but if nothing else, they should be warned that they are not to revert edits because they need time to personally review the edits before restoring the ones they find acceptable. This isn't a pending changes queue and they are not the sole arbitrator of what readers can see. Even now, they are expressing opinions on which editors are competent (and what skills sets are preferred to edit the article) and I am concerned that point c is a belief that WP:BRD gets their version restored and other editors will have to negotiate consensus around their preferences. Slywriter (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• BRD isn’t about giving an editor time to review edits before the public is *allowed* to see them. Reverts should be only for when an editor has a reason to disagree with an edit. (Never thought I would have to write that.) That and their tone in the above post seems to suggest they think they are the editor-in-chief for this article. But, given their newness, I suspect it’s more WP:NOCLUE than WP:OWN. Probably of greater concern is what appears to be their POV editing that’s already been referred to. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely agree with Slywriter and DeCausa's comments above, and I would like to fill in some other details, if I can. Ibadibam, Editor2020 and myself have been so far the only regular, veteran editors who have edited the page since this completely biased, one-sided religious POV so-called "overhaul" was one-sidedly 'declared,' pretty much out-of-the-blue. I want to be on the record again here, as I have been consistently on the article's talk-page discussions, that the new one-sided declaration above, that a supposed "consensus" for this so-called "overhaul" was ever achieved with me is completely false and misleading. I continued to consistently oppose the "overhaul" up to the user's one-sidedly declared "break," and I am still opposed to it at this moment. I posted several more in-depth arguments against the basic motivation and the completely biased religious POV that this new user brings to the task, based on all the primary sources he is singularly using for the proposed task, and I also declared there that I was still considering going back to the article's last stable version, before this so-called one-sided "overhaul" started. I still have this version specified in the article's talk-page. My suggestion at this point would be to go back to that stable version, and allow the new editor to re-start his attempts at changing certain paragraphs or sections by proposing localized, limited changes on the talk-page first, and have this proposed localized, limited changes discussed and approved. Once every new localized, limited change is proposed, discussed, and approved by all involved editors, then it can be implemented. That is how I had originally suggested the new user goes about his intended task. He gave me a short reply at that point, which I did not bother to reply to, and he took it then one-sidedly to mean I was withdrawing my explicitly stated reservations about the entire "task." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Warshy: Starting over seems like a good idea. I suggest you propose a revert to the stable version on the talk page and see what the other involved editors think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it will be preferable for anyone with questions to join zoom meeting on my talk page. Non-verbal communication is not-very-effective communication.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how we handle things on Wikipedia. We discuss articles on their talk page, not through a Zoom meeting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember already explaining to Yaakov Wa that relevant talk pages should be used, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be assessed, not only by the article's history, but also by the talk archives. That is also where RFCs take place, etc. Wikipedia editors are free to refuse invitations to off-WP venues and the state of the article should not depend on their presence (or absence) there. Some editors may even consider such invitations suspicious. —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that Yaakov Wa has a habit of posting invites to multiple editors’ talk pages asking them to edit Messiah in Judaism. It’s been claimed on the article talk page that Yaakov Wa is editing to push a Chabad POV, and a cursory look at their edits seems to justify that claim. It’s not clear to me how he’s selecting these editors he contacts (he usually refers to seeing relevant ‘skills’ in their edits elsewhere) but what he said here, and this post to an editor with a Chabad user box, raises a question of an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned here by behavior I've seen from this user concerning edits to the page Northwest Post-Grunge. The article was deleted via afd and then recreated at very nearly the same level less than four days later with no attempt to address any of the raised issues in any meaningful capacity, which has forced the community into a fifth deletion discussion for the article but the editor appears to insinuate in posts on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_21 that they will recreate the article again and again until the community gives up and lets it stay. Moreover, the editor appears to be engaging in a campaign of personal attacks against anyone who appears to threaten the article's existence. As the article has been relisted for the 5th time at afd, I'm posting this here to see if the community feels the editor's failure to abide by CONSENSUS and the personal attacks justify an admin intervention at the user level. Notifying editors who have participated in the AFD and DRV leading up to this post: @Doomsdayer520, TimothyBlue, Lennart97, S Marshall, Jclemens, Robert McClenon, Lard Almighty, Hobit, and SportingFlyer: If you have something to add, now is the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory notification delivered. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tempest in a teapot. First, Northwest Post Grunge (NWP) was deleted. But your argument is unsupported by the consensus at the deletion discussion page. When you mention it was "recreated at very nearly the same level" and that I "didn't address" the concerns. To reiterate the deletion discussion page which you summarily ignore: I recreated the article with 400% more content than it originally had from scratch. The original AfD concern is that it didn't have a non-trivial source, but it does now. Since that time I've added 2 more sources, one of them also non-trivial. It's pure hyperbole on your part to argue I haven't made a genuine attempt to address the concerns at those discussions. Secondly, the nominator admitted they never compared the current article to the original that got deleted, and you're misrepresenting the argument to make you look better. In essence, it was a kneejerk deletion without doing their due diligence of review. The nominator complained "how are they supposed to review a deleted article for comparison?" and I rebut "why are you in charge of nominating articles for deletion if you can't confirm?" Personal attacks is overstated in my opinion, I feel like I'm defending from poor wikipedia editing and calling it out - people just can't stand criticism of their poor wiki-editing. Additionally, some editors just plain refused to discuss on the talk page (probably because they couldn't defend their actions with wikipolicy). I didn't disagree with the original AfD, but I did alter the article from the original and addressed the concerns from the AfD, and that means the nomination for deletion was in error and the consensus at the deletion discussion appears to agree with me. If there are any new concerns, a new AfD has to be raised. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Tempest in a teapot. first, Northwest Post Grunge was deleted, but you argument is unsupported by the consensus at the deletion discussion page. To reiterate the deletion discussion page which ‘’you’’ summarily ignored, the article fails the general nobility guideline and makes no credible claim of significance. Adding 400% more material doesn’t do anything for the article, it merely demonstrates how desperate you are to keep this thing here. Additionally, you failed to provide any meaningful reason why an article recreated in blatant violation of community standards for inclusion on the talk page (probably because you couldn’t defend the action with wikipolicy). I didn’t disagree with the case rational, but I did see no effort on your part to adhere to community stands nor any attempt to address the concerns from afd beyond a pathetically misguided attempt at pretending that two paragraphs and a non notable source would somehow else rather spare the article from the axe. That means you deletion review was in error, as the prevailing consensus at the afd’s on either side of this pathetically misguided attempt to keep the article have thus far been powerfully in favor of deletion - and with you or demonstrated failure to abide by our rules concerning deletion and consensus the article will end up locked on re-deletion to prevent further disruption to the project. In hindsight, we should have done that right out of the gate, but lessons learned the hardest are those remembered the longest. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The issue here is mostly WP:CONSENSUS. As seen at the multiple AfDs and contested deletion nominations for Northwest Post-Grunge, and at that article's talk page, User:Leitmotiv appears functionally unable to accept community consensus and probably does not understand how it works. Leitmotiv accuses others of offenses like "red herring" and "inquisition" but clearly does not understand what those terms mean. I have voted in the AfDs and would like to point out the bizarre semi-argument that Leitmotiv started with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge, with Leitmotiv obsessing over one half-sentence of colorful background prose, ignoring the policy discussion in the other 95% of my vote, and concluding that the vote was invalid. I don't consider that a personal attack, but it is definitely a sign of someone unable to debate and lacking knowledge of how Wikipedia works. A personal conflict of interest with that album might be worth investigating too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I address some ofthe misrepresented concerns in my comment above. I didn't ignore the remaining 95% of the AfD discussion. Perhaps I wasn't in disagreement and had nothing to add, much in the same way your initial argument started out not adding much to the conversation? Which you know is my real complaint about your post. I did converse with more than just you, so I feel you're misrepresenting reality... just a smidge. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI user in question is creating articles on the more-obscure bands in the compilation, link. May need review. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've used as many non-trivial sources as I can find. Each article has non-trivial sources. I'd review them before speculating. To get to the reason why I'm creating articles for these bands... Because I'm addressing one of the concerns at the original AfD by Doomsdayer who essentially said "too many redlinks" as one of their arguments. Even though that is not a valid argument, I've tried to appease @Doomsdayer520: and started creating articles for those redlinks as I have time. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it’s not about sources, it’s about proving why we should care, and your failing that in spades. Quit while your ahead, or go through afc. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reviewing those bands on their own merits during a separate process. Some may have achieved some notability outside of their appearance on that non-notable compilation album that is the focus of this dispute (for now, at least). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-notable" album now has two non-trivial sources, plus a couple sources I like to describe as inbetween non-trivial and trivial, as well as the still useful trivial sources. The article has greatly changed from when it appeared in AfD. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it’s hasn’t changed at all: no notability, no credible claim of significance, no consensus to retain the article, and no effort on your part to address any of those concerns beyond sweeping them under the rug and pretending this time will be different. The fact that you can’t see that favors my intervention here, I think a topic ban would do you some good. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a problem yes, but it's a relatively minor problem from an overzealous editor. I don't think any intervention is necessary, just, perhaps, a warning, and a reminder that if an article gets deleted, the problems can be sorted out through draftspace instead of warring over whether a deleted article belongs in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am confused. User:TomStar81 says that there have been five deletion discussions. I count three, the first AFD, the DRV in which I took part, and the second AFD, which is currently in progress. Also, is there a reason why community or admin action is needed, other to let the second AFD run? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Comment - I will count four deletion discussions if we count the 2018 PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Prod, afd 1, speedy deletion, deletion review, afd 2. I should have clarified that, my apologies. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I'd like to ask a sincere question. Everyone is saying this article is non-notable. To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right? And the main argument before, if I understand correctly (and explains my actions up to now) is that an album must have multiple, non-trivial sources. And I guess there-in lies the rub. How do you define non-trivial? I added Gavin Report which a couple folks have acknowledged as non-trivial. Even Doomsdayer has acknowledged the other NW Music News source may be non-trivial because they can't verify it one way or the other. Wouldn't two non-trivial sources qualify as multiple? I'm honestly looking for an instructional moment here, because my actions up to now are based on this premise. 2+ is multiple, right? But all I see are editors claiming non-notable as a whole. What am I missing? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets start with this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article. Have a read through and lets see what that addresses and what you're still unclear about, after which we (by which I mean the community) will start taking questions. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Leitmotiv is stating a good-faith but serious misunderstanding of the relationship between verifiability and notability, and I think that is the whole problem. They say: "To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right?" Wrong. If it has no notable sources, it is non-notable. But the existence of sources does not establish notability in themselves. The sources verify the content of the article. If what the text of the article says is not notable, the sources will not change that. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that sources are THE key to acceptance or retention of an article is a common myth in Wikipedia. In this case, the problem is the album doesn't satisfy the album notability criteria. At least, that is what is being argued in the AFD. And the place to discuss the notability of the album is in the AFD. User:Leitmotiv is not acting in bad faith, only mistaken as to policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey thanks for trying to help. People often think that because I've been on Wikipedia for 10+ years that I know all the ropes, and I just don't. If people see my silver editing star they will see they are not in synch with my time as an editor. I do this for love when I have free time. Anyhoo...@Robert McClenon: I still don't think I'm getting it, but bare with me. I'm going to go through the WP:GNG checklist here. Of all the content I've written on NWP, 100% is derived from the sources listed. The article is not a stub. No original research involved. Significant coverage, as I understand it, has been supplied with two non-trivial sources, which as I interpret it is the "multiple sources" needed. The trivial sources are used to flesh out the remainder of the article. As for reliable, editors have been able to verify one non-trivial source in Gavin Report, and I've offered to supply the other non-trivial source for verifiability but no one has taken me up on that. All sources provided are secondary sources and none are primary, and they are independent of the subject. Nothing else, as far as I can tell, at WP:GNG appears to related to the subject at hand. So to my understanding, that covers your comment on notability - and everyone else's comments that it doesn't qualify per WP:GNG. But again, correct me where I'm wrong or presume something in error. You mention that the AfD is discussing WP:NALBUM as the main reason it fails. So let's delve into that. It mentions only 1 criteria is needed to pass WP:NALBUM. Point 1 says it has to have multiple, non-trivial sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent. The article has 2 of these. Does 2 qualify as multiple? Wikipolicy is not clear on that. The end of WP:NALBUM notes that a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. Well... the article as it stands now has 5 paragraphs of material, most of which has come from the two non-trivial sources, that presumably pass criteria number 1. Again, I'm not trying to be obstinate here. I feel like I understand what is required, even if wikipolicy is not 100% clear on what "multiple" means. If I am missing something, please inform me, my aim is to learn. I recreated this article trying to satisfy the original AfD by adding two non-trivial sources and to eliminate redlinks per Doomsdayer520's observations at the original AfD. There was never a bad faith attempt on my part. I feel the only bad faith that occurred is the original nominator nominating it for speedy deletion claiming it was identical, when they admitted on the talk page that they couldn't verify it was identical, and despite their admission, they still wouldn't retract or replace it with an AfD like the deletion discussion concluded with. I could understand taking it to another AfD, but the article was never identical to the one before which is why I staunchly opposed the speedy deletion nomination. At that time the article had roughly 300-400% new content. Perhaps the misconception is of scale? That's all I can glean from the discussion. Does significant mean a book needs to be written about the album? A chapter in a book? An article spread? Gavin Report has a half column devoted to the album review, and the NWI Music News has a whole album review as well. Are those not significant? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitmotiv: Speaking for myself - and only myself - I consider anything that has a very notable impact on culture (IE the "bullet time" sequence in the matrix, Eminem's hip hop, donald trumps books, superman's comics, etc), anything thats won an oscar/emmy/tony/grammy, or anything that has been nominated for appearances in halls of fame to be ipso facto notable. Below that are glass ceiling moments and record setting things, which I take as proof of significance (ie: Will chambers 100 point game, Secretariat's 39.5 length win for the triple crown, Don Haskins decision to start 5 black guys in the NCA tournment in 1966, Barrack Obama's election to the presidency, etc). Below that, it's taken on the strength (or lack there of) of citations, sources, and information present weighed against the relevant guidelines for notability and significance as the subject matter determines relevance and significance (HMS Vanguard was the last battleship built and had a small career, but enough to eak out an article; Apollo 25, by contrast, never got past the planning stage and I see no significance to its mission to moon other than a few people were probably considered to crew the flight). Most article clearly satisfy the first or second points, for the third point articles are hit and miss. Most of the old C&C stuff I wrote got the axe for non notable content, USS Illinois (BB-65) by contrast has remained despite having no real anchor to the first two points because we developed just enough material for the article that it was thought better to keep it spun out - and even then it took an afd to establish that point. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs more rope.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Close

