Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Since the last topic ban from DYK on 5 May, [1], Venkat TL has been doing mass page moves despite a couple of warnings to stop it. The first warning was mild and another warning was final. However, none of these warnings helped Venkat TL to stop.

In just 1 month, Venkat TL has made over 16,000 such page moves that are nothing but WP:DE because his page moves have no basis other than a "proposed" convention over which multiple editors have disagreed with Venkat TL.[2]

The participants of the last ANI thread assumed that this user's disruption won't stop with just a topic ban from DYK.[3] I agree they were correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Context thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This was debated for 7 months at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles.
• Another 4 months of debate occurred at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Constituency_titles
• This proposal came out after above debates and discussions at WikiProject India and WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the Proposal thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
• The proposal was advertised as advised by the the debate participants of that time at WP:Noticeboard for India#Assembly_constituencies_article_title, |WP:Noticeboard for India# Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like WikiProject Delhi#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies [4] [5] and so on.
• A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified.
• After 2 months of voting on the proposal there was a Consensus with 7 supports and one oppose. After the discussion had petered out with clear consensus, The proposal was implemented accordingly. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But still none of this fulfilled the actual requirement you were told about some 11 days ago[6] which you recognized[7] but you are still continuing your page moves without fulfilling the requirement. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On different occasions, by different editors, Venkat TL was reminded that propsal is not formally closed, and it is not a policy yet. They were also asked to stop moving pages. They should have stopped. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Further context: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) — especially the two RMs. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After your !Vote I, put the implementation on hold, stopped moving new pages and focused on fixing the disambiguation pages. There was no votes in those threads for another 10 days, so I re-started the moves yesterday.
  • I also noticed that you were admin shopping 12 days ago and have older axes to grind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Venkat TL no votes doesn't mean it is ok to just go ahead and do whatever you think it is ok. let someone close the discussions and move on from there. You were jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, the proposal had been open for 2 months and had clear consensus, which is why I proceeded. In my opinion 2 months is a good long time for an open discussion to judge the consensus. that said, I have no problem to wait for another 2 months. I will not make any more moves. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Venkat TL: you still havent answered why you started moving pages again. You were very well aware that the proposal was contested. There is difference between not badgering, and going unresponsive/avoiding scrutiny. It is looking like you are doing the latter. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My openening comment in that thread was "Hi. If there is an RfC regarding a policy change, and it is tainted, what will be the appropriate venue to ask for a procedural close? Given the editor who started it is retired. AN, or ANRFC? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) I was asking for next appropriate step. That is not admin shopping at all. I didn't even mention you, or the RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Venkat TL Can you explain the moves from, for example, Chittorgarh (Lok Sabha constituency) to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency. Because the former looks natural to me. If you can supply reliable sources that show that the latter is the well known form, then everything is OK. If you can't, then we have a major problem. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Kite, you are asking to discuss content dispute here. It would be off topic, but since you have asked, here you go. Please look at the quotes below from reliable sources. Please refer to the explanation of WP:NATURAL that I have made on the proposal page (link). These quotes below show how the constituency is commonly referred to in mainstream reliable sources.

• If a Rajput candidate is fielded in the adjoining Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency, chances are a Brahmin would be fielded here and vice-versa. Mar 17, Geetha Sunil Pillai / TNN /. "Rajsamand seat too complicated for caste equations | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 23 May 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency comprises of following Vidhan Sabha (legislative assembly) segments. "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha Constituency, Rajasthan: Current MP, Candidates, Polling Date and Election Results". Newsd.in. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Ladpura and Ramganj Mandi Assembly seats were added from Chittorgarh Lok Sabha seat in 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Rajasthan profile: With BJP having all seats, Congress faces tough fight ahead; Bikaner, Dausa key seats-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 4 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

• Vallabhnagar and Mavli Assembly seats were moved to Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituencyin 2008. "Lok Sabha Election 2019, Phase 4 today: State-wise guide to constituencies going to polls and election schedule-Politics News , Firstpost". Firstpost. 29 April 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Black Kite I may have not pinged correctly in my reply. Venkat TL (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Chittorgarh is the name of a geographical entity (a settlement). "Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency" is the name of the entity related to elections. The border of the geographical entity is never the same as the Lok Sabha constituency, though they may have some overlap. The bit "Lok Sabha constituency" is not just an attribute, it is an essential part of the name. When you just say "Place" for example Chittorgarh, it will be understood as the geographical entity (city), Never as constituency unless you mention it clearly. One has to mandatorily state the full name Chittorgarh Lok Sabha constituency if they are talking about the constituency. The examples from the reliable sources above show this. Wikipedia disambiguation guideline WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary... Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title...Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses. The suffix "Lok Sabha constituency" or "Assembly constituency" serve as WP:NATURAL disambiguation from the city name, so they do not need to be inside brackets. The parenthesis also add an overhead of extra work to add the piped links whenever using the constituency name in prose. The piping issue due to disambiguation bracket is huge. there are close to 4120 Indian assembly constituencies and 545 Lok Sabha constituencies. Each of them gets linked on an average 100 times on Wikipedia. That is 5,00,000 unnecessary piped links. This is exponential damage and waste of efforts which can be saved by dropping the unnecessary bracket. I face this issue everyday while working on constituency and biography articles. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

erm... So you decided to move thousands of pages while multiple editors had asked you to stop it — because you found the current naming system a little out of your comfort zone during article editing, while knowing it (the moves) will mean editing around 500,000 links? Actually, it is your page moves that are "exponential damage and waste of efforts". This is nothing but WT:DYK incident all over again: proposing changes to policy because you dont like it, not listening to other editors, casting aspersions, battleground behaviour, and now moving thousands of pages even when told to stop. Thats nothing but disruptive behaviour. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my take too. This is simple disruption and unless I see a genuine reason for editing 500,000 links here apart from WP:ILIKEIT, I don't see any other option here but to prevent Venkat TL from causing any more damage. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have already moved almost all the pages of that field. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than wikipedia and its mirrors, very few sources use brackets (I chose a constituency that has received more coverage). I haven't gone through every category in Category:Constituencies_by_country, but even on Wikipedia, a lot of constituency articles do not use brackets (see for eg, US, Mexico, France, Australia, Srilanka, Philippines) Hemantha (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantha: Hello. "appropriate title" is not the main point here. The proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies was disputed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)#Proposal state, Venkat TL was aware of that (they participated in the latter discussion), later DaxServer expressed their concerns about the process of the proposal at Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus|village pump - policy. In that discussion there were only four participants including Venkat TL, and three of them were in favour of a fresh RfC. Venkat TL was reminded a few times that the "proposal" was not formally closed yet, a fresh RfC was required, and the proposal wa not accepted/converted as policy yet. Still, Venkat TL performed mass moves, which were being discussed/disputed, that is simply put - not listening to fellow editors (WP:IDHT?), and disruptive. For someone who quotes/brings up policies, guidelines, and essays so often, saying "I did it because there was no participation in a long time" is not acceptable. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think enforcing edits without consensus, ignoring warnings, doing mass moves while ignoring complaints on talk page and denying any wrongdoing even after the complaint here is disruptive and does not guarantee any assurance since enough damage has been already done. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Venkat TL was provided with page mover user right on 15 April 2022 by Swarm. I think this user right should be removed because of the abuse documented in this report. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

