Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Cengizsogutlu: close, topic banned
Line 264: Line 264:


== Cengizsogutlu ==
== Cengizsogutlu ==
{{atop | result = Cengizsogutlu is indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] (1) from making edits related to [[Iran]] and [[Turkic peoples]]; and (2a) from [[Turkey]]-related topics. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 07:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Cengizsogutlu}}
{{userlinks|Cengizsogutlu}}


Line 331: Line 331:


* '''Support indef block''' As per {{noping|Wario-Man}} and {{noping|The Hand That Feeds You}}.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support indef block''' As per {{noping|Wario-Man}} and {{noping|The Hand That Feeds You}}.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Rusf10 ==
== User:Rusf10 ==

Revision as of 07:38, 28 May 2021

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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:Terjen

    CLOSED
    Closing again —valereee (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This is a bit of a toothless complaint, claiming personal attacks where there is none, etc. I'm not in love with all of Terjen's actions, but it hasn't risen to the point of another sanction. Since he just came off his first block (one that I had placed), it seems you have to give someone more than a day or two of actual editing before you can demonstrate a pattern of misbehavior. Closing without action, which doesn't mean Terjen is a model editor, just that this falls short of sanctions, and some of it is without any merit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Shortly after being unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, here are some of Terjen's constructive contributions: obvious needling followed by further needling and this dishonest bs; their contribution here is similar. Clearly unblocking was a mistake, as AmPol does not need this kind of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chetsford, an editor has to be open to guidance and counseling before they'll help. I'm not sure that's what I'm seeing. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, that's very true. Though, in general, I think if impacted editors simply request offending editors to stop posting to their Talk page per WP:NOBAN we can usually tie these problems up without requiring the application of any editing restrictions. My personal view is that blocks should be used only when every conceivable other alternative has been tried and failed. In the case of these annoying comments to a Talk page, I'm not sure that level of exhaustion has been reached yet in the absence of a NOBAN request. That said, I defer to your and others' judgment. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awaiting a response by Terjen. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't support a block. Although everyone involved would probably be better off if Terjen spent a week or two editing non-political topics (it's a big encyclopedia), I don't see cause for an admin-imposed AP2 topic-ban. To a certain extent, making insinuations about institutional bias is permitted and constructive, but editors should not make a habit of complaining to new users about their litany of injustices. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How come you feel this is offending you?" is indeed dishonest. Bacondrum had good reason to place that template, and Terjen's "warning" essentially tells the warned editor that the warning came from an "activist" and thus is not to be taken seriously, a violation of good faith. One wonders why Terjen didn't place a warning like that under the edit war warning left by Acroterion, in the section below Bacondrum's. Why not, Terjen? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He did, immediately after you raised the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErlend_Kvitrud&type=revision&diff=1024116423&oldid=1023702066. Is an admin going to action this complaint? The discussion has become really nasty and intractable. I think it is time it was wound up. Bacondrum 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This message is the second link in the complaint, posted at 06:12, 20 May 2021, not "immediately after you raised the issue" but hours before. It is discussed further in my response below. Terjen (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected, he appears to have realised the optics were not good, just before you noticed. Bacondrum 03:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too was concerned that Terjen seemed to be placing advice telling a new editor not to trust whatever processes they encounter here. That just doesn't seem all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussed in my response below. Terjen (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just adding that Terjen's response to this included this - Terjen had not previously commented on that page, and appeared just to tell another editor to disregard Bacondrum, specifically citing this discussion. I don't feel that's acceptable - overtly dragging a disagreement with an editor onto another page and directly trying to rally another editor against them falls afoul of both WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLEGROUND; that sort of behavior contributes to making disputes intractable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is misleading and incorrect. I commented on that page May 16, three days before Bacondrum arrived to post this. Terjen (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that was 8 days after this block was lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) So the first time they edited this article was 8 days after this. More bullshitting.
    Why do they suddenly appear at all these articles and talk pages that involve me directly after the block. Aquillion is spot on. I want something done about the hounding and battleground behavior - Blind Freddy could see the deceit and harassment going on with this user. They are being deceitful and have even turned much of this discussion into a discussion about everything and anything other than their own shifty behavior. It's also incorrect that I "arrived" at that article after Terjen, I have a long history of contributing to that article, I'm one of top ten contributors in-fact https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Antifa_%28United_States%29 Terjen turned up there for the first time, out of the blue, 8 days after the a block was lifted that involved me, he turned up to hound me, end of story. Bacondrum 00:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum had no comments on the Antifa talk page when I made my first post on May 16, but shows up three days later to post, then claim I am following them around. It makes no sense. Terjen (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Been editing that article and talk page for years and you know it. More bullshitting. Bacondrum 03:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terjen - going after uninvolved Valereee, who in the diff you provided, wrote I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution, is very poor judgment. Rather than establish a conspiracy, this is more likely to backfire on you. starship.paint (exalt) 02:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Starship.paint I am not "going after" or trying to establish a conspiracy. Admins having a potential conflict should recuse themselves. Hence the point of order. Terjen (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terjen - Valereee has no conflict of interest from merely posting @Bacondrum, @Newimpartial, can you propose a solution? Are we talking a p-block from article space, or what? I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution. She didn't even enact the block. There is no need for her to recuse. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Terjen, sorry, not enough coffee yet...how does that represent a potential conflict? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: No worries, I trust your good judgment. Terjen (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Terjen is WP:NOTHERE

    I was just on my way here to launch my own ANI regarding Terjen.

    They appealed the block and claimed to have corrected their behavior - admin Dennis Brown accepted them at their word and unblocked them. Terjen then went straight back into more or less the same behavior, simply being more discrete ie: WP:SEALION. going to starship.paint and basically demanding that the now closed discussion that lead tot he block be re-opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion

    To summarise, we appear to have a disruptive and tendentious editor who is gaming us and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef block is the correct response at this time, they have deliberately disrupted, expressed knowledge of what they are doing (and kept doing it anyway), acted in a blatantly battleground manner, attacked other editors tried to game wikipedia etc. If not indefed, they should be blocked from contemporary American Politics (aka AP2). Bacondrum 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose indef at this point - I will say I don’t think Terjen was sealioning when they approached me to undo my close. I think Terjen was within their rights to make such a request. I rejected it and Terjen did not press the matter. The sarcasm and criticism at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud and WP:AE is something Terjen should apologise for. However I don’t think it rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE. starship.paint (exalt) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of Order I told Terjen I wasn't going to mention anything weird going on here this time, but Bacondrum subsequently made it extra weird by whatever sort of "game" it is where you repeatedly alternate between good cop and bad cop, drag a guy to AN/I on suspicion of being disruptive and cryptic [1], suddenly revert to friendly and apologetic again, withdraw the complaint (simultaneously edit-conflicting the defense) [2][3], then wish one all the best [4], before abruptly telling the same to fuck off [5]. I move to declare his testimony here incredible. Can't paste diffs, sorry, technical issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs added above, by myself, because InedibleHulk can't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the first or the last to think InedibleHulk's comments and edit summaries were disruptive, I acknowledged I was wrong and withdrew the complaint, made an apology and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABacondrum&type=revision&diff=1024245200&oldid=1024244947 some rude cryptic comment about who he does and doesn't like and I told him to "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. This is all illustrates the point that InedibleHulk "colourful" comments and edit summaries are in fact disruptive. Bacondrum 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't rude or cryptic, it was plain Canadian English, with the only allusion I suspected you might need an assist with conveniently Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum: - I perfectly understood the comment, well, because it was a pro-wrestling reference, he's saying you were going back and forth (which was also stated in the comment). It wasn't rude. He did clearly write: I don't like you and don't dislike you. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding rudeness when you're saying "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. starship.paint (exalt) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, getting told to fuck off was the least of my problems with Bacon, just naturally happened to be the last one. I don't want him to lose any privileges here. Just casting doubt on his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I lost my cool and told old mate to fuck off, this whole discourse is a bit of a joke really - seemed to me that he was being rude or antagonistic, but I can never tell what is meant by his oddball comments. I'm not engaging with this discussion anymore, I have better things to do. Bacondrum 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can fuck off and leave with you just one solid morsel of food for thought, never conflate a sea lion with a Canadian, whole realer true Northern politeness up here (think harbour seal, if any pinniped must be presumed at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Be my guest. Bacondrum 05:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Terjen:

    Here are some of the contributions I made shortly after being unblocked earlier in the month:

    The complaint regards messages I posted to Erlend Kvitrud, a relatively new editor with only 85 edits. WP:DNB says we must "treat newcomers with kindness and patience" and reminds us that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:CIVIL advises us to be careful with user warning templates, in particular to be "careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers ... Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message."

    Bacondrum had posted a warning template to this new editor stating "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" but did not add a personal message.

    I added a friendly welcome message directed to Kviterud:

    A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Here is an introduction you may find instructive. Hipp hipp hurra! Terjen (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

    There are no reasons for Kviterud to find this message offensive, nor are Kviterud part of this complaint. I was puzzled by Starship.paint suggesting it to be "sarcasm and criticism", but realize it may have to do with a misunderstanding about the Hipp hipp hurra! expression: Erlend Kvitrud is Norwegian; The welcome message was posted on their Constitution day when this is a common exclamation. It is not a sarcastic "hurray".

    I am of course open to ideas and further discussions about how to better welcome new editors. I made another post to Kviterud emphasizing key processes to follow when editing AP2, much like I would have liked to receive myself when returning to edit AP2, so I could have avoided getting my first block earlier this month.

    Bacondrum has refused to articulate why they took the welcome message as a personal offense, and have failed to explain why the welcome message above violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For them to feel the linked Wikipedia essay on hostile activists implied they are an activist, they must have thought they had been hostile. The warning template they posted hardly qualifies. However, following the link from the template leads to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk where Kviterud, despite announcing he is "new to this and still learning", is met with language like this from Bacondrum and others:

    • "Please sign your posts (using four tildes) just like everyone else does."
    • "NOTFORUM all this general discussion and opinion is disruptive. No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards."
    • "I am a dyed in the wool Marxist, so you're not exactly ingratiating yourself with other editors here."
    • "Literally nobody cares what you think is reasonable"
    • "Don’t expect other editors to do your work for you."
    • "This is all just your opinion. If you've come here to push your opinions or attack leftists then you are in the wrong place."
    • "Erlend Kvitrud, by going with what the sources say, I meant whether they describe him as right wing, not sitting around the dorm with our Libertarian friends and conducting our own research."
    • "Erlend Kvitrud Mate, this is not a forum. You are right to give up disrupting this talk page."

    Erlend Kvitrud leaves, saying "since your minds seem to be made up, I give up on this one."

    JBL participated in the discussion on the Talk page but did not intervene.

    Terjen (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Terjen: - "criticism" refers to the activist link (among other things), it has nothing to do with "Hipp hipp hurra". Exactly who were you implying to be activists, if you weren't referring to Bacondrum? starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship.paint, what is the point of asking someone to explain obvious, dishonest bullshitting? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll: - to offer a path of redemption. If we're not interested in at least trying to set things right, we might as well just indef and get it over with. starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for redemption myself, but the response is indeed bullshit. If one feels someone else is being bitten, then a more proper response would be to leave a message on the talk page of the alleged biter, not to discredit them in a pretty sneaky way on the talk page of the bitten. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am absolutely for learning from mistakes and correcting behavior. It has to be said though that Terjen certainly is bullshitting. Don't know what to say other than that it appears they are WP:NOTHERE, as I've already said. Bacondrum 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those quotes, many were not me, the ones that were me are offered up here completely out of context in what I believe is a deliberate attempt to mislead...more bullshitting. Bacondrum 00:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the full context - the same link as posted just above the quotes. Terjen (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: It's a link to the WP:Activist essay, recommended for working in AP2. It doesn't imply that anybody specifically is an activist. Terjen (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy that, sorry. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith may help. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty hard to assume good faith when you are not acting in good faith, when you tell bald faced lies. At the end of the day none of us want to see editors indefed, but you cant wage wars against other editors, battle over content etc...and you definitely can't tell blatant lies when you are caught out. Own and change the problematic behavior in a sincere manner and we can all move on knowing it's not going to keep happening. We all want to give you a chance to do better, you need to meet us halfway by not lying, acknowledging what you've done wrong and stop doing it. Bacondrum 08:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum saying I am lying is a serious accusation, requiring serious evidence. Your claims are a breach of WP:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, please refrain from othering. We're all in this together. Terjen (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    you have been lying and continue to do so, as evidenced throughout this report. A number of admins have also said you are “bullshitting” I’d stop bullshitting and come clean if I was you. Bacondrum 09:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    considering you are still lying and clearly acting in bad faith, I’m done trying to help you help yourself. I will no longer respond to dishonest nonsense. Bacondrum 09:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, no body is buying that. A good start would be some honesty. Bacondrum 08:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the guy who said he wouldn't interact with me in the future, and drags me to this board (in admitted error) one day and ten minutes later. Says the guy with a Barnstar of Diplomacy on his talk page pledging to be a lot less combative. Opinions like yours change like the weather, but the diffs and other links Terjen shows have firmly matched his claims from the start, consistently, and recent history suggests you may simply be reading something here in a way not intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can give the benefit of the doubt on regarding Erlend Kvitrud's edit overlap with Terjen. What I do find peculiar was Terjen bringing up Swood100's ANI case where Bacondrum and Valereee participated. Swood100 was blocked on 12 January 2021, after edits focused on Cultural Marxism [6]. Terjen resumed editing Wikipedia on 8 January 2021 [7], focused on the storming of the Capitol. Terjen has said that they haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general). One wonders how did Terjen come across Swood100's ANI case then? starship.paint (exalt) 10:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Val's been overlapping with several of us for years in tangled webs like this, only natural that a bit of due diligence before stepping into the circle with any of us would uncover something of hers in one of our recent histories sooner or later. Not sure where he's going with this COI angle, though. Assuming good faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint I came across Swood100's related ANI case while browsing the public archives of this noticeboard. What are you insinuating here? Terjen (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Terjen: - I’m puzzled why would you be browsing the public archives of WP:ANI? Seems like a very uncommon thing to do here. Next thing that you’re going to tell me is that for Editors, even admins, that disagree with your POV (including if that's WP:NPOV) may use this to sanction you from having editing privileges - you weren’t referring to any particular editor, or any particular admin, that generated this thought? starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint This falls under casting aspersions. Terjen (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Terjen: - that's a bit of a vague response, I suppose you can't be saying that you were casting aspersions, so I suppose you are saying that it is I who am casting aspersions against you? starship.paint (exalt) 05:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Bacondrum is making a bald-faced lie when claiming I had made no previous contributions to this article. The evidence is right there on the same Talk page: Just 3 days earlier, I posted several messages starting with an encouragement to represent significant viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a liar, I do not lie and take exceptional offense to your completely unfounded claim. I demand it be revoked immediately and with an apology. They had never edited that article before this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) and since then have hounded me around Wikipedia. As several editors and Admins have pointed out, he is bullshitting (ie:lying) it is inconceivable that any editor can take Terjen in good faith. An utterly dishonest editor, hounding me, making unfounded bad faith accusation and gaming us all. At what point does this BS get him indef blocked? Bacondrum 08:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of order. What is the reason for InedibleHulk's involvemnet in this discussion? They seem to be here purely to attack me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1024245200&type=revision Bacondrum 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      When you showed up to pile on to the original complaint (the literal very next edit after saying you wouldn't interact with "this user"), your "Gaming the system" section pretty much accused me of conspiracy in whatever you think is wrong here. "'Solidarity' or colluding" was how you paraphrased me. Then you linked a discussion between Starship and I, as if it backed whatever now-deleted theory you were pushing before the first three minutes of May 21 (can't paste diffs). Now, I'm just calling you on hypocrisy as I see it. Terjen's May 16 Antifa contribution was before May 20, and doubling down on this lying about his lying just makes you look desperate to hurt someone and bad at math. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I said what I actually think of you I'd be indefed. I've nothing more to say. Bacondrum 11:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you threatened me with another AN/I report, then changed your mind again while edit conflicting my honest reaction to your calling me disingenuous, you'd be disruptive and wishy-washy. I'd kind of like to still know whether what you deleted at 11:14 today was what you really thought of me, or just pointless bullshit. Not asking, though, "no worries"! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, it could have been interesting to hear the perspective of the owner of the Talk page where the welcome message was posted. Unfortunately, Erlend Kvitrud has not returned to Wikipedia after the discussions on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. That's a loss for the project. He is a promising editor and writer. For all the badgering about him attacking leftists[8], not ingratiating himself with the Marxists[9], and sitting around the dorm with his Libertarian friends[10], turns out Kvitrud professes to be a Democratic Socialist of the Scandinavian kind.[11] We need editors like that, not wearing a POV on their sleeves but taking NPOV to heart, willing to stand up against editorial bias and open to significant viewpoints, even those they don't hold themselves. If Kvitrud comes back, I hope I will get a chance to collaborate with him on improving the encyclopedia. Terjen (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't really be bothered to carefully sift through each diff and figure out who's the 'worst' in all of this, but reading a couple of the diffs, and equally importantly just the discussion above, I think multiple people could benefit from reviewing WP:BATTLE, starting with the very first sentence: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Difficult to remember in the American politics topic area, I know... ProcSock (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have said absolutely nothing about Terjen's ideological stance, not a word, I have no idea which way he leans politically, and I don't care. We are here because another editor noticed he is hounding me around Wikipedia insinuating that I'm an activist. End of story. All this other stuff is him and his mate trying to get at me and distract from the dishonest and harassing behavior. Bacondrum 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're here primarily because of concerns regarding the impacted editor Erlend Kvitrud, owner of User Talk:Erlend Kvitrud where the welcome message and editing advice were posted. Terjen (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I was going to try to figure out what this whole wall of text really was, and while I'm not sure I agree that there's nothing here, and I do think Terjen is being at minimum coy, I'm willing to let it go for now. I have to say, Terjen: that 'point of order' diff re: a single comment I made six months ago is to me clear evidence of you following Bacondrum around trying to dig up dirt. And the message on the new editor's user talk wasn't helpful in the least. If you want to leave a helpful message for a new editor, start a discussion like human beings do instead of a cryptic link that looks like you're warning them of some conspiracy. —valereee (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, of course. It is a real mystery to me why anyone is pretending Terjen's behavior has been anything other than an attempt to needle BaconDrum and stir shit -- and now they've been rewarded for their bad behavior. --JBL (talk)
    • Bacondrum has vanished from Wikipedia, so that's the end of this conflict. starship.paint (exalt) 13:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Starship.paint: Too bad Bacondrum didn't listen to your directions to "be a bit less combative", although JBL appreciated you trying to get them to disengage. Terjen (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still puzzled why this complaint is filed under AmPol opening for an AP2 topic-ban. None of the four diffs in the complaint are for AP2 articles: The two primary diffs are for User Talk:Erlend Kvitrud, the others for my Talk page and AE. Terjen (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yet Black Kite did funnel admins from AE to this complaint, suggesting "An AP2 ban would be better for everyone there, IMO." Terjen (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't know why your diffs at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud about AP2 enforcement are leading to a discussion about an AP2 topic ban, you really aren't paying attention. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @JayBeeEll: As the filer of the complaint, can you unpack for me why my two diffs[12][13] at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud should lead to an AP2 topic ban? Terjen (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Which part of my extremely short and to-the-point opening statement do you have trouble understanding? Also, do not ping me again. --JBL (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Terjen, this is disruptive. Stop now. —valereee (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Filetime and Providence article images