This is a dispute over whether to delete an article, and it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination). I do not see any conduct issues that require administrative action. Can we close this as a content (deletion) dispute, with a reminder to all editors to be civil and concise? The above 597-word statement by User:Leitmotiv and 277-word statement by User:TomStar81 have two problems. They are too long, and shorter statements should be in the AFD rather than here. Can we close this as a deletion discussion to be decided by AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With at least 2 ANI discussions and an SPI currently pending this editor is back to their revert war with less than friendly edit summaries such as Special:Diff/1015549733 Slywriter (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked from editing the main page, so has turned attention to the episodes page instead, perhaps a siteban would be suitable, not to mention WP:CIVIL violations such as [46]. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah I didn't do anything he's saying as told by ginger ran from 2000-2016 whitch it didn't it ran from 2000-2006 then it was cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both edit warriors for 2 weeks. Edit warring on a page while a partial block, for edit warring on a related page is still active shows a severe lack of clue. Hopefully this is a wake up call to both that edit warring will not be tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from an improperly located second thread, kept here for reference) This user is making misleading edits on wikipedia and stating as told by ginger is a Show that ran from 2000-2016 whitch no it did not run for 16 years the show only had a 6 year run and 3 seasons whitch there were 4 unaired episodes that aired for a day in 2016 but the show had already ended 10 years before that and saying that the show ended from 2000-2016 can really mislead people

