Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Elinruby

• Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Azov Special Purpose Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment

(I've done my best to have diffs where I can. As far as I know no post has been deleted here, so people can look at any mentioned page and see conversations in full if they feel I may have misrepresented anything or that they need further context than what I have provided. In addition, I have notified all users mentioned by name below, and all who received a D/s notification from Elinruby, which seemed the fastest way to get the interested parties.)

Recently, User:Elinruby and I have been involved in a content dispute regarding multiple issues surrounding the article Azov Battalion. During this time they have demonstrated multiple policy violate and generally belligerent behaviors, most egregiously I would say is their most recent misuse of D/s notifications to tell editors not to vote wrong on an RfD I created.

Our initial interaction came after the creation of this RfC (made unilaterally without prior discussion I might add), in which they expressed unfamiliarity with the source material, but nonetheless had skepticism regarding the article's sourcing for certain claims, specifically regarding the far-right, neo-Nazi character of the unit in question. Later, they would post this source "rebuttal", too which I offered mine own here. The editor would continue to call into question the validity of sources used in the article for ideological claims, alternatively insisting they didn't exist, or that they were unusable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and that editors needed to "READ THE RS POLICY" (this one gets repeated a lot).

Not long after, I received this notification for an RSN discussion, technically involving one of the sources above, all though seemingly presenting it as the only source, instead of one of two for a particular claim, and five in that particular sentence. This is also the first time of two that I encountered WP:INAPPNOTE behavior. After I received my notification, I decided to check Elinruby's contribs to see who else they notified, and saw this (it continues on the next older page). Apparently, Elinruby took it upon themself to notify everyone who had posted on the Azov Battalion talk page since the last RfC, including several editors (and multiple IPs, SPAs, and blocked accounts) who had not posted on a single unarchived thing on the page and who had absolutely no involvement with the current dispute. This post ultimately went nowhere, as myself and several other editors were unconvinced by his arguments (and several others dropped in rather confused as to why they had been pinged).

The following day, I saw this post by User:Ymblanter regarding the article Azov Special Purpose Regiment. After reviewing the article, I concluded it was a woefully inadequate article, and an obvious WP:POVFORK and so took it to AfD (here). Now, I will admit the article has improved somewhat in the intervening days, however that does not change the fact that it is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK that never should have seen mainspace. It seems fairly obvious to me that Elinruby, dissatisfied with the reception at Talk:Azov Battalion, decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage (at the time of creation of the AfD quotes had not been properly attributed, and seemed to be Elinruby's own voice in the article, I'll likely go back and strike that part of my AfD once I'm done here). Normally, I would expect an editor of their tenure to be more than aware that this is not OK, however they have expressed multiple times to thinking it's just fine to go and make your own article on the same topic if you don't like the coverage at any particular article (including encouraging the proposer of the split to just do it unilaterally during the split discussion, in the case of User:Mhawk10). They seem very fond of unilateral action, having unilaterally moved Russian-Ukrainian information war to Russian information war against Ukraine, causing the conflagration on that talk page (I'm uninvolved in that dispute, and am only commenting on it as a further example of the user's bizarre ideas of acceptable behavior). Finally, during this AfD, Elinruby admitted to WP:CANVASSING Ukrainian Wikipedia for editors to fight my AfD (and seemingly wanting Azov members to escape Mariupol and... set the record straight on Wikipedia?), also calling me a "sneak" in the process.

Now, all of this would have been... fine. Frustrating and annoying yes, but not something to get upset over. There are some serious policy misconceptions and some bizarre personal attacks, but IMO that's not something I really feel the need to come here with. Then however, I received this D/s notification. Now I have already received one of these, in this topic area, but User:Elinruby later apologized for the doubel warning and offered to self-RV, so it's no big deal, if annoying. Of course, after I had recieved this warning I decided to check his contribs once again, seeing if I was a part of another wave of talk page edits, and surprise surprise I was. As can be seen right now, Elinruby apparently took it upon themselves to warn recent participants in the disputes they are involved in of EE D/s, including some rather experienced editors in the area such as User:Mhawk10 and User:Mhorg. Even this, though a fairly obvious attempt at intimidation IMO, wasn't enough to push me here. No, the final straw was this edit, repeated at each talk page (excepting my own) that a D/s notification was placed on. Placing D/s notifications on editors pages and then telling them it was because they voted in an AfD you disagree with (apparently RfC and RfD were meant to be AfD, per this, though they also take umbrage with the existence and voting in of every process in which they are involved in a dispute, and seem to think they are dealing with the same "group" of editors in each case) should absolutely not be acceptable under any circumstances.

Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. The pattern of behavior is consistent and has only been getting worse. I have no idea how an editor with a tenure like this could act like this. Hopefully an administrator can provide some assistance here. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest condensing this? You're going to be hardpressed to find anyone to read such a lengthy complaint. Maybe bullet point the issues...CUPIDICAE💕 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to break it up chronologically by paragraphs, but if you want a TLDR the issues are as follows:

Multiple kinds of WP:INAPPNOTE

Repeated and inappropriate spamming of user talk pages

General belligerence and personal attacks, as well as a habit of projecting behavior and accusations between users, or inventing it altogether (he seems to think I've called him a brainwashed Nazi, when as far as I am aware I've never done such a thing, nor could I find anyone who has in the past few days)

I figured it would be best to be thorough due to how this has crossed multiple pages and covers multiple issues, hence the paragraphs and diffs, but that's the quickest summary I can give. BSMRD (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This [[1]] contains some PA's "All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC", telling another user how they should have voted in an AFD (not to be a fair major issue, but I see they may have done to same to everyone who did not vote they way they wanted). I think all these need is a mild warning, but they are trying to bludgeon an AFD on multiple talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support sanctions against Elinruby. They posted this discretionary sanctions notice on my UP: [2] and then, an hour and a half after I deleted that, posted this canvassing: [3] Mztourist (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I also would support sanctions. There behavior on Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine has been sub-par, to say the least, move-warring over the article ([4]) with multiple allegations of personal attacks against another editor ([5], [6], [7]), combined with a general BATTLEGROUND approach ([8], [9]: It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever, you have been doing this less than a fifth as long as I have) to the topic and whose sole technique seems to be to BLUDGEON the discussion (they have 173 edits to that talk page compared to the next highest at 35; they are also responsible for two thirds of its text). SN54129 18:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for compiling some diffs regarding Russian information war against Ukraine. I knew there had been drama over there, but my post was already long enough and I wasn't a participant to begin with, so I decided to leave it at a passing mention. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that your diff 145 diplays quite an attitude, but I have never seen that text before and definitely didn’t write it. I assume it was something that was in your editor buffer from some other discussion. I don’t dispute that I changed the article title. The one that was there did not reflect the contents of the article. When it was unilaterally changed back, based on some erroneous notion of the topic, the article-title mismatch again required either a retitling or the move or deletion of a massive amount of cited material. See comment to Buidhe below. As for the amount of work I have put into the article—-in what way is this against policy? It was bad machine translation when I came to it, or at least broken English, with many diatribes about Russian oppressors and Goebbels and at least one BLP violations. But well sourced! So I fixed a lot of language and removed a lot of diatribes and documented what I was doing, shrug. Then I worked to improve it from there, in particular as to what I too initially saw as a point of view problem. This is what we do with WP:PNT articles ——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read through the entire text above. There are a few things that I'd like to note:

• Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. It isn't a novel POVFORK; Elinruby decided to go off and make his own version of what the article "should" be like by copying Ukrainian coverage is true only inasmuch as the coverage comes directly from a sister project.
• I was surprised to discover this because I have participated in discussions on the Azov Battalion page before, but I can't actually find an EE topic area notification in my talk page archives. I'm certainly aware of the general EE restrictions (I've given the template out to people), but I didn't find it particularly intimidating.
• People should not boldly make moves that they know are going to be contested, especially after people have explicitly written that the move was not supported. I've recently learned that there is a way to request that these be undone at the RM noticeboard without having to open a full move discussion. The way that this actually appears to have played out was that there was a Bold move by Elinruby on March 6, followed by a reversion of the undiscussed move by Buidhe on March 22, followed by Elinruby moving the article to their preferred title for the second time on March 23. I can excuse a bold move, but the second page move is clearly disruptive and out-of-process; gaining consensus to move a page name when it is contested is not optional. Unlike the fork of Azov Battalion, this doesn't appear to be a case where the user is simply importing the title of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article to English Wikipedia.
• Technically you don't need consensus for an article split along the lines of the one I proposed (leaving the source page unchanged but making a second page to cover a subtopic in more depth), since it's more or less the same procedurally as just writing a new article. I also think it's unwise to spend a lot of time on doing so if consensus is against a split, since any such split-off article is going to wind up at AfD and likely be redirected back to the article covering the top. Giving unwise advice isn't exactly disruptive.
• The diff BSMRD links to as evidence of a canvassing confession contains the line If trying to prevent censorship gets me blocked then heh, fine, I don’t think that would be Wikipedia anymore anyway. Elinruby understands their actions as being opposed to censorship, but also says that Everything I am doing against sneaks is in the open, which suggests that the user is intentionally POVPUSHING against people they consider to be sneaks. This attitude is not consistent with the collaboration that is necessary to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.

I propose that Elinruby receive a three-month one-month WP:TBAN from making edits that pertain to the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed. All of the disruption appears to be in this topic area, so I think a TBAN is going to be better here than a WP:CBAN. If disruption continues in other areas, then we could expand it, but I don't see evidence of that yet. If disruption resumes following the TBAN's expiration, a longer and more permanent one could be imposed at WP:AE. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 04:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC))

I appreciate your taking the time to read everything above (I know it was a lot), and taking the time to formulate a well reasoned response. WRT the POV nature Azov Special Purpose Regiment, it's not that I think Elin came up with that article on their own (they obviously didn't), but rather that after being largely rejected at Azov Battalion they decided to simply import the Ukrainian version (which they clearly see as superior) to it's own space, rather than attempting to bring Azov Battalion more in line with its Ukrainian version. This is obviously a fork of Azov Battalion (they cover exactly the same subject, though in different ways), and is clearly done to promote Elinruby's POV, hence my calling it a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps that is not strictly accurate, but I feel it fits the spirit of a WP:POVFORK. BSMRD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Much less here than meets the eye. Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a prolific contributor in numerous topic areas with no blocks in sixteen years. I don't always agree with him, but we have cooperated on major topics in the past and he is tireless in improving topics and cooperating with other editors. Elinruby always has NPOV in mind, and he can get impatient when he runs into a situation where concerted POV-pushing goes on at an article, and he tries to combat it, sometimes feeling alone at protecting the encyclopedia and causing frustration which can come out as crabbiness sometimes. We've probably all been there, and it's disconcerting to say the least; maintaining one's equanimity (not to mention AGF) is hard in situations like that. Unfortunately, that can spill over into other situations, when one sees what superficially looks like similar behavior to what just got one's hackles up in some other topic, but in this case is actually GF editors who disagree on points of policy or content.

I think that's where we are now. When Elinruby feels that others are acting contrary to NPOV or the best interest of the article, he is vociferous in protecting it. In fact, the whole reason that Eastern Europe/Balkans have an AC/DS alert in the first place, is because there is a long history of bad behavior going on in this area; Elinruby both knows this is the case, and has experienced it, and he may have come into it with his guard up and too ready to see a battleground where there was only (mostly) civil opposition. The initial unilateral page move deserves an eyebrow-raise, the second is clearly against policy and should not have been made. I've commented at his Talk page, trying to calm the waters, and I think we're basically done with the problem.

Calling for a three-month TBAN is ridiculous; what's needed here is a TROUT for some uncivil behavior under pressure, and a reminder about WP:RM#CM requiring controversial moves to be put to other editors for comment first. Perhaps an admin clarification may be needed on his UTP about when and to whom one may give AC/DS alerts; WP:AC/DS is actually unclear about frequency, and I see nothing on that page that says an editor may not place several or a hundred {{Ds/alert}} templates if several or a hundred editors starting editing at an affected topic (as long as they meet aware.aware and aware.alert, which in one case, they did not; Elinruby has since apologized in that case). Bottom line, other than a reminder and a TROUT, and perhaps a friendly tip to cool off or disengage temporarily when he feels the temperature rising at an article under AC/DS, I see nothing actionable here. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be in your position if it weren't for the comment that broadly referred to their actions as being against sneaks. I'm not really bound to 3 months as being the perfect length (I'd prefer the minimum amount of time that allows for the user to cool down), but I think the editor needs some time to cool off before returning to this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am involved in the discussion around Russian–Ukrainian information war and unfortunately, I don't think that their editing in this area is entirely constructive. It's understandable that strong emotions are going to come out over an ongoing war, but we cannot tolerate advocacy favoring one side or disruptive editing. I think Elinruby would benefit from taking a break from the Russia–Ukraine conflict, either voluntarily or by a topic ban as suggested by Mhawk. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, you’ve repeatedly been invited to add anything into the article that you think is missing, or to join the ongoing discussion about is reorganization. The problem is that the original title caused a huge false balance problem, which would be even worse if restored now as none of the sources *I* have found say anything about Ukrainians hacking Russians, as you seem to think is happening. The ones you put at the top of the request for merge don’t say that either, and one of them is already cited in the article. I have no objection to the other sources or any other reliable sources being added to the article. Alternatively if you want an article about what the Ukrainians are doing, or about what the Ukrainians are doing vs what the Russian doing, please do write it. I’ll even point you to some recent material for it that only came out this week afaik and so far is only on the talk page of the Russian disinformation page. But look. A title is supposed to reflect the contents of the article and if we name this one “Russian-Ukrainian information war” then a lot of information will need to be removed about the Russians because with the exception of the material mentioned above, the Ukrainian information war so far has consisted of Zelenskyy making speeches Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that Ukraine hacked Russians. Misrepresenting other editors and constant bludgeoning is not cool. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree! Not cool at all! So great! Now, buidhe, can you please explain why you think there should be a Russian-Ukrainian information article? I might possibly even agree with you about that also. But more to the point, what I don't understand why it has to be this one, which is currently on a different topic. Alternately, if sources support whatever it is you think is happening let's add them in, by all means let's use them, and maybe it even *could* be this article. But if not Ukrainians hacking, then what is it you think I am not including that should be in the article? I ask in all humility. Again. Btw the new materials I was talking about involved speculation that Ukrainians had disabled the Russians' secure communications system, but industry experts say it's more likely that the Russians did it to themselves by blowing up cell towers not realizing that their Era cryptophones required 3/4G 02:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

• After reading this comment I think an indefinite ban for all Eastern European topics is correct. The user is too involved in a political defence of Ukraine, his\her work risks being manipulative. The user also left me a DS on my talkpage (which honestly I still don't understand what it is for), perhaps to intimidate me?--Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  An indef ban on all Eastern European topics is way too broad. I don't see how that comment (or any others) reasonably shows that the editor cannot edit on topics involving the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, or even for that matter relatively mundane topics (such as rapid transit systems) involving Russia or Ukraine. The limits of the disruption are very clearly related solely to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, so I don't think that a ban on all of Eastern Europe would be anywhere closes to narrowly tailored towards prevention. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhorg: Re: the DS alert, no, I don't think they were trying to intimdate you; it was probably because the vast majority of your editing is in Eastern European topics... SN54129 19:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Mhawk10, you are right, perhaps limiting the ban to the Russian-Ukrainian question is right, my proposal was excessive.

  Ok SN54129, thanks for the explanation. Anyway maybe I have problem with the translation from English, I can't understand well the functionality of the DS. I have to read it better. Mhorg (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhorg: DS allows administrators to block users for less severe conduct violations than they would normally be able to if the violations pertain to specific topics. The notice Elinruby posted on your talk page is simply informing you need to be more careful how you edit within that topic than you normally would. Although people sometimes take it as a personal attack, it is merely intended as a courtesy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I forgot to add one thing: the accusations of INAPPNOTE by the OP is belied by the OP's own statement at WP:RSN: "As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants)." (diff). That is the very definition of WP:APPNOTE. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but pinging everyone who has posted on a talk page in the past six months (most of whom had nothing to do with the dispute in question) is textbook 'spamming' per WP:INAPPNOTE BSMRD (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  APPNOTE bullet 5.2: "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'd still consider what Elin did spamming, but I suppose it could technically be considered an appropriate, if particularly excessive, notification. BSMRD (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi there. I have been seeking help with BSMRD’s uncivil and retaliatory behavior from Drmies on his talk page for a couple of days now. The editor’s utter refusal to actually read the Reliable Sources policy figured prominently, although I did not mention a name.