    User:Filetime appears to believe that they have WP:OWNERSHIP of images in articles about Providence, Rhode Island. They have consistently reverted my changes to these articles, and, when challenged, have WP:CANVASSed editors they believe will support their position to the discussions, and have refused to compromise, although I have done so (see Talk:Brick Schoolhouse, for instance, in which I dropped my support for my own image in favor of another editor's, or Talk:Providence City Hall, in which once another editor had provided a new image for the infobox, I dropped support for my own.)

    The nub of the problem here is the Filetime seems to believe that any photograph which I have taken, or any image by anyone else that I have selected for use in any article, is automatically of "low quality", although their standard for that is variable: see for instance the discussion on Talk:Shepard Company Building in which they insist that an image (not by me) is unusable in the infobox because the resolution is too small, but when replaced by the highest resolution image in the category on Commons, one that I happened to take, rejected it as well because he didn't like the image's "quality". (Her again, when alternate images were suggested by another editor, I uploaded them from Flickr and added them to the article in place of my own.)

    Certainly, there are inevitably going to be disputes in good faith between editors over what images to use in articles, but it simply cannot be the case that every image I select is bad, and every image that Filetime prefers is good. Their inability to judge images as neutrally as possible (something that I try very hard to do, i.e. I never replace a current image with one of my own unless mine is appreciably an improvement; simply being newer or of better resolution is not sufficient to replace an image which serves its function -- such as use in an infobox -- better) and their digging in once they've made a decision are counter to collaboration between editors. Further, their continued violation of WP:CANVASS by pinging to discussions only selected editors, in the face of their being told directly that they should not do this, flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. (The latest instance of this can be seen at Talk:Rhode Island State House.) Their apparent automatic rejection of my contributions is beginning to border on WP:HARASSMENT.

    I am not asking for Filetime to be topic banned from Providence articles, that would be unduly harsh, as well as counter-productive for the encyclopedia, since their contributions to those articles overall are quite useful and generally improve them, but some way needs to be found to stop Filetime from automatically rejecting any images I add to articles, and to get them to stop violating WP:CANVASS.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Edits marked "new were added after the original posting of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also wanted to add that this has been going on since April 27th. In other words, I waited three-and-a-half weeks before bringing this to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [41], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies: According to you "can't be arsed to come by here and explain" though I literally wrote five lines of text an hour and a half before your first comment. As for the park, a photograph of the park itself is a "a picture of nothing"? Look into any travel guide or on google images and I assure you you will not find grainy photographs of parks signs but rather photographs of the outdoor spaces themselves. If you are so confident in your stance, I encourage you to try and promote this "picture of nothing" argument on the articles for Central Park or Grant Park and convince them that they should use images of signs for their infoboxes. Filetime (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
            This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don’t be rude. I have read it, and it is not canvassing. I refer you to fifth bullet point under “Appropriate notification”. Pbrks (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, isn't it a conflict of interest to edit war or revert to reinsert your own image? Didn't this get another user topic banned?[42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That is an interesting way to look at it. I had not considered the COI aspect of them edit waring their pictures into articles. Looks like promo work. PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on my understanding of the many past ANI threads and general practice, users are indeed encouraged to add their own photos to articles as long as they improve those articles. But if someone challenges it, you shouldn't restore it without finding consensus to do so first. So I guess it's just basic BRD and edit warring guidance, but with the added emphasis because COI can be argued if you continue. Adding photos to articles is not itself a COI any more than adding text to articles is a COI. If someone advocates on a talk page for their picture being the better one for the article, I don't see that as much different than arguing for their version of a block of text. But if it seems like you're edit warring/arguing to include them without regard for the quality of the article, then yeah COI can come into play. It gets more complicated if the person in question has a photography business, but as I don't think that applies to anyone here, we can stem that tangent. Ultimately, the sanction imposed on Toglenn in the thread Morbidthoughts links above is just the advice I give all newbies about adding one's own images (and what I do by default). It shouldn't take a sanction, in other words. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I give up

    Not to get all WP:DIVA about it, but I've just noticed that Filetime's last dozen edits were all about undoing my contributions to his articles, and no one -- except, ironically, the two admins who have commented here -- seems to think that there's any behavioral problem with doing stuff like that. It's really just too much hassle for me to deal with this editor, so I'm going to scrub my plan to edit other Providence articles at this time. Maybe at some point in the future, when Filetime has finally been indef blocked -- because the behavior he's exhibiting now is not likely to stop, and will only get worse -- I can pick up that project again, but for the time being I'll put my energy into more productive areas.

    I've put away my copy of Guide to Providence Architecture, and I formally withdraw my complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [43], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I would like to note that the behavior chronicled here, i.e. the OWNERSHIP of a group of articles and the running off of a good-faith editor trying to contribute to them, is deeply antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos, and dangerous to the encyclopedia if allowed to thrive and spread. After all, we're not talking about reverting vandalism, or protecting the project from promotion or political propaganda, we're talking about simple disputes about the use of images being weaponized and utilized as a bludgeon. That Filetime continued (and for all I know continues, as I have not cared to check their contribution list since earlier today) even after their behavior has been exposed is disturbing, and potentially dangerous. Filetime has shown interest in other geographical areas as well: Massachusetts, specifically Boston, and Chicago, for instance. Will they replicate their exclusionary behavior in articles about those places as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dangerous? Excuse me? Maybe dial down the rhetoric a bit. The pictures I checked that you uploaded were not improvements. When your work is removed it hurts, I get it. But let’s not make this into something it’s not. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to revisit some of those sites and try to improve your photography skills. If they are better I will join you in getting them added to the relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Mr. Ernie (now that you're here, I know that I'm in the right), "dangerous". Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. When one editor takes it upon themselves, without the community's approval, to prevent another one from participating in a certain subject, collaboration is out the window, and when they call upon like-minded editors to back them up, without a general call for participation, consensus is undermined. If collaboration and consensus are gone, Wikipedia can no longer be what it intends to be -- so, yes, "dangerous" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the subject topic at hand, this section just feels like you're throwing a tantrum, BMK. If multiple other people are disagreeing with you, then it's clearly not just Filetime supporting these changes. From what I can tell from looking at the above linked talk pages and examples, you're correct in some cases with your images, but incorrect on others and instead are supporting inferior images. SilverserenC 02:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Filetime's crew, and a few long-time adversaries who come out of the woodworks every time my name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    🙄 Levivich harass/hound 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoddy earache demon stranded?  :) ——Serial 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ironic that BMK is making claims of WP:OWNERSHIP, because I'm seeing the reverse. ANI is revealing a long-standing behavioral problem, yet again. This is a content dispute that should not have made its way to ANI. There are editors who cannot withstand having their edits altered or deleted in good faith and in accordance with policy. These editors, regardless of their editing talent, tenure, or friends here, are largely a net negative for the project if they're repeatedly unwilling to acknowledge their disruptive behavior. Frankly, at some point, BMK has to look at the common denominator. His colleagues are doing him a disservice by insisting on rushing to his defense rather than encouraging him to participate more collaboratively and develop methods to mentally overcome dissent to his edits. Worse, he begins a new section to passive-aggressively accuse his opponents of operating an anti-BMK cabal. This battleground mentality is a disruptive time-dump. RandomGnome (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of sanctions

    (Non-administrator comment) Isn't this the reason BMK has agreed to the following sanctions from the previous ANI?

    There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

    • BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
    • When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

    Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.
    — User:Ritchie333

    The conduct described here definitely violates the second bullet point, as evidenced by an apparent image-related dispute (specifically concerning the infobox of Shepard Company Building) that BMK himself carried over to Talk:Shepard Company Building. I'm not sure if bullet #1 has been violated, or if there have been any similar incidents involving BMK in 7 March 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The second clause relates only to the first clause. It is not a general statement. Nice try, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with BMK on this particular subsection. The clause in question only applies to disputes over which section an image belongs in, not the image itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bold Revert Discuss

    I'm with BMK here. He's a respected and experienced editor in good standing. There clearly has been canvassing. At the end of the day, Filetime wants to keep their WP:OWN photos, cool we all appreciate the time and effort involved in taking the pics and they are good pics...but WP:BRD is a key part of editing Wikipedia. Once the edits were challenged it is on edtors to discuss in good faith and without calling in as many sympathetic editors as possible, ie WP:CANVAS. BMK has done nothing wrong, it is Filetime who is not discussing properly, engaging in an edit war and canvassing for support...IMO Bacondrum 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bacondrum: You have it exactly backwards. In just about all (if not all) of these examples, it was BMK adding his own photos to articles and Filetime objecting, then BMK starting an edit war to force them in. In some cases Filetime restored their own photo, and in other cases they restored the work of third parties like Kzirkel. In all cases, BMK edit warred to introduce his own photos after being challenged. In all cases I've seen, it was BMK who did not follow BRD, gaining consensus on the talk page before restoring his photo. As for canvassing, did you actually look at who Filetime allegedly "canvassed"? I guess it's possible I missed some actual canvassing, but BMK was calling canvassing just the simple act of pinging particular people. I haven't seen evidence that it was actually canvassing (i.e. that they were pinged only because Filetime thought they'd agree with a particular position -- pinging specific people isn't automatically canvassing). At the time Filetime pinged me, I had just supported one of BMK's photos in one of their disputes, and yet BMK accused Filetime of canvassing when I was pinged. Other people have just been active in RI articles, had responded to the previous WikiProject posting, or active in adding photos to Wikipedia. A WikiProject post would be better, I guess, but calling it canvassing seems like a big stretch. Filetime is a problem here, too, with the edit warring and jabs in edit summaries, but BMK has done nothing wrong is demonstrably false even by BMK's own evidence. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get into details, because I've withdrawn this complaint, but your description is not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    186.139.255.129

    Reporting this user for personal attacks by this user on issues with rude/inappropriate commentary Examples can be seen here and vandalizing my talk page here: here. I apologize if this is the wrong place to do it, but I'm not sure where else we are supposed to do it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC) User has also attacked other users here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Blocked by L235 (talk · contribs). Some of this user's contributions (see here) need to be RD2'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) IP user is currently on a name-calling spree in their talk page to whom I assume ones who have reverted or warned them. also seems like their block may've expired, got a message from them in my talk page. • | melecie | t 07:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cengizsogutlu

    Cengizsogutlu is indefinitely topic banned (1) from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples; and (2a) from Turkey-related topics. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User seems to have a strong opinion (to say the least) to anything Iran-related, coming up with accusations/rants like this;

    You can't Indirect decide that these are not realible or well also by hiding Turkics number of İran on Wikipedia won't help upcoming Irani civil war. Iranian nationalism is all I see here.

    This is not true! I do not understand your purpose! I added it to half a dozen citations and those articles have the term whole azerbaijan dozens of times. This is not Iran's platform for ethnic cleansing. If you revert once again, you will be reported. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:RVAN

    Why are you deleting also the map? WP:SNEAKY You guys cant hide ethnic minorities in Iran either You cannot do informational ethnic cleansing either. The flag issue is controversial, what about the map?

    Added 7 academic citations, you can examine geographical sections. It will not be late for me to request the admin page at the first revert to be deleted from now on. Please torpise your ethnic hostility on a different platform. This is not a place where Iran is trying to wipe out its ethnic minorities, it is a free encyclopedia

    In just one month, he has reverted Khorasani Turks 6 times [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] (4 of them today), attempting to force a fictional flag and map onto the article. He justifies his addition of the map by adding various random sources not even related to it.

    Looking at all this, this seems like a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue to me at the very least. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You keep always reverting sourced information and its not a slander you guys in a constant effort to hide the Turkic minority in Iran related articles. Btw i dont reverted YOU GUYS DELETING & reverting my edits. I putted tons of citations yet dare to report me without seeing his own fault. They constantly erase the articles and delete the sourced information about Turkic people's in Iran. They are the ones who reverted, although I have provided 7 academic sources right now. Pure Informational ethnic cleansing in my opinion. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    + It's not a fictional map even on Wikimedia states; Based on Dr.Papoli Yazdi work (فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال سوم شماره 2 ، پاییز 1376، دکتر محمد حسین پاپلی یزدی ) Geographical Research Quarterly, Third Year No. 2, Fall 1997, Dr. Mohammad Hossein Papli Yazdi. Also, I removed the flag myself and already asked why did you remove the map together with the flag? That's also WP:SNEAKY. Although I did not mention 7 academic sources supporting the map, you reverted it again. Ethnicities in Iran ; If you look at this page, you will see a focused version of the same map. It is unwise to delete this or you revert for different purposes..To my own opinion, you are trying to hide ethnic identities here. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [50] That map literally says "Source: Own Work", its a textbook example of WP:OR, of some random wikipedia member drawing up a map by himself based on his interpretation of a book. The fact that you're unable to understand basic Wikipedia rules about sourcing and have to resort to ethnosectarian accusations and fantasy ramblings about "ethnic cleansing" and "civil war" shows that you're very clearly engaging in disruptive editing. Your rants don't change the fact that your additions are baseless. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick cursory digging in his recent posts shows this [51] which is a straight-up personal attack on another editor he was disagreeing with (claiming his eyes aren't working properly). --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack? You sad 2x times that you don't see Khorasani Turks in this dozen of citations my friendly advice is seeing eye doctor or try to use CTRL+F if you can't locate stuff. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Cengizsogutlu has a long history of attacks towards other users that disagree with them and POV pushing :