Also the cramp twins he's putting the end date for the cramp twins as 2004 whitch I've checked every site looking for that and I couldn't find any site that says the cramp twins ended in 2004 and

Also teen titans he's reverting my edit and calling it unsourced but how could it be unsourced if I didn't even edit I just removed a a part of the page the talked about reruns cause it could never be confirmed nor will it be confirmed nobody knows when the show stoped airing reruns

I could keep going — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs)

@Floquenbeam: This should probably be noted (as Slywriter had initially mentioned)... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder. Magitroopa (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the historical record, 20 years ago Slashdot was a relevant website, and non-loggedin editors there were referred to as "anonymous coward". It wasn't funny then. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion in Talk:Malassezia that's going on right now. I made a bunch of separate proposals in a series of WP:RfCs to try to move things forward in an apparent stalemate at Talk:Malassezia#WIP (per WP:DR#RfCs). Before everything gets out of hand too quickly I'm asking to detach an administrator to supervise matters and enforce WP:NPA / WP:FOC.

These are kind of replies that are left out there right now:

• Revision as of 12:29, April 2, 2021 by SMcCandlish
• Revision as of 12:28, April 2, 2021 by SMcCandlish
• Revision as of 12:25, April 2, 2021 by SMcCandlish

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Davronov, I haven't read the whole conversation, but I don't see anything wrong with the comments in those diffs. What do you believe is the problem that requires administrative action? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I'm asking only for supervision as I think some parties involved won't comment on content, but on me. SMcCandlish was called by WhatamIdoing in the Revision as of 21:28, April 1, 2021 and immediately started to discuss RfC proceedings unrelated to proposals and other stuff. The latter are already discussed at Requests_for_comment#Volume_problems. Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Davronov, the editors you are engaging with there are all very experienced, I think you should consider listening to what they are telling you. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: I expect that all incoming parties focus on respective topics, not on the matters discussed elsewhere. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Davronov: You seem to be overlooking the main issue here: opening 4 RfCs in one sitting. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: This doesn't prevent anyone from following basic rules and discussing related matters elsewhere.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, I think you might see the main issue too narrowly. The main issue might be someone pushing very hard, across multiple pages, to get a specific primary source cited somewhere in Wikipedia. Starting four RFCs on the same talk page in the same edit could merely be a symptom of the larger problem.

This editor has asked us "to detach an administrator to supervise matters". I think that is not a bad idea, especially if the admin feels free to issue topic bans and partial blocks.