accountability/communication is a very important thing on wikipedia. Not responding here even after a ping shows lack of it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are explicitly allowed to implement a clear consensus themselves in an RfC. I do think that this was the case here. So I don't see the discussion not being closed to be an issue. That leaves the matter of whether the proposal was sufficiently exposed to the community, per WP:AT and WP:PROPOSAL. While the proposal was not advertised at village pump, it was extensively advertised to the community, and that's a pretty strong consideration as well. Mass changes are almost always contentious to some extent, and it's good to have community oversight in these situations. But I do find Venkat's defense here reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you on the first part. But when the proposal was disputed, and there were suggestions for starting a fresh RfC, at that time Venkat TL should have listned to fellow editors, and should have stopped moving pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It all boils down to whether the objections were legitimate in the first place, i.e. whether the fact that this wasn't posted to village pump is enough to consider the discussion illegitimate, in spite of extensive community notification efforts. I would say the letter of the law was violated, but the spirit of the law was satisfied. Is that enough? According to WP:NOTBUREAU, WP:5P5, and WP:IAR...yes, actually. This is a complicated situation, Venkat failed to follow the proper procedure of advertising the RfC, he failed to close the RfC and initiated an involved mass move (which, again, is allowed, but a bad look altogether), then didn't stop when objections were raised. On my first reading, I was on the same page as the other outraged admins. I considered immediately revoking PM, even procedurally prior to looking into it, and then I strongly considered blocking. However, after actually vetting Venkat's argument against policy requirements as objectively as possible, everything seems to check out. Venkat TL should implement the formal close since he's already de facto formalized it, but his doing so, in my reading, was allowed.

  I'm not saying the dispute should be considered resolved. Let me be clear, there is never anything preventing you from immediately starting your own RfC with whatever proposal you want, you can do it right now. If a new RfC is needed, then hold a new RfC, and make sure the proper procedures are followed to avoid future drama. The naming dispute clearly is just as alive as ever and I doubt we're going to solve that here. But this is just my response to a ping with a request that Vinkat's PM user rights be revoked. In response to that request, I conclude there is no violation. But this is a community noticeboard, anyone is free to disagree with me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you on the first part. What I am saying is they should have stopped when multiple editors had asked them to, no matter the reason. As they said above themselves, they stopped for a while, and then resumed it. And then there is their overall attitude. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: User:NikolaosFanaris has

1. consistently accused me of being affiliated with a far-right political party.
2. claimed that I am: "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis".
3. claimed that I am: "[trying] to mislead"
4. claimed that I am: "lying"
5. raised a COI about me in which he lied.
6. deleted my discussion on his Talk Page[8] regarding the situation.

Here are some of his statements (emphasis mine):

• "[..] this is clearly a cherry-picking attempt [..] to sugarcoat Kasidiaris' criminal past and neo-Nazi ties [..]"[9]
• "[..] you are lying on the discussion page hoping that this could result in changes here to sugarcoat the article [..]"[10]

He asked if I am involved with the political party and I answered: No[11].

Later on he says:

• "To everyone reading this, I believe that AkisAr-26 is closely associated with the party and tries to mislead readers by distorting facts"[12]
• "[..] it's clear there is a conflict of interest here - what is your role with Greeks for the Fatherland?"[13]
• "Are you involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland? Are you working for them under any capacity?"

[14]

Then I explain again that I've already answered that.[15]

Later he says:

• "I take your silence on the matter as an indication of conflict of interest. From now on there is not much to discuss with a person who is clearly involved with this party and tries to push its agenda on Wikipedia."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks%20for%20the%20Fatherland&diff=1089262891&oldid=1089259027 [3]tle=Talk:Greeks_for_the_Fatherland&diff=next&oldid=1089279190]

Then he creates a topic claiming I am involved with the party. On top of that he lies in the COI about what was said:

• "AkisAr-26 appears to be involved with the party Greeks for the Fatherland. This is a clear indication of WP:COI. Although I asked him the same question numerous times, he dodged it and moved on without commenting."[16]
• "Sugarcoating neo-Nazis on WP must be your main hobby"[17]

As a result, I believe my reputation as a WP editor has been damaged from untrue or baseless claims, which were made intentionally, multiple times and while knowing that they are untrue or baseless. AkisAr-26 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very interesting take on the whole case, especially after all those days of questionable editing by AkisAr-26. For starters, I stand by what I previously said in regards to the possibility of close connection to the subject. AkisAr-26 is quite passionate about Greeks for the Fatherland - a party that has undeniable ties with the neo-Nazi leader of Golden Dawn, Ilias Kasidiaris. It all started on May 15, 2022 when AkisAr-26 suddenly appeared on Wikipedia [1] to defend the neo-Nazis and openly threaten me with legal action. To quote his words (and also use bold that he obviously enjoys a lot): As a personal note, I'd be rather careful with terms that can be considered defamatory, since they carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison (plus damages). As some journalists have recently found out, the law cuts both ways. Especially when defaming academics and high-ranking officers. This is his first appearance - the first edit on the article, showing the exact reason he joined Wikipedia. The rather aggressive tone confirmed my suspicion that he might be an inactive user with an old account (possibly banned), paying attention to the developments on the page after Greeks for the Fatherland was protected from anonymous IPs only a few days prior to the legal threat [2]. Of course, AkisAr-26 did not stop there, he asked for evidence about the party being neo-Nazi and orchestrated a carefully-executed plan to dispute the facts by requesting evidence to be brought before him despite the fact that he is very familiar with the neo-Nazi criminal Ilias Kasidiaris and his neo-Nazi past and symbols. He then accused me of defamation [3], disputed a series of facts by bringing up the Greek constitution [4], challenged repeatedly the neo-Nazi past through different and confusing wording [5] and distorted other aspects through edits: he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls [5] but most importantly attempted to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past [6]. To conclude the above-mentioned points, I would not be passionate about the facts and information surrounding this article, but seeing someone so relentlessly and consistently distorting information on Wikipedia related to neo-Nazi activity in Greece raises many concerns about their intentions and links to the organisation. All the above evidence clearly shows that the user is attempting to sugarcoat Greeks for the Fatherland by inserting his heavy POV and attempting to challenge other claims by users, hoping that there won't be disputes and that would safely allow him to remove factual information from the article. In its previous state the article was vague, inconclusive and was missing essential information - I am pretty sure that the activity of many IPs played a role in this as seen in the editing history. My arrival.. complicated things. My suspicions about the close connection have been further-amplified as a result of the user's activity on Greek Wikipedia which is focused exclusively on the convicted neo-Nazi leader and his new political party [7]. I hope I have fully clarified my stance on the issue. No damage was ever inflicted on the user's reputation cause he hasn't got any reputation. He showed up with one aim: to distort facts on Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, that was not a legal threat (I assume you mean against you?). This says exactly exactly what it means: I am careful with my wording against powerful politicians unlike journalists that use defamatory expressions without care. I've been referring to journalists all along. And I still stand by my claim that such content is defamatory to the academics, former generals, judges, lawyers, police officers and all other current members of the party that have never displayed neo-nazi sympathy. Neither has the party (to my knowledge). But I never claimed that you are the one committing defamation. It would make no sense to suggest that you are defaming them since those are not your claims, but the sources' claims. Additionally even if it were your claims, no one would bother with a random wiki editor, when there are hundreds of public high profile individuals making those claims in public. It makes zero sense to use it subtly as a legal threat. Could I phrase it differently? Perhaps. It didn't even occur to me that you might perceive it that way. All you had to is confront me about it and I would clarify it immediately.
2. No, I didn't accuse you of defamation; that's a lie. The link[18] you posted has nothing to do with defamation. Did you post the wrong link? I don't even mention defamation. I used the word 'defamation' or similar in the Talk Page[19] but nowhere was it pointed at you (simply use Control F to check them).
3. No, I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn; that's a lie. On the contrary, I said: "I didn't dispute Kasidiaris' past in Golden Dawn"[20] To make it more clear, I believe that his hand symbol isn't a meander as he claims. But that is irrelevant; my focus is on the accuracy of claims against GreeksFTF.
4. No, I didn't mention the Greek constitution; that's a lie. Did you post the wrong link[21], I don't even mention the word "constitution". (I don't remember ever mentioning the constitution at all.)
5. Yes, I do challenge the 'neo-nazi' allegations against the party since it's not supported by the linked sources that I read. They contained assumptions, not evidence. When we paraphrase the content, we should do so accurately. That is, state that some journalists and academics believe that the party is neonazi, instead of stating that the party is neonazi which obviously implies there is evidence and not suspicion. Therefore, I asked several times that you quote the evidence but you failed to do so, since - I believe - they don't exist. To further clarify, I do believe the journalists claims should stay in the article, but they should be phrased correctly.
6. No, my edits are not focused exclusively on the party as you claim; that's a lie[22]. Most of my edits are on the party, due to the prolonged disagreements you and I had along with the gross inaccuracies in the article.
7. No, I didn't use "unfactual polls" as you claim; that's a lie[23]. I simply removed the old poll (2020) and kept the others (2022). No, I didn't distort the facts about the polls; I simply updated the % from the non-obsolete polls. As the edit comment says: "Removed obsolete polls (they were 2 years old)."
8. No, I have nothing to do with this[24].
9. No, I did not "[attempt] to distort the leader's neo-Nazi past" as you claim; that is a lie[25]. The edit-comment to which I assume you are referring, clearly states that Golden Dawn is not a criminal organization. It does not state that there was not a criminal organization by many (most?) Golden Dawn members. It clearly states that the official wiki of Golden Dawn[26], describes it as a party, not as a criminal organization unlike how you want it described in other wikis. It clearly states that if Golden Dawn was indeed a criminal organization, recruitment/participation/helping them would be illegal. Yet it isn't. Facts disprove the absurd claims by journalists, probably caused by political animosity and ignorance of Greek Law. Journalists are not perfect. If a nobel prize winner claims AIDS isn't real, that doesn't mean we should include it in WP as fact. AkisAr-26 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As seen above, user AkisAr-26 has used 5,000 characters to accuse me of being a liar without bringing up any single piece of evidence to explain his thoughts. It's just more words. Instead, he links to the same diffs just to call me a liar and justify the sugarcoating of a neo-Nazi criminal on Wikipedia. I stand by what I previously said: there is a connection between the user and Greeks for the Fatherland. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I explained in detail the false information you presented as true. Take point 7 for example. You stated that:

"he attempted to present an non-existent performance of the party in polls by improving some statistics with unfactual polls"

Here's my edit[27].

• I removed a poll from 2020.
• I changed the minimum from 1% to 2%, since the remaining sources said:
  • 2%: "αποτύπωση του κόμματος του νεοναζιστή και καταδικασμένου χρυσαυγίτη Ηλία Κασιδιάρη με 2%"
  • 2%: "Ηλίας Κασιδιάρης εμφανίζεται στις τελευταίες δημοσκοπήσεις γύρω στο 2%"
  • 3%: "3% for the Greeks for the Fatherland group of ex-Golden Dawn MP Ilias Kasidiaris"

Where are the unfactual polls? I see none. I did not add any polls. Do you disagree? Also, where's the "non-existent performance"? Doesn't it exist since just now I literally copied and pasted it from the sources? Do you disagree?AkisAr-26 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the user keeps lying and falsely describing my actions. He posted a lets-retract-our-accusations suggestion[28] which at first I liked, until I saw he unjustifiably reverted[29] 2 of my edits in Greek WP:

• he lied about my 2nd edit claiming[30] that I: "removed the mention about ties to extremism without justifying why, when reputable sources state so."
  • I didn't remove them, I moved[31] them in the relevant section.
• he lied about my 1st edit claiming[32] that: "The [..] edit is also inaccurate because Kasidiaris' new party is mentioned clearly as a far-right group."
  • I did not remove the claim[33]. I removed one of the two sources backing the claim since it had no mention of the party whatsoever (I searched for all related terms I could think of; didn't read the full article). Meaning it's irrelevant.

All in all, I did like his offer for retracting our accusations in the Noticeboards and I think the Noticeboard should take it into account as a positive action on his part; it was well written, just like his responses here, showing lots of experience in handling such situations, and I appreciate his effort (along with anyone possibly helping him phrase it so eloquently). However, I have no choice but to decline it since the same behavior continues. AkisAr-26 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user just deleted this whole topic from the Noticeboard[34], stating:

• "Discussed it with the user and resolved it on the talk page. All good :-)"

Which is yet another lie. As I said 4 lines earlier on this topic:

• "However, I have no choice but to decline [the offer at my Talk page] since the same behavior continues." AkisAr-26 (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Guys stop talking! If this thread gets any longer, no one will want to take a look at it and it will forever remain unresolved. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 15:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @JulieMinkai: ah, slight problem with your assessment,

      nikolaos is blocked. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 07:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user seems to be on a mission to Mandaean-ify several historical figures by using mainly non-WP:RS sources which completely disregards WP:UNDUE. He has recently done it in Jabir ibn Hayyan [35], where he uses a non-WP:RS source from a political weekly magazine, and a source which makes a passing mention of this figure being 'Mandean/Sabian', which per the discussion here (Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan#Jabir as a Mandaean: questionable sources) completely goes against WP:UNDUE. Both me and User:Apaugasma have reverted his additions there, yet this user keeps attempting to restore it [36], completely disregarding the previous discussion, even when it comes to the reliability of one of the sources. He uses 'no consensus' as an argument [37], even though it was he who made the addition. At Sabians and Mandaeans, he even attempted to push this alleged Mandean descent of Jabir as a fact, also resorting to edit warring [38] [39]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One minute after this report was filed, the user proceeded to violate WP:3RR at Jabir ibn Hayyan (the diffs are fairly obvious). Edit warring + policy violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I reverted before noting this report and I reverted it to its original edit before [User:HistoryofIran] continued to edit war on at least 3 different articles, wanting to change articles without consensus as shown here [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]

User:HistoryofIran continuously reverts edits even though I provided reliable sources. It reached the point they added incomplete sentences to the Mandaeans article and they did not correct it. They insist on pushing their agenda and refusing to accept that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran even though I provided at least 3 reliable sources that are Islamic.[49] (page 95) [50] (page 47 spelled as Sabaean) [51] (page 233). User:Apaugasma went on to completely overhaul the Sabians article without seeking consensus repeatedly mentioning only one scholar Van Bladel and dismissing all other sources which does not show a NPOV. They also went and changed Al-Battani article again without seeking consensus. I have tried to explain that Mandaeans are the same as the Sabians and lived in Harran, thus they were called Harranian Sabians. They are also known as Nasoaraeans and Gnostics and this is all available on the Mandaeans and Mandaeism article backed by reliable sources which they fail to acknowledge repeating only Van Bladel as their source. User:Apaugasma even mentioned that Mandaeism is a late ancient religion. I informed them that Mandaeism is still alive to no avail. User:HistoryofIran violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article disrupting it. Mcvti (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit of a WP:1AM situation. Mcvti holds some views about Sabians and Mandaeans which are in direct contradiction with reliable sources. Unsurprisingly, other editors take the side of the sources. In such a situation, it's highly tempting to resort to edit warring rather than to further the discussion [52] [53]. Mcvti is not experienced enough to know this, but this of course only make things worse, and turns more editors against them. Hence we end up here. Mcvti, when multiple users revert your edits or object to them in any way, that's a clear sign you should stop editing the article and seek consensus for your edits on the talk page. Please also read the sources, and directly base your arguments on what they are saying. If you can't get consensus, drop the stick.