    This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia and i have not been able to find out how he/she has been a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What a nice example of Etnic nationalism, One more example of persianization of things. I'm Grateful for the Wikipedia seen this kinda ethno facism. You guys even tried to change drink called Ayran name into Doogh also deleted Turkish section etc. If I need to remind you, I have already received a 24-hour mute from these comments. Yet that didnt helped your Doogh name effort Ayran name still REMAINS ♥. I understand your hatred guys, it makes you sad that I disrupt your ethnic stuff changing games. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is. That's what i mean You play the sneaky and stupid role very well. This is not an insult I apologize if you understand this that way, but this is an an irregular situation. What you are trying to do to erase an edit that you do not like, saying "he insulted me" "his style is not normal" "" he is an editor of this kind ", always stay away from the main subject and play the role of the victim. During this time, the other party is blocked, and no matter how wrong the subject you are defending, remains on wikipedia. It's a nice sneaky strategy btw. Sorry, but these excuses are not enough to hide your mission to hide ethnic minorities in Iran guys. Keep trying to let me banned but it won't change the truth. You are constantly talking about personal insult.
    You play the sneaky role
    If you can't find it from a dozen of citations and if you are not malicious, then you should go to your ophthalmologist
    I apologize if you saw these as insults. My aim is definitely not insulting. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you say that there is no word on the citations in this article that match, it means you are either maliciously intended to find excuse to delete or have a bad eye. If you can't find something, it doesn't give you the right to revert. Friendly advice is appearing to ophthalmologist. The bad intention is that, in my opinion, because of your ethnic nationalism, you cannot tolerate these facts. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia i made articles much more than you deleted sir. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to respond to so many nonsenses. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cengizsogutlu, I suggest you edit in another area for a while. Ethnic debates are notoriously bad places for a relatively new user, you're going to make mistakes and wind up in arguments very frequently. And yes, your statements towards other users absolutely come across as personal attacks, so that needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cengizsogutlu has been POV-pushing and actively engaging in edit-warring in Whole Azerbaijan. In response to me asking them to quote the sources they are referring to (I am familiar with the sources and have reasons to believe they do not support Cengizsogutlu's claims), they said: if you cant locate with Ctrl+F go to an ophthalmologist and ask if you have astigmatism. I find this in violation of WP:CIVILITY and request that the administrators review this case and take measures if necessary. I must specify that the user has been warned on different occasions by fellow editors that they had been engaging in disruptive editing: [52], [53], [54]. Parishan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    HandThatFeeds has a good point. Based on the above evidence, I propose that Cengizsogutlu should be banned from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples (1), which is the usual outcome of discussions like this. In fact, Devlet Geray (talk · contribs) got handed a similar topic ban in a February ANI for tendentious editing about Turkic peoples — Cengizsogutlu's editing at Khorasani Turks and Doogh sure looks tendentious.
    I'm also proposing a topic ban from Turkey-related topics (2a), or at least from the Turkish Armed Forces (2b), as well — twice did they blank a statement in Ağrı Province involving Armenians (diff, diff), and at Turkish Land Forces they restored a paragraph (Special:Diff/1021263224, Special:Diff/1021265483) removed by Visnelma (talk · contribs) per a discussion at the talk page, though their edits at List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces such as Special:Diff/1024691317 might be okay, despite using primary sources. The aforementioned discussion mentioned that they were p-blocked in February for edit warring, including the exact same dispute at the article in question (diff, diff). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Proposals (1 and 2a): broadly construed. - Kevo327 (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both proposals (1 and 2a).---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 2a it does not appear that the block and p-block (by myself and El_C) have made any difference. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both proposals (1 and 2a) per his conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 2a, it's clear this user isn't able to edit objectively on this subject. Perhaps he can appeal this in a year or two as he's still a relatively new user, and editing in less-controversial areas might hone his abilities. — Czello 09:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 2a per LaundryPizza03, and Cengizsogutlu's battleground comments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both per his inability to understand how sourcing works, and his emotional behavior towards these topics. --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question So im technically banned although I do give academic based citations about Khorasani Turks in Iran & Whole Azerbaijan stuff, Because I replaced Armenian claims propaganda of Agri province to history secion, Because I am defending that the history in the logo and official claim of date 209 BC better remains on Turkish Land Forces article, Also try to explain what Orda (organization) is to Visneelma? ? Anyway i am not doing any other editions here expect from Turkey, Military & defence industry edits. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pure strawman strategy on your side, this won't be helpful in your situation.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I do not complain when someone comments to me such as strawman etc also I do not hide behind victim roles about fake personal insults so can also hide ethnic identities in Iran :/. Also Persianization of drinks and poem controversys wont help Iran for upcoming Iranian civil war. I know perfectly reason why you guys chasing me; The main reason is after the Karabakh war because of the fear that Iran will be subjected to civil war by the Azerbaijanis. You guys perfectly knowing there will be events before Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. You know the only reason Israel and Turkey arming Azerbaijan; That's why Turks involved & taking part in soviet puppet wars. All these are preparations for Iran. Of course, you want me to blocked because I have put a spike in your hiding ethnicity plans .Well Good Luck pushing your agenda & a jug of Ayran takes all the heat after B 61 rain. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever helps you cope with the fact that you've failed to convince anyone that your fake unsourced maps are worth keeping on Wikipedia. If you want to live in turanist fantasy land and daydream about the future, feel free :) --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Your above statements are not the point here, the point is your editing profile and the fact that all the editors who commented your topic ban proposal supported it, regardless of their nationality/ethnicity, playing that ethnic card almost all the time is not relevant on Wikipedia (nor in real life, in my humble opinion). For the records, thanks you for your concerns about Iran and its future, however, you should not worry so much about Iran and Iranian Azerbaijanis, but one might have some concerns about Turkey and its 25-30% Kurds who are, as far as i know, not very well treated in that country. I'm done here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cengizsogutlu, your comment indicates that you're here to right great wrongs, which is entirely the wrong way to deal with Wikipedia. I suggested you step away from this subject so you can get experience working in other areas, and then come back to this one with an understanding of how to correct things you feel are misrepresented on the articles. The topic ban is just a way to enforce you step away for a bit. But your comments above such as I do not hide behind victim roles about fake personal insults so can also hide ethnic identities in Iran are blatant personal attacks which could result in you being blocked from Wikipedia entirely. Please take a break, then work on some other subjects for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I just personally thought I was being victim of unjustness, so I wrote a little bit like that way. Forgive me if I have spoken a lot absurdly. I think I will try to improve myself by concentrating on other topics, if i got a chance. I guess I am not cared about because I cannot handle discussions properly and I am too rude. I think this is because also I am a little amateur in my ability to edit on Wikipedia. I apologize to the community and if the last chance/ opportunity given, I will focus on army equipment, technology stuff and defense industry for now to improve my ability to edit. Again, I apologize to everyone. If I'm going to be blocked, perhaps I deserved it. I wish you all a good day & good editing.☺♥ Cengizsogutlu (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block I wanted to support topic ban (1 and 2a) but the above comments/rants by the reported user just prove this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. He was blocked before[55] (multiple times) and he still thinks he did nothing wrong. So what's the point of topic ban? Take a look at his edits, comments, and edit summaries. I don't think giving the second chance would work for this case. Wario-Man talk 18:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rusf10

    Rusf10 (talk · contribs) nominated Aschach (Rott) for deletion, I've argued against in the discussion. It was then relisted to gain a clearer consensus. I've voted a second time for keep. Rusf10 overwrote twice my contribution with self-invented non-Wikipedia rules (here and here). In my eyes, this is also a violation of WP:BRD. I've already argued that in another deletion discussion User:Kusma (who is administrator and should know the rules) also voted twice and even Rusf10 by nominating that article for deletion and then after the relisting with "oppose merge", but that didn't convince Rusf10. How to proceed? --Cyfal (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way to proceed is to stop trying to !vote twice. If you have something new to add to a deletion discussion, phrase it as a comment instead of a second vote. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second debate, Kusma did not !vote twice. They made a comment later in agreement with another editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My response to this is simple, you are NOT allowed to vote twice! If you can't understand that then you shouldn't vote at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rusf10: also see, WP:NOTVOTE. ——Serial 18:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129:I am aware of NOTVOTE, which itself is neither a policy or a guideline. Regardless, no one should be posting things that have the appearance of a deliberate attempt to mislead the closer of the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's a informatory supplement to two policies which has enjoyed widespread recognition and consensus for 14 years. Also see WP:ECHO for why your ping to me just now... did not work. Cheers! ——Serial 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regards to the other discussion, my initial vote was for deletion (the nomination itself) and I then clarified it by explicitly stating I oppose a merge, that's not two votes.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you can contribute to a discussion as much as you wish (within reason), you should not make it appear that you vote twice. So don't use bolded "keep" or similar bolded word in more than one of your comments. I don't think it was necessary to revert your second vote, though -- annotating it would have been enough to make it clear to the closer that you appear to have voted more than once. And of course, AFD is a discussion and not decided by vote count alone. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the underlying issue here is that Cyfal misunderstands what a relisting is. Cyfal, when an AFD is relisted that just means it didn't attract comments from enough people yet, so more people weighing in are needed; it does not mean that you are required to repeat your previous comment. Your first comment will be taken into consideration when it is eventually closed, and if you have anything to add you can add it to that. (You can also reply to other people, indented - the other "comment" you noticed was that - but this is generally considered something to do a bit sparingly and shouldn't be accompanied by a big bolded summary of what you want the way your initial comment is, since the purpose of those is to make it easier for people to get the temperature of the room at a glance and to ensure the closer doesn't misjudge the overall thrust of your argument.) It feels like you mistakenly believe that a relisting is akin to starting the RFC over and that everyone who wants their opinion counted needs to state it again, which is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you all for your clarifications and the hint to WP:NOTVOTE. The idea behind my second "vote" was mainly to explain that I still stood to my decision. I've learned now that bolding the "keep" was not a good idea. I've stroke my texts now where not yet done. --Cyfal (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • More generally, the key point is that it is unnecessary to reiterate your position, even if the RFA has been relisted. It will be taken into account regardless. The only real situation where it might be necessary is if something has changed or some dramatic point or bit of evidence was presented later on that might lead a closer to disregard early comments that don't take it into account; but even then, you would usually be better off editing your original comment with something like "EDIT: Even XYZ, below, doesn't convince me because [reasons]." --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you again for your explanation. Next time I will handle such things as you described (only in case I have some additional reasons not mentioned before, of course). --Cyfal (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that this misunderstanding has been resolved, and that this thread can be closed with no action. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking out text from WP:RSN

    Dear Editors,
    I'm not sure if I posted it in the right place, but I wanted other administrators to comment on actions on Shrike, on a specific matter.
    A discussion has appeared on the WP:RSN about whether a report suppressed by UN's Secretary General is reliable enough to be used in the context of this to establish that some scholars claim that Israel is engaged in the named process (or so reads the intent of the OP of the thread).
    As a rather frequent editor of WP:RSN (see contribs), I have left my first comment under the post. I have since posted two replies, which I edited up until 9:45 May 23 GMT (pre-strike state can be seen here).
    At 9:41, Shrike posted a warning about this topic being subject to said arbitration (on my talkpage). He also added that he'd strike out my comments as I have not made 500 edits yet. At 9:49, the comments were struck out, and only after that have I noticed the warning. While striking out my comments, the admin reverted my comments to the state which I considered imperfect. Strangely enough, an edit conflict notice was not triggered.
    At 10:10, I asked Shrike on the talk page to return the comments to the state as of 9:45, and, a little later, also added my request to have my comments unstruck, which Shrike denied; no action, including edit to the last state of comments, was made.
    According to rules of the arbitration p. 4a-b, areas subject to ARBPIA are entire set of articles whose topic relates to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces. Point 7 also says that When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement [template] on the talk page and ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice [template] in the editnotice to do so.
    I believe that Shrike has overreached while imposing such restrictions. The only way in which the topic relates to Palestinian and Israeli issues is the source discussed; however, neither the article in question is subject to arbitration, nor is WP:RSN. The noticeboard, moreover, was about discussing reliability of resources and scholars and did not delve into content itself.
    Also, as the discussion seemed to be in the acceptable borders of civility (at least that is I how I saw it), I contest Shrike imposing general sanctions, because that implies I was being disruptive while the enforcement template says it doesn't, and the rules say that enforcement is only to be triggered when the discussion goes wild. Moreover, Shrike has not put an ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice template locally on the discussion, so users participating there are unaware they are subject to restrictions on editing content. I was personally aware of the arbitration in place on such topics.
    I therefore ask the Editors to weigh my arguments and ask to:
    a. Revert my comments to the state as of 9:45 May 23, 2021 UTC.
    b. Make my comments unstruck, with my promise of voluntarily staying out of the discussion.
    I also ask to determine if disruptive edits were made to the section of WP:RSN. If yes, please explain in which way I was being disruptive, and also ask to put the editnotice template on the discussion locally. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would say striking your comments is the correct thing to do; as you have pointed out above, the rules apply to "discussions in all namespaces". An editor with a topic ban was recently blocked for a month for commenting on a discussion on this noticeboard regarding another editor's behaviour on articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
    However, in the course of looking at this, I found your comment that "Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism" to be rather disturbing. Claiming that an entire ethnic group shares a certain opinion/feeling is not really a good take. Number 57 20:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I wanted to say in this discussion, and which has probably been misunderstood by others, is that I do not believe that Jewish sources will be neutral as regarding Palestine, and that is based on my summary from 9:45, since similar reactions happen in Ukraine, Poland and Russia in contentious topics (and I saw the mess that happens in Russian and Ukrainian wikis in forced arbitration topics). Omission of context of edits (which is a difference between the version struck out and the 9:45 version) makes it look as if I discredited Jewish newspapers for being Jewish but what I meant is that I wanted uninvolved sources for a claim of anti-Semitism, just as I won't source to Polish sources to say Wołyń is a genocide and say that indeed, the whole world thinks so. National perceptions often make it hard to impartially edit Wikipedia, the best proof to which is the very existence of ARBPIA. That was my intention, and it is therefore that I didn't find the remarks "discriminatory", but they might have been inaccurately worded, for which I am sorry. That said, thanks for your consideration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You said " because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel". Instead of apologizing, you are repeating your discriminatory statements on "Jewish sources" above. This is not acceptable, period. And this coming from an account that joined this year, with 271 edits, 182 of them being long tirades on the Reliable sources noticeboard. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, whom do I discriminate against? I have the same attitude towards Polish sources on Wołyń, Ukrainian on Holodomor, Russian on 9 May and WWII-related topics, (going further: Argentine on the conflict of Falkland Islands, Turkish sources on Armenian genocide) etc., as I have stated already a few times, and that's my personal attitude. (I may accept scholarly resources, which do not have (that much of) public opinion pressure). If you want to call my attitude towards coverage of controversies by news media of countries involved in the controversy discrimination, so be it, but then I discriminate against almost every country in the world I could imagine, because most of the countries have skeletons in their cupboard. That remark, as it was written, was unfortunate, my apologies. I hope the explanation shows I did not have any malicious intent.
    Also, the last sentence sounds as if it were an accusation of incompetence or something to that effect (I hope it's not). I remind you that no policy prohibits to constructively edit any part of Wikipedia, with the exception of justified local restrictions made on presumably inexperienced/not-trusted-enough members, and WP:RSN can be edited by anyone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Discrimination against "Jewish sources", while not taking a similar position on "Muslim sources" or "Christian sources". You made a direct, discriminatory, statement on Jews (" because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel"). As for your long tirades on RSN, yes, they were allowed up to now. I propose below that this overly excessive posting of long walls of text cease. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think this deserves clarification but this board may not be the right venue. Because the policy also refers to articles within the topic area and the article being discussed at RSN is not in the topic area. The particular material (Falk and Tilley) is relevant to the topic area but I would say only very indirectly in terms of where it was going to be cited. If the editor had nonetheless been editing disruptively I would just let it go, that was not the case, however.Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Szmenderowiecki: - if you read recent polling on American Jews, it is pretty clear that they have very different opinions (for example, only 33% say the Israeli government is making sincere effort towards peace). As such, you shouldn't be seemingly tarring all Jews with the same brush of being hypersensitive to criticism of Israel. Additionally we should not discriminate against Jewish sources merely because they are Jewish. starship.paint (exalt) 09:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban (Szmenderowiecki)