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

In fact there had been an RFC on whether neo-Nazi should appear in the lede. The prior RFC the editor refers to: I went through it rather carefully when I was sending out notices, and I did not see a conclusion that neo-Nazi should be in the lede. I am not prepared to say it isn’t there, and I can’t research this right now as I am overdue in dealing with urgent RL matters, but if it seems important I will look again later. What I did see was somebody trying to close it with a conclusion that it should not. I thank the editor for finally realizing that the article is not an editorial in my personal voice and but meanwhile a dozen people have voted to delete the article based on the editor’s false statement. I am not particularly injured that the editor did not read the article closely enough to notice the translation tag and the discussion of a translation issue on the talk page, but I would think that this might have seemed an important thing to do when trying to delete an article, you know? Read the talk page?

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

Mhawk10 probably sincerely believes that I have done something wrong at that article, since a couple of editors who were also in the Reliable Sources “discussion” at Azov Battalion are saying so over and over again. The requested move would require the deletion of almost all of the article’s material and 299 references, so I have objected to it fairly strenuously. The editors from Azov Battalion who are trying to do this have not discussed any of the matters raised elsewhere on the talk page, including a proposed reorganization, which is on hold lest the editor doing it also be dragged over here. AGF, I question whether either editor has read the full article, although on March 21 one of them did fix two typos in one section.

I really need to go do some paid work where they won’t call me names, but before I do I’d like to mention that the comments about the light of day were not about the creation of the regiment article but were instead a reply to the suggestion that I should not for some reason have notified editors at the Ukrainian Wikipedia of an effort to delete a translation of their work.

I hope I have answered enough to demonstrate that there is a lot more to this than has been presented to you, and will be happy to answer questions or discuss anything when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Repinging Drmies for you; your attempted fix of a typo in a previous ping will not work, per WP:NOTIF. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For example, when pointed to WP:CONTEXTMATTERs this editor said that this Wikipedia policy did not prevent the source from being reliable, because they had voted on it.

What I actually said. You still have yet to present a convincing reason why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS disqualifies the sources in question. You can't just say "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS go read the RS policy" and expect that to be enough.

So this definitely should be a boomerang. The BSMRD likewise has mischaracterized Russian information war against Ukraine above.

All I said was that you unilaterally moved the article title (twice apparently, which I neither realized nor incuded in my original post), thereby inciting the current drama, which is by all accounts factually accurate. BSMRD (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Based on my communication with user Elinruby, I would oppose to sanctions beyond a warning. She/he is agitated and probably behaves like a new and very inexperienced user, but I do not see them sufficiently disruptive to warrant sanctions, at least based on my interactions with them. Other users might have a different opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Elinruby has 65,446 edits, and has been editing since 2006. They know better. BSMRD (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @My very best wishes: Elinruby has >65,000 edits. I also think you may be missing a "not" in the second sentence of your rationale. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) was coming in to say that. I don’t usually get involved in wikilawyering though, so apparently I had some misconceptions about procedures. I erred on the side of notifying people I disagreed with as well as those I didn’t, when apparently I should not have notified at all.Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Since I was notified of this discussion and I've been one of the most active editors regarding the invasion, I feel like I have to throw my 2 cents in. That said, from my limited interaction by being on the periphery, my view is simply that Elinruby didn't get the consensus they wanted at Talk:Azov Battalion and got upset by it, created a new mirror page, and then that mirror page got shit on at AfD (rightfully in my opinion, as it was pretty clear that it was made to circumvent the consensus from the main Azov page in order to push Elinruby's preferred objectives; additionally, it was a bad translation and still a work-in-progress that would have benefitted more from being in draftspace). Now, that's not necessarily inherently disruptive, and it's been handled easily. Considering that Elinruby is an editor-in-good-standing and has been a longtime contributor without incident, they should be sternly warned not to pull that shit again (i.e. trying to circumvent consensus without further discussion), but a TBAN is just an overreaction at this point, in my opinion, especially if it is a full EE TBAN. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a mild problem of a POV-pushing OWNership with IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Turning to Russian-Ukrainian information war, recently renamed "Russian information war against Ukraine" by Elinruby after his editing had turned it into a one-sided indictment of Russia:

• Elinruby chose WP:Move war, and then attacked both Buidhe and me (as first commenter I guess) saying e.g. "If you had even read the lede you would appreciate how inappropriate your move was. It was extremely disrespectful to show up here for the first time ever and assume that your random Google search based on unknown search terms entitled you to think you knew enough about the content of an extremely lengthy article with 299 references than the people who put them there."[10]
• Elinruby comments on Buidhe's RfM (to the article's original name): "sigh. Another canvass of people who haven’t read the article they are commenting on." [11]
• Elinruby edit wars to strikeout parts of Buidhe's RfM statement that he considers personally attacked him [12][13][14]
• Elinruby removes from Buidhe's RfM her statement " In the event of no consensus, it should revert to the original title." [15]
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby added 2 new sections to my talk page, "Edit warring and vandalism" and "You believe some strange things"
• Somewhere in there, Elinruby changed article talk page section header from "Discussion" to "Editor tantrum"[16]

WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. The project suffers when bullies are left to thrive. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support sanctions against Elinruby: I disagree with Mhawk10's argument that Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a (rather faithful) translation of the Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the group. Editors are expected to follow WP:TRANSLATETOHERE for an already existing article. They are expected to gain consensus and expand existing article and not start a povfork. A neutral reader of wikipedia would get a different picture of, say, Narendra Modi's article on english wikipedia or the 2002 Gujarat riots vis-à-vis the Gujarati-languange wikipedia articles on the same subject. What if I or someone else decides to misuse the policy to start a fork article to suit my narrative. Elinruby's comments like this and this show that this user is more than happy to muddy the waters with emotional appeals and ramblings and use the talk page as a forum for chitter chatter. Combined with their forumshopping on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion and canvassing and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment, I strongly believe that this user cannot be neutral on this subject and deserves long/indef sanctions on this area. - hako9 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Request Is there any way we can break this up to address one page at a time? Because all these accusations are moving targets. First I wrote an editorial opinion, then I translated an article with bad sources, then I unilaterally renamed an article that nobody seems to realize began life as bad machine translation, and now I am being lectured on the proper procedure for contacting a translator.

I am a translator. Almost all of my edits involve translation and/or remediation of machine translation. Russian information war against Ukraine had been languishing for a very long time at WP:PNT, which is where I wikignome. I contacted everyone listed as a Ukrainian or Russian translator before beginning, and have contacted editors with Russian skills about the reliability of specific sources and specific translation problems.

This and more can be found in the “chit-chat” on the talk page that Hako9 so dismissively refers to. I documented questions that arose, discussed things undone that should be done, and occasionally got an answer. I would like to start there, since this request for merge is preventing work on that article from proceeding. I am still on deadline for paid work, but was able to take a moment to make this procedural request. If this sounds ok to everyone will come back with some diffs and links about this article when I get done with the paid work. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is reflective of the problem a lot of users are talking about, it's not one page or one issue. Rather it is multiple issues, over multiple articles. What you need to do is take on board the idea that you can't just create POV forks because you cannot get your way. That you should not tell people how to vote in an AFD, or RFC. That you should not actively canvas users to vote (or change their vote) the way you want. That you should not attack other users, either by calling them names or questioning their neutrality if they disagree with you. Nor should you wp:bludgeon a discussion either directly on a talk page or indirectly by WP:FORUMSHOP or over multiple talk user talk pages. That (in essence) you will agree to not do any of the things users have complained about here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that I do those things and urge editors not to rely on the erroneous statements made in these complaints. In particular, while I am here, let me mention that I haven’t told anyone how to vote. I did as a parenthesis to another statement tell a handful of people that I thought their vote was mistaken and offer to explain why. Nobody said please do, so I have not. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question BSMRD, having refused to hear this all the way to ANI, has finally registered that the regiment article is a translation and not in my voice, and has struck that out of the AfD request, which is progress, but editors have still voted on the basis of the statement. Also, the editor has now substituted another inaccurate statement, that its sources are not reliable. The most often-cited source is Ukrainian Pravda, which has a stellar reputation per the Reliable Sources noticeboard and in particular my recent query there about it. I have recently been educated to realize that an AfD statement does not have to be neutral, since the requestor doesn’t get a vote, but shouldn’t it at least reflect some version of reality? Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to make clear that I did not say that the article as a whole was in you voice, but that it was peppered with comments in your voice. What lead me too that conclusion was lines like Yes, most of the guys present in the Azov Battalion have their own perception of the world. But who told you that you can judge them? Don't forget what the Azov Battalion has done for the country. I spent many hours talking to Azov fighters. There is no Nazism or swastika there. which in your initial copy had no attribution or indication at all that it was a quote. Such indication has since been added, and I have retracted my statement in the AfD. I did not say the sources are not reliable, I said that they do not support the idea that "Azov Battalion" and "Azov Special Purpose Regiment" are separate topics. While Ukrainian Pravda may be reliable, that does not mean all the sources are. Indeed, a fair few of the cites are directly too Azov themselves. Additionally, I did not "replace" my struck comment with anything about sourcing. I added this: I have struck the preceding line. What I thought were personal comments were infact unattributed quotes that had been poorly copied. For someone who complains so much about editors misrepresenting the truth and not reading, the least you could do is bother to do it yourself. BSMRD (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

pretty sure it was always attributed in the text above it, BSMRD. I am still confused about why you would ever think I would blockquote anything in my own voice or for that matter use my own voice? Also, yes, it is copied and edited machine translation, which does not bring over the markup. No “poorly” about it. References have to be translated by hand. I said this already when I was explaining why the AfD was premature. Would have been fixec long ago if you hadn’t decided to bring wiki procedures rather than actually read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. But I see that some other people are looking into reliable sources at the Battalion article, and have deleted some Russian propaganda (according to them - not verified by me) so I would like to deal with the inappropriate merge request at the more important article first (Russian information war against Ukraine) and let that effort proceed before commenting further. Elinruby (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I do not really have an opinion regarding sactions, but I have to admit when I read on here that Elinruby had been editing from 2006 I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a new user who mistakenly thought it is okay to just translate an article from another wiki, even though it is very likely that it might not have been written with a WP:NPOV, considering the current events and the wiki it was written on. So, perhaps Elinruby should have taken this into account, as they could/should know better. My stance on any sanctions is neutral however. This is just my two cents. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your neutrality, thanks. It is refreshing. I did want to let you know however that it is definitely ok to translate articles from other wikis Elinruby (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Request block until Elinruby acknowledges that other editors on Wikipedia are entitled to disagree with him without being bludgeoned or attacked. His utter carelessness about facts in his talk page arguments does not suggest good things about his work in article space, for example:
• Accusation that I have never edited the page, posted in 3 different places.[17][18][19]
• Random insults including a false accusation that I wrote the March 2 article lede, an accusation also made without checking the article history[20]
• If you did not write the lede then I will apologize, pending verification of that statement....By the way I see that you did in fact correct two typos in one section of the article on March 21...I have not had a chance to verify whether it was before or after I asked you why you were trying to rename an article you had never edited.[21]
• You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process?[22]
• Focus on PAs rather than improving the article: welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true ...I am in a car in a wilderness area and not in a position to verify your statements...So who is owning the article?[23]
• You are berating me ...I am begging you to please please please please please read the article you want to rename. One of the other referenced your buddy wants me to use in the article is also in fact used in the article, or at least profoundly informed my thinking on the topic[24]
• A claim that "she" (Buidhe) and "her friend" (me) are telling Elinruby to re-write the article and telling me to use sources as if the article doesn’t have 299 independent references[25]
• More bludgeoning, more PA unsupported by fact it would be great if you would read it so we can talk about how to summarize the article in a title, because the move you support is not it[26]

Rather than using this ANI to continue content disputes, Elinruby needs to review WP:CIVIL and start to be more collegial. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would love to do so and in fact have just made a superhuman effort to be polite while asking this editor the purpose of another plaintive post saying that I am shortchanging Wikipedia readers by omitting subtopics at Russian information war against Ukraine, which as a matter of fact are included in the article. They also appear to still believe that the article is about disinformation, which is only part of its scope. They nonetheless claim to have read the article. I am now saying for the sixth time that if they feel the article is missing something then gee, why don’t they add it, as opposed to parachuting into the article and telling me it doesn’t include factoids that the sources don’t support. All I ask is a freaking source and a specific proposal. Their sources are pretty good, but their point remains mysterious. Since they have now wasted a couple of hours of my typing time and goaded me into replying here again, I suggest that if this most recent effort does not reach HouseOfChange then perhaps a topic ban is in order for that editor, as they appear to be seriously WP:NOTTHERE on this topic. They haven’t and they show no signs of doing so. Although I am not here to do HouseOfChange’s bidding, I am feeling sufficiently harassed that I probably would, if only I could figure out what it was. And while we are here, I’d like to mention that yes I did tell this editor that they believe some strange things, and I stand by that statement. In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. AGF they do not travel through wilderness often enough to realize that this meant I was losing cell service, and in retrospect I didn’t owe them an explanation and should have merely ignored them, but it’s a bit...sensitive...to run to ANI with an incivility complaint rather than just ask me what the heck I was talking about. I don’t have time for the rest of that list and neither does anyone else most likely, but perhaps if the editor tried starting from AGF they would not get their feelings hurt so much when other people don’t acknowledge their inability to ever be wrong. Yes I am annoyed. I have stuff to do and the editor seems bent on preventing me from doing it Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

also yes, It is true that HouseOfChange corrected two typos on March 21. I missed this the first time that I looked and apologized, because hey, this is constructive as far as it goes. But it isn’t exactly a substantive contribution and still doesn’t entitle them to tell me what the article is about, especially since they demonstrably do not know. I am unavailable to read silly accusations for the rest of the day now. Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Elinruby's latest utterly false PA: In particular they believed it was uncivil when I told them I was in a wilderness area and unable to look up whatever homework assignment they were trying to give me. Your statement that you were "in the wilderness" and unable to fact-check my statements[27] did not reflect any homework assignment from me, because I have never given you even one "homework assignment." The uncivil part of that diff is not being "in the wilderness," is it the accusation without proof welp the problem with that is that it isn’t true.

Now see if what I actually said meant that being "in the wilderness" was itself uncivil: Elinruby, being harried or busy or in the wilderness, etc. does not exempt you from WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF [28] If you are so careless about facts in attacking other users, I shudder to think what POV-pushing you've done in article space. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN After the above refusal to get it, and in fact the claim they have been " made a superhuman effort to be polite" (or the same amount of effort everyone else has made here) I think it is clear they need cooling of period. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve spent entire days trying to get the user to read the article he wants to rename. Yesterday was one of them. He appears to believe that discussing Russian military doctrine (as cited to NATO and the United States Marine University and its own information warfare manual) is somehow being mean to the Kremlin. And has now deleted a huge chunk of carefully cited material about it without any attempt to discuss. Then edited my talk page post about it. Slatersteven I have already advised you not to rely on the way he portrays events. I don’t think it should need to be my full-time job to explain NPOV to this user, and he definitely isn’t listening anyway.Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And he does not want to rename it, he wants to delete it, and I have seen your (and his reasons), and I have made up my mind based on both sets of arguments. I would ask you to start and wp:agf. And I reiterate what I said above, this tells me the user can't edit in this topic area in a way that is conducive to collaborative editing. Please do not try to badger me into changing my mind again, it is having the eclty opposite effect (as you would have relasied had you bothered to listen to what people are telling you). Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, he wants to rename it. You are confusing him with another editor who pinged him to this page, and what she wants to do about a different, although related, page. Based on his talk page I am also not the only one who has recently had these problems [29] with him. I do realize that there is a dizzying array of accusations here Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There are three different editors that Elinruby is abusing on this talk page, all three of whom he calls "she" and treats with utter contempt, although he has been marginally more polite to me since I notified him that I am a "he."[30][31] The other two are User:Buidhe, a prolific and distinguised editor in the military history space, and BSMRD, a newish editor for whom WP:BITE would be relevant. Editors who identify as "she" are rare on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that Slatersteven didn't realize Elinruby uses this ANI to bludgeon three different editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that Elinruby felt a little more... hostile (perhaps hostile is the wrong word, maybe 'took things more personally') when referring to Buidhe or myself as I was digging through diffs and talk pages for my initial post. I didn't want to add it and still am not comfortable making any sort of direct accusation (I do actually believe in WP:AGF), but since you brought it up I will say it is something that crossed my mind. Also, and this I am comfortable saying directly, Elin seems to mix us up and cycle between us with annoying regularity, though they usually catch themselves before long. BSMRD (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions beyond a warning or guidance. An established editor with a clean block log should be warned or guided first (if needed). - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I for one would be happy if being warned or guided can persuade Elinruby to treat Wikipedia as a group project where collegial editing is a pillar of policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So have they been warned yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I would consider this whole thread a warning, as there have been multiple comments from others explaining problems with their behavior. Which Elinruby has ignored. A formal warning is just process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

FelicityWiki reported by Comedymod

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• FelicityWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedymod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Gordillo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a request to restore Special:Diff/1068022507 to the last edit on 26th January 2022.