That said, I have to agree with HistoryofIran that beyond the 1AM and the edit warring, this is also a case of tendentious editing. Mcvti's views are not just in contradiction with reliable sources, they tend in a very definite direction. The Mandaeans were the real Sabians of Harran. [54] Great Harranian mathematicians such as Thabit ibn Qurra and al-Battani were Mandaeans, naturally. [55] [56] Thabit did not speak Syriac, he spoke Mandaic. [57] Now since Thabit was really a Mandaean, like the Mandaeans he must have been Mesopotamian, not Syrian (Harran being located in northern Syria is just a bad accident, ignore that). [58] And since Sabians are really Mandaeans, they are of course not Hellenized! [59] Bad Greeks! Is that enough? No wait, let's not forget the great chemist Jabir ibn Hayyan: since he was great, obviously he was also Mandaean. [60] If you believe what Kevin van Bladel says, you don't have NPOV. No really, Van Bladel himself has been refuted. [61]

It's a kind of WP:PROFRINGE really. It's exhausting. Mustering up all the good faith I can, I'd say they are taking Wikipedia and other internet stuff as reliable sources and neglecting to properly consult the relevant academic literature. I strongly recommend that if any more problems turn up with regard to Mcvti and Mandaeans, a topic ban should be put in place. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy directly from Brikha Nasoraia's article who is affiliated with the University of Sydney and Mardin Artuklu University [62]: "For example Ibrahim, (Abu Ishaq al-sabi) (309 A.H.) and his relative Thabit Ibn Qurrah (365 A.H. or 369 A.H.), and their families, were both prominent Sabian Mandaean scholars in Baghdad. We know they were Mandaean based on an observation of their genealogy and also the nature of their works." He also states "Therefore, not all Sabian Harranians are pagans and idolaters. In fact, many of them were Sabian Mandaeans who remained in Harran and neighbouring areas when the majority of the Sabian Mandaean community migrated towards the middle and south of Mesopotamia in the first and second century Common Era."

I have also copied from Lady Drower's book The Secret Adam [63]:

"That such brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah and his school, who were responsible for many translations into Arabic from the Greek, were acquainted with Stoic, Hermetic, and Platonic literature is of course probable; nevertheless they may have been no pseudo-Sabians but genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans, who practised baptism and were faithful to the religion into which they had been born." ...."Let us consider the names of some Harranian Sabians who became famous under the Abbasids as scholars, physicians, and so on. We find the name Abu’l-Fath-al-Mandái (i.e. ‘the Mandaean’), and Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-ibn-Habbun-al-Harrani, whose son was another Zahrun, and Hilal-ibn-Ibrahim-ibn-Zahrun-abu’l-Husain-al-Sabi-al-Harrini. To this very day ‘Zahrun’ is the name most favoured by Mandaeans."

This is not my original research. Thabit ibn Qurra's full name is Al-Sabi Thabit ibn Qurra Al-Harrani meaning he is a Harranian Sabian and yet also a Mandaean or to be as accurate as possible 'may' be a Mandaean. Drower is the most prominent scholar on the Mandaeans, how is this fringe?? Clearly Drower is considering scholars with names including al-Harrani al-Sabi meaning Harranian Sabians as Mandaean. Sinasi Gunduz did a thorough study on the Sabians and concluded that the Mandaeans and the Sabians are one in the same[64]. How is this fringe?? Askari in his article in the Executive Intelligence Review [65] stated that Thabit ibn Qurra, Al-Battani and Jabir ibn Hayyan were Mandaean or Sabian Mandaean, but the source was rejected along with Brikha Nasoraia's article. I also provided Polyhedra by Peter R. Cromwell and Greatest Scienctists of the World by Vikas Khatri both mention Thabit ibn Qurra as a Mandaean again dismissed by User:Apaugasma. They appear to favour Van Bladel only. I have tried to explain that the Mandaeans are also known as Sabians, Nasoraeans and Gnostics and this is found in this source [66] on page ix but I am continuously ignored. User:Apaugasma wrote on the Talk page on Sabians "When in my edit summary here I wrote that Drower 1960, p. 111 is merely speculating that some Harranian Sabians may have been Nasoraeans (not Mandaeans!), the last bit "(not Mandaeans!)" is wrong and an artefact of my ignorance on this subject." They admit that the subject matter is not their area of expertise and previously called Mandaeism the late ancient religion thinking it no longer exists and accuses me of promoting fringe theories and contradicting reliable sources and Tendentious editing. Frankly I believe I am being falsely accused and a case of tendentious editing on their behalf due to the topic not being their area of expertise. Van Bladel here believes Mandaeans originated no earlier than the 5th Century in Sasanid Mesopotamia. This goes against what renowned scholars such as JJ Buckley [67] believe, that Mandaeans originated 2000 years ago in the Palestine region. Buckley also states on page 4 of her book [68] that Mandaean lead amulets have been dated to as early as the 3rd Century. Scholars specializing in Mandaeism such as Kurt Rudolph, Mark Lidzbarski, Rudolf Macúch, Ethel S. Drower, Eric Segelberg, James F. McGrath, Charles G. Häberl, Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, and Şinasi Gündüz all argue for a Palestinian origin. Richard August Reitzenstein, Rudolf Bultmann, G. R. S. Mead, Andrew Phillip Smith, Samuel Zinner, Richard Thomas, J. C. Reeves, G. Quispel and K. Beyer also argue for a Judea/Palestine or Jordan Valley origin for the Mandaeans. Van Bladel is in the minority when it comes to Mandaean origin and dating however User:Apaugasma dismisses all these prominent scholars and chooses to follow only Van Bladel accusing me of not having a NPOV. Van Bladel has been reviewed here on his latest book regarding the Sabians (Mandaeans). I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans for [User:HistoryofIran] who continuously reverted the article and disrupted it and [User:Apaugasma] admitting they are ignorant on the subject and using predominantly Van Bladel as a source while ignoring others and feels the need to ask for a topic ban be placed on me. Here is a quote from [User:Apaugasma] on the Sabian talk page "Regarding "The Mandaeans formally call themselves Nasoraeans and are one in the same": Whatever your source may be for this wild claim, at least scholars like Drower 1960, p. 111 do not in any way take the Mandaeans and the Nasoraeans as "one and the same"." However Drower states "I chose none of these names when writing of them in this book for, though this may appear paradoxical, those amongst the community who possess secret knowledge are called Nasuraii (or, if the heavy ‘s’ is written as ‘z’, Nazorenes). At the same time the ignorant or semi-ignorant laity are called ‘Mandaeans’, Mandaiia-‘gnostics’. When a man becomes a priest he leaves ‘Mandaeanism’ and enters tarmiduta, ‘priesthood‘. Even then he has not attained to true enlightenment, for this, called ‘Nasirutha’, is reserved for a very few. Those possessed of its secrets may call themselves Nasoraeans, and ‘Nasoraean’ today indicates not only one who observes strictly all rules of ritual purity, but one who understands the secret doctrine." Surely this proves that [User:Apaugasma] is not well informed on the topic. Mcvti (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are demonstrating your tendentious attitude right here. Apparently, Drower 1960's brilliant scholars as the Sabian Thabit-ibn-Qurrah [...] may have been [...] genuine members of that sect, Nasoraeans [=Mandaeans] (my bolding) is enough for you to change the article's previous text The Harranian Sabians played a vital role in Baghdad and in the rest of the Arab world [...] The most prominent of the Harranian Sabians was Thābit ibn Qurra to The Sabian-Mandaeans played a vital role in Baghdad and in the rest of the Arab world [...] The most prominent of the Sabian-Mandaeans was Thābit ibn Qurra (my bolding), outright removing two RSs in the process (Van Bladel and Roberts). [69] That's classic tendentious editing.