    Szmenderowiecki has been editing since April, most of his edits (182 out of 271) being long TLDR posts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He has made discriminatory statements on Jews in those posts. I propose that Szmenderowiecki be topic banned from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and from any edits pertaining to Judaism. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support own proposal. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dismiss-oppose. 11Fox11 is overreacting. Peaceful resolution of the problem, in my view, has not been exhausted, and no person has had any complaints about my posting on WP:RSN (until the post in question), or elsewhere. 11Fox11 is not a participant in WP:RSN, therefore analysis of my posts solely on bytesize is an inadequate measure of performance, nuisance, or both. A single mishap, to which I confessed and regret having committed, is not a sufficient reason to introduce any kind of preventative measures, nor is indicative of a pattern of disruption. I would first like to invite 11Fox11 to air grievances on my talk page, and only later on post angry complaints for administrators' evaluation, as per standard procedure. If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This seems a distraction from the original questions, namely whether material should have been struck at an RSN discussion and whether the editor whose material was struck was disruptive. If 11Fox11 believes that the editor was disruptive he merely needs to say so in a standard comment.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. User doubled-down on their unacceptable comment with their corrections and then triple-downed with this ANI report. User claims that their comment was inaccurately worded, and then asks for civility and protocol... At RSN, user is sometimes ignorant of the relevant policy (which is understandable coming from an autoconfirmed user), but then refuses to accept the corrections from others. This week alone I had to insist twice that they should learn about WP:SPS [56][57]. A topic ban in order to get some experience outside of RSN/PIA looks like a very fair and lenient sanction considering the nature of the comment that is being discussed. JBchrch talk 10:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking support since user has undertaken to not make generalizations about race/religion/ethnicity. JBchrch talk 10:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal: and then triple-downed with this ANI report what I asked for, explicitly, is to evaluate whether I have been disruptive, not to assert I was not, contrary to what some commenters here imply. While I stated that I believed I was not, I decided to solicit editors' opinion, which IMHO is the sign to the contrary, that I am ready to listen to others' opinions if they indicate I am wrong. Asking for advice is not something editors should be ashamed of, especially in such a situation.
    and then asks for civility and protocol The feeling that a user you encounter has not been following rules is a lousy justification for doing the same, particularly if the user subsequently acknowledges fault. JBChrch actually wrote once in my talk (an accidental revert to a version they didn't like for whatever reason), and they know I can discuss matters peacefully. Any user not happy with the post could have addressed it on my talk page first, instead of getting accusations straight to the administrative noticeboard, which should be a remedy only when peaceful resolution on the talk page fails or when the sides agree to refer the question here. To be sure, I did the same when I was not content with Shrike's decision to strike me out, and Shrike proposed me to refer the question to the noticeboard if I wasn't sure, and I wasn't. No hot exchanges, no bickering, name-calling etc., and somehow it's possible.
    but then refuses to accept the corrections from others The arguments JBChrch provided indicate to the contrary. It is normal for users to be arguing about content, and which aspects of policy to apply, if conflict arises. In the first case, I admitted that some of the sources I found from Google Scholar were indeed faulty, contrary to the assertions made here. In the second case, we weren't able to reach consensus because of differing interpretations of the same policy, so I proposed twice to stop, which JBChrch ignored in both cases. I responded only after JBChrch suggested I was ignorant/dismissive of WP:SPS - a strange suggestion given that I referred to the policy several times (which, if anything, indicates that I don't contest it). I nevertheless thank you for what I thought of as productive discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: - I get your concerns about WP:SPS, just that the topic ban on Judaism you support... doesn't address that. starship.paint (exalt) 14:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship.paint, I think I have expressed that I am concerned about Szmenderowiecki's comments and their subsequent doubling-down about "Jews". I believe that this, combined with their participation to RSN threads with little regards to the relevant policies, is problematic. However, I am not bent on 11Fox11's specific proposal and I trust that admins will have a better idea which measures to take (if any) in these kind of situations.
    Szmenderowiecki, you have crossed the line with these comments, and the fact that you are still calling for protocol to be followed when multiple editors have explained to you how completely unacceptable they were is not giving me me much hope. You need to stop engaging in meta-discussions and explain whether you will continue to make broad generalizations about races or religions in the future. JBchrch talk 19:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the last sentence, I will not when it comes to race/religion/ethnicity generalisations.
    As for meta-discussions, it is your opinion I shouldn't; I won't address participants' opinions, as I know it is hardly possible to change one's mind on an Internet discussion. I only remind once again that there exists no such thing as "noticeboard-to-article-edit ratio" limitation (or new posters limitation, as even IPs can edit the noticeboard), and everyone is helping Wikipedia in the domains they think they are able to help most and according to their best judgment, subject to limitations in policy and guidance (and essays, which further describe desirable behaviour). It also isn't true that Wikipedia is the only place where you can get skills to distinguish lousy media from reliable media resources, therefore I see the potential application of sanctions as arbitrary, and more of if-we-think-they-might-be-an-antisemite-then-why-not-ban-them-from-as-many-topics-as-we-can-get-away-with efforts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your undertaking. That's not what I meant when I said meta-discussions: I was talking about the fact that you were insisting on the protocol instead of engaging directly with the criticism about your comments. I really don't care about your "edit count", provided that you know how to apply the policies when writing on the noticeboards. I will now strike my "support" to reflect the fact that you took this undertaking. JBchrch talk 10:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I strenuously disagree with Szmenderowiecki's argument that any source can be dismissed (or even considered biased) based solely on race, religion, ethnicity, or the like; but while misguided, it is not such an uncommon argument that it's reasonable to try and ban someone from an entire sweeping topic area simply for making it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone advisories/damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [58] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [59]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. NoahTalk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [60], and [61], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. NoahTalk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

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

    • Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal will suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I would support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone advisories/damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics

    This really needs resolving, and previous attempts to do so has not resulted in sanctions or changes to the editor's behaviour.

    - Amigao is aggressively policing and edit warring on topics related to China over a long term period. He has a very persistent tendency of firstly doctoring articles towards a negative point of view, and then policing and reverting anyone who attempts to alter these particular changes or balance them. He subsequently slaps warnings and accuses those who disagree with his edits of bad faith behaviour and reports accordingly, framing them as vandals in order to get the upper hand [62] [63]

    See for example here, this is just one of many many reverts he has made against me on this specific article [64]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two additional reverts just now to bring into consideration, meaning he has now reverted me three times in 24 hours: [65] [66]- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Evidence

    I am wondering if I should even bother saying something, I gave up on warring with Amigao some time ago. His belligerent edit tactics just overwhelms my capacity as a casual editor to follow up. IMHO, he is clearly furthering a WP:POV, without bothering to calm down and discuss any controversial edits. For my own sake, my quarrel was with removing CGTN references without even bothering to look for alternative sources. Quashing propaganda sources is IMHO an important job, but the way he goes about it is not particularly constructive. BFG (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Amigao deserves a barnstar, or several, for quashing propaganda sources! Bravo Amigao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.251.178 (talk) May 25, 2021, 14:56 (UTC) Inappropriate comment by anon struck out. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 02:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Whilst removing deprecated sources is acceptable, there is no consensus that the sources user:Amigao are removing are totally deprecated. Indeed in the diffs, some of these references were used in an explicitly SELFSOURCE context. I'd suggest that Amigao could benefit from taking some due care in interpreting the context of the sources before removing them, and to behave in a more collegial fashion. Certainly some of the edits made by Amigao are better treated by BRD [79] - this one for instance, is not automatically an antisemitic canard, and the lack of good faith taken when reverting that edit was alarming. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 03:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    86.174.161.238

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

    See talk. They are edit warring on Hailee Steinfeld (tried to insert unsourced middle name 4 times), Taron Egerton and Nathan Fillion. Nobody warned them on their talk page about edit warring before I did so WP:3RRN doesn't apply (yet). They also keep adding unsourced info to BLPs after talk page warnings from Mattythewhite, Notfrompedro and Asartea. I don't think they read their talk page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They just made unsourced (and now: reverted) edits to Stan Marsh and Butters Stotch. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent creation of unsolicited articles by User:Ram Pradeep Kolasani

    The page they are interested in creating is for the tv show Ye Maaya Chesave. The problem is that it isn't an original series but a Telugu language dubbed version of the hindi series Jaana Na Dil Se Door and is listed under the Adaptations header in that article. However to be clear the Telugu version isn't a remake but a voice-dubbed version of the hindi series. The user states the reason for creating a separate article is to list the voice-over actors but that entire section is unsourced and the rest of the article is just a copy-paste of the hindi series article, lest a few character name changes here and there. As such the dubbed series article has no reason to exist and clearly fails GNG. In just the past 24 hours itself, said user has persistently created three such articles with different alterations of the Telugu title even though each one has been redirected to the hindi series article and the reason for the redirect clearly stated. I'm listing each title (redirect) below:

    These creations have been addressed profoundly on their talk page by multiple users including myself. I even explained the reason for the redirects in details and warned them against the future creation of this material but they still created a new article with the same material, which is the last one on the list. Many of these are very unlikely search terms and burdensome redirects.

    I request the admins to deal with user Kolasani and perhaps delete these half-dozen unnecessary redirects or atleast page protect them to admin access only so that they can't be removed. Thank You. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: They have created two more articles in the same manner. Ye maaya chesave serial & ఏమాయ చేసావే (ధారావాహిక). Requesting immediate intervention. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DeNoel's sig

    It is fairly clear that while the guideline WP:CUSTOMSIG/P does mandate that usernames be obvious from the signature, this rule is widely unenforced. As such, while DeNoel can be reminded that they should be following that guideline, this thread is not going to result in any sort of enforced compliance or block for that user in regard to their signature. Given that, and the descension of the discussion into an acrimonious battleground, I am closing it with no action. For those interested, a new discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Signatures and usernames, with a view to possibly having an RFC on enforcing the guideline for all users going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DeNoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a sig which doesn't display their username or any recognisable variant thereof, contrary to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.

    I spotted it in this edit[80]:

    <span class="nowrap">— [[User:DeNoel|Christopher, Sheridan, OR]] ([[User talk:DeNoel|talk]]) 16:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)</span>

    which displays as: Christopher, Sheridan, OR

    So I went to DeNoel's talk to raise it. See User talk:DeNoel#Your_sig,_again (permalink)

    However, DeNoel is being stubborn, and is being supported by two enablers, @CambridgeBayWeather and @Timtrent (aka "Faddle"). CambridgeBayWeather seems adamant that being asked to use a sig which allows your colleagues to clearly and easily identify your username is "bureaucracy", and DeNoel thinks that being asked to follow the guideline in uncivil.

    Please can someone do whatever is needed to sort this simple issue, and remove this easily-avoidable barrier to communication and collaboration? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do we have such childish things as custom signatures when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social media site or a playground? Can't we all just sign with our names? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would indeed be the simplest solution, @Phil Bridger. But for now, the long-established guidance allows embellishments so long as the username is easily identifiable ... which DeNoel's is not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will never understand why someone would have a signature that bears no resemblance to the username they chose for themselves. One wonders why they don't simply request a name change. Fun fact, I saw the edit they made on CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, but when I went there I couldn't figure out quickly which comment was theirs. As for "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username", CambridgeBayWeather, I'm sorry, but I disagree with you: I think it should be clear without hovering, and on mobile there isn't anything to hover with, of course. The same applies, of course, to Timtrent's user name, but I've grown accustomed to that, though it took me a while. I'm afraid, BrownHairedGirl, that the user won't be "sorted" and that this ANI thread will not end with a mandate that they change their signature. I will say that all this makes me feel very basic, with my own simple name and signature. I don't even have two things, like that hotshot Phil Bridger. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My user name and then signature combination came from a time, IIRC, that this was 100% allowed, thus I claim "Grandfather Rights" to my plain signature, recently changed to be as it is today. I have been asked, requested, even bullied into changing it over time. I accuse no editor, and nothing should be read into my statement that accuses any editor. I expect those who wish to trawl my talk archives will find instances. I may edit ot back at my sole discretion to its prior form. I may not.
    I think we all have better things to do than enter into this discussion about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, namely editing this encyclopaedia thing.
    Starting with a place with very few rules we have created a huge bureaucracy where some editors sometimes decide to seek to wield power over others. We must love bureaucracies as human beings.
    Over signatures, I tend to The Prisoner's outlook, were the protagonist is assigned Number Six, but he repeatedly refuses the pretence of his new identity. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, we often create such guidelines in reaction to past examples and don't usually apply them only to everyone in the future. Yes, as we've grown and tried to adapt to complex collaborative encyclopedia building, with many kinds of people using many kinds of devices, we've created some rules to aid user friendliness and/or ease of collaboration. Some may seem tedious, but that they've made it to a guideline indicates they have broad support behind them (or, at least, did at that time). Only applying rules to new users doesn't help the reputation we have of being, shall we say, normatively challenging to new users and struggling long-term with new user retention. I'm not going to go as far as to argue that this particular issue has a direct impact on new user retention as much as say that if we have a rule, we need to apply it evenly (sic Rover on them!). If there's no consensus for enforcing the rule evenly, we shouldn't have the rule. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites That is a well worded, considered view. We could seek to implement it with such a message for relevant user talk pages. Today I have all arrived here in defensive mode. Thank you for not attacking. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Timtrent, I'm not "attacking" you, and I'm quite used to yours by now (the grandfathering thing is reasonable, and it applied to rms125@hotmail or whatever his name was as well). Later, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies I know you are not. The indent was simply where the message fell. My apologies for the misunderstanding FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 06:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: your pessimism is probably well-founded. But I live in hope that there may be enough editors who value easy communication and collaboration over bizarre game-playing.
    As you rightly note, usernames can be changed. It is quite beyond my ken why an editor would choose a username, decline the opportunity to change it ... but then adamantly refuse to display their chosen username. Whatever all that is about, the wilful creation of such impediments is nothing to do with the collaborative writing of an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that signatures which have no connection (other than a link) to one's username are confusing and pose a [pretty mild] inconvenience to others (more than mild for very new users or people on mobile). But as much as I'd prefer we actually stick to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P as written, we've typically declined to enforce parts of it for long-term editors, so we should be consistent (and possibly either run an RfC asking whether we should enforce it or just update the guideline to reflect consensus by removing the first bullet). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl "Enabler"????? Enough of that style of terminology, please. That is not the standard of behaviour I expect of you, nor the standard I am, used to seeing. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: I stand by that term as an appropriate label for editors who encourage another editor to impede collaboration by ignoring a simple guideline. You are an enabler of the disruption, and if you dislike the label, then feel free to change your stance by desisting from enabling the disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl you want a guideline, not a policy, enforced but you refuse to comply with the mandatory notification on my talk page? Did you miss the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." on this page? You didn't ask DeNoel to change you demanded he change it and then thought I was trolling. Drmies & Rhododendrites, I agree that it would be easier and look better if all signatures matched the user name. But you know what? There are articles to edit and I see that as better use of my time than chasing someone over their user name and signature. I indicated to BrownHairedGirl that she needed to get the guideline upgraded to a policy. The simple matter is that the guideline does not forbid what DeNoel is doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CambridgeBayWeather, after posting here, I promptly followed up with three notifications. See my contribs.
    The required notification on your talk page was made by me at 20:25[81], which was one minute after I posted at ANI[82].
    I urge you to strike that false assertion, and to explain why you attempted to smear me in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, my apologies I missed that due to the comment just after yours and another ping from elsewhere. Happy to strike it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that strike, @CambridgeBayWeather. But in future, please check your facts before alleging misconduct. This was a very issue to check, and there is no excusie for not making aan active effort to verify your assertion.
    However, your substantive comment remains unstricken: simple matter is that the guideline does not forbid what DeNoel is doing. That is blatantly false: WP:CUSTOMSIG/P explicitly says A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. And DeNoel's sig does not display any variant of that username. Why do you persist in making such a readily falsifiable assertion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My emphasis here: The line says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username". It does not say "A customised signature must make it easy to identify your username". Do you see the difference there? The use of the word should is what makes it allowable for DeNoel and others to have the signature they want. But you probably think I'm still trolling. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really dunno what you are up to, @CambridgeBayWeather. But I am certain that your wikilawyering in support of disruption is in no way an assistance to our shared task of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. Your decision to make a false allegation against me without checking the facts doesn't suggest to me that collabaoration is your priority. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I'm sorry about missing your notification on my talk page. I've been busy editing and responding and has nothing to do with collaborating, which I'm happy to do. Most of the disruption on here is of your own making. Your opinion is not supported by that page nor by many comments here. The truth is that the use of signatures that do not match the user name is awkward, mildly confusing but isn't forbidden and other people have told you that. But am I still trolling? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl I do not find your doubling down on your comment to be civil. I find it to be antagonistic and an ad hominem attack. This, too, is not the standard of behaviour I am used to from you, nor the standard I expect from any editor here. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: I stand by that comment. Criticisng your conduct is not an ad hominem attack: see WP:NPA. Your decision to encourage an editor to ignore a conduct guideline is not the standard I expect from any editor here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl Your reply to me yet again doubling down (trebling down?) has been removed during various edit conflicts. I do not care to resurrect it, but it goes above this one if you choose to. I have left indent room for you
    We disagree completely, obviously. I do not care enough to add this to the Civility issue below, but it is a close call. I view your choice of terminology as distinctly uncivil. I deprecate your behaviour in that regard. This is a pointless exchange you have dragged me into. I have decided to discontinue it. There is an encyclopaedia to improve. This is not the way to achieve that. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent: if you were "dragged into this", it was not by me. You chose to involve yourself, by posting[83] on DeNoel's talk page in support of their disruption. I deprecate your behaviour in that regard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one who originally raised a concern about this signature, as I was confused in some Talk page discussion. It is common to want to ping someone or refer to some comment they made and to use their username to do so. I also sometimes search the Talk page for a user's account name to see what they have said. When editing some particular Talk page I noticed that this user's account name was entirely different from their signature. This would make it difficult to produce a recognizable ping. If someone says "I completely agree with DeNoel", I want to know which comments they are agreeing with, and needing to do a mouse-over or view the source didn't seem like it adequately addresses that need. So I think the guideline is a good idea. However, CambridgeBayWeather is an admin, so when they disagreed with my interpretation and said it was not an isolated case, and when I learned that DeNoel's account had been that way for more than a decade, I deferred to their interpretation. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To that I will add that I might click on a link to go visit a user's talk page or userpage and then get confused about why I seem to now have landed on a page about some different user. Multitasking and using tabbed browsing could further aggravate the confusion, although it is possible that I am just more easily confused than I should be. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to know where is the outcry over JzG (talk · contribs) or JayBeeEll (talk · contribs), who do exactly the same thing in their signatures? 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What did I do to deserve being dragged into this? (Although I submit that I am not a good example because my signature is a recognizable variant of my username.) --JBL (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding User:El cid, el campeador to the list of current, active users to whom BHG might object. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, BarrelProof. I respect your opinion, though we may differ, and I'm glad that you have joined this discussion. I will take what you have said here into consideration if I decide to change my signature. Your contribution is valued. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also with Yellow Evan (talk · contribs), whose username is just "YE". It is the same thing with CambridgeBayWeather, who on DeNoel's talkpage, stated that they once had their signature as "CBW". I do not see why there has to be an entire ANI discussion over a signature. Just because it makes it "harder" for someone to see what the user's name actually is is not a valid excuse for them changing it so we need to stop being lazy. Unless it somehow violates the username policy, I don't see a problem with having a different signature than the username, as long as it is within the policies and guidlines of WP. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I think the whole "grandfather rights" thing be abolished and that people shoudl be made to conform with todays signature standards because as others have said it's a complete pain in the arse trying to follow discussion when peoples sigs are different from their usernames. That all being said Chistophers sig has been like it since 2009[84] so it it's unfair to make them change theirs whilst allowing other older editors to continue using theirs. It cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility

    User:BrownHairedGirl has expressed concern over my user signature in an overbearing, and in my opinion, rude manner. As my signature had been previously discussed, I pinged all those back (User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:Timtrent, and User:BarrelProof) to join the current discussion, with a personal invitation to BarrelProof on his Talk page who was the previous objector to my signature.