In the meantime, there is a discussion at WT:RFC about formally writing down a rule that says a single editor should not be running a large number of concurrent RFCs. We have been discussing this problem at that page for a couple of years; if memory serves, the record is 11 concurrent RFCs on the same topic (by an editor now TBANned from that topic). If you have ideas about where and how to help editors get the help they need, without any one person dominating the RFC system, please join that conversation over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Feel free to fill a separate ANI/I complaint. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. That's not how we organize ANI. We don't want separate sections for the same problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing is correct; at most we'd make a subtopic, but this is short enough that such subsectioning is not necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I was only referring to the issue that the other editors raised concerns about, i.e. the elephant in the room that the OP cannot ignore if they want to achieve consensus for their proposed changes. Whether concurrent RfCs are allowed or not is irrelevant in this case since, from what I can tell, some editors think that AD is trying to game the system. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, there seems to be a general perception at Talk:Malassezia that Alexander_Davronov is a disruptive presence, either playing WP:IDHT games or genuinely exhibiting a WP:CIR problem, and (either way) clearly engaging in WP:POV and WP:OR issues, using primary sourcing, and not complying with WP:MEDRS, plus a bunch of WP:BLUDGEON behavior. I believe this person needs at bare minimum a short-term (3 month?) topic-ban from this and related articles (e.g. a scope of fungal infections, broadly construed, to prevent the behavior just jumping over to another article of the same sort). This person's unconstructive activity has also inspired a consideration of new rules about RfCs, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Volume problems.
  PS: I did not receive the required {{ANI-notice}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding 'This editor has asked us "to detach an administrator to supervise matters". I think that is not a bad idea, especially if the admin feels free to issue topic bans and partial blocks.' – That also applies to Talk:Goths, which is presently subjected to the same kind of shotgunning-RfCs-all-over-the-place approach (four so far, all on essentially the same thing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: I didn't report you. Calm down please. I will withdraw current request once discussion is over. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, you did report me (three diffs worth), but I don't really care. I just noted for the record that you did not comply with the hard-to-miss ANI instructions. But there's nothing non-calm about me or my response to you. You've been warned repeatedly that your behavior at that page was disruptive in various ways, so here we are. And you don't get to rescind an ANI; once you open one, your own behavior is open to scrutiny. From what I can see, no one in the debate at that talk page is non-calm but you, other than to the extent your antics have exasperated some of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack at User:BlueboyLINY on my talk page. User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#File:KAVU_25_News_Now.png_creation_announcement Keeps spamming Blueboy's talk page with nonsense. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This diff-free parties-not-notified incident centres around Special:Diff/1015550156 apparently. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reports involving the same editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#User:Frank6292010; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Ownership_problem_at_articles_about_TV_stations. Ping Acroterion and MelanieN. Fences&Windows 20:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack at User:BlueboyLINY on our talk page after messing up WXTV-DT, User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#April_2021 Keeps spamming Blueboy's talk page with nonsense. Frank6292010 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 70.77.224.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user is persistently engaging in disruptive editing against consensus; has not taken part in discussions about this; and has similarly used quite often uncivil edit summaries. See also Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Rural_municipality_edit_warring_against_consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: IP70 had been IP-hopping for sometime but seems to have settled on a single one for now. Please see the edit histories for List of municipal districts in Alberta, List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, CFB Cold Lake, and Census geographic units of Canada. For the first two, see the consensus for the former here and extrapolation of such to the latter here. The editor reached out to me on my talk page here but disregarded my reply that articulated the consensus and then proceeded to continue edit warring against that consensus. At CFB Cold Lake the editor is now deliberately introducing factual errors. The editors appears to have since had run-ins at Canadian political-related articles and has resorted to being uncivil (see [48] and [49]). With three additional fourth-level warnings in thirteen days since the first one, the editor is evidently WP:NOTHERE. A complaint was registered at AIV two days ago but the incident was archived with to action for some reason. 07:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Came to my talk page today[50] to complain about my recent edits to Montclair State University where I removed multiple entries to the Notable alumni section because they were either not linked to WP articles and in the same post to my talk page, Alansohn also complained about a recent edit I made to Alpine, New Jersey where I removed a person from the NP section who had been citation needed tag on it for over 9 years.

Alansohn is both being a hypocrite and harassing me.

First, Montclair State College he has edited[51] to in the past with the edit summary 'remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST' So he says a entry needs to have both and then criticizes me for taking out entries that fit his own criteria for removal.

Note- He has used that same edit summary many times at New Jersey articles. At Piscataway, New Jersey for example[52]

Second, the citation added tag was added[53] by Alansohn and allowed to remain for over 9 years on that page and with making approximately 85 edits[54] to the page since its addition. He has a clear history of requiring an entry have a reference and then complains when an editor removes just such an entry.

That's clearly hypocritical.

I want to point out two other things.

Alansohn was recently made to apologize to me after his making this ANI complaint[55] against me. Some of his complaining today about my editing closely parallels what he wrote then.

Recently in an edit[56] to 1966 World Series he restored descriptions to the article because I had removed them[57] due to them being unreferenced. He restored it with references that DIDN'T support what was being written. This is the kind of bogus edits that are seen far too much around here. A referenced sentence with a fact or statement in it that the reference doesn't corroborate.

Alansohn is harassing me. So I came here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We could deal with the very uncollegial exchange here, but I think that's treating the symptom rather than the problem. In fact, when I compare your talk page with Alansohn's, what I see is that your talk page is an incredibly hostile place from the passive-aggressive notices at the top right the way down to the bottom. I think that you're both highly active editors with long sanctions logs for edit warring and battlegrounding and this is going to smoulder on forever without a two-way iban.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Two-way iban between Alansohn and WilliamJE.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Both seem deficient in the willingness-to-drop-the-stick department. I suggest this is time-limited though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus seems to have a bee in their bonnet about Nathan Larson (politician). Months ago, when Larson was arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl, I started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard about whether this should be added to the article. (I did not consider Larson a public figure and believed the arrest should be left out.) Herostratus redacted my question and put the article up for deletion with a wall of text rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician). When Herostratus refused to stop redacting my BLPN comments, I ended up starting an ANI discussion. The consensus was that the redactions were contrary to our BLP policy. Since then, Herostratus has tried to have the article renamed despite a similar proposal failing a couple of months ago.