User FelicityWiki has made edits that subtly defames John Gordillo as you can tell by

unlinking his website removing links to his "Podcast for Kel" podcast editing the main content to make it seem less favourable about his achievements and editing to seem he's generally an unfavorable character I know John Gordillo personally and have given my attention to this so I created an account to appeal to administrators to have the page restored to the last version before FelicityWiki edited the page who we both believe it's someone who has continually engaged in online harassment against John on every social media platform and now seeks to defame him further.

John and I have decided to directly appeal to administrators instead of engaging FelicityWiki as, historically she has been hostile and we both believe this would be a waste of time. We are appealing for swift action on these defamatory edits which can clearly be differentiated by reading the current Vs previous versions.

This page also has had a history of malicious edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedymod (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comedymod,

• If clearly problematic content is currently present in the article, please go ahead and remove it. If WP:PAID applies to you, please provide the required disclosure in your edit summary when doing so.
• If there is currently no problematic content present in the article, and your concern is purely about the lack of content you'd like to see included, please do not edit the article directly. Instead, click "Talk" above the article, then "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange box at the top of the talk page.

That's pretty much it. Remove factually incorrect statements if there are factually incorrect statements. Discuss any other kinds of desired changes on the article's talk page. See WP:FAQ/Article subjects for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing defamatory at all, but simply the removal of clear advertising. The only defamatory content I see is your post above, which defames User:FelicityWiki. Are we really supposed to find someone with such a pompous friend funny? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed some content in revision 1079425700, which may have been the main concern (undue weight; potential verifiability / source reliability issues). I can't read minds, though, and if there is truly problematic content currently in the article, we do allow its removal even by closely connected editors as described in WP:BLP, even before discussing the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits FelicityWiki made as well; they did not remove any podcast link that I could see, nor did they touch the website (which appears to be dead anyhow; it's a Wix parking page). Other edits certainly looked to be reasonable and aimed at making the article neutral and factual. There's a distinct lack of WP:AGF in the claims made. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have made a full rebuttal on the talk page. I use the citations already in the article to demonstrate why the edits seem biased. The page has been under attack before. Perhaps I should not have gone all guns blazing, but anyone who is supposed to check the information could read the citations in their entirety to see that the edits walk a line.

I do however thank you all for correcting my approach, of course I don't expect you to read minds but I hope you give my reasonings the same weight as you did these other edits. Comedymod (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Comedymod. Editing of this page attempts to: establish a neutral tone and a factual oversight of a career. In my research I looked for notable reviews to justify their inclusion and used other comedian's profiles as a template. FelicityWiki (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

KingsofLondon's disruptive editing

• KingsofLondon (talk · contribs)

Please have a look to this user's disruptive edits. He'd arleady been given a 4im warn but he's still disruptive. We've tried to explain him what he'd done wrong but doesn't want to listen to us. Dr Salvus 08:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for disruptive behaviour? I went through some of the edits that triggered warnings on his talk page... seriously? Given a warning for inserting the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on Kimi Räikkönen (who retired in 2021)? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, there are unsourced info 1, 2, 3, 4. There are also other unsourced edits. The last uncostructive edit is 5 (updated the infobox but didn't the table) Dr Salvus 10:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The first diff he added information to state that Hayden Mullins was no longer manager of Colchester United. He was correct. Has anyone actually tried working with him rather than biting? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Warren, Andy (January 19, 2022), "Colchester sack Mullins as ex-Town defender takes interim charge of U's", East Anglian Daily Times, retrieved March 27, 2022

It does not appear the user has any intention of communicating having never posted on any talk page or even used an edit summary. SK2242 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Don't claim they have no intention when they probably have no indication at all that anyone is trying to communicate with them. Fram (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do then? How do we try and get them to communicate? SK2242 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We usually block them, but with a note that gently indicates why they were blocked, not something that makes them feel like a deliberate vandal. And if it were up to me, any time we have to block someone for the "theycanthearyou" reason, we should also block one of the people from the company actually responsible for this already long known major issue, i.e. someone with a (WMF) account. Perhaps by the time all of them are blocked from enwiki, they'll start to realise that this is a serious issue, much more so than the things they usually spend their time on. Would that be blocking people over something they personally perhaps can't solve? Well, right, but that's exactly what we have to do with these mobile editors... Fram (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It may well be that it is necessary to issue a block to Kingsoflondon, but as things stand we'll probably lose them as an editor as the talk page is plastered with templates that can look threatening to a new user. KingsofLondon looks to be attempting to edit in good faith and could turn out to be a net positive to the encyclopedia if gently nudged. If a block is needed to that end then it would be helpful if it is clear that the block is being placed as blocks are meant to be placed, i.e. preventatively rather than punitively. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The templating at the KingsofLondon's talk page is a textbook example of how to not treat new users. The initial level one template made by Egghead06 (talk · contribs) was unnecessary. It related to an addition that didn't appear controversial in the slightest and took seconds to verify. Still, as per WP:UWLS, no major problem as it assumes good faith. The edit that "earned" them a level 3 warning from TylerBurden (talk · contribs) was to place the word "former" in front of "racing driver" on retired F1 driver, Kimi Räikkönen's article. Bear in mind that a level 3 warning assumes bad faith and that the warning states "content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy." Is it?

Further to this KingsofLondon was given a level 4 warning by SK2242 (talk · contribs) "Final Warning-Assumes bad faith, strong cease and desist, last warning" for updating Mark Goldbridge's article with his birthdate in the infobox and lead. "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Goldbridge". His date of birth is in the article and it is sourced. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I trusted too much to the users who've given the warns and so I hadn't had a look to the user's edits Dr Salvus 10:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You can't just look at a bunch of warnings and report someone to ANI, you need to actually investigate their behaviour yourself and provide diffs. TylerBurden (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: Kimi Räikkönen isn't a retired racing driver as a whole, he retired from Formula One. There are other motorsports than Formula One, and he has participated in them. Changing the article with no sources provided to imply that he would be fully retired is a BLP violation, and I don't see why you take such issue with giving a level three warning for that since they had already recieved a level two earlier that month for inserting unsourced content. I have no idea why this user has ended up here, can't say I'm shocked to see someone violating BLP did though. TylerBurden (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Because it wasn't remotely a violation of BLP, should not have been viewed as bad faith, and was not defamatory or in violation of Wikipedia policy. We have behavioral guidelines to inform how we treat newcomers. Please read WP:BITE. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How is inserting unsourced material into a BLP article not a BLP violation? TylerBurden (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a valid interpretation of "retired". Whether it fits in terms of nuance would be up for discussion... which you finally did with another editor after getting involved in an edit war. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Writing him as retired in the lead makes it look as if he's retired from racing, him retiring from Formula One is well sourced, him retiring from motorsport as a whole is not. It should not be up to our "interpretation" as editors to determine if a man has retired from his job, it should be reliable sources. Either way that issue is solved, they did not make an edit again and consensus was reached on the talk page. To be pinged months later here and have an admin seemingly not be able to grasp the concept of BLP is almost absurd. Either way I have no interest in this discussion, I'll have a look at WP:BITE but I doubt it will change my mind about this particular warning. Adios and good luck. TylerBurden (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"His date of birth is in the article and it is sourced" - Blatantly untrue, and you would have known that by actually clicking on the source to see it doesn't mention a birthdate of 7 April. SK2242 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight. In Special:Diff/1074845641 someone else adds to the birth date, and all that KingsofLondon does in Special:Diff/1077868990 is transfer that from the "Personal life" section to the infobox and introduction — and rather than the person who added the information getting the warning (User talk:42.2.113.108 does not even exist right now.), the person who merely transferred what was already in the article to an infobox gets a warning. Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Was it a bad faith edit on the part of KingsofLondon? A level 3 warning assumes bad faith. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring across many pages

Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bears247 has engaged in prolonged edit warring, even after being partially blocked on two separate articles recently. They were blocked for three months from editing Eric Berry on March 21 (see article history) for edit warring and then blocked from editing Tim Tebow the next day (article history) by a second administrator.

The article Bryan Scott (quarterback) has been plagued with undisclosed paid editing by at least seven accounts (see Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigBoyzz1006/Archive). I had upgraded the page protection to extended-confirmed to combat the sockpuppetry/UPE, because Mr. Scott has been paying editors to make specific edits to his page for the past 12+ months. Bears247 added back one of the edits that I've repeatedly removed from sockpuppet edits on February 23 (without edit summary), which I removed again (with edit summary). On February 26, Bears247 re-added the content (no edit summary) and posted on my talk page ([32]) about the edit. I responded there and, after pointing out my rationale for the removal, asked if they are a paid editor like the rest of the socks I've encountered on that page. I did not receive a response for a month, and in the meantime, Bears247 has been blocked from editing two pages for edit warring. Bears247 finally responded on my talk page denying that they are a paid editor but ignoring the rest of my response about the actual content dispute on March 23 ([33]). Another user removed the edit on the page later that day (here). Bears247 posted on the article talk page asking about the content (here), but then ignored my response there and just re-added the content to the page again today with no explanation ([34]).

Bears247 does not seem to understand why edit warring is a problem, or why their behavior specifically is disruptive (diff). I am an involved editor, so I would like to see if there are opinions from other administrators on this user's conduct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have page blocked Bears247 from Bryan Scott (quarterback) and all three page blocks are now set at six months. Cullen328 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for handling this matter. At what point do you think a full mainspace block would be in order here, after three partial blocks for edit warring in the past week? The user says here, right after your third partial block, that they were "in the right" during one of the edit wars that resulting in their block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Eagles247, I just responded to that comment on their talk page, and warned them that they are on the brink of an indefinite block. Since you both edit American football articles, please let me know if you observe any more edit warring behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Eagles247, I believe that Bears247 should already be blocked from all edits on mainspace wikipedia. He did it thrice and has shown no sign of stopping. He has cluttered my talk page, he threatened to bring another user into this, and has repeatedly shown himself to have no sensibility. This sums up how aggressive he is: He is so unable to listen to another view that he'd edit Mirabel Madrigal to say she's a conspiracy theorist if he believed it (And cite the "open your eyes" in Waiting on a Miracle). This is quite a long post so I will stop here, but he seriously should be banned from all Wikipedia. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I edit nutrition articles and volunteer as a Teahouse host. NO IDEA why my name mentioned here. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was a bit suspicious when I saw you on my talk page. It was an honest mistake of mine. Sorry about that, Now I know you're innocent. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted your name from my post, I am extremely sorry about disturbing you. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

i’d like to get some more clarification for what this block would be for? If your referring to my recent addition to the eric berry talk page, the whole purpose of a talk page is to discuss issues and try and resolve them… as for cluttering your talk page, i’m sorry and i will stop from adding anything else there for the future. I’ve been a productive and unproblematic editor on here for almost 3 years. This and my recent Tim Tebow issue are the only two times I have had any sort of conflict, both of which were relatively minor infractions. Bears247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bears247 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Help needed at Veracrypt

Full protection at Veracrypt expires on 31 March 2022.

At Talk:VeraCrypt#Licensing of VeraCrypt there has been zero progress in reaching an agreement, and it is likely that the previous edit war will start up again as soon as the protection ends. Could someone please look into this and see what you can do?

I edit with a IP, but I will abide by any restrictions I am given even if my IP shifts. 22:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:C43A:7A9A:3A68:225A (talk)

There's been zero progress because everyone is arguing with their own original research (reading the license terms) instead of providing sources and starting an RfC to get wider community input. Indifferent on protection, might even be a novel use of WP:ROPE to let it expire Slywriter (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion isn't going well and this ANI thread is suboptimal, but nobody in that discussion came so low as to use original research. And while I appreciate the input neutral parties, I don't appreciate them casting aspersions. Waysidesc (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Waysidesc: say what? That discussion is full of original research with people citing the licence terms, US law, OSI guidelines, our article on open source etc. I mean to be blunt, this is a direct quote of an editor who turns out to be you "To decide whether an app is free: We look at the app's license agreement. Here is a copy of license agreement that comes with VeraCrypt:" Um no we don't analyse a licence and decide whether the app is free. That is clearly original research. We report what sources have said about an app. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, stalker. I'll bear that in mind, as in, I'll keep doing it. I'm not ashamed of citing, comparing, and contrasting published sources, even if a stalker mislabels it as ... original what-not.

By the way, please take care that your stalking doesn't become WP:HOUND. Waysidesc (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Waysidesc for 48h for personal attacks, not just the one above, but at least one other that was egregious. Frankly, their whole attitude is WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Given this comment on their talk page, I'd say Waysidesc needs an indef as WP:NOTHERE & talk page access revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, you're free to do what you want in your private life. You cannot of course use your original research to edit articles. If you want to call it something else that's your choice provided you don't generate confusion by doing so, just don't do original research or whatever you want in articles, that's my main concern here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another useless ANI thread that should've been resolved in an RfC ages ago lmao. So I'm going to start one myself. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem solved. [35] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 8

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

---

This LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

1. Special:Contributions/219.73.95.20.
2. Special:Contributions/219.77.184.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 27 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 04:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

nnnn. El_C 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/58.153.0.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 23 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

bllllll. El_C 09:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Posts in a RFC moved around and deleted by the OP

User:Iskandar323 started a RFC about removing a quote from the lead of an article, but when the majority of editors started to suggest that the quote could be replaced with content from multiple sources instead, Iskandar323 started to change the format of the RFC and order of the comments[36][37], also deleting one of my posts [38]. I asked Iskandar323 to self-revert, but he did not and is saying he did this because editors are not understanding the RFC [39](but to me the RFC now is not neutral as it doesn’t reflect what the majority support). Another editor also said Iskandar shouldn’t be doing this[40], and from the start another editor was already saying that Iskandar had not posed the RFC in a neutral way [41]. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1077701669 is where the opener addressed that by moving xyr opinion out of the question, ten days ago, noting that xe had never done an RFC before. And Special:Diff/1079164565 is where xe collapsed the metadiscussion now that xyr own opinion is not part of the question, and added separate sections for Support/Oppose statements and discussion (not deleting anyone's comments) per Project:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Separate votes from discussion. It looks like Iskandar323 took the original criticism on board, went and found out about RFCs, refactored to be more neutral, tried to follow the example given for how RFCs are structured, and collapsed the now moot metadiscussion so that you could all get on with the actual question at hand.

  No, this is not a "shambles" as Hogo-2020 put it. This actually looks more like a normally stuctured RFC. And if Hogo-2020 wants to support/oppose a simple question of whether a quote should be in the lead, then xe needs to state something definitive, one way or the other, not "If Abrahamian’s quote is removed …".