    I feel that BrownHairedGirl's overbearing responses are uncivil. In particular, I feel that:

    • DeNoel, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Please be collegiate and direct your efforts to displaying your username as a first priority, before you pursue other tweaks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    in the tone used in the discussion's entirety, is a form of slam against me. Proving her with opportunity for a more civil tone, I asked in reply:

    Could you please rephrase and clarify that comment? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    with her reply being no less rude than her conduct in the rest of the discussion.

    I therefore request that an outside administrator evaluate the discussion, and the behavior of those involved. Perhaps my matter is closed reply at the beginning may have come across as shutting-out, but I did ask others to reevaluate an established stance within the same reply. Further, I have stated very clearly that, if there is a broad concern over user signatures, I would be willing to change mine once Wikipedia:Signature has been broadly addressed first. Many other users currently have signature styles that would annoy BrownHairedGirl. Even if her assessment has merit, I must ask that she tone it down when expressing her concerns.

    Very much appreciated. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wowzer. Editors are being asked to believe that asking an editor to be collegiate and comply with a simple guideline is uncivil. Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At a quick glance, there may be an issue, but not one of "incivility". Users are sometimes allowed to use a real name in their signature instead of a username. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify: there is a possible concern that BrownHairedGirl is too persistent in response to what is perceived as violation of site policy. I don't see that as a civility issue. As it's not immediately obvious to me whether the signature is permitted or not, bringing it to ANI should resolve the policy dispute. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeNoel, you are not being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seriously question the suitability of such a sensitive soul being an editor here, and would also suggest that they avoid teh internetz entirely as being far to incivil. -Roxy . wooF 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any issue with BrownHairedGirl's response. I actually think it was very respectful. -- Dane talk 21:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • BHG's remark was perfectly polite. There was no problem of tone or attitude about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps my complaint has not come across as I intended. While I disagree with BrownHairedGirl's viewpoint on my signature, it's her tone—attitude—that I'm objecting to. WP:CIVIL should be observed. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My "attitude" throughout has simply been to remind DeNoel of a simple guideline which assists communication and collaboration. The fact that DeNoel makes an ANI complaint about being asked to be collaborative makes me question the wisdom of my assumption that DeNoel is here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have dealt with BHG many times in my years here and have yet to read an uncivil word. I wonder if you're reading something which isn't there, something which can happen with written text vs. the spoken word? I'm an old queen, having been on here for over a decade, and my signature reflects the very very very basic mark-up I could understand at the time. It reflects my name and makes people aware of who I am. It's one of the most basic things an editor should do for the good of the project, allowing communication to be quickly identified and connected to the author, and I would recommend that we all follow this rule in practice. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But BHG bloody well is observing WP:CIVIL. Your complaint is groundless, and wasting good editors time. Go away. -Roxy . wooF 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Roxy, BrownHairedGirl was civil but overly aggressive. Saying that people should be "collegiate" and then suggesting I'm a troll isn't collegiate at all. In fact it's insulting. Your remark, "Go away.", is completely unnecessary and should be withdrawn. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, DeNoel, to any extent to which this is a civility issue, the bar for civility complaints is significantly higher. This subsection should probably be closed (if not this whole section, with a suggestion to clarify/modify the guideline if desired, since there's not going to be consensus that DeNoel has to do anything different here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've lost track of who this reply was directed to, due to an edit conflict (a lot of replies at once).
    In spite of the fact that I said I was taking a break from Wikipedia (joke's on me, I guess), I would like to ask if the discussion at User talk:DeNoel#Your sig, again was read entirely, or if only the example given in the above summary was read? This is not meant as an slight to anyone who has come to sort this out, I just mean that I don't feel the information available has been taken into consideration.
    We are free to disagree, that's what discussions are for, but she should respect each other while doing so, and I don't feel respected (again, citing the content of WP:CIVIL). Certainly, the section title, "Your sig, again" and the opening comment, feels condescending when expressing a concern about my signature. Is it too much to expect some respect? — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really saying "Your sig, again" is condescending? That's bizarre.
    And I find it even more bizarre that you persist in complaining about my wording despite a flurry of editors telling you its fine, when the core issue is that you are wilfully impeding collaboration. If you really believe in some heightened standard of respect for other editors, then why don't you demonstrate some respect for other editors by removing the barrier to collaboration which you have created? Do unto others as you would have them do unto, and all that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no incivility from BHG, and the matter could be resolved promptly by DeNoel adding "DeNoel" to their signature, or by DeNoel changing their username to User: Christopher, Sheridan, OR which seems to be available. This is a collaborative project and confusing signatures are a slight but real impediment to that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (rolls eyes) Sigs not including something recognisable as the username are mildly annoying, especially as they tend to create distracting and unproductive discussions such as this one. DeNoel, please change your signature. BHG, please don't bring trivialities like this to ANI. —Kusma (t·c) 23:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Inadvertent overlap

    To the third party who replies to these complaints, it appears that we (User:BrownHairedGirl and I) have overlapped our complaints. If this is considered a form of duplication, it was not intentional, and I apologize for that (delayed due to edit conflicts).

    We were both probably in the process of typing, and so did not notice the others' message. It's been a long day already, and to avoid further duplication, I'm going to logoff for a while and check for updates later. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry about the duplication, it happens at least once a month. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    How about: DeNoel, please fix your signature. The guideline policy is there because doing what you are doing confuses people. BHG, you were too nasty and pointy, choosing high-handed unfriendly wording plus you had an accusation of being non-collaborative included as a premise in your comment. Please be nicer. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I will take your suggestion into consideration, but I also want to thank you for expressing your observation in a respectable manner. It's this professionalism that compels me to continue editing. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DeNoel, if your regard for "professionalism" extended to removing the wilfully disruptive obfuscation of your username when the issue was first raised with you in March, then I wouldn't have posted on your user talk page, and we wouldn't be at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, I'm afraid your argumentative, disrupting, self-serving attitude has extended well beyond the acceptable point. You could have asked to reopen the discussion on my talk page instead of being rude about it; that is why we're here—not because of the signature issue, it's your attitude. I must therefore request that you from henceforth, refrain from commenting to me on this matter. I will gladly listen to others with viewpoints that differ from my own. I do not welcome any further contact from you. May you have a sunny day tomorrow. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DeNoel, if you wish to have a signature that is so far removed from your username, please don't post on highly frequented message boards. It is confusing other people. Please be kind and try not to annoy others that you are collaborating with. BrownHaired Girl is combative here again (calling your signature choice "wilfully disruptive obfuscation" isn't helpful) and not very good at de-escalation in general. I personally find her attitude more disruptive than your signature, but that is a bit besides the point. Your insistence on not changing your signature after people have repeatedly told you it annoys them is uncooperative and not very kind. Would something like Christopher, Sheridan, ORDeNoel really be so bad? —Kusma (t·c) 08:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very problematic that DeNoel be blindsided by this hue and cry over a very questionable interpretation of policy. A discussion has been opened at the policy page in hopes of clarifying that policy. If people here are so widely misinterpreting it so as to be saying diametrically opposite things about it, then it can definitely use some clarification. It is my objective reading that DeNoel is violating nothing with his current signature, and this is borne out by the evidence of at least 4-5 other editors that I can name off the top of my head, are doing similar things. I do not think it is appropriate for us to demand that DeNoel change anything until the policy is adequately clarified, and at that point, I would demand that all editors be brought into similar compliance, not just DeNoel. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DAPE

    In agreement with others who have expressed this viewpoint, I strongly object to the manner in which this ANI discussion has come about. If it's time for WP:SIGNATURE to be reevaluated and discussed, that sounds quite productive. If it is sparked because of a personality conflict, that is counter-productive, and drives good editors away from the project. Nobody makes us be friendly with each other, but I think a certain degree of professionalism is expected. If we have a concern, or even strong feelings about something, please be respectful of others.

    I'm going to take a break now (third time's the charm, I hope) from Wikipedia for an unspecified time, just because I have off-line things to do. When I come back, I will carefully read over the entirety of this discussion, and take the suggestions of respectful editors into consideration, even if I disagree with their opinions. When I say "into consideration" I mean that sincerely, not simply an excuse to disregard good suggestions.

    Thank you. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm concerned that the current status of this discussion is your username remains different to your signature, and you've chosen to leave rather than address this. I hope that we won't be going around this again on your return. I think we need to take a step back - all of us - and go through problem-resolution-solution steps, maybe at a better time than half 11 at night here in the UK - and take it from there. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DeNoel, This conversation will be long archived by the time you return so I doubt that will be of use. What would be of use is just, you know, fixing your signature. People have justifiable issues with it. It's confusing. It makes life difficult for other people. Just be kind about it.--Jorm (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To Jorm and others that are pushing for DeNoel to change their signature, should it be implied that the same goes for e.g. Timtrent (and everyone else whose signature doesn't match their username)? I'm very uneasy with singling out someone while giving everyone else a free pass. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, Yes, it should, it absolutely should. This is not hard. This is Usability and Accessibility 101, which I know is boring and all to talk about, but it's a real problem. Jorm (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DeNoel, this is very simple. If you genuinely believe your assertion that a certain degree of professionalism is expected, then please demonstrate that professionalism by the very simple step of making your signature display your actual username. There is a huge contrast here between the high standards you demand of others, and the low standard which you stubbornly uphold.

    Your insistence on creating this barrier to collaboration is not only thoroughly unprofessional. You are knowingly making it hard for other editors to interact with you and follow your work, which demonstrates a persistent lack of the respect which you repeatedly demand from others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thread opened at WT:SIG

    I've opened this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#Signatures_and_usernames and invite continued discussion about username/signature correspondence there. The ambiguity of that guideline and/or how/whether it should be enforced is the crux of the issue here, and not civility. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:ADVOCACY and edit warring

    User:Raygamman is using an article on an extremely minor Alberta political party, Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, as a free advertisemtn to promote that party in violation of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV. His repeated edits trumpet the minor party as "unique" and ""Alberta's most effective political pro-life organization" [85] [86] [87] [88] (Who calls it that? The party itself; he rejects the need to find a neutral WP:SECONDARYSOURCE). Despite warning, [89], he's also repeatedly left personal attacks on me on my talk, referring to my edits as "mindless". [90] [91] [92] I think we need a topic ban here, possibly for WP:COI reasons. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raygamman here: my "repeated edits" comprise reverting a section after User:Ribbet35's deleted it. I am a relatively new participant on Wikipedia but it seems to me that simply deleting a large section of text instead of providing refined verbiage to correct the perceived violation would work better, no?; Isn't that the point of Wikipedia to refine articles? User:Ribbet32 would just delete it, every time, I would then revert to the previous iteration, he would delete it, I would revert etc.: [93] [94] [95] [96]
    Respectfully, User:Ribbet32 talk history suggests that he has a habit of simply deleting sections rather than working at refining them or editing them [97] Seems to me this is what was going on here. I did then remove the "offending" sentence and edited the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygamman (talk • contribs)
    As the article has been AfD'd, this may be moot. Raygamman, when someone reverts your edits, the best thing to do is open a section at the article talk, start discussing, and be willing to learn. Ribbet32, which you're experienced enough to know, and you're also experienced enough to know that newbies make mistakes and can find our ways mysterious and frustrating. Hauling one to ANI instead of opening a talk section at the article to help them understand what policies they need to learn is really not all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

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

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

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

    I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[98][99][100] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [101]. You have not provided one even today [102]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an incredibly horrific and unpleasant TfD discussion we have there. Multiple participants deserve WP:TROUT, if not actual warnings. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [103]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [104] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).
    Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [105] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [106] 'Nominator is a newbie', [107] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.
    Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [108] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [109] 'unhelpful', [110] 'for a second time enters PAs'.
    -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gidonb expressing PA [111] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [112] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [113] pretending not understanding.
    Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [114] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [115] and elsewhere [116][117][118] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [119] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [120].
    • All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.
    I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See #report wrt Triggerhippie4 above. The diffs there show that you were WP:CANVASSING, made WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Also proofs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on WP:EDRC for that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    >These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
    The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
    >User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
    I don't consider this ([121]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
    >The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
    The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
    >user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
    I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent WP:DE in 'Arabian Sea' article despite being protected recently

    There seems to be a recent coordinated nationalistic POV pushing at the Arabian Sea article. Newly created account @HistoricalNameisPersianSea have extensively engaged in edit warring to use the 'Persian Sea' as an alternative name and in some revisions changed the article title to redirect to Persian Sea. @Basp1 was caught in the loop during the WP:WAR adding contents and sources under the Alternative Names section with citation overkill to some WP:QS. @HistoricalNameisPersianSea was subsequently banned and the article got reverted and protected. @Basp1 then continued to reinstate the POV edits (diff) despite being warned and advised (by me) not to do so in my talk page (link to discussion), yet they seem adamant on ignoring that and continuing with the WP:DE. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 10:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm leaving a ping for @Girth Summit: who issued the block of User:HistoricalNameisPersianSea and also for User:Kuru and User:Acroterion, admins who have edited the article since 1 May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, responding to ping, I haven't looked at the article or its history any depth. If I remember correctly, I blocked HNiPS for egregious personal attacks, threats to sock if blocked, and the obviously SPA username, altogether leading me to believe they weren't HERE. Probably worth looking at the other accounts through an SPI lens, given some of HNiPS previous comments, don't have time to investigate right now myself. GirthSummit (blether) 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to Girth Summit's observation, I found this comment by the blocked editor, responding to User:Tol's complaint about him at WP:AIV:

    ..personal attacks which is deserved for being biased. i have other autoconfirmed accounts and we are a group of Iranian editors on discord who combat western imperialist propaganda and saudis in Persian Sea and elsewhere HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

    –EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The expected plague of socks and meats (advocating for the Persian side) has yet to appear. The best way to close this might be with some advice to User:Basp1, to carefully follow our sourcing rules before making further changes at Arabian Sea. Basp1 was notified of this thread but hasn't responded yet. Some issues with their edits were pointed out by User:Tamzin previously at User talk:Basp1#Reliable sources and POV-pushing. If Basp1 does not take the advice and continues to revert then this would become a conventional edit-warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Basp1 strikes me as someone who's working in good faith and is at least trying to comply with NPOV, but whose main issue is with being able to make edits that conform to Wikipedia style. This doesn't strike me as your run-of-the-mill case of "No, call this body of water my preferred name"; see I had never said it should be called persian sea.no body have the right to change an international recognized name, which is something you don't normally hear in a case like this. I would strongly encourage her to keep her edits to the article's talk page. If there's consensus to add content about "Persian Sea" and other historical alternate names, someone else can make those additions.
    P.S. The sentence fragment "POV-pushing by User:Tamzin" was quite startling to see on my initial skim of your post.[FBDB] -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that an advice might be the best way to close here. The user have been notified previously but I think they didn't grasp the concept of Wiki style and couldn't understand what's wrong with their edits and formatting, perhaps it's a case of a language barrier. But I also find nationalistically motivated editing to be concerning. I'm going with @Tamzin here assuming good faith and will open a new section in the talk page to outline why the cited sources are unreliable hopefully they cooperate there. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi . I just want the readers to know what the old names of this sea were. It is everyone's right to know. Nothing should be censored. What you are doing is [122] destructive. Of course, this is mostly due to the language barriers and problem. According to the books: "The Persian Gulf throughout history page 6 -7 by Dr Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh [123] , "The Persian Gulf, from Ancient Times until Today". and "The History of Shipping in Iran" page42 by Ahmad Eghtedari and "Documents on the Persian Gulf's name facts pages 58-84 [124], [125]

    and other scholar :"old Arabic and Persian books have used the Persian Sea. they did not used the term "Arabian Sea" Arabian sea appeared in the European maps of 17 century" most probably 1737. I don't know how much (Contemporary Nomad] had knowledge of the subject and why he insist not accept the references to the recent articles by famous scholars and old text even I referred him the original old text for example Abu'l-Fida,pages 26- 27 [126] [1] ,Zakariya al-Qazwini, Al-Masudi [127] ,Ibn Hawqal [128]. [2]

    References

    1. ^ "Taqwim al-Buldan", Geographie d’Aboulfeda traduite de l’Arab par M. Reinaud, 2 Vols. (Paris: 1848), Vol 1, p. 23.
    2. ^ "wikifeqh: persian sea". wikifeqh.