Today Herostratus redacted the word "pedophile" from the artcile's talk page ([58], [59]). His argument seems to be that despite multiple reliable sources used in the article referring to Larson as a "pedophile" based on Larson's own statements, the talk page is a different place and WP:BLP prevents us from using the word pedophile without sourcing. At least I think that's what he is saying. Herostratus needs to be blocked from this article, including the talk page, and be told to stop redacting other people's comments. Mo Billings (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of worried when I read I absolutely and in all seriousness think that Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article) really is the best title. on a talk page. That said, there's clearly enough sourcing [60] [61] that discussing on the talk page whether he should be described as a pedophile is not a BLP issue. (as it involves an ongoing trial, it's not at all clear that the article should say that, but the meta-discussion on the talk page is certainly fine). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Billings: I don't understand how you could think that a guy who has put himself up to the public numerous times as a candidate for various offices could not be a "public figure"? That boat sailed a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defendant here. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Nathan Larson, I have a bee in my bonnet about WP:BLP. I've been the breath of hell on BLP stuff for private citizens (Nathan Larson is quite obscure) since the B____ P______ incident in I think 2004 before there was a WP:BLP. It's not a question of banning me from from Nathan Larson article, I've done this elsewhere and intend to continue, so you'll want a much broader topic ban (site ban, whatever) if you want me to stop.

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I consider "oh the source is on another page somewhere" to be a poor source. We don't ref even anodyne facts in an article to a source in another article, we copy them over. Also note that there's no exemption for "unless a lot of people hate the guy" which in Nathan Larson's case appears to be in play.

Complainant's text above, which is now far removed from the refs (which need to be vetted anyway) and is liable to float around the internet on its own (I know it's not indexed, but anyone can copy and paste it or point to it) is egregious WP:BLP violation. This page is in the class "any Wikipedia page" and the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and then it talks about the need for proximate inline refs. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to decide if complainan text looks like a dare-you-to-stop-me thing to make a point.

The complainant seems to be really determined to assert his and other editors' right to say extremely inflammatory things about obscure citizens based on refs that exist somewhere else in the Wikipedia. If the complainant's text above is allowed to stand, that pushes the de facto norms in a certain direction. I don't think its a path we want to go down. I'm pretty sure that the Foundation takes a keen interest in this subject, so we had better police ourselves lest we be policed.

I also think that rather than an ANI thread this'd better be taken up a much higher level, like a CENT RfC to modify WP:BLP.

I'd actually prefer that instead of sanctioning me, complainant himself was advised not do this sort of stuff. And I mean it's not necessary. It's easy enough to use vague language on stuff like this. It's not a question of "We really need to talk about such-and-so, should we put it in the article?" The thread complainant is exercised about (Talk:Nathan Larson (politician)#The short description) does not require the word "pedophile" to be used. I changed to [redacted] and complainant changed it back. Complainant just wants to say it, I guess. Whether that has to with complainant just really not liking the guy or he aims to do this wherever he goes, I don't know, but neither one is a good look I don't think. Anyway it's all in y'alls court and do what you think best. Sorry about this. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus You were told before that your redactions were against policy. You are going to be told again. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's policy on living people - you are enforcing your own views on what we should be doing. Those are not the same thing. I really don't want to be having this discussion and having to defend myself against your accusations that I hate Nathan Larson or that I am trying to push some agenda. You need to stop. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: At the time, I was not aware that failed political candidates who have never held office are considered to be politicians. I am now. Mo Billings (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This frankly strikes me as a difference of opinion on an editorial matter. I would suggest WP:DR of some form or a post at WP:BLPN rather than the sort of result expected from ANI.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difference of opinion about policy and conduct based on that policy. It is not a content dispute. Herostratus did this redacting act before with the arrest (which made it very difficult to talk about the issue) and he's doing it again with the word pedophile on teh article talk page. Add to that his walls of text on the talk page and his attempts to move the or delete the page. This isn't an easy article - there's no reason to make it more problematic. Mo Billings (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So here's a couple solutions that might be in play, I think:

1. A clarification at WP:BLP. I have opened a request for one at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal (not a formal RfC) re need for citations outside article space. As per my usual practice, I mostly described the case in favor of plaintiff's position, so hopefully no objection there. It's my guess that plaintiff's position will be widely popular, and problem solved. I'll abide by that -- have to. But if it goes against plaintiff, he'll abide by it. On this basis you consider closing this thread here, I guess.
2. Or, you could topic ban me from editing or talking about stuff related to WP:BLP. Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. Maybe plaintiff is right -- you decide. I'm not requesting a topic ban. I don't want it (even tho it'd be a relief -- you think I enjoy doing this, and being an unpopular scold to boot? I hate it.) You decide.
3. Or something else, or punt, whatever, your call. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus Your interpretation of WP:BLP is contrary to common application of it. The policy does not need to be changed - your interpretation of it needs to be changed. Mo Billings (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mo Billings, OK I hear you. That's a content dispute. ANI is behavioral issues. You brought one, and you have a reasonable point (I don't agree, and I think you're maybe kind of making drama on purpose and could take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction here, but maybe I'm wrong). Maybe you'll get request (right now, I'm not seeing a lot of activity here, so I dunno). But anyway all this is pushing us over to the BLP talk page where I think the real action is going to be. We should have gone there first, but I didn't think of it either, so this whole thread has served a purpose, and that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus Please stop saying things like "take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction". I'm perfectly chill, I'm not standing on my right to do anything except abide by policy without interference from you, and I am not "pushing the envelope" by objecting to your out-of-policy redactions to otherwise reasonable discussions. I understand that you object to people applying the word pedophile to someone who reliable sources literally call a pedophile in their headlines, but that "unhealthy direction" seems to be your issue, not mine or anyone else's. Please stop ascribing unpleasant motivations to my editing and focus on the actual issue. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Mo Billings and Herostratus are overlooking something. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal charge. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles: "Articles on medical conditions sometimes include lists of notable cases of the disease. For the person to be included in such a list there must be significant coverage of them having the condition, not simply a mention in passing or them self disclosing on social media."