  Quite honestly, if you are going to sneak extra things into a revert like you did at Special:Diff/1079183864 you should be prepared in good grace for other people to miss them.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Uncle G: I'm impressed by how quickly you untangled that. I was scratching my head over where to even begin explaining, but you've summed it up very well. As you say, I had completely missed the added comments bound up in Special:Diff/1079183864 because it looked like a revert, and the edit comment read like a revert explanation, and I didn't reckon on new material being interpolated into the mix. I added in the separate votes/discussion subheads because the RFC was rapidly growing in complexity, with comments bouncing around all over the place, and it needed some structure. Neither @Fad Ariff or @Hogo-2020 have spent much time outside of this one talk page and I don't think they've ever seen an RFC before, so I wanted to make what was required in terms of response format etc. more clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this required simple clerking, which I have now done. The filer of an RfC should not be clerking that RfC, as they are as involved as it gets. And they certainly should avoid using terms like "vandalism" needlessly. Anyway, hope it'll be smooth sailing from this point on, but it's the MEK page, so shenanigans are sort of expected. El_C 13:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @El C: Yes, in hindsight, clerking your own RFC probably isn't a good idea! But there didn't seem to be anyone else around. I had been pondering what outside clerking options might be available ... is there a process for requesting help with clerking? Apologies for the 'vandalism' comment - it was made in ire and I regretted it, but edit comments being the irreversible things they are... Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, you can report problems with an RfC here, or use {{admin help}}. Not only is this a page subject to WP:ACDS, but it's the page that led to WP:GS/IRANPOL and later WP:ARBIRP. No one but admins should be clerking the MEK talk page, pretty much ever. El_C 13:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I had no idea the page has such an illustrious history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: thank you for fixing this. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Reodorant

I already reported this user back in July 2021 so I will just copypaste my report.

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

Reodorant (talk · contribs) keeps on relating the concept of Transylvanianism to the marginal Transylvanian autonomist or independentist movement. The person behind has used way more (IP) accounts for doing these changes continously, recurring to fake edit summaries and additional changes to add Transylvanianism once again in unrelated articles. But first of all, I need to define Transylvanianism.

Transylvanianism is nothing but the promotal of good interethnic relations between the Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania (a multiethnic region). It is not independentist, autonomist and, by definition, it is not regionalist as well as this user claims. The page of the latter says this: "Regionalism is a political ideology which seeks to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions." Not the case of Transylvanianism. I explained further, with links to reliable sources, the concept at User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (one of the IPs of Reodorant). At first we discussed (months ago already), but then they stopped replying to me.

Here are the fake edit summaries I mentioned: [42] [43] (this one is quite obvious). And that's it from this account but there are way more. They are not in chronological or any particular order, because I am not willing in wasting more time with this issue.

• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B909:B054:CB9D:97DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [44]
• 2a04:2413:8003:b380:b54a:99e2:5b5f:61e1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [45] [46]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] (this is the IP I discussed with and stopped getting replies from)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:D8B:A350:B112:1D74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [53]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:7032:7AB9:62C5:53F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [54] (fake edit summary)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:794C:C6E6:860C:FFDD (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [55]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:5D72:A717:297A:F4D9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [56]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E402:1151:5613:79DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [57]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:1CBE:E342:7BD0:1A38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [58]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:2430:F681:D7A2:8477 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [59]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:F591:9066:CBE2:F780 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [60]

This is not an easy to track issue, it's very tiring and time consuming, and it has been going on since FEBRUARY [2021, noting now in this new report]! I want it to stop so I don't have to check the histories of those pages every once in a while anymore. By the way, I didn't specify it earlier, but the pages where this conflict has been happening are these: Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe, List of active separatist movements in Europe#Romania.

I also note I already reported this here before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#IP [and before, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072#User Reodorant]

I please ask any administrator to take the measures they see necessary so this doesn't happen anymore. By the way, out of this, I see Reodorant is a good contributor to Wikipedia, so perhaps blocking them from editing those three pages might do it.

That was my July 2021 report. After it they were blocked for 5 days (it appears 5 days is way too much time, so they requested an unblock, which was rejected, while attempting to portray me in a bad light). You can see this all here [61], as the user has deleted those messages from their talk page. Afterwards they requested a third opinion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Transylvanianism again trying to blame the issue on me, but they were basically told that they were wrong.

Seemingly they still haven't accepted this as today I've found these edits [62] [63], done by IP 2a04:2413:8002:1680:8dae:ca60:c477:3059 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This follows their old original method.

I've wasted enough time with this issue. Reodorant has clear bad faith and seems to be here only to push their rebated viewpoint. I ask for the indefinite block of this user and the permanent protection of the pages Transylvanianism, Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe and List of active separatist movements in Europe. I think 3 reports, 12 IPs, two blocks and a third opinion request are ENOUGH for this issue to be ended forever. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I was just reverted [64] by the thirteenth IP, 2a04:2413:8002:1680:7943:cbde:49d1:7bae (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You just can't let this go, can you? As I've said before, any movement/ideology/whatever named after a region is self-evidently regionalist by nature. Why do you oppose this so vehemently?

You accuse me of trying to push a particular viewpoint, but looking at your userpage you state that you are a proud Romanian nationalist. I don't know how else to put it, but you have an active conflict of interest when it comes to this topic. Checco has correctly pointed out that you're the only one who is against linking these two articles. You still have not addressed this point.

I respectfully disagree with Seraphimblade's assessment, as I don't think it was thorough enough. If he were willing to provide a more detailed explanation of how he came to his decision (or if anyone else were to provide a third opinion), I would be more than happy to let the matter go, but as it stands I am stuck in a dumb semantics debate with someone I thought was acting in good faith.

I don't expect the Wikipedia admins to agree with me since your account has seniority over mine, but I have openly accepted the previous reprimand and ban. The vast majority of my edits to Transylvania-related pages amount to nothing more than adding names in German, Romanian and Hungarian. The rest are edits that you and you alone oppose. I would hardly call that disruptive. Reodorant (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is no the page to discuss article content. The OP has said you are editing while logged out to make it appear that your edits are not able to be traced to you... that's a serious behavioral issue. You have not yet responded to that. --Jayron32 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have admitted to editing while logged out. I am forced to do it because the nature of these edits have attracted this user's continued harassment of me and I would rather not have my username attached to them. I have never abused IP editing to pretend I am multiple people and I have no sockpuppets. My ISP assigns me dynamic IP addresses. This is not something I can control. Reodorant (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, despite Super Dromaeosaurus' flagrant lack of NPOV regarding this WP:ARBEE topic, I was the only one to receive a warning about my edits. Why? Reodorant (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wading into the deep end of this content dispute, but I will direct you to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, which states "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. This includes editing while logged out. Whether or not you believe you are in the right, you may not log out merely to make it look like you are not the one making the edits. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to be working all that well. If you can agree to stop doing that going forward, especially when editing in the area of dispute, we can start to look at wider issues here. --Jayron32 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize that it was very dumb of me to edit while logged out. I am willing to only contribute to Wikipedia from this account going forward, but if you think it's too late and ban me permanently, so be it. All I want is proper closure on the Transylvanianism issue. Reodorant (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Checco, sorry for pinging you a second time, but this user has often used your 2021 comments as arguments in disputes between them and me. I'd be interested in hearing from you if you have anything to add on this issue. Super Ψ Dro 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus:. You're running into WP:TLDR territory here; you made your initial post, now it is time for others to comment. The more you comment on this thread, the less likely anyone else will want to deal with it. Maybe the reason nothing gets dealt with is that you tend to bludgeon the discussion, and no one wants to deal with it. Be succinct, provide diffs, answer questions when asked, and let the process work itself out. If you keep responding as part of the ongoing conflict, you're going to get ignored. No one wants to deal with someone like that. --Jayron32 15:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The other reports were less lenghty, but sure, you're right. I've deleted the comment, here's it in case anyone wants to read it [65]. I've kept Checco's ping above, as I'd be interested in a reply from them. Super Ψ Dro 15:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reodorant, I would hope that any decision made by the admins is based on the facts of the matter as they see it, rather than any notion of seniority. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it sounds very believable from me, but I also want a solution like that. I have always been against such treatments on Wikipedia, which once affected myself negatively. So I am also for impartiality here. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The underlying content issue should be resolved by discussing how independent reliable sources define this concept. Has this discussion happened on any article talk page? Talk:Transylvanianism has no discussion of anything whatsoever. On the behavioural issue Reodorant has agreed not to edit logged out, and I'm sure Super Dromaeosaurus will try not to be so verbose. Is there any more that needs to be done here? Shouldn't we just close this? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I see now that there has been some discussion at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Transylvanianism. Please just continue that, with a bit more good faith on both sides. It's the sources that determine what a Wikipedia article should contain, not any editor's personal opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm with Phil on this, I'd be willing to close this down, if the two parties agree to asking for some outside help in working through the source material to arrive at a consensus. WP:3O and WP:DRN may be good places to go to get that help. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A dispute resolution mechanism has already been followed: a third opinion was requested, and given. I provided several sources (6 or 7) when it was necessary (the other side, if I remember correctly, just 1 or 2, which I commented on and attempted to rebate; the other side did not do this on my sources), and the ruling out was given. And later, the user disrespected the result without noticing me or anyone else. Nothing has changed regarding the content dispute, it's all behavioural problems. I'm sorry but I don't have much faith in this outcome where the user will seemingly go unsanctioned, not even with a formal warning. I am open to another third opinion and I will respond if requested, but one has already been done and I really do not see the need for another, and I would not ask for it if it was on me. And WP:DRN is a lenghty process, which is exactly the opposite of what I want. My intention with this report was to end this issue once and for all. How can I know that this user will respect the following result and that I will not be forced to open a fourth report in the future? I still feel compelled to keep these pages on my watchlist. So I am not satisfied with where this is going and want more discussion. I would like at least some kind of guarantee that requesting another third opinion or filing a case at DRN will be the last things I'll ever have to do regarding this. Because I remind you, this is an issue that started in February 2021, and which has ended already on 3 reports. If it continues today it's because of the insistency of this user, not because I did not follow rules and recommendations when it was needed. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the totality of easily available sources, such as these and these, to come to a conclusion about what is the meaning of this according to the consensus of independent reliable sources. This needs plenty of work on reading the sources rather than a quick third opinion. My initial view, based on a very quick look at some of the sources, is that this is a term for something that has changed over time, like many other things have, such as Scottish nationalism that has changed from being a very narrow anti-English thing to an ideology of the centre-left that claims to represent anyone living in Scotland, regardless of racial background. I haven't spent enough time with the sources to determine whether there is a common thread in the coverage of Transylvanianism that means that it is all one topic. These things take time to resolve, and it's best done by continuing to work at it without accusations of bad faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly seeing that many of the sources in those results pages, especially in Google Books, talk about interethnic relations between Hungarians and Romanians, incorporation of Hungarian elements in Romanian historiography, Hungarian and Romanian literary phenomena, etc. (the position that I defend); nothing about autonomy (the position that this user defends). I insist that this is not a content dispute (bolding in desperation that the administrators do not rate this report as such in the end), what had to be discussed was discussed in its time. Although this was discussed on several talk pages, the most important thing happened here [66], at the 3O request. Reodorant opened the request providing ONE single source talking about Transylvanian autonomism titled "A strange Transylvanism" (that title in itself says something). I discussed the contents of that source there, and showed that it doesn't actually refer Transylvanism as an autonomist movement. In the end I said that their source was too imprecise and that it did not address what Transylvanism is exactly, Reodorant did not make further comment (including objection) on this and we did not talk anymore about that source. The rest of the discussion is debate about the sources I provided, and it ended with Reodorant saying they would search for more sources. They didn't give any afterwards, that is, that single source which doesn't actually talk about Transylvanism in depth was their only backing. This is a more or less complete summary but I recommend users interested in having more context in reading the discussion.

I have realized that users here are trying to give equal treatment to both of us. Good faith is appreciated but I think my effort is being underestimated while Reodorant's is being overestimated. I did search for 7 sources, commented mine and Reodorant's and wrote a single message with 7 paragraphs developing my viewpoints. Reodorant only looked for a source that they didn't try to defend anymore once I tried to refute it, also commented on my sources (which was followed by another message of mine, which did not receive further discussion on the matter), and they promised to look for more sources, which they didn't. Then an uninvolved user gave their own judgment and determined that my position was correct. The content dispute resolution has been undertaken already. I will also note the fact that Reodorant has been blocked twice due to this dispute (the first was on one of their IPs) and that they today violated the result of a dispute resolution method and have arguably done sockpuppetry. The treatment here is being "equal" but not fair in my opinion, sending us both to another dispute resolution mechanism does not change anything. It is something that has already been done and that would theorically not require repetition, and it is effectively allowing a user to breach the rules of Wikipedia, having a history of having already done it, without consequence. Again I express myself open to another third opinion but the fact is that this has already been done and that the result was not respected by one of the sides. This should not go unpunished and the third opinion should not be repeated only because one of the sides decided to overrule it. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems that I was being over-optimistic when I thought that Super Dromaeosaurus would try to be less verbose. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You stated that "I'm not sure that anyone has looked at the totality of easily available sources", and I stated that this has been done already. I've also attempted to summarize the 3O where this was done and express my views on where this report is going. I don't know what is the reply that you expected me to do, you proposed more discussion into the content dispute and I explained why I considered it unnecessary. I don't think it would have been better if I just outright rejected your proposal. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure why I am getting pinged to a months-old argument, but will note that 3O is a nonbinding process, so anyone involved can take it or leave it. I will stand by what I said in that "See also" sections should not be used for controversial material, but other than that have no intent to read through the text walls here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not going into details, but, surely, I support including Transylvanianism in the "See also" section, as I have argued before. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ban after a single revert

User:Ohnoitsjamie initiated a ban after I reverted someone's revert. This was not done with malicious intent. The administrator did not follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing linked by the administrator. They left a title of ban evasion though this was my one action that I have done on wikipedia in two or three years and did not follow "attempts to evade detection" guidelines. It appears as though the administrator did no due diligence and just did what was most convenient for them by choosing them only area in disruptive editing that would give them leeway to ban people. If nothing else I hope to establish a pattern of behavior. If needed I can show that this is my router's IP address and not a VPN. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You may want to review the edit history here. Your IP was temporarily blocked for block evasion after whoever was using it at the time restored the edit of this recently blocked user, per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did that. It wasn't inflammatory and I thought it was a good faith edit. So why am I "block evading"? That was the first edit for this IP address and my only edit in years.174.52.89.222 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're continuing to evade this block of Baxter329, or you just happened to make the same edit a month after that user did? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"my only edit in years" seems to answer the question you posed to editor. Hope that helps! 107.115.147.102 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Their "only edit in years", yet they want to establish a pattern of behaviour. Don't you think that's odd? M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia has been around a long time, and lots of people have taken multi year breaks. It is more odd not to really. 107.202.75.102 (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The pattern of behavior is meant to reference the moderator. Meaning if nothing else I want to note this happened in case this becomes a reoccurring issue. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The binary you give is false. I looked through a revert and undid that revert because I thought the content should be there. I am not that Baxter and didn't know they were banned.174.52.89.222 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Baxter329 is a sock puppet of Grundle2600 and had a few other accounts active, which I blocked. This IP looks to be some random, unrelated person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page archives for that article, there have been dozens of people who wanted to include mention of the "trained Marxist" thing the IP added (and dozens, including the majority of editors in the 2020 RfC, who wanted not to include it). I doesn't really appear to me that the IP agreeing with Baxter329/other such users who wanted to include the comment is particularly good evidence they are evading a block. Endwise (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not Baxter and the admin didn't follow the criteria in disruptive behavior for ban evading. I reverted the the revert because I thought the item should be in the article. I would not have been banned had the criteria been followed. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I concur that this is possibly not the same person. Per WP:AGF (and I use that term as loosely as possible), there is a certain political persuasion in the U.S. that has been pushing this "trained Marxist" narrative against the broader Black Lives Matter movement, and this edit is in line with that false narrative, it is quite likely that 174.52 is not actually Baxter/Grundle. To be clear, the text about her being a Marxist should not be in the article, but just because 174.52 tried to put it there doesn't mean they are the same person as was blocked previously. --Jayron32 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal is unnecessarily hostile and rude

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

---

BilledMammal continues to be very hostile and rude in almost every interaction we have. Just now I attempted to politely ask them on their talk page to consolidate their comments on the Port Elizabeth move request for clarity. They just deleted my comment after saying Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY [67]. I used the word "votes" when I should have used the word "comments" and I apologized for that. I then asked them to please stop being so hostile and rude while rephrasing my request by using "comments" instead of "votes" and that was deleted without discussion [68]. I know this will immediately lead to a WP:BOOMERANG request for myself but all I am saying is what happened and my many mistakes, including my previous block, are available to see. They also appear to be sealioning on the Mount Frere move request here: [69]. It can genuinely feel like their disagreement is with me rather than with the content of the article. It is difficult to interact with them and feel like it is productive or in good faith. I personally feel like I have assumed good faith to the point of absurdity and engaged in many discussions that go nowhere.