    (Hafiz-i Abru).[129] the Arabic text and you can not understand that text with Google translate , for example, this link is the text of the book Abu'l-Fida [130] you should type the word بحر فارس (persian sea) or Arabian sea بحر عرب and search for the words Persian Sea and Arab Sea in the text of the books . But unfortunately you do not do this and you say that the sources are not reliable. What source can I bring better than the text of the original book itself?. revert of my edits with the references is not fair. you can just remove any part that you think is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • there are many mistake in the page I am trying to add necessary information.according to hundreds of books and documents previous name of Arabian sea was persian sea but there is no even a single mention of the name persian sea in all the article. for example look at reference (8) in the alternative name:"

    ...Erythraean Sea,[1] this reference itself is a prove of the persian sea look at para No 34- 35 . why he don't want to mention it. somebody should look at references in historical names [131] and add the what is necessary in historical names and maps. at the moment article lack necessary information and has some misleading information revers of my edits and reliable resources are against the policy and the aims of wikipedi . 00:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC) 01:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ "The Voyage around the Erythraean Sea". washington.edu.

    Requesting IP range block

    IP user 77.28.6.167 is the latest IP of its range making disruptive nationalistic edits on Balkan articles. They remove content and modify content in ways that counter with the given sources. The goal is to make places in southern Albania look "Greek". An IP range block was imposed by @EdJohnston: on 77.28.13.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for doing exactly the same edits in the same articles on February 21 [132], but that block has long expired. @Ymblanter: blocked 77.28.15.66 on May 22 and 77.28.11.254 on May 23. They have also suggested a request for IP range block to be made here [133].

    Some examples of disruption made today:

    • [134] deletes the information that one of the villages does not have a Greek population.
    • [135] removes the Albanian translation of the village's name to leave only the Greek one
    • [136] same thing
    • [137] same thing
    • [138] same thing
    I would support this request, just not feeling confident enough to choose the correct range.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, would semi-protecting the articles of all settlements in southern Albania be a better option? A large part of Yugoslavia articles were semi-protected for a year after an AE case where you participated as an admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The range encompassing all IPs listed here is 77.28.0.0/20, which is a reasonably large one. It appears to belong to a North Macedonian ISP. firefly ( t · c ) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We need indeed to balance collateral damage from range block and efforts require to have all pages in the editing area protected--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Last February this was reported at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 50#IP range block. This guy started up on 6 February, 2021. He is ranging widely but the third octet of his IP never goes above 15. So a block of Special:Contributions/77.28.0.0/20 might work. There have not been any good-faith edits from the /20 since February, though there were a few such edits last year. Blocking the /20 for a month should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    77.28.0.0/20 does appear to be a good fit. If there are articles that the editor return to time and time again, these can be semi-protected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone, I have blocked the 0/20 range for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone. It is a good solution to the problem. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    14.166.25.80

    CLOSED
    blocked 1 week by Malcolmxl5 —valereee (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This IP, which I reported to ARV, which I have reverted multiple times already just popped back online continuing to be highly disruptive regardless of numerous warnings. But now it's just back after a break and started up again to be disruptive. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, the 'runners-up" editor from Vietnam. I wondered where they had got to. Drop me a line if you see them again, I’m collating a list of IPs they use. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    k, I've seen this happen before, didn't know about the Vietnam bit, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationalistic POV

    Both users seem to not respect the Wikipedia guidelines, have most probably several accounts on Wikipedia to fullfill their agenda (Assyrian nationalism), remove sourced content without providing any sources and are Personal Attacking other Wikipedia users. Please, see this case, with a lot of information of accounts carrying out their POV since at least 2009 already: [139] Reldex (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reldex asserts I am a sockpuppet because I reject his restoration of a version of Arameans article that was originally added by a sockpuppet (Special:Diff/971044631), and, after being removed for discussion on the talk page, was restored by another sockpuppet without discussion (Special:Diff/974874117). It is poorly written, mostly unsourced, and poorly sourced and formatted when it does have references. There needs to be consensus for it to be added, not to remain. The article is currently being brigaded, as one can see from the high number of IPs restoring this poor edit, and I have requested page protection. Mugsalot (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Reldex has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. (Non-administrator comment) dudhhrContribs 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mugsalot, actually that's not the reason. I have mentioned all the reasons above in combination with the diff. I have added. You keep claiming that Arameans are part of the Assyrian people however there is no consensus on this topic. You keep removing and replacing the term Aramean even when it is sourced and the sources speak about Arameans. Thereafter you summarize it as (Reverted POV edit; For modern "Arameans" see Assyrian people) [140]. That's not something you can do and especially since you are fullfilling this agenda since 2009 I am concerned about the neutrality and quality regarding these articles. Reldex (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:King G.A

    I was going to bring this to the 3RR noticeboard, due to User:King G.A reverting 4 times, but since the user is completely unresponsive (saying "do not contact me") and provides absolutely no edit summary as to why my housekeeping edit is being reverted at Money Heist, I brought it here for attention. I'll leave it up to you whether a block is warranted or if the page should be protected. Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the contributions of King G.A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I see a lot of reverts and no willingness to communicate. In addition to the "do not contact me" mentioned above, when they do communicate they do so by way of revert summaries in the vein of "You probably do not understand!!!!!!!!", all exclamation points in the original. However, this being a collaborative project, effective and collegial communication is required by all editors. Because King G.A appears to lack these skills, I am indefinitely blocking their account. Sandstein 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion?

    Since the block, two different IPs have shown up on Money Heist to revert back to King G.A's version. Is this block evasion? Should the article be semi protected? - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: semi'd 10 days. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fullomayo

    User:Fullomayo has repeatedly deleted the Controversies section from the page Isa Ali Pantami without reason or by citing "libel;" however, they do not point out what is potentially libelous, edit the section, or communicate your issues with the section; instead just deleting it while refusing to respond to inquiries on their rationale on either their talk page or the page's talk page. Isa Ali Pantami appears to be the only page the account has ever edited, and only in a positive light, adding a laundry list of achievements and deleting well-sourced content that could be viewed negatively. Due to the reasonless edits, unresponsiveness, and potential conflict of interest or undisclosed financial stake, I ask that you decide if Fullomayo be suspended from editing the Isa Ali Pantami page and/or the page be protected (as a brand new account just added a bit of positive news - to be clear, I'm not saying that the account is Fullomayo's). Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fullomayo. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have continued to edit because I noticed an editor continues to add unproven allegations to the page of Isa Ali Ibrahim to the extent that the additions seem to defeat the purposes for an autobiography of a living person. This is demonstrated by writing an unproven allegation section that was retracted by the tabloid as the major content of the autobiography. The guidelines stipulates that potentially libelous content or fake news be avoided to prevent defamation of character. I have repeatedly edited to provide an objective summary, however there seems to be a false propaganda narrative by User: Watercheetah99 and some other users to drive a propaganda against a living person. I have previously engaged Dewritech and WikiDan61 of which we agreed an article is a mere highlight of a persons life and not every achievement or controversy the person has ever had in his life. I hereby report that users should be refrained from adding potentially libelous content or unproven allegations that defames the character of a living person and adds no value to readers or the article and or biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullomayo (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fullomayo, please point out an example of defamation. It has been weeks now and you have never once pointed out the defamation so someone could fix it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Slander against me on my talk page

    Along with unacceptable article edits, User:Smtkos' attacks on me here is so wrong. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It was almost 2 weeks ago, and they haven't edited in 5 days - so a block isn't going to be given here. I warned them, that's about all that can be done at this point — Ched (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simeon Sanada

    Unsure if this is the right place, but a new non-autoconfirmed user, Simeon Sanada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding "anti-Zionist" categories to multiple articles without providing source(s) or context, in violation of WP:CATV. I have warned them three times on their talk page, but my messages have been ignored and my reverts have been reverted by them twice without addressing the issues brought up. I do believe they are acting in good faith, but "anti-Zionist" is quite a contentious label, and adding the category en masse without sources or context is not an appropriate practice. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vauxford again

    I just recognized that I just put this to AN instead of ANI. I hope it's okay, to move it over here. For the history of the discussion please see history of AN. I'm sorry. Mea Culpa.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose to reconsider lifting the topic ban of Vauxford in January 2021. In the previous weeks I added some of my and some of other users photos over his more or less bad images, since I think they are an obvious improvement (some of them are even featured as QI) for this Wikipedia ([141], [142], [143], [144]). Today he reverted these edits with arguments like Previous was fine, take your blurry mediocre images elsewhere. I think he did't grew up since his topic ban about replacing and adding his own images to articles was lifted in January. IMO he is still defending his images over everything, which is also shown here. Furthermore he still replaces other images by his own, although he was told to stop with this behaviour in March 2021. His defiant behaviour harms here and makes a constructive work impossible.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (I will add more info soon) Firstly Alexander-93, you are not active here. You only drop by dumping your photographs in the articles, most of which are mediocre to say the least. Most importantly you are extremely hypocritical wanting to put a topic ban on me again. The reason why the topic ban was because I was disruptive when self-inserting my own images on 50 different Wikipedias which I stopped doing and focused only my native one. You on the other hand, not so much:

    Audi A4 Audi A4 Ferrari 330 Ferrari 330 Audi Q8 Bitter CD Bitter CD Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Hyena

    I'm going to repeat what I said on your German talkpage when you tried to stir up trouble towards me:
    There is many, MANY more diffs I can show you to prove you are no better then I am. You do the exact same style editing and behaviour, and the fact you pointed fingers at me on my main Wikipedia site for this and made everyone on their scrutinised me. Why aren't people calling your editing a "personal vanity project"? Why aren't people telling you "you're degrading wikipedia with your mediocre photos"? You get NONE of that and you left another user who is very much does the same as you do to suffer. I'm not saying all my edits are justified but it the upmost sheer hypocrisy that you started this ANI to get me put on another topic ban. I had enough people wanting me gone as it is, scapegoating me all the time and removing my photos simply because it is "Vauxfordy". --Vauxford (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I am as active as you are here. And yes, I'm able to communicate in English, so why shouldn't I edit here? Yes, in the past, I also replaced images, which were not so fine - maybe not that much like you did - but I did it in a way that I would say today, was not okay. But I stopped that already at least one year ago. The edits you mentioned above are all from 2019. And some of them are even okay.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander-93 Then what are these? You did all these less than a 1 or 2 months ago so clearly you haven't stopped your mass adding. --Vauxford (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mazda MX-30, Mazda MX-30,Mazda MX-30, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, Audi Q2, BMW X3, Citroen C4 Cactus. Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf.
    Disputes like this just make me feel that we would be better off without images altogether. They are nearly all original research and what image we include in an article often just depends on who can muster the most supporters for "their" image. Do they exist for the benefit of readers, or are they more to stroke the egos of photographers, who are now just about anyone with a mobile phone? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and don't forget his editing history, some are which were from less than 2 months ago! Ukraine, WikiData, Japanese, Polish, Finnish, French, Arabic or though he hasn't touched that one for about 6 months, Russian. To put it straight forward, I am not innocent but at least I quit the disruptive habit that got me a topic ban, if you look at my edit history on the Wikipedias I mentioned they will be quite a few from 2020-2018, there is one from May 2021 on one or two of them because I reverted a 7 Series image which Alexander mass added at some point. I apologise for my passive-aggressive edit summary on the recent edits he stated above but I'm truly sick and tired with this situation and want it to end. What peeves me off greatly is the fact Alexander-93 continues to do this with little to no repercussions, nobody telling him off or reverting his edits. Why is he able to get away with the same shtick that got me into hot water? Please someone answer this because I been waiting for one for the past 2 or 3 years! --Vauxford (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits mentioned above aren't disruptive in my opinion. If I'm adding a image to a Wikipedia, where it is "needed", since it's the first which was uploaded, it's an obvious improvement. And yes, that's what I'm doing still sometimes. And sometimes I'm replacing a bad image (e.g. in case of the MX-30). But I think that's something different compared to what this thread is about: Reverting obvious improvements and replacing an image by another although there are just minor differences.--Alexander-93 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you been doing is one of the reasons why I got the topic ban, my reasons were the same as yours. The person who created the ANI which lead to my topic ban proposal pointed this out and people were not pleased with it. So why hasn't anybody pointed that out about you? That is what I'm trying to get across. --Vauxford (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted some of Vauxford's recent changes (at Kia Stonic and Audi Q8), as Alexander 93's pictures were clearly better. Vauxford responded exactly like he did before his ban, by reinstating his pictures and being generally abrasive. I am unsure if I have removed any of Alexander's pictures recently but I don't remember ever having to have long boring arguments with him. And while this is not a competition in "who can have the most pictures used", I completely understand replacing pictures when one takes an objectively and clearly better photo. There is no defacto ban on putting pictures up in different languages, the problem is how and why it is done.
    I, too, am heartily tired of this nonsense and I don't see much blame (if any) landing at Alexander's door.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr.choppers I might've been harsh with my edit summary and I'm sorry for that, as you mentioned I am simply drained from of all of this. At least try and see my frustration over this user who is very similar to or formerly similar to me and not gotten any backlash from it, wouldn't you find that frustrating? Imagine two users who both acted and behaved badly, one get the telling off and the other doesn't, that what I'm trying to point out with evidence. --Vauxford (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just clicked one of the links you provided above at random (French Mazda MX-30), and Alexander-93's picture is a clear and undisputable improvement over what was there before. I notice his edits, but I almost never feel that he is reinstating his own photos just because they are his, or replacing existing photos that are not undisputably of a higher quality. He does what he does without annoying people, and when others revert him he generally responds calmly if at all.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr.choppers I don't understand, type in his username in the VisualFileChanger and you see that they are not "undisputably of a higher quality". This is the exact same type of a so-called "vanity project" that Charles01 pointed out. There is strong evidence that he is reinstating his own image on as many Wikipedia page as he could simply because they are his, that was my motive before the topic ban and I reflected for two years why that not a good thing to do. I don't annoy people on other Wikipedias and I do respond calmly if one gets reverted. Once again, I apologise for my outburst with today's reverts, both to you and Alexander. However, he continues doing that and nobody has told him off or warned him. --Vauxford (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    General comment re images @Alexander-93 and Vauxford: - the main consideration for which image goes in an article is quality. Who took the image, or uploaded it to Commons/Wikipedia counts for absolutely nothing. It an image of yours does get used, count it as a bonus. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep @Mjroots: that's what I'm doing - or at least trying to do. I'm trying to add the best available images to an article. And if an image is not that perfect, but the very first in its category, I'm adding it too. And if there is a more suitable image of another user or also of me uploaded later, I'm totally fine, if it gets replaced (by whoever). But in the case I described above, Vauxford didn't behave like that. And that's what the people criticized even before he was topic banned. I added obviously better images to some articles, but he didn't care about the quality. If it would have been the other way round (e.g. the image of the blue Kia Stonic from me and the image of the yellow Kia Stonic from him), he would have been probably the very first who changed them. And that would have been totally okay, since it's an obvious improvment. But since his image got replaced, re reacted (at least in my opinion) defiant. And that's a behaviour that doesn't bring us forward.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that a lot of the diffs provided are to Wikipedias in other languages or Wikidata. We can only consider any alleged diruption that takes place at en-Wiki. What happens elsewhere is a matter for those other Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander-93 It the same exact reason why I add mine, I do care about quality. I will say this again, I shouldn't of acted the way I did yesterday with the reverts and I ensure you this does not reflect who I am today, for the past months I been keeping my frustration to myself because of your style of mass adding your photos, there was many times that I was close to create an ANI about you but held back since I thought it would do more harm than good.
    Quite frankly Alexander, if you take a look at the photos you taken carefully, they have several problems with them, you appear to take cues from me when it comes to angles and where they are etc but 80% of the time you always mess up the focus and colour. They are always washed out and the balance is all messed up, the angle is always skewed and the vehicle itself is often blurry, and that is the reason why I reverted those edits, especially the Up! GTI because of it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point to a comment made byUser:Johannes in the January discussion which lifted Vauxford's topic ban:
    I believe that Vauxford has had some time to figure why his behaviour was considered disruptive; in case he did not figure this, the tban can be reimposed.
    I think it's quite possible that we're at that place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken I fully understand why you oppose the original topic ban lifting but you can see above my reasoning as clearly as I am able to make it, I don't believe my actions are a repeat of the past but rather seeking for the best quality images that are available from Wikimedia. Ever since the topic ban lifted, this is the only incident that happened here and I strongly regretted the action I did with the reverts and edit summary. --Vauxford (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    186.139.255.129

    186.139.255.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated personal attacks and uncivil comments: [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] (without comment...) IMO a block is in order. Some of the edits probbably need revision deletion. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Already has a previous block: [151]. Nothing changed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Troll/Vandal

    The user at @186.139.255.129: has returned from a previous ban and instantly resorts to name-calling on their own talk page. I'm not sure if this is the best place to report it, but I think a bit more active expression against them is needed as they are clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia. A sample is here, here, and here. Not the first time I've reported the user here either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Black Kite: don't forget to delete the edit summaries. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Black Kite (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    not a serious post. Please stop wasting our time--Jayron32 10:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Ip ranges 0.0.0.0/0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are vandalising articles. Please hardblock both. --78.79.248.24 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't find anything specific, not to mention that the CIDR range /0 is far from what administrators are able to block. Info for the adminfolks: this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New puppet of long-term vandal

    Ilka Dorchester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Another avatar of long-term (since at least 2007) cross-wiki vandal Charito2000, with the same themas and pattern of edits : false attribution of anonymous portraits to his/her favorite characters, source falsification in order to promote his Levieux/Candia fantasy, etc--Phso2 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    case of COI, SPI and UPE.