• We can't call him a pedophile in Wikipedia's voice, unless he has been diagnosed as such by a competent authority.
• Pedophilia is not a synonym for child rape: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors.^[1] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles,^[2][3] child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children,^[1][4][5] and some pedophiles do not molest children.^[6]" Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick I don't know why you think it is helpful to drop a bunch of references here about "child rape", which is not what we are discussing. No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children. As far as calling Larson a pedophile, I think there is a common, non-medical use of the term "pedophile" to mean someone with a sexual interest in children. That usage does not rely on a clinical diagnosis. Headlines such as "Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He's A Pedophile". "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". "Alleged pedophile, white supremacist arrested in kidnapping of 12-yr-old girl", "Virginia congressional candidate Nathan Larson admits he's a pedophile", "Pedophile And Hitler Fan Running For Congress Makes Ballot", and "This Hitler-loving Proud Pedophile Was Too Much of a Troll for Wikipedia, but Not for a Congressional Run" are using this less formal but most common usage. I'd be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere, but none of this has anything to do with Herostratus' redacting of the literal word "pedophile" in talk page discussions. Mo Billings (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the definition Wikipedia uses for pedophilia and the sources it uses, not the definition for child rape. "No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children." His arrest is over sexual exploitation of a 12-year-old. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to debate content issues here? Larson was indicted for, among other things, sexual exploitation of a minor. That is not "child rape", to use your phrase. No one has accused Larson of raping children. Mo Billings (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Love of Corey is repeatedly violating BLPNAME and reverting my edits which reference that policy, even going so far as to call me a vandal. I fully respect that names are appropriate in some instances, but BLPNAME suggests that clear consensus on the talk page that the encyclopedic value of the name outweighs the privacy concerns is necessary prior to inclusion. This user is continually reverting my edits to enforce WP:BLP on a page, and at one point called it "vandalism" to do so. I'm not sure whether full protection (without names) would be better, or what - but there is no consensus on the talk page (or in archives) for inclusion of names in either April 2021 United States Capitol attack or 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, thus BLPNAME trumps until such is formed. Will notify user shortly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was already reached on 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, and you're already getting a lot of pushback at April 2021 United States Capitol attack (which I never intervened at, just so you know). Love of Corey (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to point to a consensus on the talk page or in the archives of the spa shootings regarding the names. Mere BRD does not override policy which requires clear consensus for inclusion of names in this sort of situation. Furthermore, people who are arguing for inclusion but ignoring the policy in doing so are ignoring a project-wide consensus, which a local consensus cannot override. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note a consensus can be reached in an article without using talk page, whether it be through edit comments, or through the actions of articles editors. If an article has over a 1000 edits by dozens of editors over two week after something is added in, there could be a local consensus on the contents. I am not going to state myself that that is the case for the Atlanta shootings here, but a local consensus can be formed that way. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This probably belongs on the edit warring or BLP noticeboards and not here. Also, boomerang applies. User:Berchanhimez, the submitting editor is clearly a bold, competent, and passionate editor and knows better than to violate 3RR (at least 8 reverts) with claims the assailant's name should be excluded from the article under claims of WP:BLP, even though the assailant is deceased. There is an excellent policy based discussion regarding this topic on the talk page which for some reason User:Berchanhimez is preempting and reverting any and all comers. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only violated 3RR because BLP violations are an explicit exemption to 3RR, and no editor has provided a plausible reason that BLPNAME does not apply in these situations. As such, I have been provided no evidence that the BLP exemption does not apply, thus I assumed it applies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's dead. WP:BLP does not apply instead WP:BDP applies. The content is also cited and verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octoberwoodland, I think you meant WP:BDP - but note that the BLP page explicitly says that the policy applies for an "indeterminate amount of time" after death - that indeterminate amount of time is certainly not "same day", and requires discussion on the talk page to "sever" the BLP policy from it before a name can be included. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The suspect is not deceased, Octoberwoodland; he is currently in custody and awaiting trial. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is deceased. I think you have your articles confused. We are talking about the April 2021 United States Capitol attack and not the 2021 Boulder shooting. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, which OP has also roped into their crusade (and how I found out about the discussion to begin with). I was not initially aware the discussion was beyond that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I don't care. I accept responsibility for my actions and will not fight this ANI discussion despite wherever it goes, but I will not apologize for my actions either. That policy needs an overhaul in regards to clarification, judging by the obvious disparity of opinions over what its definition actually entails. Love of Corey (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties are acting in good faith here. I have some thoughts on BLP application I mention here. This is mostly a disagreement on application of policy, and it's a reasonable disagreement as the application of BLPNAME and BLPCRIME in these cases tends to stray a bit from its literal wording (which is over a decade old and, as I've said many times, in need of rewriting). This is best sent to the BLP noticeboard. As far as administrative action goes, it's unlikely any action against either party would be smart or helpful, and so I'd suggest an admin close this thread. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, I agree, aside from the personal attacks and combativeness from the other user - I am okay if this concludes with a trout to everyone, but I still don't appreciate being called a "vandal" for what you admit is a reasonable interpretation of the policy page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we've adequately addressed the problem of calling edits made in a content dispute vandalism. Love of Corey I will remind you not to do that.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting edits I am making to aviation pages (airports in particular) solely because he does not like the edits. I have been trying to clean up airport pages for some time. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Unfortunately, many airport articles in particular have been overloaded with massive details through the years, some of which violate WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:USEFUL. They also can contain outdated and irrelevant information that has little to do with the airport itself. The goal of my edits is to remove excess and outdated/irrelevant content and get to the point on things. Frankly, there is even more than could be done than I am not doing (such as in the history sections).