Yes, I may have dismissed the Mandaean priest Brikha Nasoraia too soon, who along with Drower 1960 does constitute a valid minority opinion (about Thabit being possibly Mandaean). That was a mistake, about which I'm perfectly willing to communicate. Can you admit that you have been dismissing Van Bladel for the wrong reasons, i.e. that his novel 2017 thesis (published by Brill, no less) on the dating of the Mandaean's origin contradicts previous scholars' views and has been critically received in some quarters? How does such a perfectly normal occurrence of scholarly disagreement justify dismissing anything Van Bladel says on anything related to the Sabians more generally, even the most basic stuff such as the distinction between Harranian Sabians and Mandaean Sabians, or the fact that the Quranic Sabians have been identified with a large variety of religious groups by scholars?

You do not only dismiss Van Bladel, but also other RS I've used, such as De Blois writing in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, [70] [71] who all confirm that the view that the Quranic Sabians were the Mandaeans is just one among many existing scholarly views. You seem simply not willing to admit that Executive Intelligence Review is not a RS for this topic. You reverted my 7 edits but have only explained your objection to one sentence on the talk page.

This is not just a regular content dispute: it's you pushing your personal views while failing to respect both sources and policy. I take back what I said above about you basing your views on internet stuff: you do know the academic literature, but you are rejecting RS when they contradict your views and pushing non-RS when they affirm you views. It's not a lack of knowledge, it's intentional POV pushing. If you can't understand and admit that this is what you have been doing, you should not be allowed to edit on this topic any further. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cut up text in green you just added is difficult to follow and appears simply a means to smear me with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I have not dismissed Van Bladel or any reliable source. In fact, I clearly stated on the Jabir ibn Hayyan Talk page that Van Bladel should be included in the article along with the other sources. It is you who dismissed the sources showing that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Sabian from Harran and also Brikha Nasoraia as a source. What I was trying to convey to you is that there are other scholars you should look at. Van Bladel is criticized by scholars on his views regarding Sabian-Mandaeans and his views on the origins and dating of Mandaeans goes against what the majority of what scholars believe. However, even Van Bladel in his book 'From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes' concludes that the Quranic Sabians are the Mandaeans. The point is to try and show you that the Haranian Sabians were not only pagans or hermeticists, but also included Sabian Mandaeans as Brikha Nasoraia explained in his article which you now accept as a source. I do accept the sources that state Jabir ibn Hayyan was not a Sabian from Harran, but I also accept the sources that say he is a Harranian Sabian and wanted both viewpoints included in the article. However you and [HistoryofIran] reject this outright showing that you both do not have a NPOV and pushing your own agenda. You admitted previously that you are not familiar with the topic and reject reliable sources and yet you have come here asking that I be banned from the topic. You made sarcastic comments about my edits in your first reply here along with [HistoryofIran]'s confrontational tone showing you are both not following Wikipedia:Civility. [HistoryofIran] violated WP:3RR in the Mandaeans article without seeking consensus.[72][73][74] I am seeing a problem here in other editors violating WP:3RR and not being called out for it. I was trying to revert back to the article's original version before the edit warring began. [HistoryofIran] left the article with incomplete sentence structure and did not correct it. After I reverted and informed them in the summary, they simply reverted again and left the error deliberately which is tantamount to vandalism. This is why I reverted the other articles trying to return them to their original version before the edit warring began by [HistoryofIran] and yet they have come here to file this report. Due to these reasons, I would like to recommend that [User:Apaugasma] and [User:HistoryofIran] have a topic ban put in place on the subject of Sabians and Mandaeans. Mcvti (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcvti: re the cut up text in green, let me make that clearer: here you removed two sources (Van Bladel and Roberts) saying they were Harranian Sabians, added two sources (Nasorai and Drower) one of which (Drower) says they may also have been Mandeaen Sabians rather than Harranian Sabians, and on the basis of that simply replaced "Harranian Sabians" with "Sabian-Mandaeans". Only Nasoraia supports the text as you rendered it, but presumably even he would admit that most other scholars think they were Harranian Sabians (the fact that he does not mention this, even not in a footnote, very much speaks against him as a scholar). You simply erased the majority POV from the article, saying in the edit summary you "corrected" it. This is what we call tendentious editing, and it's not acceptable. Do you understand and recognize now that you did something wrong there? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin with some knowledge of the subject matter, there is a problem here. As Apaugasma points out, "Executive Intelligence Review" is in no way, shape or form a reliable source (it's affiliated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement); including it suggests that Mcvti is not really engaging with what "reliable source" means in Wikipedia terms. The discussion at Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan also suggests considerable synthetic leaps based on outdated sources to insist that that individual must be a Mandaean. I appreciate his work in raising the profile of the Mandaean community, a worthy endeavor, but trying to "claim" as many historical figures as possible for that community without nuance and careful examination of diverse sources is not very productive; that energy might be better directed to writing about Mandaean culture in general. I hope we can avoid a topic ban here; people who can make useful contributions about the Mandaeans are rare. Choess (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your decision that Executive Intelligence Review is not a reliable source, and if you see that the other sources claiming he was a Sabian from Harran are also rejected, I will accept that as well. However, if the other sources claiming he was a Sabian from Harran are reliable, can it be included in the article as an alternative viewpoint? I do not want to push that he was a Mandaean, but if the source only mentions Sabian from Harran, then I am content with that. I have removed the Executive Intelligence Review source and removed Jabir ibn Hayyan and Al-Battani as potential Mandaeans. However, since Brikha Nasoraia's article is a reliable source, I have kept Thabit ibn Qurra as a Sabian-Mandaean.Mcvti (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you finally removed the info I had tried to remove several times across multiple articles - the very edits in which you have in this section called "disruptive" and as part of my "agenda" and "lack of neutrality", and which I (and also Apaugasma) should be topic banned for. Pretty ironic. I find it really problematic that it took three users to tell you that a source was unreliable + a whole report for you to finally remove it. I do not believe this user has suddenly changed, and is only doing this to avoid the consequences. If they are not able to properly cooperate and discuss with Apaugasma at Talk:Sabians#24 May 2022 updates and changes, then I support this topic ban. Rather have no users to edit in the Mandaean articles than users who engage in tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You left the Mandaeans article grammatically incorrect and after I informed you about it, you simply reverted and put it back with out correcting it. Your tone on the Talk pages is confrontational. You considered all the sources to be not reliable, not just Executive Intelligence Review. Even Apaugasma admitted the other source I provided was reliable, but it names Jabir as a Sabian and does not specify Mandaean which is why I have removed it. Apaugasma has also admitted to mistakenly dismissing Brikha Nasoraia's article as a reliable source. I will wait for the decision for the other sources I provided about Jabir being a Sabian from Harran.[75] (page 95) [76] (page 47 spelled as Sabaean) [77] (page 233). I have not seen anyone consider them also to be not reliable here. I have asked Apaugasma on the Sabians Talk page to wait for the decision here, and I would be glad to take a look at the Sabians article with them. Mcvti (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcvti: you misunderstand the nature of this noticeboard. We don't decide on content here; the subject here is solely conduct. The best way to show that you can work with other editors is simply to do it. I have already explained to you on Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan why these sources (two of which I provided as an example of bad sources) are not reliable in context, and HistoryofIran agreed. The way forward is to either engage with that argument on the article talk, or to drop it. Please also engage at Talk:Sabians. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but I am hesitant to go into the Sabians article only to be topic blocked in the middle of any changes. You and [HistoryofIran] have requested a topic block against me and I would like a decision on that before I dive into it since Mandaeans and Sabians articles are interconnected. I would like to be able to come to a proper consensus in the article and not be blocked midway. I hope you can understand this. I would be glad to look at it with you when a decision on topic blocking is reached, that is ofcourse if I am not blocked. Mcvti (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that it's stressful and that you would like a decision. But you need to understand that the decision itself will depend on your conduct from this point on. As Choess mentioned, we would like to avoid a topic ban since we are in need of editors knowledgeable about Mandaeism. Topic bans are not given out lightly in any case. But whether it eventually happens will depend on your ability to take the criticism aboard and to move forward. I explained why some of your editing is tendentious above, so it would be great if you would reflect a bit upon that. But the most important thing is to move forward: let's show ourselves that we can cooperate, and that topic bans are not needed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you accept Brikha Nasoraia and Drower as reliable sources, I hope we are agreed that Harranian Sabians included Mandaeans. My mistake was depending on Askari as a source to differentiate that Jabir and Al-Battani were Mandaean rather than Hermeticists or pagan in Haran, but after Choess pointed out the Lyndon LaRouche movement (which I am not familiar with) I realized my mistake about the source's reliability and corrected it. I hope you can see that I am not pushing they are Mandaean, but relied on a bad source. The Mandaeans did not only live in the marshes of Mesopotamia as Van Bladel put in the title of his book, but were found in Baghdad, Harran, Edessa and were scientists and intellectuals like Thabit ibn Qurra and others during the Abbasid Caliphate. Chwolson also thought that the Harranian Sabians were made up only of pagans and not the Mandaeans who he describes as the real Sabians of the Quran in the marshes of Mesopotamia. Drower mentions this in her book The Secret Adam. Mcvti (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, content should be discussed at Talk:Sabians, not here. But it is truly worrying that after the long quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam I gave you there, you still present Nasoraia's legitimate but minority POV that some Harranian Sabians (notably intellectuals working at the Abbasid court such as Thabit ibn Qurra) were Mandaeans as a fact that we as editors should agree upon, while it is directly contradicted by a multitude of top scholars (de Blois, Van Bladel, Roberts, Hämeen-Anttila; even Drower only presents it as a possibility).