I did consider posting concerns to the WP:DISPUTE resolution noticeboard but given that my complaint is about more than a single issue and not article content, I felt like this was the right place to go.

A few more examples:

Dogpiling when admins have already made their position clear while editing guidelines and then citing them to me: [70]

They make arguments that seem to go directly against what a policy appears to say: [71] - Sorry this is the same diff I cited above when I mentioned sealioning. Not going to remove it just needed to clarify.

We have had many more arguments that can feel like they are not in good faith. It really seems like they have a problem with me as an editor more than anything else. I have really tried to be as polite as possible while occasionally losing my cool like in this instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BilledMammal#Wikipedia_isn't_a_competition

I hope it is at least somewhat clear that I am trying to engage in discussion. I am not even asking for a block, just some kind of "chill out" message or something. Desertambition (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I should have explained myself better at my user page, and I apologize for not doing so, but this is a user who regularly accuses editors they disagree with, including myself, of misbehaviour, and I did not feel up to an extended talk page discussion with them - for examples, see the other ANI discussion that they have recently opened, on Spekkios and Nemov, as well as comments on editors talk page such as this comment on Toddy1's.

To better explain myself now, I have restored my last response to your query. I also note that I did edit my response in order to hopefully address your concerns - note that I didn't merge them, per the linked response, and since editors had referenced both of them to merge them would violate WP:TALK#REPLIED. I also note that I reverted my WP:NOTDEMOCRACY response one minute later, before you responded, and replaced it with a longer response as I did feel I should elaborate. As can be seen in that longer response, it was intended to address any concerns you have about the closer counting votes, and not in response to your choice of words. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: On this diff, having two separate bolded answers is not exactly best community practice. Why even introduce the issue for other editors/the closer? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

My first response was procedural, call for the move request to be closed, as I felt it was too soon based on the number of recent move requests and the closing statement of the most recent request. When an editor expressed support for the move, I then addressed the proposal itself. I didn't strike the first response, as I still believed that the request was too soon, and I didn't expand that response, as it had already been addressed in Desertambitions response to Spekkios. BilledMammal (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm avoiding interaction with Desertambition. I've made my point.[72]. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Looking over these diffs, the first two are to BilledMammal's own talk page. He has the absolute right to delete comments made there, for whatever reason, good, bad or indifferent.

The third diff is "They are from independent, reliable, English-language sources, but they don't determine prevalence. I won't bother to provide the specific examples as your response makes me think you won't find them persuasive - if anyone else would like them then please ping me."

The fourth diff is "Desertambition, in line with CaptainEek's comments, I would suggest reading WP:DISPUTE, specifically WP:CONTENTDISPUTE."

I'm having a hard time figuring out what could be objectionable about any of these -- even presuming you have a very thin skin -- and I'm curious as to what you find ANI-worthy in them. ANI is for serious issues, not for teeing off on any editor who says something you dislike or does something you dislike. Nor is the definition of "not acting in good faith" holding a position with which you disagree. Ravenswing 08:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like their response: "They are from independent, reliable, English-language sources, but they don't determine prevalence. I won't bother to provide the specific examples as your response makes me think you won't find them persuasive - if anyone else would like them then please ping me." is unnecessary and makes it sound like we are supposed to WP:SATISFY BilledMammal. They are also saying the exact opposite of what the WP:COMMONAME policy states and I don't feel like their response is productive or collegial at all.

While they are free to do anything with their talk page, I don't feel like their response was reasonable or productive. Also saying I have very thin skin is a little unnecessary, even if you're just heavily implying it instead of saying it outright. It is hard to know what would satisfy WP:COMMONNAME if not the exact text of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Desertambition (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's important to note that you are not an admin. That doesn't dismiss what you said, but the condescension is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. I thought this was an admin basically telling me to close the request. I understand anyone is able to give their opinion but your comment was highly misleading and led to me attempting to withdraw the request. Just want to make it clear that the complaint still stands. Desertambition (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I am neither an admin, nor hold myself out to be one, and yes, anyone is able to give their opinion here. That's something I sometimes do. An admin telling you to close down your request and go away would tell you to close down your request and go away (not that, in practice, admins do that at ANI). Claiming that my comment was in any way, shape or form "misleading," to the point that you'd seek to shut down your own ANI complaint, is not the way to convince us that you're neither overreacting nor are prone to read things into other people's words that aren't actually there. Given other disquieting behavior for which you've been blocked multiple times in the last couple months [73][74], including your creation of a list of editors you suspect of being neo-Nazis [75], our concern here is not unfounded. This is, by my count, the sixth ANI or AN discussion in which you've either initiated or been involved in the last three months, and at some point, we have to question whether you're a trouble magnet or the opposite. Ravenswing 02:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Should that list still be accessible on Wikipedia? I know I wouldn't be happy if I was on it.Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

(not an admin): Desertambition, could you please delete that material? Per WP:POLEMIC, you can collect material/evidence about other editors alleged misconduct if it's to be used in a dispute resolution process "in a timely manner". Your list has been around too long for that to be the case. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, with NO editor on that list having been blocked, and three still active, I'd think it was revdel country myself. Were I on that list, I would be one whole effing lot less mellow than Slywriter would be over it. Ravenswing 02:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't read Ravenswing's comments as condescending at all. Rather, I see a good faith effort to understand the dispute and provide feedback. Like Ravenswing, I've read your responses to this discussion with concern. I think you need to take a step back and assume a little good faith. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: Please don't remove reports from ANI once they've recieved replies, even if its your own report. If its not actionable, it'll just be closed and archived away. Thank you :) ~TNT (talk • she/her) 16:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you, sorry about that. Didn't realize. Desertambition (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all :) ~TNT (talk • she/her) 16:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I tried to delete this complaint after mistakenly believing an admin was telling me to close the request and go away. That may still be the case but I was misunderstanding the situation. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I stand by the complaint and would like a bit more input if possible/reasonable. Desertambition (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

promotion of User:Xgen college of visual art

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

---

This user promote himself after being blocked using his talk page, could any sysop revoke his talk page access? Pavlov2 (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 08:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Gombe editors

We regularly get complaints here about contests, editathons, education efforts gone wrong, ... Recently, I have seen a lot of "Gombe" related new articles from a couple of editors; while there is no indication that these officially belong to any group effort, they have the same kind of issues.

• User:Abdulghonniy has after just one month quite a long list of warnings about many issues, and new pages getting deleted, draftified, nominated left and right. This includes things like Nysc Gombe State, draftified but then recreated as Nysc Orientation Camp Gombe State, which I draftified before finding out about the previous one. Other articles: Kalare Guys in Gombe State, Sports Centre in Gombe State (at AfD)
• User:Abdulazeez Taufeeq, who had over the last few days 7 very recent articles nominated at AfD, and one moved to draft space: examples are List of Primary Health Care Center (PHCC) in Gombe State, Nigeria (at AfD) or Pindiga Town (which seems to be a copyvio translation or a very close paraphrasing of [76]). Something like Jekadefari Area of Gombe State, Nigeria doesn't belong in mainspace either (and all sources, for what they are worth, call it Jekadafari), and what's with the very weird categories like Category:Place infobox templates? Also random refs[77].
• User:Salihidris450, only a few edits so far
• User:Ibjaja055, so far three articles moved to draftspace, and two copyright violations warnings
• User:Usmanagm, creating multiple drafts, all rejected
• User:Umar2z, adding seemingly unrelated references at random places[78][79]
• User:Abdulrahman0044, providing low-quality "improvements"[80][81][82] that get reverted anyway

And probably others...

It looks as if User:Semmy1960 and User:Odomero2711, who were previously active on a similar project for Lagos, are somehow connected to this, as is User:Atibrarian.

I don't know if any socking is involved, this probably is more like some undisclosed, poorly lead editathon or education project, but it causes quite a lot of disruption and extra work. is there a way to deal with this to make it less disruptive? Fram (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Abdulghonniy name does look strangely similar to a previous sock that was banned, I think to do with Bangladeshi sports articles. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fram, thanks for your meticulous work on Wikipedia. In as much as we do projects to be able to document the history and notable events in Nigeria, there is still a big challenge getting online sources for referencing. The third world countries have a lot of issues with references because there were no online documentation until recently and many of these articles are very notable which should be documented. What do you advise to do in situations like this? We want to bridge the knowledge gap, at the same time not disrupt the use of Wikipedia and not frustrate the effort and good work you Editors are doing.Semmy1960 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, are you aware if there is any coordinator, central page, ... about this project? Having to reach out to many individual editors is a lot harder than having some central page where issues can be raised, and having one or two more experienced editors who can keep an eye on things and guide the new editors through the many pitfalls also eases the burden on other volunteers here. Fram (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1074532528 and m:The WikiVibrance Project? Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note: I have deleted Kalare Guys in Gombe State as a WP:CSD#G10. Not only did it call a group "thugs" but it suggested those thugs were organised by a named living person. (It was also written in only vaguely comprehensible English - This thug group was cheese away from the main city to jekada fari then but now the jekada fari has turn to big place in Gombe - so I don't think much of value has been lost). Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The sources did not in any way match the content, either. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Found it: meta:Wikipedia Awareness and Training in Gombe. Aimed directly at enwiki, but not discussed, linked, ... here. Recipe for problems. No idea why Semmy1960, who is a participant, couldn't inform us of this in his reply above... Fram (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And of course there is also a grant for this: meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Atibrarian/Building Wikipedia Awareness and Community in Gombe State. Fram (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• T

@Fram The project is aimed at creating awareness about the Wikimedia projects and introduction to Wikipedia.

The participants consisted mainly of newbies and yet to fully grasp the scrupulous rudiments of contributing content to Wikipedia. To guide them and ensure they avoid contentious topics, an "Article Suggestions List" was created to serve as a guide. Unfortunately, a few have strayed from the list to work on areas that might not meet WP:GNG, and a dearth of reference.

Consequently, discussions are currently ongoing on the project WhatsApp group to tackle the issues and modalities to prevent the futuristic occurrence.

Kind regards Atibrarian (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• To further expatiate on Fram's point this was me in November 2021 see this, asking Atibrarian if they had a COI, they didn’t respond, I furthermore note what seems to be UPE & I ask them about it here of which they gave a shabby response to. I’m quite sure I have asked them about a possible COI overt & stylishly If they are engaging in any unethical practices and their response were either no response at all or a convoluting response. It is good Fram brings the “grant” part of this up as Timtrent, Deb & myself discussed this and this time it was a bunch of editors focused on creating non notable articles on Lagos State (a state in Nigeria) just as Gombe state is as well, see this. Furthermore In this extensive discussion on my TP, which DGG, TheAafi, Timtrent (all of us work at anti-spam) we discussed how it’s nigh impossible for anyone to engage in unethical practices on en.wp without being snuffed out. My thinking of their thought process is rather than engage in undeclared paid editing, where they’d likely not succeed they could make “legal money” it’s no coincidence that a supermajority of the contestants in the history of whatever it they are doing are largely spearheaded by editors currently facing sanctions. I note this trend became exponentially increased after this occurred. I’m not against making money from Wikipedia in a legal manner I have never received a dime and do not ever intent to, but if editors are doing so, then fine, but The problem is they are causing a vey serious problem on mainspace publishing sheer non notable articles. whilst the front is “building an encyclopedia” “shedding more light on Nigeria” or “closing the knowledge gap) or whatever it is they say to themselves, It is my opinion that the article creations are financially motivated $2000 is seriously close to a million. Whatever sanctions are evoked by Fram or anyone else I’d gladly support it. Wikipedia isn’t in the business of making its editors rich. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you have persistently tried to force a claim on me. How would you want me to accept an untrue claim just because you "thínk" it is?

  If not that you have mentioned paid editing I wouldn't have known what it is. The idea of volunteering efforts to making Wikipedia articles more reliable and making information accessible has been my driving force. Atibrarian (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Atibrarian, please retract your aspersions, immediately, no one expressly said you were engaging in unethical practices, that is gaslighting and it isn’t an acceptable behavior, rather, a question was asked about COI here & you didn’t respond which gives probable cause for a valid reason to be suspicious, please see WP:APPARENTCOI & Lastly As for what i “think” all I literally need to do is “think” an article is dubious in order for me to send an article back to Draftspace, did you read all this before coming to cast aspersions against me? Literally all I need is a “suspicion” see WP:DRAFTIFY. Please Do well to listen to Timtrent's advice who is more laid back than I am, because if I see more shabby looking articles from you or anyone else i would unilaterally remove them from mainstream. Furthermore If Fram proposes a harsh sanction I would support it. I’m not responding to this anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: I can't say I agree. You've accused editors of being motivated by a $2000 cash prize. However it's unclear to me that there's any prizes let alone cash prizes involved. As another editor pointed out, you seem to have confused the grant funding with a cash prizes. Regardless of whether the grant was a good idea, it seems unlikely to me even if some of it is going to be used for a cash prize that all of it will be. There's a reasonable chance none of it will be. I've ask Atibrarian to clarify but until they do, the fact remains you've made such a claim without any real evidence I can see. If you are going to make such accusations, you either need to provide evidence or withdraw your claims, and preferably apologise. Defending Wikipedia doesn't excuse you unfairly attacking other editors by making false claims about their motivations and what they are doing. If you have problems with the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever else, then attack the WMF or Jimbo Wales or whatever. It's simply unacceptable for you to attack other apparently well meaning editors because of your disagreements with other parties. This isn't to say that the way Atibrarian has handled this is perfect but frankly from my POV there's one editor's behaviour here in this whole mess which seems particularly bad and it's yours not Atibrarian. While true the grant recipients as recipients even though I assume they're not spending the money on themselves, have a responsibility above and beyond what you have to engage with the community properly this still isn't an excuse for what you've said IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, yes you are right, and I do apologize. when Fram mentioned a grant I mistook it to mean a cash prize & No I have no issues with WMF or Jimbo Wales and why would you even say that Nil Einne? I do not even insinuate that. I think in the end well meaning or not they are causing real disruption on mainspace and nebulous or otherwise there is Infact an incentive for creating this articles, definitely not $2000 which is the grant not cash prize but an incentive is an incentive. When I make mention of disruption, yes! The disruption is exponential getting worse Fram just discovered that of Gombe State, myself and Timtrent discovered that of Lagos state some weeks back, how many of these exist? Do we condone these sort of binge creation of non notable articles directly to mainspace because it is done in good faith? Celestina007 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Actually it's worse than the grant document simply mentioning $2000 is the grant. In fact the grant document has details on the budget and the only reward in the budget there seems to be for participants seems to be "Certificate of participation for participants: $40" and I guess "Hand Sanitizers for facilitator and participants during the training= $25", "Branded Nose masks for facilitators and participants= $120", "Branded T-Shirt for facilitators and active participants: $120", and "Refreshments for participants: USD10×35 = 350 for 2days = $700". Or at a real stretch "Training venue: USD130 for 2days = $260" and "Alternate power supply during the training:$40". There is additional funding for the two facilitators travel etc and I guess you could consider these facilitators and/or the flyers are somehow a reward to the participants but that seems a real stretch. I'd also note they are two other editors not Atibrarian. Again I make no comment on the wisdom of any of this funding, I don't think it's the right place but as there seems to be no indication I can find of any cash prize let alone a $2000 one. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atibrarian The simplest and most effective, is for the participants to use WP:AFC, to create drafts, and to work on them when declined.