    I request Admins over here to kindly check the relisted section over HERE, as it shows that user owlf having a clear COI with Prakash Neupane as he seems asking help in the screen recordings to revert edit by an ADMIN on the facebook group, and user OWLF Re-created the page Prakash Neupane after 4 different discussion, and his behavior since I had AFDed the page was weird as first his account started deleting afd tags from the page Prakash neupane see This and This,

    and since he has a clear COI in some facebook group see | screen recording 1 here and | screen recording 2 here thats why I presume out of nowhere this user closed the afd of Prakash Neupane which s/he reverted after an admin asked him or her to do so see Here

    also I had open a SPI which got closed by stating that its irrelevant by a SPI clerk where I saw User:SS49 and user:owlf interaction timeline where they clearly seems to be working under some farm, I request some Admin over here to have a look on the mess going around here,

    I apologies if I am wrong but I presume there is some big paid farm going out there which is worth having a look at.

    after watching the screen recording by a user on HERE I connected all these dots and it does indicates towards some serious shit going around. I also have some more evidance which I will only share once an admin pings me so that they can instantly see it as a proof that Prakash neupane page is being involved into some paid farm and puffery. Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well about SPI the user had already filed it before and he had mentioned it before and being a Nepali Wikipedian I've created many actors, musicians, politicians, movie-related articles and has contributed to many articles. Just wanted to clarify here that I edit and care about Wikipedia and I don't look after who did what outside Wikipedia. If any admin wants to ask anything else feel free and about COI I'm not involved. Owlf (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) OP blocked 31 hours for harassment. This is their fourth or fifth WP:FORUMSHOPPING request for sanctions against editors they disagree with at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (4th nomination) after being warned repeatedly to knock it off. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand behind my close – it was retaliatory nonsense and these two are clearly not the same person. The orbit of this case is ripe with COI socking and joe jobbing. Speaking of, I find it curious that the videos the OP linked show upwork as one of just three browser bookmarks and that the person who recorded it seems to be running Avira for Android judging by the logo in the status bar – that one comes with a free VPN. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir I want to tell you that the notification icon is of "Avira Antivirus" that keeps running in the background and not the "Avira VPN". You can confirm that by installing both the apps. The vpn app does not have any icon for the top bar. And I know using vpn is again the wikipedia rules. And regarding upwork, it is not a bookmark, it is an app icon on the launcher screen of phone. I request you to watch the video again. Thanks. JAHANZAIBARIF|talk

    67.80.249.131

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

    This IP has been waging a grand crusade for the past several days. While some of their edits have been beneficial or at least neutral, such as [152], the vast majority have been disruptive. The IPs two main "targets" are nicknames, such as [153] and [154], and image captions, such as [155] and [156].

    He has been warned multiple times, and has been given explicit reasons, and yet he continues to make the same edits to the same exact pages he got warned for (most namely Bobby Jindal, where after his edit was reverted, he was explicitly warned by User:Palindromesemordnilap that consensus had been reached regarding the inclusion of the nickname and the IP chose to ignore that warning and re-edit the page to remove the thing he was just warned against removing.) This IP is clearly not here and now causes us to have to parse through their edits to see what need to be reverted or not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What we've got here is an IP user that is editing from mobile, so it's a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. In other words, it's not evident to the user that they have received any messages, as they've not received any notifications. Please see the open ticket phab:T278838 for more information on this problem.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's most recent edit to Bobby Jindal is not tagged as being a mobile edit; see [157] (not sure how accurate the tagging system is). palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe or maybe they are deliberately ignoring us. When they changed the caption for the second time (without explanation),[158] I reverted their edit and asked why (in the edit summary).[159] What did they do? They removed the caption altogether.[160] M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the IP for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at Siddha Yoga

    An IP is continually edit warring at Siddha Yoga to promote a "Controversy" section to the top of the article. It's been going on for weeks now and needs to stop, so I think somebody should take a look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by FDMD04 and 27.97.175.194

    FDMD04 was blocked on 21 May for 48 hours for edit-warring at Raghav Juyal. In less than a day after that block expired, they were blocked on 24 May for 1 month for personal attacks and harassment. On 26 May, 27.97.175.194 restored the same edits at Raghav Juyal for which FDMD04 was blocked originally for edit-warring (removing maintenance tags without resolving the issues and edits contrary to MOS). – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Random addition of sources and inflammatory edit summaries by User:Sarakhanjunglee

    Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements in edit summaries such as:

    The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text[165] after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.

    Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior and other various issues, I get the impression this user is not here to built an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incredibly disruptive edits on Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages

    Hello everyone.

    Two IP addresses as well as a registered account have been conducting pure vandalism and POV pushing in Azerbaijan-Armenia-related articles.

    2607:9880:2F07:FFB8:FDB3:A22F:16FE:F157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The first user, out of Canada, has made 12 highly disruptive, incredibly incompetent and sheer vandalistic POV edits, such as using incoherent, nationalistically motivated language to denigrate cultural treasures and an entire nationality. Edit summaries which in reality result in erasing information include facades like "grammar fixes" or "deleted outdated information". This needs to cease immediately.

    185.30.91.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The second user, out of Baku, Azerbaijan, similarly, uses their account to erase criticism for the Azerbaijani ESC 2021 singer's highly controversial rhetoric (calling an entire nation "terrorists"). Edit summaries include threats such as "The stupid record of Armenians was deleted" (in Azerbaijani) and "Don't even dare to write it again".

    Claude ker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lastly, the newly-created account Claude ker erases Armenian heritage on Azerbaijan-related pages on which keeping the Armenian designations and the entailing history has long been agreed on.

    Please act accordingly. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @BaxçeyêReş: You are required to notify the named user and the two IPs of this report. See top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, I just did. Apologies for not doing so prior BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:5CA:C302:43D0:7031:CDC9:2028:2669

    2601:5CA:C302:43D0:7031:CDC9:2028:2669 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been engaging in edit warring as well as blatant personal attacks, including accusing users of "extreme anti-woman bigotry" diff and of being a "Anti-Native racist" diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours by Bbb23, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MLJ 657 and addition of unsourced material at 2021 in animation

    I have noticed a problem with MLJ 657. They have persistently added unsourced series endings to articles that fail WP:V and are not supported by any citations in the linked articles.

    A timeline of the situation:

    MLJ 657 has continued to add unsourced or poorly sourced material after promising multiple times to stop, and I feel that some disciplinary action should be in order. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolls are out

    PROTECTED
    (non-admin closure) Both articles have been temporarily semi-protected by CaptainEek for a week. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Villarreal CF just won the Europa league and their coach Unai Emery‎, both pages are getting trolled. Any admins around to lock them down? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You might wanna go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for those kinds of issues. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 22:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are pretty slow there, I wouldn't of posted here otherwise. Govvy (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave both a week o' semi. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India

    User:Ahm Imran Shah is continuously vandalising the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (among other pages) despite me notifying him that his edits are unsourced and disruptive. I think he should be blocked, Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced claims. UserNumber (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @UserNumber: You have not discussed this with the user – their user talk page is empty, without even a welcome or any attempt at an explanation of why edits need to be sourced. You have explained (very briefly) in (some of) your edit summaries why you reverted their edits, but you can't take it for granted that a brand new editor will read the edit summary and understand what "unsourced" refers to. Adding unsourced information in good faith is not vandalism, and they have not exactly been working at lightning speed – they have all of three edits with at least 10 days between each edit, to that article. Finally, you are required to notify editors on their user talk page when you start a discussion about them on this page. There is a bright yellow note at the top of the edit window explaining this, and how to do it. --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FTR, I have posted a welcome notice to their user talk page with information about the verifiability policy. --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal yet again

    Long-term abuse from Ottawa is flaring up again, with wrong credits inserted into the same old music articles as before. Special:Contributions/72.138.217.84 was blocked but that didn't stop Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 from resuming the disruption. Let's get a block going. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked 2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing Khazars and ARBPIA3

    Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry lies under ARBPIA3 sanctions. My query has several aspects. In my view the recent editwarring there does not revolve around a content dispute, but a refusal to engage with serious questions about evidence assessment, WP:RS while tagteaming to revert with little focused talk page explanation (See here).

    Without wishing to assert Ownership, I did write most of the Khazars article and the relevant sections of this page dealing with both its antisemitic uses and the conspiracy spun from it by fringe lunatic figures in the Ku Klux Klan and othe racist groups. I.e. I trawled through scores of scholarly texts on the topic, which survey the idea’s rise, and credibility. In this academic literature, the idea that it is intrinsically antisemitic or a conspiracy theory is rare, except to note its occasional abuse. Most scholars evaluate it as improbable. Most scholars who have taken it as worthy of scrutiny are of Jewish background, and are neither underwriters of antisemitism nor conspiracy theories. According to two new editors of this page, it is conspiratorial and anti-Semitic to its core.

    User:BasedMises on 12 May (2 days into the present I/P crisis), rarely steps out of his field of economics (user page). He provided 5 sources reacting to a tweet on Twitter by an obscure Qatari figure, Ghada Oueiss, on 22 August 2019 that the Jews qua Khazars were intruders in the Holy Land, as proof that the idea in itself is a conspiracy theory. 3 are brief echoes of a report responding to this tweet in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The fifth is from Steven Plaut, a deceased Israeli economist who was convicted of libel (lying) in an Israeli court and who was permabanned for sockpuppetry (User:Runtshit) on wikipedia. Just to give one an idea of the quality of the evidence used to justify this distortion of the record.

    A virtually inactive account,User:Alwaysasn registered in 2011, and making just 13 edits in 10 years , was reactivated on 21 May to back up BasedMises’ claim that was a ‘conspiracy theory’.

    My question is, can Alwaysasn edit an article that falls under ARBPIA3 guidelines (requiring 500 edits). When I raised this with User:Doug Weller, Alwaysasn replied that the specific header states that the ban extends only to an (undefined) portion of the page, whereas he edited in material that deals not with the I/P conflict but with ‘Jews’. However he admits that he made his edit due to an (unattested) ‘the stark rise in antisemitism . . discredit Jews around the world’ at this particular moment.

    Both editors came to the page at the beginning and end of the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. Both editors cited as proof the absurd crack made by an obscure figure in Qatar two years ago. The original source used, the JTA, does not state that the Khazar theory is intrinsically antisemitic or conspiratorial, as the two editors claim. To the contrary the JTA text for 22 August 2020 almost certainly took its remarks from our wiki article as it stood that day, a text that has remained stable for several years:

    The theory has been used by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists to discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel. Scholars have discounted the theory

    On the 22 August 2019 our text stated (and have continued to state until this recent brouhaha altered it):

    The hypothesis has been used at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have genetic ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in anti-Semitic theories

    Does this content refer to the 'portion' ARBPIA covers, in which case Alwaysasn shouldn't be editing there, or is his battle to defend Jews against a stark surge in anti-Semitism in the last few weeks nothing at all to do with the contemporary flare-up in the I/P crisis? The JTA article supported by both editors specifically states what Alwasasn denies, i.e. that the the theory is abused to 'discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel'. It falls therefore under ARBPIA3.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry displays this edit notice which clearly states that the article is subject to 500/30 (WP:ECP). To remove doubt, I just applied that protection to the article. It would not be reasonable to argue that a certain portion of the article should be exempt from 500/30—the very fact that there appears to be a dispute indicates that WP:ARBPIA4 applies. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: thanks, but both the edit notice and talk page notice says "A portion of the article Khazar" - I think you added the wrong templates. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: Groan, I missed that. I adjusted the edit notice and the talk page notice. @Nishidani: You will need to be more patient as we have to tolerate off-wiki campaigns reaching articles. Focus on knocking off the unreliable sources and pointing out that "No evidence from genome-wide data ..." means the author is claiming no evidence not conspiracy theory. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shown all the sources are unreliable. I've shown that Behar (2013) is cited for the view that the theory is unscientific and a conspiracy when Behar does no such thing. He confutes an hypothesis advanced by another scientist in his field arguing on technical grounds. He does not anywhere state that his colleague is engaged in pseudo-science. A blip in a tweet and report (then copied 4 times in 1 day) cannot trump scholarship. I can't get any answers from the two editors: one doesn't respond, the other merely says my queries or analyses are all ad hominem, and he has newspaper snippets about an incident in Qatar in 2019 which call the theory anti-Semitic and a con spiracy. Obviously neither of them have trou8bled to read the relevant articles, where all of these aspects as they are analysed iin numerous scholarly studies, are thoroughly covered. It's therefore a behavioural problem (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and evidence of lack of experience as to what constitutes WP:RS. etc. People who write articles always have to have immense patience here with passing tweakers who have an opinion based on some tabloid, and who lack the patrience or curiosity to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the topic. Sorry for the tirade. But the situation there is farcical. It is even pointless asking me to be patient when one has a numbers game with two blow-ins to the topic trumping any argument since that numerical 'majority' established the consensus. So the bullshit will stick, and the WP:BLP smear it contains by direct implication is that a ranking geneticist Eran Elhaik is a pseudoscientist by definition, since he tried to justify a theory that comes under that formulation. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exercising the patience advised above, I dropped a note on User:Alwaysasn's page, suggesting they take the contested sources to RSN. Their response was an inflammatory insult, interpreting my remarks as ‘antisemitic gaslighting’. They have since refused to strike this personal smear as I have requested. This nonsense has already wasted 3 hours in a busy life. Surely one cannot get away with that as well? Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice on a best way forward

    I'm looking for some advice regarding The Wall (British game show). There is consensus on the article and WP:TELEVISION to not have contestant results in the article because of them being an indiscriminate collection of information. There are two users who refuse to accept this and constantly restore the contestant tables, one of the editors has been article blocked for two weeks (expires in two days time), but this has had no effect as another user popped up and started the same editing pattern of restoring the tables. Neither editor will communicate. I'm unsure what the best way forward is, page protection?, user blocking? or some other way? Advice gratefully received. - X201 (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Luc812208 continuing to revert, and refusing to use the talk page, despite being told about the pre-existing consensus, policy and talk page discussion via various means, constitutes disruptive editing (and arguably not being here to build an encyclopedia). I have indefinitely blocked their account. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Although I have a strange feeling that I'll be back here in two day's time. - X201 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @X201, I understand it's frustrating to try to protect an article from a series of unproductive new editors, but for each unproductive new editor, they're only one in that series. You say you think you'll be back in two days -- do you mean with another unproductive new editor? Is page protection a better choice? @Daniel, I'm not seeing Luc812208 has ever edited a talk page at all, including their own? Maybe they don't even know there is such a thing. Maybe we change to a p-block from article space to encourage them to discuss? —valereee (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: I did consider that originally. However, for two reasons I went full indef instead: 1) they don't appear to be editing from Mobile, so no justification for not using talk pages and b) their disruption spread over multiple articles, so I'd have to indef p-block them across multiple pages. The indef block isn't infinite, it's designed to force them to respond and start discussing, instead of just disruptively edit warring against consensus (as they had previously been directed to do). No issues from me if an admin unblocks/alters block if they respond on their talk page at all. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Block adjusted and talk page updated, now p-blocked from article namespace until they start discussing. Thanks Valereee for the heads-up about p-block namespace capabilities that I wasn't aware of. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user

    A user editing through at least one or more IP addresses apparently wrote inappropriate comments on my talk, Special:PageHistory/User talk:87.3.127.86 reverted the warning I post on their talk and continues to communicate inappropriately in Italian. I used google translate to see what the comments were and it seemed inappropriate. I continued to place warnings on the user's talk, but the user keeps reverting. Please advise? 54nd60x (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is free to remove comments and warnings posted on their talk page - you should not have edit warred to restore. I suggest you drop the matter and let me know if they come back to pester you. I don't think there is enough for a block. GiantSnowman 09:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: the user did it again. The reason I came here isn't mainly because of the removal of warnings, but with the harsh comments they keep making. 54nd60x (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They keep calling you an "idiot" and asking you to stop posting (per "pissing") on their talk page - they are probably just frustrated at you repeatedly posting on their talk page, I cannot see anything more than that. Please stop posting on their talk page! Like I said, if they continue to pester you elsewhere then let me know and we can take action, but until then, nothing. GiantSnowman 10:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Okay. The user keeps telling administrators to block me, which is annoying. What should I do then? 54nd60x (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I'll ignore the user for now. 54nd60x (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanking the ANI report and making personal attacks at ANI by the IP are not legit. A block may be warranted.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eostrix: I agree. Even though the IP may be using harsh language because I keep posting stuff on their talk, I don't know why the IP began harsh language in the first place. I tried asking, but my edit was instantly reverted. 54nd60x (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll or Proverbs 26:4, whatever works for you. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:LTA/SBT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Robby.is.on, Struway2 etc.