It's as if any POV given by reliable sources that contradicts your preferred view just doesn't register with you. That's why I said earlier that this not merely a content dispute: it's you being tendentious and failing to grasp and apply WP:NPOV. It's deeply problematic to single out the view of one scholar (Nasoraia) whose disinterestedness as a high-ranking Mandaean priest and functionary is questionable and who publishes only through minor publishing houses, and at the same time completely ignore the contradicting views of top scholars publishing with Oxford University Press, Brill, Encyclopaedia of Islam, etc.

All the while, you're not engaging at Talk:Sabians. How long do you expect other editors to keep dealing with this? You still haven't given a proper rationale for reverting these 7 constructive edits, now 2 days ago. Your attitude must change, and it must change now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you paid attention to what I wrote above, Brikha Nasoraia believes Thabit Ibn Qurrah is Mandaean due to genealogy and Thabit's work. Brikha Nasoraia appears to be the only scholar to study Thabit's genealogy, which is paramount in determining if Thabit was Mandaean. You clearly do not have a grasp of the subject matter and from your edits on Sabians cannot properly differentiate between Manichaeans, Sabaeans and Mandaeans with respect to Sabians. You ask me to look at the Sabians article and at the same time ask for a ban. What great logic. So we have evolved from Jabir ibn Hayyan, to a topic ban on Mandaeans, to now, a topic ban on Sabians. I am guessing in your next edit, you will ask for a ban on something else too! As I have mentioned above, the Mandaeans and Sabians articles are interconnected and the main articles I edit. Being banned from either will affect my contributions to Wikipedia. Mcvti (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between admitting that you're wrong, which I did a few times in this case, and having no grasp of the subject matter. It's the heart of the problem here really, that you appear to be incapable of understanding that you're wrong when confronted with reliable sources. I quoted Van Bladel for you saying Modern scholars have identified the Qurānic Ṣābians as the Mandaeans, the ḥunafā' understood as Gnostics, Christian Sabaeans (Saba', the people of Sheba) of South Arabia, the Manichaeans, Elchasaites, the Gnostics understood as the Archontics or Stratiotics (a Judeo-Christian sect mentioned by Epiphanius in the fourth century), the ḥunafā' understood as “sectarians,” and even just as the Ḥarrānian pagans. Citing the scholars who have made each identification, Van Bladel effectively does the NPOV work for us. Yet you present this as not knowing how to properly differentiate between these religious groups? Such disparaging is anti-Wikipedia at its core. It does in fact raise serious questions as to your ability to understand and apply policy elsewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly trying to WP:GAME to getting your way. If my contributions to Wikipedia are not wanted, then I am fine with that. Mcvti (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apaugasma and User:HistoryofIran push their agenda that Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Shia Muslim during the Abbasid Caliphate and consider reliable sources (excluding Executive Intelligence Review) suggesting he was a Sabian from Harran to be WP:UNDUE. However, when it comes to Thabit ibn Qurra and Sabians, they consider sources stating Thabit was a Mandaean and that Sabians are Mandaeans to be WP:TENDENTIOUS and add weight to sources claiming other religions such as religions User:Apaugasma recently added to Sabians that are not even monotheistic and cannot be the Sabians of the Quran. Adding the fact that Apaugasma wants to ban me from the Sabians article, there are clear signs of WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS here. Mcvti (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, Mcvti has engaged in tendentious editing, has edit warred at multiple pages about it, is not engaging at talk pages even now two days later, and refuses to WP:LISTEN to constructive criticism about their behavior. It has been mentioned above that they have worked a lot on Mandaean-related articles, which means that banning them from editing on that topic would potentially constitute a loss for the project. I therefore propose a more limited

topic ban on the identity of the 'Sabians', narrowly construed as the meaning of that term and which religious group(s) it designates, and excluding any other aspects of subjects called 'Sabian' apart from their status as such.

This way, they can continue editing articles like Mandaeans or Mandaeism without getting sucked into the controversial questions surrounding the identity of the Sabians. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging some editors & admins who I know have worked on this type of topic or may have relevant background knowledge: Cerebellum, Doug Weller, Al Ameer son, Choess, Nebulousquasar, Editor2020, and AhmadLX. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Mctvi is not absorbing the input of other editors, acknowledging their problematic behaviours in this limited topic area or engaging in a collaborative or collegiate manner to resolve differences of opinion on this content. Added to this is clear edit warring, including at least one instance of a WP:3RR violation — for which there has similarly been no acknowledgement or expression of regret. Here, the user either doesn't understand the rules or refuses to abide by them (WP:CIR), and is therefore a potential liability in subject-matter areas that conjure up strong opinions of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per Apaugasma and my comments up above. EDIT: Per the discussion below I support a indefinite block of the user instead. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I don't want to get sucked into controversies regarding ethnicity and identity in the Middle East, which is always a very hot topic that can easily fuel tempers. But I will say this: I hope that at least Mcvti can voice his opinions on talk pages even if there's overwhelming community support for a narrow topic ban, and even if editors might not always agree with those opinions. I would also very strongly encourage Mcvti to continue contributing to articles relating to the religious, philosophical, and mystical aspects of Mandaeism. Apart from HarJIT, Mcvti, and me, there are almost no contributors writing about Mandaeism (the religion), so I would agree that a wider topic ban would "constitute a loss for the project." Nebulousquasar (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Apaugasma. I understand Mcvti's frustration, but Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the discussion below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I heavily updated the Sabians article (history) with a load of reliable sources, a nice image I cropped from a 13th-century manuscript of the Quran showing the word Ṣābiʾūn ("Sabians"; I couldn't resist adding it here too –not enough pictures here), and some elements from the previous discussion on the talk.