In that way the major disappointment of having articles deleted will be much ameliorated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response and suggestions will be implemented. Atibrarian (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, Theres no way they are submitting via AFC, not only would it be declined, it would be sheer wasting of their time, I’m not sure how this competitions work but I bet it time bound, so that isn’t even an option I think they’d consider, $2000 (close to a million Nigerian naira is up for grabs) I don’t believe anyone is waiting for that long, but as for Atibrarian there’s serious issues here such as COI or WP:MEAT, I honestly haven’t got the time else I’d have presented an air tight report and opened an SPI, something very decisive has to be done here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I am in a charitable frame of mind. I believe, at least for now, that this pool of enthusiastic editors can be guided. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 however, I had not noticed the $2000 prize. It was hiding somewhere in this swathe of text. That does not change my mind. They just need a longer deadline. Wait they will have to, or deleted their work will be 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007 unless I am mistaken, the $2000 is not a prize, but a budget for the event that created and trained the group. This seems to be a small cost and relevant to WMF's charitable status.@Celestina007 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent there are certain aspects of Wikipedia I’d rather not speak about On mainspace or even via mail or if at all it would strictly be between myself, Arbcom or Jimbo Wales directly. But for now We shall put that aside, the crux of this report by Fram is the rather disruptive manner in which this is morphing into. Everything else can be out on hold for now. I don’t think I want to speak on this anymore hadn’t it been you (people I actually respect) I wouldn't have bothered to reply, but seeing you a friend, I respect you so much that I must reply no matter what . Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atibrarian Make sure the participants understand that we applaud their enthusiasm, but that they need to be pragmatic. Wikipedians wield a scalpel to remove articles that are below quality. The skill with which that scalpel is wielded can feel intimidating to the new user who does not, perhaps will not, understand quality.

Please make it very clear to the WhatsApp group participants that we welcome good work, will educate work that is not up to standard, and that we will excise work that is placed incorrectly in main space. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words to the participants. A crisis talk and or meeting has been initiated to address all concerns raised. I have equally arranged to emphasise the need for meticulous and thorough research on any article intended for creation and must be submitted through the AFC process going forward.

Kind regards Atibrarian (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atibrarian: since it's an issue raised above, can you clarify whether there's prize/s involved and if there is, what these prizes are? I don't see any mention on the meta page, OTOH it mentions a competition but only gives judging info etc but doesn't discuss anything about what, if anything winners receive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

.Nil Einne: thanks for the question. For clarity, there is no 'monetary' prize(s) attached to the editathon other than what was stated in the grant proposal: a certificate of participation, branded T-Shirts for active participants, etc. Atibrarian (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like us to get back onto the fact that the submissions are generally unworthy of article space. This editing drive has escaped from the control of the proposers, and is creating work for others. This quality control shoudl be internal to the drive, competition, call it what you will. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don't think that we can tar all of the people here with the same brush. I actually went through the contributions histories of the editors listed, and there's a vast difference between the simple minor copyediting at Special:Contributions/Abdulrahman0044 (Yes, xe doesn't know the byzantine date style rules of Wikipedia. That's not exactly unusual.), the attempts to clean up after one of the other participants in Special:Contributions/Salihidris450, and the egregious misrepresentations in Special:DeletedContributions/Abdulghonniy. I disagree that the drive is creating work. Clearly a few of the individual participants are, but quite a few of them are not as well, and would be regarded as largely unproblematic and on a par with many other editors if encountered without this context. Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Uncle G: thank you for your time and efforts taken to meticulously scrutinise the contributions of the listed users to arrive at this conclusion.

    Steps have been taken to control all activities relating to the editathon. Atibrarian (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

IP user 112.198.97.45 disrupt pages on some major airports

This IP user 112.198.97.45 (talk) (contributions) had been disrupt the pages like Ninoy Aquino International Airport and Tan Son Nhat International Airport. I already warned the user to stop the disrupt edit if they still continue to disrupt edit. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

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

---

Are words "vote" and "re-elect" not allowed in Wikipedia because I noticed that User:Jaymark 220 is keeping on putting those words in some Philippine local election articles here, meaning he is campaigning for a party or a politician. BTW, I have sent him a message in his talkpage regarding this issue. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The words are fine, the context is what matters. What is happening here is pure disruptive editing to draw attention to a particular candidate in Wikipedia's voice, and that's not okay. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. What shall I do if he make edits like that in other pages? NewManila2000 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 72 hours for violating WP:SOAPBOX. NewManila2000, please revert edits like this immediately whenever you see them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

BESmith2022 - disruption/promotion

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

---

So the user BESmith2022 on the 23rd of March decided to make 2 edits on Kim Thayil and the article talk page about how they are romantically involved with them - not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia - then, today, they decide to make Raccoonpawz’a talk page with the message ‘ Raccoonpawz! I need your help!

I'm searching for Mr Verbinski for many years. Please, after contacting caa, Jimmy Sloan, Margaret Herrick Library (still closed) I have yet to speak with Gore regarding a screenplay he liked that I wrote in the early 2000s: FULL SERVICE.

I've been writing again. However, he has the only known copy.

Be a lamb and make it happen!

Also, I'm crossing my fingers for him to be my director.

Ty!!

Brittany Elaine Smith PKA Eva Barrett’, now I am not sure what their userpage said as it was deleted under U5, but I can imagine it went the same way as the other edits did. Either way, I believe the user needs blocking under WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, Zippybonzo | talk 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It also looks like they went to great lengths to find someone with interest in the person they were looking for. Zippybonzo | talk 16:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE. Blocked indef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Sendtoanthony - Personal attacks and polemics

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

---

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

I am possibly WP:INVOLVED so I am coming here to request a block for violations of WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:POLEMIC in the following edits:

• "How can a "trans woman" be a "woman" when the definition (according to Wikipedia) of "woman" is "adult human female" and a female (according to Wikipedia) produces ova? Can so-called "trans women" produce ova? Are their gametes larger than a males? Do they have XX chromosomes? No? Then they're not female. So they can't be an adult human female. They cannot be a woman. Perhaps Wikipedia should change its name to Wokepedia to reflect its ideological bias"
• "I pointed out that Wikipedia is not living up to its own standard of being unbiased. It is clearly biased in favor of Leftist ideology. Now go fuck yourself little shit."
• "In reading your profile it's clear that you are an extreme Leftist. "Expressing of personal views" is what YOU do on Wikipedia. You just want to have a monopoly on the narrative. Typical leftist intolerance of anything but their own ideology."

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for personal attacks and harassment. I would advise an indefinite block if that behavior resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

IP harassing user and other NOTHERE behavior

2600:8804:6600:45:2918:2AB7:9BF0:437B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Problematic & WP:NOTHERE behavior:

• This user has been harassing/vandalising the user space of @Novem Linguae [83][84] [85], despite multiple requests that they not edit NL's user space or user talk space [86] [87]. They repeatedly describe NL's essay as written by a cabal of other users.
• WP:SEALIONing: [88] [89] [90]
• Given the nature of one of the edits [91] (and other aspects of their contributions [92]), it is possible this anon may be a WP:LOGGEDOUT situation for a user sharing the same POV: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]
• Other problematic edits: [98] [99] [100] (and on /40, may or may not be same user: [101] [102]) (non-MEDRS altmed [103] [104]) (Almost DEFINITELY related: [105] [106] [107]) and more, I would suggest a look through their contribs to see what I mean.

Recommend either A) /40 one-way WP:IBAN (with Novem Linguae) vs B) /40 block from NL's user and user talk space. If the behavior continues elsewhere, or more apparent SOCK-like stuff goes on, either SPI or a TBAN may be in order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shibbolethink. Your above theory about logged-out editing is unlikely to be true though possibly this could be someone else not mentioned in the current thread. The topic is covered by WP:COVIDDS. The IP is editing from a range used in the past by other socks but he has no overlap in interest or behavior with those socks. An SPI would probably not find anything interesting but I could semiprotect User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak if requested by User:Novem Linguae. I could not see anything wrong with the IP's edits of Edward Rubin. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @EdJohnston thank you for the reminder re: COVIDDS and the cogent analysis. I have alerted the IP as likely should have been done a long time ago. I understand your assessment re: IP vs SPI, and you are probably right, the evidence was thin and regardless, I understand it is prohibited to CU link IPs to users. Re protection: I will of course leave any such considerations to NL's good judgment for his own user space. Regards, — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind some kind of action being taken against this IP, such as an admin warning or partial block. They have only edited the essay one time as an IP so protection may not be necessary. But they are causing drama on the essay talk page and have ignored multiple polite requests not to post in my userspace, so that part may be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I was attempting to defend other users that were being bullied by the cabal. As someone who has been attacked in the past, it bothers me to see it continue. 2600:8804:6600:45:505A:8E83:9C97:7BC8 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thebrakeman2 fresh off a block, back to name-calling and belittling

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

---

Thebrakeman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for chronic WP:CIVIL issues as a result of this recent discussion on ANI. Less than a week off @Cullen328:'s block, this editor is back at it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Thebrakeman2 for two weeks for their ongoing pattern of making personal attacks on other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also continuing to mark almost all of their edits as minor despite being warned about it previously. Gusfriend (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

IP User 72.229.242.36

Original header: IP User 72.229.242.36 Created Feb 22 Removing own talk page notifications [1], undoing article revisions after talk page discussed changes [3], Mutiple other violations. El_C 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is over 500 edits of which a large majority have been undoing revisions, deleting talk page posts and removing warnings or messages to their own talk page. [History]

1. [one example of deleting warnings towards self on talk page to hide history of edit-war revisions]
2. [Bias]This one here shows deleting some sources despite keeping other equally as reliable sources to convey a narrative or perspective, one of the five fundamental pillars here.  Neutrality.
3. [despite talk page.]

This is just a small sample of the disruptive editing doing by this IP address which started edits the very day of the 2022 Russian-Ukraine conflict.. Considering the creation date, edit history, deceptive measures to hide history, non-responsiveness on talk or edit pages and excessive "undo" actions without any explanation this is a user who requires admin attention. They have shown no discourse nor discussion on any of the over 500 edits. I have not posted a new notice to the IP editor's talk page since they are just deleting them The Impartial Truth (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There's also just countless "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" I am not going to waste time going through since none of these have remained current edits. The Impartial Truth (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The Impartial Truth if you had looked at them you would have seen that they were just reverting the edits of 174.251.64.220 now blocked for their actions. So they were just rapidly fixing the issues caused by that editor. KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting that users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, per WP:UP#CMT. Curbon7 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've WP:ECP'd this page independently (unaware) of this complaint (RfPP, AEL). Also noting that I had recently blocked this IP, mainly for the reasons stated in the original block. However, upon closer review, I did notice an improvement, so I opted to lift it (block log). I think there are still some issues, but they appear to be more borderline (although possibly there's important items my sample overlooked). As Curbon7 correctly notes, the IP is not obliged to retain any material on their user talk page, the removal of which was not factored in my analysis.

Ultimately, this report fails to bring any recent diffs of that are of an egregious nature. One of the three diffs they cite is even my own aforementioned ECP protection. What The Impartial Truth fails to realize, however, is that it was set at that higher protection level also to possibly to safeguard the article from them. Had the protection been targeting that IP, specifically (or IPs, generally), I'd have just gone with the usual WP:SEMI. That the protection coincides with their version being displayed is not an endorsement of that version, and saying that the IP's edit "is bordering on vandalism" (diff) is bordering too much (WP:NOTVAND). If anything, it'd be disruptive editing to which vandalism is a narrow subset of. El_C 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Any admin willing to check this death threat (?)

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

---

[108] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a death threat or just nonsense, but I'm leaning towards the latter. Either way, should be revdel'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No idea. Revdel'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reported it to emergency(AT)wikimedia.org, out of an abundance of caution, and as mentioned in the red edit notice here. sorry if someone else already did that. I've spoken with them about similar threats before, and they always tell me they'd rather have you report threats to them that you think are probably nonsense; they have people trained to make that call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Endorse decision. Deb (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

IP checks out to some of the information in the edit. Likely to have been written in a state of mental crisis or in a state of psychedelic intoxication... either way endorse Floqs' decision. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

zzuuzz (and/or other admins, but pinging zzuuzz because it was they who revdelled), what possible good reason is there for revdelling a death threat? Concealing the fact that it was made does not make the recipient(s) of the threat any safer. If a person (gods forbid) were ever to try to make good on such a threat, hiding the fact that they made the threat would not hinder them in any way! I understand the desire to not have the appearance of such a thing being unacted upon, but I fail to see ho covering it up is of any benefit. It would be better to red flag it with some kind of administrators' statement saying such is unacceptable and edit &/or summary has been reported to WMF; but for transparency's sake, you all should not be hiding it! (Unless there's personally identifying information, &c..) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:25D7:83BA:434:F008 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, we do not allow grossly offensive content like threats of violence to remain visible to our readers anywhere on this project. It is removed from general public view but still available for use by editors who are administrators or who possess other advanced permissions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP raises a good point that removing a threat doesn't prevent anything. But then Cullen328 raises a good response that relevant people can still see it. Speaking for myself only, as 'first on the scene', it wan't (and still isn't) clear to me whether this was a threat or not, but what was clear is that the message contained potentially troubling information which didn't belong on Wikipedia, and that it was appropriate to revdel it soon after being publicised here. My lack of summary was because I really couldn't understand it, but knew that this was going to be subject to peer review and that people would follow it up if they thought appropriate. Think of it as a sticking plaster. It has now been taken as far as it reasonably can be, which is not unexpected and not a wrong result. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

promotion of 86.26.234.66

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

---

This IP user promotion after blocked on his own talk page, so a TPA is requested. Thanks a lot!Pavlov2 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

86.26.234.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Pavlov2 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. TP access removed for duration of block. Deor (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Something related to the incident at Murder of Jeanne Clery

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

---

Today I was patrolling and came upon this diff, it got reverted by User:LPS and MLP Fan for original research. I don't know if this is valid or not, but I thought that this incident should come into the notice of administrators. Maybe personally contacting User talk:2600:1700:1FC0:A260:BDBA:4860:87ED:CFAC to scout for more information may help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir Shane (talk • contribs)

It doesn't seem that different from the account of the crime. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Emir Shane and Catfish Jim and the soapdish, First, I think that this discussion would be more appropriate on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Anyway, I read Wikipedia's no original research policy, the article, and its sources. When I read the reference from People, I saw some content about drinking, which the IP mentioned in their edit. However, the drinking was done by the perpetrator, no the victim, as they said. Furthermore, the IP used opinions and first-person language in addition to original research. Now, I would like to ask, why should this be noticed by administrators? --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Unclear... trying to figure it out. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Emir Shane - you haven't explained why you think this needs administrative attention. On the face of it, I see someone posting their own experiences into an article, and another editor correctly removing them. What action do you think is needed here? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

concur... Is there something you think we can or should do in relation to the edit? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit _(blether), Catfish Jim and the soapdish & LPS and MLP Fan. Thanks for taking part in the discussion. I'm not saying that any administrator should take any steps or do anything. If any step was needed I would have gone to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I simply wanted to bring light about the edit which I conclude was of quite serious in nature, as stated by the initial author in his/her edit "I have not said anything until now. This is the only way I know to get the word out. I hope someone reads this." Maybe the author did want to shed light about the event. I know it is original research (These words confirm it "I have information on this murder that was not shared with the press."). If possible I would suggest that we personally contact User talk:2600:1700:1FC0:A260:BDBA:4860:87ED:CFAC to see what they wanted in the first place and if they have any more information. Like why would someone adopt this method of adding information when one can simply forget about it. There is a possibility that the author may have some undisclosed information. If not, then ofcourse there is nothing more to be done. Emir Shane (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• The OP, User:Emir Shane, has been CU blocked as a sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F

• 2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From looking at this anonymous user's contributions, I see a lot of edits that claim the edits are "on the grounds of" other articles, a serious violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for claims to make edits that, for example, violate MOS:TVNOW. Multiple warnings have not helped; the user continues to make these kinds of edits regardless. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This feels less OSE, more WP:CIR; the argument might read in an OSE manner, but they're just throwing in random television show titles to try to argue for their preferred tense, and no one would say a television show 'ceased operations'. Nate • (chatter) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to contribute that the applicant jalen folf also systematically deletes contributions from some unregistered users sometimes obviously without any improvement of the article by the revert. Contributions can also be well-intentioned and made. This can also be seen in the changes of the complained user or in the applicant's history. it mainly leads to edit wars with users who are not familiar with the rules. I assume that he intends to do so here. this contradicts the procedure that one should assume good intentions of the user, and has a demotivating effect.91.41.254.22 (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First, may I request that a separate section be made for this very issue? This accusation is not what this thread is about. Second, in regards to Ben O'Toole, I had simply moved it into draftspace to allow you to improve the attempt without any intrusion from page reviewers. Now that the article has been accepted in Articles for creation, I have no reason to bother the page anymore. Thank you for your time. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In addition, any other neutral page reviewer would have made similar redirect restorations if they had seen what I had seen: at the time of draftification here there were very few sources present on that version of the article to establish notability. WP:THREE was followed, but with two sources from the same vendor. Additionally, I suspect AllFamous is an unreliable source; the About Us page on the website suggests it runs on WP:UGC. Luckily, this is no longer a problem thanks to improvements since draftification and Cabrils accepting the improved version of the article. I still do not see why this separate issue needs to be brought up in a case where now I feel another anonymous user is borderline WP:HOUNDing me. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

JPL topic ban violation

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

---

This user continutes to violate their topic ban relating to religion or religious figures, broadly construed with this edit. The closing comments on the original topic ban said that it "should be apparent from categories" if the article is in scope. The article in question mentions the Yiddish Theater District, Central European Jews and Eastern European Jewish immigrant(s) in the lead, along with the categories of Category:Jewish American composers and Category:20th-century American Jews.