    CLOSED
    blocked 1 week —valereee (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This group of users keeps reverting back to wrong versions i.e. Jay Bridgeman to James Tarkowski. Please turn them back as I could get in trouble for reverting them too many times. Thank you. Iggy (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.229.151 (talk) [reply]

    It's a LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike Matthews17 spoofing the user's signature. Be nice if someone could block it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    84.9.229.151 blocked for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Back straight away as 90.244.133.215 (reported to AIV and added to SPI). Note these are Vodafone dynamic IP addresses, so a single IP block is likely next to pointless. Gricehead (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming we can't rangeblock them, as they're coming from different ranges? It's very annoying and tedious when this troll keeps popping up every week or two. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 90.244.133.215 for a week. --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kavkas

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

    This user has been active 2013, he should very well know how Wikipedia and its guidelines work by now. However, he clearly doesn't, as can be seen by his editing history, both back then and now. At Gelae (Scythian tribe), he removed sourced info and attempted to push information with outdated sources, which I told him was not okay. His best response was Now go complain to the admin, which honestly made me give up further attempts to talk with him.

    He seems to be constantly pushing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, as as well heavily lacking WP:COMPENTENCE.

    He has a tendency to alter/remove sourced information which doesn't fit with his POV;

    [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have dealt with the user previously, I do not think Wikipedia benefits from their continued ability to edit. I found that they have a battleground attitude, and that their competence to make encyclopedic edit is not so great.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 1 month, as this person is showing zero interest in trying to become more productive. Maybe that'll get their attention. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sports editor with a 'bad' attitude

    CLOSED
    now indeffed at Special:Permalink/1025455467#1978 Los Angeles Ravagers —valereee (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    It appears that @1978 Los Angeles Ravagers: is being a problem across several sports articles. His edits (not to mention his edit summaries) come across as personal commentary. Not to mention a rudeness to others. A check over of his contributions will tell the tale. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them for 1 week. this was over the line. --Jayron32 14:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: 72.226.21.114

    CLOSED
    indeffed 2 years —valereee (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Issues:

    • Edit warring: see Bill Maher. No interest in actual discussion, instead just leaves aggressive edit summaries.
    • Personal attacks: instead of discussing, engages in personal attacks at specific editors, including in their edit summaries. See examples: 1; 2; 3; and 4
    • Peculiar interest in specific controversial topic (Jewish ancestry, typically seeking to disprove that a figure is Jewish). See here; here; here; and his current attempts at Bill Maher.
    • Clearly has no interest in working collaboratively. When they are given notices, they immediately revert them. Sure, that is allowed, but here it simply highlights a disinterest in collaboration and an inability to cooperate with others.
    I think that an editor like this has no business being on Wikipedia. But, as a lesser sanction, I would nominate them for one lifetime topic ban from topics relating to Jewish ancestry. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez get a life. I can edit whatever i want, especially since wikipedia clearly gets a lot of info wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Jeez get a life" -- You really think another violation of WP:NPA is helping your case? - LouisAragon (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Louis. I do/will correct wrong information on wikipedia and won’t apologize for it.

    Also clearly “el cid el campeador” personally doesn’t like my position/opinions which is why he wants to crush me into the ground.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.21.114 (talk • contribs)

    This is clearly the same user that was blocked for 1 year back in March 2020. I have reinstated the block, this time for 2 years. Hopefully they will spend those years reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Jayron32 14:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say, as an old, I appreciate "Jeez get a life" as very much within my young vernacular. That said, obviously a good block. Dumuzid (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Us radical Gen Xers really had some tubular vernacular. Gnarly. --Jayron32 16:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Atharv Bakshi

    Atharv Bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    @Atharv Bakshi: continues to engage in content dispute/edit wars despite being told not to several times by @Number 57:. The user does not indicate any intention of stopping this. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @DaxServer, I'm only finding one warning from @Number 57 on that user's talk, and it's about infoboxes, and a single mention of edit-warring on their user talk -- can you give us some diffs? —valereee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is disruptive and I'm not sure is entirely competent to be editing Wikipedia. Virtually every edit of theirs that I've seen has had to be reverted. Number 57 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've p-blocked from article to try to get the editor's attention/get them to discuss. Still not sure we tried hard enough, but p-blocks aren't as aggressive so I'm willing to. Actual diffs for the problem would be really helpful, though. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1978 Los Angeles Ravagers

    CLOSED
    indeffed —valereee (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:1978 Los Angeles Ravagers was recently blocked by @Jayron32: for disruptive edits and a deeply uncivil response to a warning about them. They responded with this which looks to me like a request for an indef block. Laplorfill (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hahah. Classic. Screaming into the void is always so productive. --Jayron32 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And indef'd. That's not someone who's going to edit in a collaborative manner. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, as I expected. He/she was an editor who was WP:NOTHERE to contribute. His/her (self-entertaining) response to being blocked, was predictable. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposed Indefinite Block On Kelvinsage1

    Kelvinsage1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Has been an editor for five years and has been using Wikipedia for purposes described in what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Their talkpage indicates possible covert undisclosed paid editing since 2016 up until date. They were warned by Praxidicae in January 2020, see here of engaging in upe, of which they denied and claimed they were not collecting financial rewards for article creation, but since January 2020 till now their actions negates their claim as they have created six promotional non notable articles all of which have been deleted, (5 BLP's and one article on an organization). Their most recent article, this was yet again on a non notable individual and the article is currently in an AFD. So either this is gross incompetency and a failure to understand WP:GNG despite being here for five years or this is undisclosed paid editing, either way I am proposing an indefinite block on them for violating our TOU policy on paid editing and or/for WP:CIR, though the former is much more plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term disruption on the Mount Nemrut page

    There's a long-term campaign going on aimed at shoving the word "Armenian" into the Mount Nemrut page, in spite of the majority WP:RS and the UNESCO entry,[175] which don't mention the word "Armenian" even once, and only mention Greek and Persian/Iranian. Every time, as soon at the page protection expires, the IP hopper/LTA shows up again, completely ignoring a few dozen of Wikipedia guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, more importantly, is the word "Armenian" mentioned in the two books that source that sentence? If not, then the IP is wrong. But that's the place to look. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please turn off TPA

    for Dance with Drake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please also don't forget to remove the edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP with an ax to grind and legal threats

    2601:1C0:4280:1FF0:B1C5:99A5:8156:8CE5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User is determined to add NPOV opinion and is making legal threats when reverted. Also- well past WP:3RR

    [[176]]

    Nightenbelle (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     IP blocked for legal threats. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish leveraging admin tools to maintain preferred, anti-consensus revision at Thor

    Having been on English Wikipedia for many years now and along the way having written quite a lot of the site's content relating to folklore and its various genres, I've encountered a lot of issues, as I am sure all veteran editors have. Particularly when editing topics involving pseudoscience, every now and then I've gotten death threats and been on the receiving side of attempts at harassment or intimidation, some of them even making their way to offsite publications. Yet I have in fact never encountered outright abuse of mod tools from an admin until today.

    First, a little background. Over at Thor and related articles, regulars such as myself encounter a variety of drive-by edits. Most of them consist of the typical vandalism one sees on any highly visible article, some are the result of confusion, and far too few helpful.

    One thing we see every now and then is a well-meaning user wanting to add a userbox to the page. Unfortunately, these users rarely know the material very well, and often seem to have not read the article. This has resulted in several discussions over at the Thor article, where topic regulars like @Yngvadottir:, @Haukurth:, @Berig:, and myself respond and continue to develop this and related articles.

    To date there's been a clear consensus that the introduction of infoboxes tends to be misleading, if not outright misinforming, and provide nothing the lead does not. For the Thor article, clear consensus against infobox inclusion has been established since 2008, as indicated in these discussions:

    Related discussion can be found at the talk page for English Wikipedia's Odin article, for example:

    Earlier today, a user with very few edits added an infobox to the Thor page containing numerous problems (@SpyGuy12345:). For example, not only does this infobox have obvious grammatical issues (that'd be the Æsir, for one) but it also tells readers that the "symbol of Thor" is the swastika.

    In reality, scholars have debated (and continue to debate) whether this is the case (as English Wikipedia's Swastika_(Germanic_Iron_Age) article makes clear, which our Thor article's section pipes to). In short, it's unclear if the symbol signified the sun in the ancient Germanic record, some other deity, or who knows. Similarly, as is common in myth, geneaologies can differ by source, place, and time: For example, Thor may well have been Odin's father during the Migration Period and among some groups during the Viking Age, and before that, at some point *Tiwaz (who became North Germanic Týr) is widely considered by scholars to have once been the 'sky father'. Add to that the great majority of these 'related' figures in the infobox are not attested outside of the North Germanic branch and yet this article covers Thor from the early Germanic period until today. Lots of issues.

    All of this is why the introductory paragraph of English Wikipedia's Thor article so carefully says which corpus these relations are described in. The infobox presents no such nuance or care—useful for car models and battles, not so useful for complex figures from folklore. Then there's the issue of whether an infobox in these cases provides more information than the first paragraph of the introductory paragraph, to which consensus is that it cannot.

    Anyway, I went ahead and reverted this addition and opened a talk thread, as per usual Wikipedia practice. Business as usual. However, I was soon surprised to find that an admin, @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: had appeared out of nowhere and reverted my edits. Eventually, after trying to get him to use the talk page and right before his third edit, he locked the page to his new, preferred version:

    Only after locking the page did he decide to appear on the talk page, where he accused me of "vandalism" and warned me that he was an admin, with a threatening "suggestion" that I "stop", presumably thinking I'm a new editor, among various other odd and false claims. Catfish Jim also somehow attempted to put his decision to lock the page at his preferred version in the third revert above on me as my request because I had said someone ought to lock the page. Nice.

    I'm not sure what is going on with this guy but, in short, what would have been a regular Wikipedia conversation turned into Catfish Jim leveraging admin tools as a trump card to get what he wanted, making no effort to discuss the matter until locking the page to the version he wanted before his third revert, and all the while making a variety of false statements. This highly visible page is curently worse off for it.

    Ignoring the pros and cons of infoboxes, a debatable topic, Catfish Jim's actions here look to be a pretty clear example of abuse of admin tools to me. Given this behavior, I don't think Catfish Jim should have access to these tools. In fact, someone with more time than I have to offer might want to look through this Catfish Jim's edit history to see if he's used admin tools to get his way in other exchanges. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've unprotected the article. I agree that was a gross abuse of the admin tools. We don't do desysops at AN/ANI, and ArbCom (which does) usually won't desysop over one misuse of the tools. If there appears to be a pattern of this kind of tool use, then an ArbCom case is how you would remove the tools. Hopefully this was a one-off.
    As far as edit warring is concerned, you have both reverted 3 times. I am going to block CJ&tS from that page for 24 hours for edit warring, because of the aggravating factor of his admin tool misuse. I won't block User:Bloodofox now, but I will if they revert again, as that will be a 3RR violation. Anyone besides BoO is free to revert to the status quo version, which (contrary to CJ&tS's comment) appears to be the the version with no infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch! EEng 01:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch indeed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After opening a Wikipedia tab, seeing pings, coming here, then examining the history of the article and then the talk page and posting first there ... thank you for removing the protection, Floquenbeam, the article has been re-reverted and I endorse the action. Bloodofox summarizes the problems well above, except that the scope of the article is all reflexes of *Þunraz, which may make the problem a bit clearer. I have only two comments on Catfish Jim, one, that I have no recollection of them making unwise admin decisions, presumably a bad day, and two, that this is an illustration of why we have a general principle that admins avoid using their tools based on content matters except in cases of obvious vandalism. (An unusually short comment for me; I gotta go.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Golly. I was expecting to have a few messages this morning, possibly even a notice that there was a discussion at ANI that involved me, which would be a first (I think). Blocked from editing a page... that's also a first. I admit I probably was in error in reverting the page after locking it at bloodofox's request. Bad day? You could say so but would that excuse a "gross abuse of admin powers"? I was attempting to engage with the guy, but here we are.

    Anyway... I note bloodofox's request for me to resign or to be formally desysopped. I am absolutely open to WP:RECALL and will resign the mop if there is consensus that I should do so. Probably better to do that in an WP:RFC than here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone get IZ041 to engage in discussion?

    IZ041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my annotated removal of non-reliable sources on a beauty pageant article [177]. When I asked why, they deleted my question on their talkpage with a single word summary "ridiculous". I think maybe they need help understanding how collaboration works here. Beauty pageants are under discretionary general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bsy950707 repeadtly adding controversial category without consensus

    Bsy950707 has repeatedly added Category:Genocide perpetrators to Xi Jinping's article. The category is an issue for numerous reasons: 1) its not sourced in the article 2) It's dubious to attribute an entire Genocide to a single individual 3) Huge BLP issues 4) Its WP:NONDEF 5) It just doesn't make sense—why Xi and not the 100s of other members of the CCP? They have resorted to edit warring and have been reverted by myself ([178], [179], [180]), Buidhe ([181]) and CPCEnjoyer ([182] [183]) as well as failed to express anything in the relevant talk page discussion. The article history on dictator appears to have them edit warring (with no sources) as well, now over if Hirohito should be listed as an example. They have now left an edit summary of "So, do youd deny Uyghur genocide?" [184] directed towards me—a comment that is grossly insulting and has, frankly, pissed me off. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor doesn't seem to favor the concept of discussion using a talk page, evidently shown by his ignorance of the article talk page, his own talk page and this noticeboard. I personally do not want any administrative sanctions for Bsy950707, but rather want him to realize that this is a collaborative project and he should respect the consensus instead of attempting to right great wrongs. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EndRacismNow2021

    User:EndRacismNow2021 is a new account. At Talk:South China Morning Post they are railing against western media sources and accusing Wikipedia of sinophobia. After I politely directed them to the page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so that they can see that sources such as The New York Times are considered suitable for use on Wikipedia, they have been attacking me with no basis (suggesting I have said things that I have not): [185], [186]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, responds to constructive attempts to help with hostility and personal attacks. Citobun (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned them. Let's see if there's any positive response. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The username doesn't make me optimistic. — Ched (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Perceived legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste)

    Per WP:LEGAL, I'm bringing this up here for the proper action to be taken (if any). IP user 2409:4043:2189:5FF7:0:0:2912:50A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what I believe to be a legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste) in this diff while requesting for two terms to be entirely removed from an extended-protected article. (Otherwise we will be binding on the court to resort.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a pretty straightforward legal threat on a well-referenced topic. /64 range blocked for two weeks. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Some LTA block report

    Hey, Sammi Brie has started an LTA page for Mexican media image vandals called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal. So here you go:

    • Edits entirely via IP addresses in the 187.232.x.x and 187.233.x.x ranges and more recently in IPv6.

    IPv4

    IPv6

    Block them all since the LTA page still says Present in the Wikilifespan. Just in case, some of these dynamic IPs are inactive, but still needs to be blocked so they won't go active again. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 03:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UserNumber

    Several times broke 3 reverts rule and really non-cooperative jerk attitude could be seen in pages like Bengalis and Template:Bengalis (clear violation of 3rr and last edit summery is baseless argument to change a long standing photomontage, There is no common rules for that!!), despite warned by several veteran users on talk page and edit summaries no progress could be seen yet! hearty requesting to an admin to use checkUser to detect Sockpuppetry! As a long observing user I can smell a very old bangladeshi page related sock master there!! —2A0A:A546:2916:0:46:2EEE:BC66:CC51 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1025564072"