Now Mcvti has thought it appropriate to again revert these constructive edits, citing "No WP:CONSENSUS to remove sourced material". Noting that Mcvti hasn't participated in the talk page discussion since 24 May, HistoryofIran reverted, leading Mcvti to revert once more and to add a section to the talk called Sabian facts. In it they basically argue that whatever a ton of reliable sources say, their own reasoning about the subject must mean that they are right, and the great majority of the sources wrong.

I feel that at this point Mcvti's stonewalling is really becoming a drain. Combined with the aspersions that have been building up (You clearly do not have a grasp of the subject matter,[78] You are clearly trying to WP:GAME to getting your way,[79] User:Apaugasma and User:HistoryofIran push their agenda,[80] there are clear signs of WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS here, [81] you need to look up what that means before giving me a lecture [82]), it's just getting too much. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apaugama is relentless in building up false accusations against me. They now accuse me of original research, stonewalling and not having a neutral point of view. Apaugama continuously cites Van Bladel questioning that the Sabians are the Mandaeans when in fact the scholar confirms they are the Sabians of the Quran in his most recent book. No matter how many scholars I cite that the Sabians are the Mandaeans, Apaugama is not satisfied and wants to ban me from the Sabians article which is interconnected and vital to the Mandaean project. Apaugama removed images of a modern Sabian place of worship in Iraq and replaced it with images of the Quran which is not helpful since the Sabians are not Muslim. There are no images of the Quran with the words Jewish or Christian in their main respective articles on Wikipedia, so why only Sabians? It is clear that Apaugama is taking advantage of my mistake in using a bad source (which I corrected) in the Jabir ibn Hayyan article in order to remove me from editing the Sabians article to advance their agenda and modify the article so that Mandaeans become one of several religions including polytheistic ones that are Sabians, thereby muddying the waters on the Sabians identity against what scholars that specialize in the field of Sabians and Mandaeans have concluded, which would be detrimental to the Mandaean project and community. I am the only editor that is part of the Mandaean project who contributes to the Sabians article and a ban would affect the Mandaean project as a whole. In their more recent edit on the Sabians, Apaugama placed the pagan Harranian Sabians above the Mandaeans in order to give them greater weight and scholars agree that the pagans who dubbed themselves Sabians are not the true Sabians mentioned in the Quran as People of the Book. Apaugama also removed an important quote from Charles Häberl, a well known linguist and scholar who specializes in Mandaeism, explaining the etymology of the term Sabian from the Aramaic root Sabi meaning to baptize which gives greater weight to the identity of the Sabians being Mandaean. Apaugama also removed sourced material from Brikhah Nasoraia, a Mandaean priest and scholar, as well as Lady Drower, a primary specialist on the Mandaeans. There is clearly an agenda here against the Mandaeans with tendentious editing and WP:Game. I urge you to put a stop to this and ban Apaugama from editing Mandaean related articles including Sabians. Mcvti (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sabians are a mysterious religious group mentioned in the Quran whom scholars have identified with many different sects. To establish this, I have quoted at length from two reliable sources on Talk:Sabians, and cited many more (not only Van Bladel, as Mcvti tendentiously keeps repeating). It is true that the fact that Mandaeans are only one of several religions –including polytheistic ones– that scholars identify as Sabian presents a difficult reality for the Mandaean community, because the vital relations with their Muslim neighbors have historically depended on their identification as the only 'true' Sabians. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and we must reflect what reliable sources are saying, not what is in the best interest of a religious community.

I would be very much willing to explain on talk why I gave more weight in the article to the Sabians of Harran (briefly, they are more prominently covered in the sources) or why I removed the Häberl quote from the etymology section (briefly, Häberl is just mentioning one hypothesis, and the quote misrepresents the source), but Mcvti utterly refuses to work with me or others on talk pages.

It was of course only a matter of time until Mcvti would start calling me tendentious, but frankly, I believe that a quick read of the lead in Mcvti's revision and my last revision should establish rather clearly which one of the two is tendentious. If nothing else, I would like to ask other editors to join in on this on the talk page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty rich that Mcvti keeps claiming that Apaugasma (and me for that matter) throw accusations towards him, when he has in this report alone accused us of WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, "having an agenda" etc with nothing to back it up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How surprising, the editor who disrupted the Mandaeans article with their reverts coming to support their friend. Mcvti (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Mandaeans article doesn't lie! Mcvti (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asking to censor the Sabians article. The intro of the Sabians article shows it is about the religious group that were mentioned in the Quran as People of the Book. The views of scholars who specialize in the Sabians of the marshes of Iraq and Iran (what scholars also refer to Mandaeans) should be addressed in the article. Giving more weight to the pagan Harranians who falsely dubbed themselves Sabians in order to be accepted as a recognized religion (according to what scholars believe) is evidence of WP:TENDENTIOUS.Mcvti (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Van Bladel 2017 for you, whom you've claimed above and on Talk:Sabians to confirm that the Quranic Sabians were Mandaeans, and whom you've added as such to the article: (p. 5, my bolding)

Within a short time after Muḥammad’s death, however, the identity of the Ṣābiʾūn intended in the Qurʾān was obscured or forgotten, opening the way for several different groups to claim the name in self-legitimation under Muslim authorities, and for Muslim scholars of later centuries to speculate about them. That the Mandaeans came to be regarded as Ṣābians does show that there must have been local contacts between Mandaeans and their Muslim neighbors. Otherwise the term would never have been applied to them. This is just one example of how the rule of Muslims, which was explained in Islamic terms, increasingly fitted the world to its own expressions, in this particular case a qurʾānic word that was available for adoption.

Here's what he says about the 'Sabians of the Marshes': (p. 71, my bolding)

Some scholars still persist in thinking that the Muġtasila mentioned by Ibn an-Nadīm are Mandaeans, another baptizing group, but this is not correct. This is clarified by the subsequent passage in the Fihrist, which states that yet another group was known as the Ṣābians of the Marshes: a pagan people “who follow the doctrines of the ancient Aramaeans” (ʿalā maḏāhib an-Nabaṭ al-qadīm) and venerate the stars, and who are “the common people of the Ṣābians called the Ḥarrānians.” This clearly means Babylonian pagans of some sort, of the kind represented also by the Ḥarrānian pagans of Syria. These people worshipped Mesopotamian gods that had been astralized already in ancient times. In other words, Ibn an-Nadīm reports two groups as the Ṣābians of the Marshes, one apparently Elchasaite and one just idolatrous Aramaeans, but neither one of them is Mandaean.

You can call us tendentious all you want, the difference is that we can show your claims to be rejecting, contradicting, and misrepresenting reliable sources. Especially given this blatant misrepresentation and the continued refusal to drop the stick, I'm starting to think that an indefinite block would be a more appropriate measure here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why not share what this chapter states in the book:

The Syriac sources reviewed so far shed light on the origins of the Mandaeans. The earliest source to describe their social life, however, is an Arabic work of al-Ḥasan ibn Bahlūl (fl. circa 950–1000), another learned member of the Church of the East. His work is also the earliest to identify the Mandaeans unambiguously as Ṣābians, marking their transition to a status legitimate under Muslim rule. [...] One of the chapters of his Kitāb ad-Dalāʾil presents an extraordinary, detailed, and detached (if not sympathetic) description of sectarian villagers, deriving from the first half of the tenth century, cited from an author whom Ibn Bahlūl names as “Abū ʿAlī.” The people described in this excerpt are not called Mandaeans, but rather Ṣābians but it will be clear that they were antecedents of the modern Mandaeans. This is, I believe, the single most informative text about Mandaean life and custom written by a non-Mandaean before modern times, and is all the more important in that it derives from circa 900. It has never been discussed before in scholarship on the Mandaeans. I begin with a translation. [...]