JPL was blocked on 7 December 2021 for one week for violating the ban. Another ANI thread was closed just three weeks later, with the closing comments of "draw JPL's attention to the fact that many users think this was a topic ban violation, and many users in good standing supported the block proposal. Next time, they might be in majority, and it is your direct interest to make sure that there is no next time".

JPL seems to be acting against the requirements of the topic ban once again. StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is being Jewish being a religious figure? Is being Christian? What about being athiest? The person is a composer, not a religious figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Being Jewish does not make one a religious figure. Speaking Yiddish does not make one a religious figure. Indeed, even penning a work about the golem, a figure of Jewish legend, does not make one a religious figure. JPL has indeed (by my lights) violated his ban in the past. This is not that. But by all means, keep watching. I am sure something will turn up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not a violation. Ellstein was Jewish, but the article does not mention religion or religious leaders. JPL's edit had nothing to do with religion or religious leaders. A fuller quote of the comment that the TBAN closer was citing includes "But unless an article subject was in ministry, whether ordained or lay, or led a church or religious company, or is a journalist or essayist who wrote on religious topics, they should be fine. This should be apparent from categories ...". The kinds of categories that matter here are ones that indicate religion is an important part of the biography, not ones that just note a subject's religious or ethno-religious affilitations. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose In my understanding these are ethnic issues. This is a language based organization involvement and ethnic and language based organizations. This is ethnic and linguistic in nature clearly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• The topic ban reads, from the link above, articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. OP, you have a bit of a misunderstanding about Jewishness and Judaism. Advise starting with Who is a Jew? and Jewish culture. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• This type of editing is not what was intended to be stopped by the tban. ––FormalDude talk 20:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Edits on Babymetal and Suzuka Nakamoto

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

---

An anonymous IP has been recently been making edits on Babymetal and Suzuka Nakamoto (a member of Babymetal) regarding the current status of the band. The band is currently on hiatus, but consensus is they have not disbanded and thus the article(s) should be written in present tense and the "years active" in the infobox should read "2010-present". The IP has been making edits has been making edits in contradiction to this consensus, very similar to edits they were making a little over a month ago. Edits for which they received a month long ban.DragonFury (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to quickly add: the IP has now taken to direct insults in their edit comments (see their recent edit on Babymetal.DragonFury (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for three months. This is their third block. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Doubling down on an accusation of bad-faith/personal attack after being warned against it

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

Above has made this egregious post, and when explained to politely on their talk page that such things are not OK, instead of apologising, doubled down and re-inserted it with even more oil on the fire. For the record, while there is a disagreement at another page, my comment at the AfD was simply a result of me seeing what looked like a rather obvious case of Wikipedia:Relist bias. That Charlie happened to make a non-policy commpliant post previously, and now thinks I'm stalking them, is nothing more but an unfortunate coincidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The above user, RandomCanadian, is doing just what he accuses others of doing by bringing it up on ANI (adding gas to the fire). People should cooperate and discuss. I've already done my part because I am slowly withdrawing from an airplane crash article that RandomCanadian seems to be fighting over. I also am not following her/him/zir around even though he/her/ze is following me around.

This matter should be ignored and closed and see if RandomCanadian just calms down. I will and am. Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. I politely asked you to not make unfounded accusations about me (including the one you've made again just above), and yet you are here and again, like at the article, failing to get the point. WP:NPA and WP:AGF are not negotiable, but here you have violated it not once (the initial link in my post), not twice (the next one), but thrice (your post just above). If you refuse to get the point, then it becomes a matter for the community to resolve, since I've tried with no success. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, if you don't know someone else's pronouns, you can just use "they." Schierbecker (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• An AfD vote doesn't become "bad faith" just because someone disagrees with it. If I had a dollar for every time someone screamed HOW DARE YOU at a delete !voter, I could afford to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. Reyk _YO! 23:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Just to needlessly add to this, Charliestalnaker's vote rational in the Raja Dashrath Medical College AfD was rather nonsensical and semi-insulting. "Strong Keep, let's act normal!. High schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia so a medical college definitely is. Let's be reasonable, folks." I, and I'm sure others, don't really appreciate the insinuation that it's abnormal or unreasonable to nominate a college for deletion. It happens all the time. It's also patently false that high schools are deemed notable in Wikipedia. In the least their comment an utter lack of knowledge about the AfD process, at the most it's an extremely bad faithed dig at the nominator/delete voters. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor continuing to add unsourced BLP info including WP:DOB after 2 final warnings

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

---

• 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Dmytro Lubinets (diff):. Repeated addition of unsourced dates of birth for living people after 2 recent final warnings on adding unsourced material, including one 11 days ago specifically for dates of birth issues. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I actually searched it up to make sure and also created the page Dmytro Lubinets. 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you looked it up somewhere, you need to include that source as a supporting citation at the time you add the information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Paddington (film series)

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

---

• Paddington (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

reporting user Richard75 for vandalism of the Paddington (film series) page he is adding information that does not relate to the English version of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxlongy420 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some diffs are Special:Diff/1074392962 ("Volodymyr Zelenskyy") where Richard75 adds material sourced to The Guardian and Special:Diff/1080057521 ("removed information that can be found on IMDB") where Oxlongy420 removes it because IMDB has this information too. In Special:Diff/1079697073 120.144.54.55 does not supply any reasoning in the edit summary. Uncle G (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Content of the report aside, the big red box at the top of this page clearly states that the reporter is required to notify the involved user of this report on their talk page, which you didn't do. Curbon7 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this allegation has been made in bad faith, because by no stretch of the imagination can this be considered vandalism. However, to address the edit, there is nothing to suggest that the scope of the article is confined to the English language version of the film, and no reason why it can't mention other language versions where there is something notable or worthwhile to say about it. We're hardly going to start a new article about the Ukrainian Paddington after all. It is disingenuous to ask (as has been done in a recent edit summary) "why not add every voiceover artist for every language?" because only one of them is the president of a country. Zelensky is notable because he is president of Ukraine and is currently in the news every day, so it's a fact worth mentioning as of potential interest to the reader -- not only in his own article but also in this one. Saying "this information is already available on IMDB" is a preposterous objection; following it to its logical conclusion, none of Wikipedia's film articles would contain any information at all. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to include. (Paddington is the only article Oxlongy420 has ever edited, I wonder what this is really all about?) Richard75 (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Richard75: I agree with you in that the report is rather unusual. They have been very quick to run to ANI here.

  Nevertheless, we must sanction you, because you are obviously a vandal. Indeed, all your edits are clearly blatant vandalism.

  So here goes: "You are very naughty, you must promise not to vandalise again, OK? Or else I will do my grumpy face."

  Sanction applied.

  😋

  Now to the OP, Oxylongy420. First of all, what does the "420" in your username mean? I usually see that number only used in the usernames of vandal accounts, ironically.

  Second, read Wikipedia:What vandalism is not, because Richard75's edits were absolutely not vandalism. All they did was add information which is notable, like adding Ronald Reagan's name into a film where he held a role which would otherwise not have been notable.

  Third, please don't be so quick to drag another editor to ANI again, as doing so here has been a waste of time and energy. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Rtkat3 close paraphrasing from Fandom without attribution

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rtkat3 has been copying or close paraphrasing from Fandom (website) (formerly Wikia) without attribution, including an edit after I approached him around a week ago. He was reminded of this requirement in 2020 and 2016 and was blocked for 24 hours in 2015.

Fandom sites generally use the CC BY-SA 3.0 license,^[109] which is compatible with Wikipedia, but attribution is required.

• WP:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
• Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text
• WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources

From Fandom

Article	Diff	Apparent source
List of DC Comics characters: L#La Dama	29 March 2022	https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_(New_Earth) (history) https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_Cardenas_(Prime_Earth) (history)
Chimera in popular culture#Books (Percy Jackson)	21 March 2022	https://riordan.fandom.com/wiki/Chimera (history)
List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Ripley Ryan	5 January 2022	https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Ripley_Ryan_(Earth-616) (history)

Rtkat3 has also copied between articles without providing attribution as required by the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. He received {{Uw-copying}} warnings in 2020 and 2016.

Within Wikipedia

Article	Diff	Source	Notes
Warcraft#Major races and factions	21 March 2022	Races and factions of Warcraft
Power Rangers RPM	15 March 2022	List of Power Rangers RPM characters	Revision deleted under WP:RD1 criterion
List of DC Comics characters: G#Grid	28 January 2022	Grid (comics)
Gotham City	7 January 2020	List of mayors of Gotham City	WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Rtkat3 and autopatrolled

Rtkat3 received several CorenSearchBot "possible copyvio" notifications between 2009 and 2015: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, and diff 6. I spot-checked two:

• Rtkat3 removed the tag from Monster High: Why Do Ghouls Fall in Love? without fixing the problem, and Crow removed the copy.
• Tricephalous (comics) was confirmed by MLauba and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2009 August 12.

This is a long-term pattern of copying edits that needs to be addressed. While attribution can be repaired later, actively creating problems is unacceptable. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In my defense on some of these charges, I have been trying to do some of the recent entries in my own words as best as I could. For some of the Wikipedia things, I was only trying to keep them from deletion in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Some characters in comics had to have to have their media appearances placed somewhere on this website. I also like to take this time to apologize for not leaving a special statement like how it was displayed on the page for Wonderland. Did I leave anything out in these comments of defense? --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've pointed to this before: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It's a great resource to help you fix the close paraphrasing problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was able to do that with the examples listed above today. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing them. I added {{Fandom content}} to List of DC Comics characters: L#References because there were two source pages. Do you need guidance on the edit summaries required when copying between Wikipedia pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Repetitive long-term addition of unsourced political candidacy

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

---

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

While I admit that this isn't as urgent as many others on here, the first user kept on adding an unsourced candidacy to the 2022 Austin mayoral election page at least 4 times from last month and I added reliable source and disruptive editing warning templates to their talk page. 11 days after their last edit, another user, with a username matching the apparent candidate itself, added the same thing as the first one. [110] [111] —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• There are no other contributions by either account; and either this is a hoax (which it appears to be as I cannot find any confirmation), or political soapboaxing rather than genuine attempts to write Wikipedia. It seems that there is an actual person with the (full) name given, so the second account is, further, either an impersonator or an undeclared conflict of interest. So there are lots of reasons for taking the editing privileges away, which I have just done. It's also sockpuppetry, by straightforward behavioural analysis, albeit serial rather than concurrent. Uncle G (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Undue polemics

Heat>light. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Dimadick: has been insulting Christians, Christian scriptures and Christian theologians on a talk page where such polemics positively do not belong. Here are the relevant diffs --65.94.99.221 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh really. A book that is full of violence and incest is compared to porn. What an insult. See the article on Dinah (a rape and revenge story), Tamar (daughter of David) (raped by her half-brother Amnon), the Levite's concubine (a gang rape), Lot's daughters (impregnated by their father), or Absalom (where the article summarizes a public sex scene involving multiple partners as "slept with his father's concubines". Dimadick (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Wikipedia is not a counter apologetics website. It’s mission is to be welcoming to all people, not just non-Christians. And again, you keep breaking the rules. --65.94.99.221 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And which rules require me to lie about the lack of holiness in the Bible? Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM is the relevant guidance here, for the both of you. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Having read all of that diff, I'm also gonna add that reading WP:DENY would be helpful for future reference, as not engaging with the obviously bad-faith 2402 IP would've prevent the situation from escalating. Curbon7 (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• How does writing "I do not pretend to be holy" Well, the Bible is not remotely holy either. I still remember (almost 30 years later) its description by a bookshop owner who was speaking to my mother: "It's like porn, but a lot more violent". With all the scenes of rape and murder in the anthology, the description was very accurate. help improve the encyclopedia? It's inflammatory and does not seem particularly relevant to the content of the article in question. And I say that as an atheist, for the record. Endwise (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "does not seem particularly relevant to the content of the article in question." An article where there is a long-standing edit war whether Christian apologists are a reliable source for stating that there is no contradiction between two different narratives on who killed Goliath. And where minimalist scholars have been directly accused of "lying for anti-theism", just because they oppose the historicity of the Bible. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• ITT: bloke accused of inappropriate polemics responds with an inappropriate polemic.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The bloke in question argues that the Bible is essentially a pornographic text, and that we should not treat it is as some example of holiness. Where do you find the polemic? Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Right there, mate. Don't get me wrong: I'm as atheist as you are, but this isn't the place to get out your views on the Bible and wave them about. On Wikipedia what's appropriate is to talk about what the reliable sources say about the Bible. Do that in a collegial manner, which means robustly and forthrightly but without creating needless drama.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Having lots of sex and violence doesn't make something 'essentially a pornographic text', unless you're inclined towards Mary Whitehouse's line of reasoning. You don't need to believe in the truth of the bible, or even think it is a particularly moral book, but calling it porn is just silly, and needlessly provocative. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm no wiser about what remedy the OP is seeking. That aside, Dimedick isn't insulting Christians in that quoted passage (he doesn't mention them), and accusing him of insulting the Bible is coming very close to an accusation of heresy. Now let's move on.Achar Sva (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry @Achar Sva: that you don't think the rules apply to the people who believe like you, but Wikipedia does not think so. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Wikipedia doesn't punish people simply for saying bad thing about a religion, which is what you're demanding here. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:1 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules against polemics and undue insulting of, among other things, religious views. See, WP:POLEMIC and WP:FORUM. 65.94.99.221 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

NPA and CIVIL issues with user Adamant1

I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [112] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have sadly seen the same pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
            • "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

            It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them, Mako001, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺

    As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"

    And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!

    Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find". ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,

1. 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.

1. 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.

1. 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?

As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit _(blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Post hawk justification

-EEng

It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed

I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: "battleground approach" 1. ["No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]

2. ["Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it."]

3. [Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]

4. [now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. ]

5. [voted deleted and then mentioned a potential redirect target - "It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect."]

6. Me conceding that I was wrong about something not being a controversy - "Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy." So hostile of me.

7. [for deletion/Bill Workman|Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it.]

8. "Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed."

9. ["Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward."]

Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place. But this is not helpful. It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!" I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One. Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future. Having done that, never look at this thread again. I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before. I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it. But I honestly think that would be the optimal move. Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My behavior has improved a lot since the other ANI complaints as the examples I provided show. In no way is how I acted in the Combermere School AfD comparable to what got me banned before either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement. Miniapolis 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote I don't know if this will do any good in the long term, but once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it, and it seems pretty certain that Adamant's behavior does not help foster a collegial atmosphere. It is possible that a next time we should consider a topic ban from that area, perhaps, but I really hope there won't be a next time. And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you were blocked for condescending edits and continued badgering, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors to brush up on their colonial history.