Until now, there has been little objection to my edits. I have even received thanks on a few occasions for cleaning up pages. Then this user comes along and simply reverts edits, saying no consensus has been reached and WP:STATUSQUO applies. Alternatively, he attempts to get me on technicalities in my edit summaries, saying I was lying or wasn't specific enough. I'll admit I didn't always have the best edit summaries, but once again, he has been the only major objection to these edits up to this point. It is extremely difficult to get clear consensus on a lot of things aviation related because of the different motivations the editors of those articles have. I tried to talk with him on his talk page, but he ignored me and instead communicates through the edit summaries. While I'm not always perfect, I see no problems with the overall edits I make. It appears this user is at times (unintentionally?) WP:STONEWALLING. I am asking for some mediation here. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blissfield's edits are almost entirely to airports and airlines, most of which deletions of vast swaths of material. His edit summaries are often "consolidation" or "reorganization" but are actually often huge overhauls with much content deleted, both sourced and unsourced. While a lot of it is in fact outdated or extraneous – I would thank him for some of it too! – a lot may be reasonable content that I object to his cutting in bulk. Never once has he gone to the talk page to discuss his changes, it's just an imposition of his own restrictive format that excludes what he doesn't like. If I object to your removals, then YES you should have a consensus to reinstate such removals. There is no need for administrative involvement, rather Blissfield should take his case to WT:AIRPORTS and stop saying things should be removed because we're a vague "NOTEVERYTHING". In isolation many edits and portions of edits are fine, but with such large changes to dozens of airport articles at once, it seems like a crusade keep them formulaic and free of individual details. Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: But instead of simply adding back in certain content, you usually revert all the edits, which comes pretty close to WP:STONEWALLING. Again, you are the only one seriously objecting, there were no issues until you started reverting. You should know how difficult it is to get consensus at WT:AIRPORTS is, given the lack of response to my latest RFC. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pages that satisfy airliners.net users. Blissfield101 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because your many edits that are sometimes in the tens of thousands of characters removed and much more moved around are a pain in the ass to target just specific portions to change back. No previous issues does not mean no issues, plenty of big edits go under the radar. A but more information about terminals than the number of gates in a concourse does not make us an avgeek discussion page, nor "a complete exposition of all possible details". Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the solution here is to draft a neutrally worded and clear RfC on the matter (of what to retain/remove, not of who did what), and host it somewhere much more watchlisted than WT:AIRPORTS, like WP:VPPOL. However, given that Reywas92 concedes that some of Blissfield101's work was good and desirable, "it's hard" is no excuse for blanket revert-warring. If Blissfield101 can do the hard work to weed out all this outdated and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE-failing claptrap, then Reywas92 is not in a position to avoid work and just mass-revert all of it to get at a handful of things they object to or have a question about (see WP:FIXFIRST in particular, as well as WP:SATISFY and WP:REVERT#BEFORE). Remember that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and proposals to make it a guideline have failed specifically because it sometimes is not appropriately applicable. Remember also that, per WP:EDITING policy, no one has to get permission beforehand to edit. Also that, per WP:V, incorrect or unverifiable information is presumptively removable; the burden of proof is on those who would retain it. That said, it would be better at this point for Blissfield101 to ensure there is consensus for these changes moving forward, and perhaps divide them into types of change (e.g. removal of errors and verification failures first, as essentially incontrovertible changes, then more subjective changes as separate matters). This would also reduce the likelihood of improper blanket-revert stonewalling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I make no determination of the rights and wrongs of anyone's past actions, but would say that in the future Blissfield101 should break up the large edits into revertible-sized chunks and Reywas92 can then revert only those edits that he thinks should be reverted. Then we can know where the content disagreement is, and you can talk to each other about it on the article talk pages. I don't see any need for administrator action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this edit by The Wrigley Guerrilla. Not much more info is needed i think, as it is so clear cut. Hope i did not mess any bureaucrtic steps up, never reported anyone here. Have a good one anyway. 85.16.40.231 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked, in the future vandalism or other inappropriate editing can be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, will try to remember that. Hope i won't need to anyway. At least i have seen the tiny and hardly noticeable red box somewhere in no mans land that told me to notify the racist haha. Surprised i did see it to be honest. 85.16.40.231 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German people (talk · contribs) has thanked me 55 times for edits on my userpage, and has been randomly thanking other editors too. Can an admin give their thoughts about this? --BlueCrabRedCrab 13:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueCrabRedCrab, Sorry, my computer has a problem, I just thanked you once but got back to it German people (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't buy it either. –Fredddie™ 14:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72h for spamming the thank feature, which I interpret as DE or trolling at best, or a form of harassment at worst. It does not make sense that a a user's computer would somehow spend nearly 20 minutes going through a user's userpage history, systematically clicking the "thanks" button, and the secondary confirmation button due to some sort of "glitch". You can see from the user's thanks log that this is not some random occurance, this user spams the thanks button to an extreme degree, and has issued many rapid-fire "thanks" to many other users. In at least one instance, the user issued multiple "thanks" to an abandoned account with 3 edits that had not edited since 2007. This bizarre behavior borders on CIR-blocking in my opinion, and I went with the more lenient option here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Swarm: If Google Translate isn't failing me, this suggests viwiki admins think they are a sockpuppet of of Nguyễn Phúc Vy. They're indeffed there, at least. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef, good catch. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, I've taken the liberty of requesting a global lock at Meta. Jack Frost (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

User has several times attempted to remove well-sourced information on Afghan–Sikh Wars [62] [63] [64] [65], when trying to discuss with him, he resorts to personal attacks/aspersions and forum-like behaviour, as seen here:

The sources information is not relevant to the battle, when reviewing this page. I see that you tend to remove a large amount of information without actually adding anything to this article. Do you have a reason of why you only remove information from this article instead of adding any?

Please stop cyber bullying me. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

Again HistoryofIran adds nothing to the article just adds information relevant to himself. Explain your actions. Since you do not add information at your own behest on this article. I do not appreciate censoring of information.

Oh, more aspersions here, just in another place;

I put a lot of effort into it and he only keeps information relevent to himself, and does not make any contribution towards the article.

Have some compassion please. Very hurtful comments. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

When told he will reported for his actions if he continues, he said this; Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless.