What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1#Block. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Attention seeking Sock disrupting pages

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

---

Barbosa9o (talk · contribs) is vandalizing pages while the SPI is awaiting Admin action. An admin should block. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BhaktaDASS. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Truth3v3r

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

---

Truth3v3r (talk · contribs) is a very new account who seems to be here to "right great wrongs" within the Israel-Palestine area. [113], [114], [115], [116]. Does not appear to me to be a productive editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that name will continue the rule for usernames with Truth in them. At least they always advertise in advance. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and subtle vandalism

RafaelHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subtly vandalising fight records for a while now and/or replacing sourced information with that which isn't sourced. In [edit], RafaelHP goes so far as to completely alter a entire fight record in contrast to all reliable sources. They have changed a no contest to a loss and adapted the entire page to make the change. This is subtle vandalism and a big problem in MMA pages. The MMA fighter infobox contains a link to Sherdog, which is what we use unless stated otherwise by RS. The most common alternative is ESPN.

To return to the vandalism example, please see the two prominent RS on the fight Sylvia vs Arlovski, which have the fight as No Contest.

Sherdog: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tim-Sylvia-1061 ESPN: https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/2354048/tim-sylvia

Now see RafaelHP's edit, which undoes the correct result and adapts the entire record to accommodate the vandalism:

[NC becomes a loss and the article is changed]

In another example on a different page, RafaelHP here changes an extraordinary 8 different pieces of sourced information and provides not a single source to back up his changes. Please see here for the source: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329

[8 sourced results without a single source]

Attempts by other editors and me to address this include:

[[117]] [[118]] [[119]] [[120]] [[121]]

Their responses, other than to delete the comments, tend to be petulant, as [[122]] and [[123]].

It's enormously frustrating having to identify subtle vandalism in fight records, and this editor's disruptive editing has, in my opinion, gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[124]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

See the above example of vandalism on Tim Sylvia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discospinster history of miss truths Bulling and violates copy writes

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

---

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

21:30, 8 March 2022 Discospinster talk contribs deleted page User:Discospinster/Shona Macdonald (G3: Vandalism) 03:21, 21 January 2022 LuK3 talk contribs deleted page User:Discospinster/Shona Macdonald (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) 18:03, 3 January 2022 Discospinster talk contribs deleted page User:Discospinster/Shona Macdonald (G7: One author who has requested deletion – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.119.70 (talk)

• First of all, the big red box at the top stated that you are required to have notified Discospinster as to this discussion, which you neglected to do. Secondly, this is probably an IP sock of NLEJAY223 or Hellobozo111 (or both), considering the userpage that is described in the body is [125]. Curbon7 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't even work out what this is about. Is there an issue that anyone wants us to look at, or are we meant to figure that out for ourselves? Girth Summit _(blether) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I read the other day that Zzuuzz was gay and apparently that was bad--what's the dirt on Discospinster? Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

POV pushing edit warrior making bogus claims of vandalism

See diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LifeSiteNews&diff=1080399880&oldid=1080395888 and the most recent history of LifeSite News in general. They’ve done this multiple times, please block as WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

More mid-Michigan vandalism

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock.
• 2601:405:4600:5F80:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There's a vandal in the area of Lansing, Michigan, US, who was previously rangeblocked for three months as Special:Contributions/2601:405:4600:DFC0:0:0:0:0/64, after discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock. They are now using the /64 of 2601:405:4600:5F80, doing the same stuff, for instance changing a mixtape to a studio album,[126] adding non-notable names to a record label,[127] and adding unsupported "associated acts" to the infobox.[128]

Can we get a suitable rangeblock?

Who is this? How can I find out who the OP is? Help me please! Erm: Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 03:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast work. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I was channeling James Randal (help me, please!), you know, as I do (nobody cares!). El_C 08:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA

The user @Tsans2: has added new material to an article. I opposed those additions with explanations, and reverted the user's changes. The user added back those information, after giving an explanation I deemed unsatisfactory; I reverted this re-addition and insisted the BRD process be carried out. The user added back those information once again, stating don't do this again. explain on talk page and stating on the talk page I don't revert. I put back what is supported by sources and I argued it here. You contstantly delete my additions, including the latest ones with Ukrainian historians. That proves you either don't read the article or don't like their views. I told the user they had to revert their addition otherwise I would open an ANI, to which the user replied that they would maintain their addition and that I was possibly "Ukrainophobic". The user has refused to go throught the BRD process, prefering to imply I had an agenda and could not read the sources (it's only your idea. no one revert my edits, but only you. you have been banned for a week from editing this page. and what? no one reverted my edits. what does that mean?; I reverted my edits because you even don't read the article. please be careful).

• As for the part Or you are Ukrainiphobic and the view of a Ukrainian historian is not worth mentioning here?, the user then changed the wording [129], but only after another user told them it was a personnal attack and that they should AGF; even then Tsans2 stated they had removed it because it is possible insulting and said nothing about questioning my good faith.

The user also stated concerning my behaviour:

• Personal attack:

  Nope, why should you care? because, you are the one who wanted to delete this article, and now, you are obsessed with it?

• Competency and the current elements of CONSENSUS concerning the scope of the article I had cited:

  nope, you don't know the topic neither you speak Ukrainian or Russian to understand it. Regarding this: Moreover, the vague consensus on this article's scope - it's just your idea or statement. You wrote it, you defend it, I'm lucky with that, but don't make it a point here.

I have already had problems with the methods and POV-pushing of the user and I had previously described them at this ANI from 14 March 2022; at the time I acted too hastily. The user also has a strong tendency to add WP:FICTREFs and to attempt to have them maintained without real justifications (see this other user's very recent remark to the revert of Tsans2 to which Tsans2 never argued back). I have described the problem with the user's use of sources in this whole talk page section and its sub-sections.
I feel sanctions need to be taken against Tsans2, who has already been one-week banned from editing this article for edit-warring on said article (I was also one-week banned from the article for the same reason, but I have hopefully learned my lesson). Veverve (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• As a related note, Tsan2 added the "propagandist" label to Marina Ovsyannikova without any sources: [130], added it back after it was reverted with some particularly crummy sources: [131], and after it was reverted and the sources challenged by Mellk, they added it again a third time with no explanation: [132]. Their behaviour on both of these articles seems like a classic case of tendentious editing, and I find it highly questionable that they are actually here to build an encyclopedia (as opposed to grinding their axe or trying to win in political battles). Endwise (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter @Veverve@Endwise I added sources as it was asked. I found that the article was non-neutral and I added a littlbe bit another information. Tsans2 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Endwise already started a discussion on the talk page. I will try to find better sources. Tsans2 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is clearly an editor only interested in POV pushing and not in anything else. See for example their edits at Odessa today: Even after they have been warned multiple times that the English name of the city if Odessa they still continue to write Odesa in the article. Their talk page is full of warnings, and they do not have any useful contributions. The sooner they get blocked indefinitely the better. We have currently enough editors who are adding neutral info in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is pure vandalism [133]: Replaced a valid link with a red link because they did not like the name of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I was never warned about Odessa/Odesa stuff. --Tsans2 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Or it is just incompetence with piping in wikitext, and no awareness that that doesn't necessarily mean a thing for the English language name. The editor isn't making up the name change, but what was bandied about in 2019 does not seem to have actually taken hold, at least from a cursory look on my part. See Talk:Yuzhne#Possible name change. Of course, there are challenges with this sort of stuff right at the moment, as I don't need to tell you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • @Uncle G: Tsans2 seem quite experienced, from what I get. Veverve (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Xe is clearly not a native English speaker, doesn't have even 300 edits here, has fewer edits on the Ukrainian Wikipedia than here if my count is right, and is still making markup errors such as boldface for subheadings as of a mere 3 days ago (Special:Diff/1080012976). Xe is possibly not as experienced or facile with either wikitext or English, or indeed with Wikipedia in general, as you might be thinking. ☺ Yes, ad hominems and personal attacks. But also yes, not very good with English, wikitext, or Wikipedia norms. By Hanlon's Razor, don't attribute to vandalism that which can be adequately explained by not knowing how to use MediaWiki markup properly and not knowing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Uncle G (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

          @Uncle G I'm not native speaker, that's true. If I made a mistake - please help to avoid it in the future. Thanks! Tsans2 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      @Uncle G concerning Yuzhne - you are not carefull :( I changed the name of the Port, not the city. Port is named: Pivdennyi. Tsans2 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    My edit isn't a vandalism. Please read: Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism and Wikipedia:Yelling "Vandalism". Concerning "red link" and Port Pivdennyi - it was renamed from Yuzhnyi to Pivdennyi, as a decommunization and derussification of Ukraine. Please be careful and don't blame me. Tsans2 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Odessa or Odesa - is it written in the beginning of the article. The same as Kyiv or Kiev. It's both legal. Tsans2 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Battleground behavior by user Jacona

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

---

The user Jacona has shown battleground behavior in multiple AfDs, repeatedly disparaged other users, and clearly has competence issues.

1. 1. In Combermere School they claimed news headlines are significant coverage

1. 2. In Combermere School they repeatedly claimed that I did not look for references before nominating the article after I told them I had.

1. 3. In Combermere School they said news stories that they hadn't read because they are behind a paywall were significant coverage.

1. 4. They disparaging the nominator in the Ian Holiday AfD, saying "the nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD."

1. 5. In the Raja Dashrath Medical College they claimed theirs a consensus that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources.

I'm sure there's other examples. I'm not super bothered by the second one, but the other ones show a clear disregard for the guidelines and a lack of civility toward people who nominate or vote delete on articles about non-English subjects. I'll leave it up to others to decide what an appropriate action is, but it's clear to me that his behavior is fostering a toxic environment in AfD discussions. Especially ones that are about subjects that lack English sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a clearcut revenge report by the filer, and is quite reminiscent if not identical to what is described in WP:REVENGE. The filer's behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Holliday was clearly disruptive. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, the filer bludgeoned the discussion with falsehoods, and doubled down after being called out. I recommend a figuratively large, heavy and speedy boomerang. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice deflection and here I thought you were about dealing with problematic users. I'd love to know how this can be a WP:REVENGE report when Jacona wasn't the one who filed the ANI complaint, suggested the topic ban, didn't advocate for me to be topic banned, and as far as I'm aware had no other involvement in it. If I was trying to get revenge on anyone wouldn't Girth Summit be the person to open the complaint about? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

All that any uninvolved editor or administrator needs to do is read the trainwreck that you created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School to see that you have a grudge against Jacona. It is clear to see for all neutral observers. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You can try and make this about me, but I think his comments in other places besides the Combermere School AfD speak for themselves. He was still uncivil toward other people and in discussions that I wasn't involved in at the time. So in no way does this complaint hinge on the Combermere School AfD and your free to disregard it. That said, I think your doing a major disserve to your former claims of being against dishonesty and for civility if you derail the whole complaint just because of an AfD me and Jacona got in a disagreement over out of the three I reported him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

"Thank you for proving your bigotry against the White race"

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

Over the course of a few hours, user transitions from WP:SOAPBOXing at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory ([134][135][136]) to adding wildly inappropriate WP:SYNTH to the article [137]. A user talk page warning about WP:OR and suggestion to read the policy before editing further rapidly escalates into this: [138]. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I literally provided statistical data from two different government sources. You deleted that data because David Coleman (demographer) chose to publish on Daily Mail. That does not make his Office for National Statistics data incorrect. I fail to understand why numbers are so threatening. ClairelyClaire (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL is nigh-universally regarded by Wikipedians as a purveyor of utter crap… for starters. Dronebogus (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: I appreciate your support but I strongly suggest that we stick to clear behavioral violations here rather than discussing content. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey I just showed up with the same complaint about this user (Cla. Cla.) what do you know! Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ClairelyClaire seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. They made fewer than 100 edits from 2017-21 and now are suddenly focused on POV pushing on white genocide, examples being:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080380210 WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOTFORUM attempted legitimization of the conspiracy theory
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080380455 more of the same
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080419033 extreme WP:OR to legitimize topic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080416045 more attempts at legitimization using the legendary and infamous WP:DAILYMAIL
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&diff=prev&oldid=1080421721 complaints about “censorship” typical of POV pushing fringe types, (and arguably yet more attempts to present the topic as “legitimate” by suggesting it is worth “learning” through some sort of dialogue with its supporters?)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080416393 bludgeoning

Based on this evidence I’d say this user runs foul of WP:NORACISTS due to their unequivocal support for a racist conspiracy theory. They have also engaged in POV pushing over Donald Trump (of course) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DARVO&diff=prev&oldid=1080379835) to add to their list of disruptive activities. Dronebogus (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(comment) For what its worth, their user page speaks for itself. Classic example of WP:RACISTBELIEFS#3. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I blanked the userpage as offensive and inflammatory racist content. Dronebogus (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:WikiLinuz

Hi, can an administrator please help me? User:WikiLinuz created a section on my talk page earlier today and accusing me of posting incorrect stuff on the Honorary Aryan article. The user then threatened me with, “If you continue this disruptive POV editing on other articles, you will be reported at WP:ANI”. The user is now hounding my edits and reverting every edit I make as WP:OR which is not true and ignoring my attempts at a civilised discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Honorary Aryan and Talk:Aryan race. I have checked the user’s talk page archive and I can see that the user has a history of making false accusations against people, engaging in edit wars and reverting other people’s edits. I have contributed to many articles on Wikipedia and I wish to be able to do so freely without someone reverting my edits and making false accusations.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FriendlyFerret9854 (talk · contribs) seems to have trouble abiding by (and understanding) our original research guidelines. Let me provide diffs of such conduct:

• Here, they didn't bother to look into the cited source prior to (incorrectly) removing the text and distorting facts.
• When I reverted that edit requesting them to re-read the cited material, they opened a thread asking me to quote the source, which I did here and explained our policies concerning the usage of WP:PRIMARY of subjects related to the article here.
• However, they were skeptical and asked if the author himself provided a source for his claims, which is clearly exhibiting unfamiliarity with WP:SECONDARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - something which I literally asked them to get familiar with on my very previous reply.
• They further accused me of not verifying that scholarly material here. On these diffs (here, here and here), they relentlessly engaged in disruptive behavior (holding on to their WP:OR) and didn't care to WP:LISTEN, even if another editor stepped in and tried to explain our policies (here, here and here).
• This behaviour continued at a related article. At our talk page discussions, they continue to cling on to their WP:OR (here, here) and accused me of being disingenuous and difficult to comprehend here. They continue to disruptively remove sourced text here, following their original research.
• I tried to explain to them about our WP:OR policies here and here, which they ignored.
• This disruptive behaviour and edit warring was continued on other articles, see this, this and this.

I tried to explain our policies (about 3 times), but I think it's best to sanction FriendlyFerret9854 on these topics to avoid further disruption. Thanks, WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with citing sources. I am well within my rights to ask if an author has provided a source for his claim. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true. I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack. All you have done is stalk my edits and continue to revert my edits e.g. using a quote from a book is not original research yet you seem to think it is! You have engaged in this type of behaviour before (admin take a look at the user’s archive) so this isn’t a new thing. The disruptive behaviour is on your behalf when you were so disingenuous to think the Aryan article and the Aryan race article are referring to the same meaning of the term ‘Aryan’. Also, I have shown on the Talk:Honorary Aryan page that a lot of what is on the Honorary Aryan article doesn’t even belong on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true - See, you're doing it again. You seem to lack the understanding of how scholarly peer review works.
• I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack - They were referring to Generalrelative's reply when they claimed of knowing more than the scholar himself. This is not how our guideline defines a personal attack. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You don’t need to patronise me. You don’t need to stalk me. You don’t need to be asking other people to keep articles on their watchlists. Etc, etc. It’s all just so weird. With regard to questioning Anthony’s claim in his book, see WP:TRUTH - “If it’s written in a book, it must be true!” “In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible.” “Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.” And so forth. I have every right to question Anthony’s claim when “Czechs” is not mentioned in the Grant’s book in relation to Germans mixing with other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)