You think you are better than me because of the amount of rewards you have. You have said so before. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk There is nothing personal. I spoke facts and in a normal manner. Please add the article if you feel like making changing. These are not personal attacks. I am sincerely sorry for my words or if I hurt your feelings with my words. Kind regards - BorisTheBulgar

Could you please add to the article if you are so concerned about it. I have spent hours of my time making the article look good with maps and other additions. You have also hurt me feelings. -BorisTheBulgar

I am a less experienced editor on wikipedia. Fylindfotberserk I hope my friend can help me out on this matter. -BorisTheBulgar

• Looking at the compelling evidence, the persistent attempts at changing/adding (unsourced) content, and replying to ANI notices as being part of a "cyber bully" campaign,[66] it can be concluded that user:BorisTheBulgar is here on a single purpose mission and not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this post. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject matter. In my opinion, it should be discussed extensively in the talk page first, then perhaps WP:RFC and WP:DRN if no WP:CONSENSUS is reached. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking now; this is a topic area where disruption like this needs to be cut off as quickly as possible, and the linked comment immediately above makes quite a case for blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless." Oh here we go again. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that BorisTheBulgar was already a sock. The mere threat of making another account seems like the user has been blocked already with a previous account. Based on the article history of Afghan–Sikh Wars, CapChecker123 frequently edited the article as BorisTheBulgar. Jerm (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, Estopedist1 has moved lots of "genus" articles citing their own user subpage as the reason. However, as the WP:RM/TR permalink to revision 1015788879 and Talk:Bellerophon (genus)#Requested move 1 April 2021 (also from a contested WP:RM/TR request) show, those moves are controversial and should be reverted. We should then ask that user to start an RfC on whether "(genus)" and other disambiguators are discouraged in article titles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: could you help here and say that these moves are not controversial --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It does seem that User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions already pointed you to several years of prior WikiProject discussion of this. Uncle G (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (non-admin comment) As a DABfixer with scientific training who is not a biologist but who frequently comes across genus disambiguation problems (7 today by my count; an unusually high number), I understand where Estopedist1 is coming from. However: (1) a WP:RMTR with the rationale "disambiguator qualifier "(genus)" is generally not allowed. See explanation here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation" is hopelessly inadequate, and (2) this is a content dispute not an ANI matter. Botanists and zoologists have different rules for naming genera and species, and there may be no one-size-fits-all WP:CONSENSUS. Should a WP:RFC be opened, I would welcome a {{ping}} for the opportunity to comment. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (non-admin comment, responding to ping). Is this really something that needs to be addressed via ANI? I had advised Estopedist1 that I thought it would be worthwhile to make the disambiguation terms used for animal genera more WP:CONSISTENT. I wasn't expecting him to move quite so quickly in doing so. I haven't to respond to some of his pings in recent days seeking further feedback. The rationale ""(genus)" is generally not allowed" overstates the outcome of previous discussions on disambiguating with (genus) that had input from more than ~3 editors. However, Wikipedia has absolutely been increasingly move away from (genus) disambiguators. The single biggest source of ambiguity with the name of a plant/animal genus is a animal/plant genus with the same name. Plant and animal genus names are constructed in similar ways; sometimes they are named after people, so are a lot of genera of the form "SURNAME+ia"; genera are often named by creating compound Greek/Latin words that didn't necessarily exist as words in classical Greek/Latin. As Wikipedia adds more articles on genera over time, more cases of ambiguity between genera come up; (genus) simply isn't sustainable as consistent way to disambiguate articles on genera. Suggest Estopediast1 open an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to get consensus on the suggestion compiled on his subpage (I don't think there's any question at present that a majority of subject editors will not want to encourage (genus) going forward, but there hasn't been any discussion to establish what disambiguators should be used instead (particularly for some insects and various "worms")). Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Instead I'd recommend listing in batches (around 5–10 related articles) on WP:RM and seeing if there is opposition. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's nothing controversial about moving away from "(genus)" as a disambiguator for a genus article; Plantdrew has explained fully above why this term doesn't work (in short because the nomenclature codes allow the use of the same genus name for a plant and an animal). There is an issue about what to use instead for different groups of animals (plant genera use "(plant)"), but this is not an ANI matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading some of the WikiProject discussions hyperlinked on that explanation page it does seem that yours is an accurate description of the state of affairs and that you've been roughly agreeing with one another about moving away for about 8 years now. It would be better to say "is problematic for the reasons given in the past 8 years of WikiProject discussions hyperlinked at User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions" rather than "is not allowed". Better still, one could make that page actually explain things, rather than making people unfamiliar with what one is doing, at whom one has waved this as a rationale, wade through broken lists and apparent gibberish to the actual explanations right at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a list of articles proposed to be moved where comments can be added? Peter James (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently upset over the Minecraft page.

• 174.255.130.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.255.128.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Both geolocate to Texas, and the edit filter log for 174.255.130.113 shows them trying to blank User talk:174.255.128.131. They also posted to User talk:EDG 543 and tried to post to User:Yamla -- no idea why. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Simple solution. Blocked the current IP. They were already warned this harassment on talk pages was disruptive. Whether a range block is needed can wait till next occurrence. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some edits on a draft for an article about an upcoming series which will be airing this week. I specifically followed the guide on WP:MOSTV on the lead and succeeding sections. I included a short summary of the plot because the lead is supposed to provide a summary of the entire article. However, User:Superastig has reverted my edits, removing the short plot summary on the lead. In the talk page (diff here), he explained that he "honestly found it much neater to follow" without the short plot summary. He ended conversations with other users with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh." twice which means "Okay. If you said so.". It comes off a bit rude. This specific edit summary (diff) in the draft article even says "Fix listing style due to whininess in the talk page.", which I believe is uncivil behavior towards other editors.

I stand by my edits because I believe this is the right thing to do per WP:MOSTV guidelines as it will be under WP:TV once it is published. HiwilmsTalk 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like there is enough blame to go around with both of you arguing. I'm not inclined to throw sanctions at someone for saying "ok if you say so". You both are making points on the talk page, but you are talking past each other, treating it like a battle. At this point, it is purely a content dispute and I don't see any reason to get involved. I would also add, you need to have thick skin to work around here, and be able to look past little comments. No need to tolerate personal attacks, but this is miles from that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2603:7081:4006:C0FF:D962:15DE:3B05:963C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following diff shows not just disruptive editing but also advocates shooting Black Lives Matter protesters: [67]

Bongwarrior has rightly placed a semi-protection on the article, but I thought it might be worth bringing the issue here as well. Since many IPs are capable of hopping, I wonder if anyone technically adept at such things might be aware of similar behavior within a range. The level of harm to the project that can be caused by allowing readers to view violent threats of this kind seems to me to warrant extra vigilance.

Thank you for your time. Generalrelative (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]