Abū ʿAlī—may God have mercy on him—said: They are the ones by whose epithet the Ḥarrānians are called. They are the ones mentioned in the Qurʾān. Their status as ḏimmīs is sound. There is no relationship between them and the Ḥarrānian pagans (ḥunafāʾ), nor is there any point of comparison in any aspect of their religious laws (aššarāʾiʿ). Rather they are distinct from them in every way. A few of them came into my presence in the City of Peace [Baġdād] in the days of my employment as secretary (kitbatī) for Sāra, the daughter of al-Muʿtaḍid billāh [the caliph, r. 892–902]—may God have mercy on him—and my employment as secretary for her mother and for her sister Ṣafīya. I had requested for Sāra’s mother as an administrative land grant (istaqṭaʿtu) [the site of] Bayādir, known as “the Jewish” (al-Yahūdī), in al-Ǧāmida, and ad-Dūl in aṣ-Ṣalīq, all of whose inhabitants are Ṣābians (Ṣābiʾūn). So I investigated their situation and queried them about it thoroughly. I found that they profess the religion of Seth (Šīṯ) son of Adam, peace be upon him. They say that he is their prophet. They acknowledge John son of Zachariah [Yaḥyā ibn Zakarīyāʾ, i.e. John the Baptist].

The above quote is from Van Bladel's book chapter 5, pages 47-48

You can call me tendentious all you want, the difference is that I can show your claims to be rejecting, contradicting, and misrepresenting reliable sources. Especially given this blatant misrepresentation, I'm starting to think that an indefinite block would be a more appropriate measure here for you. Mcvti (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Van Bladel shows here is that the Mandaeans were unambiguously identified as the Sabians for the first time in a source dating from c. 900, almost 300 years after the Quran. How on earth do you take this to mean that he believes that the Sabians mentioned in the Quran c. 630 were Mandaeans? It's exactly the opposite: he is arguing that what we know today as Mandaeans only appear in Islamic literature in c. 900, and that they had adopted the Quranic epithet 'Sabian' by this time, after the fashion of the Harranians before them. By bolding the c. 900 author as if either we or Van Bladel would take his views on face value, you are further misrepresenting the source. I'm sorry to say so, but beyond tendentious, this is downright incompetent, and competence really is required. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know when to quit do you, who are you trying to fool?? WP:BULLY WP:HARASS WP:GAME So now you are misinterpreting a source to show you did not misrepresent it. So what's next, Gündüz, Brikha Nasoraia, Drower, Chwolson, also don't believe the Mandaeans are the Sabians of the Quran, right? Perhaps you can post excerpts from their books and interpret it to show the pagan Harranians were the Sabians of the Quran instead. Maybe this might help, copied from James F. McGrath's official YouTube page

soulziwa

2 years ago Very Great Dr. McGrath, did you find if the mandaeans are same as Sabians of the marshes or of the Qur'an's Sabians as yet ?

5

James McGrath 2 years ago I believe they are. There is a helpful study by [G]unduz that makes the case in detail, and even van Bladel's recent book seems to confirm it.

James McGrath 2 years ago

There certainly have been debates throughout Islamic history about the identity of the Qur'an's Sabians, but the Mandaeans, referred to in Islamic literature as the Sabians of the marshes, are the best candidate, and a number of scholars have made a convincing case. It isn't certain, as with so many matters of history. But it is likely.

So let me guess, you will interpret this as meaning Dr. McGrath means the Harranians are the Sabians of the Quran, right? Does Dr. McGrath also not understand Van Bladel's book??Mcvti (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Youtube videos now..? We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here huh? I agree with Apaugasma, I too support a indefinite block at this rate. The fact that Mcvti, who was probably on the verge of getting topic-banned, still can't grasp what he has done wrong, is frankly baffling. Consider it baffling 2x when he keeps blaming me and Apaugasma for being the disruptive ones. This has dragged on long enough, can an admin please step in? --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you incompetent like your friend?? Can you read the text or do you see a video? What is baffling is you think people are believing the BS you and your friend are saying. I think it should drag on some more so I can expose more of your desperate lies. Mcvti (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apaugasma and User:HistoryofIran are not being disruptive, However Youtube cannot be used as an reliable source, Youtube is generally Unreliable per WP:RSP. Chip3004 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider an official review from Dr. McGrath for Van Bladel's book also unreliable? (James F. McGrath Reviews From Sasanian Mandaeans to Sabians (van Bladel)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvti (talk • contribs) 22:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That review does not in any way support what you were trying to show above using the Youtube comment. This appears to be pure innuendo. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I would personally strongly agree with Mcvti's argument that the Sabians can indeed by connected to the Mandaeans and that this can be backed up by WP:RS, I do realize that there are other more skeptical points of view that I may not necessarily agree with, per WP:NPOV and that Wikipedia needs to present different viewpoints. Is there a way for everyone to somehow incorporate and synthethize all of their different viewpoints into the relevant articles? Nebulousquasar (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today User talk:HistoryofIran engaged in disruptive editing on the Mandaeans article reverting sourced material at least 3 times [83], [84], [85]. This is the second time this individual has disrupted the Mandaeans article. Can you please put a stop to this. Mcvti (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do yourself a favour and cross this comment. [86] is not even a revert (heck, my edit summary literally says 'null edit'). As for me 'disrupting' the article, I think it has already been disclosed long ago who is truly the disruptive one here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first two diffs show HistoryofIran reverting genuinely tendentious edits by Mcvti (specifically, WP:REFREMOVAL, removing the POV that Thabit ibn Qurra was pagan and pushing the POV that he was Mandaean), and the third diff is not a revert.

With the Sabians article still in limbo because Mcvti refuses to engage properly on Talk:Sabians, the tendentious editing has moved to Mandaeans. Apart from the diffs from that page above, Mcvti has been adding a whole bunch of scholars supporting the Palestinian origin theory.[87] However, the only reference that has a page number actually doesn't support that theory (which, seemingly not by coincident, aligns best with the Mandaeans own religious views about themselves). Asking for page numbers at the talk page (here) appears to be met with a WP:FINDSOURCESFORME attitude.

The problems with Mcvti and Mandaeism appear to run deeper. Frankly, comparing the revision of Mandeans before Mcvti first edited it with the revision as I found it before I first edited the article, I do not see much improvement, but I do see the addition of a lot of unencyclopedic and often tendentious rambling. I'm starting to believe that a fuller topic ban on Mandaeism, broadly construed, would perhaps be a better idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the section above, Mcvti writes I think it should drag on some more so I can expose more of your desperate lies. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I know this report is hard to follow, dealing as it does with a rather obscure subject and being quite bludgeoned to death (I'm sorry for that), but can an admin please close this? It would be much appreciated, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing so the thread doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't particularly want to set a new record for most posts to a single ANI thread, but it's been more than a week now, and the disruption just continues unabated.

Mcvti just wholesale reverted a bunch of constructive edits on Mandaeism and Mandaeans, in the first simply stating "due to tendentious editing" and in the second with a vague rationale of "scholars already mentioned in scholarship section" (most of the info in my update of the 'Origin' section was not present in the old revision reverted to, and neither were the large amount of sources I added to the article; the revision restored is effectively the last one before I first edited the article). This came after I started two talk page discussions yesterday, [88] [89] one of which has been abandoned and the other wholly unanswered.

Meanwhile, they are happily editing the Sabians article, even reverting some of their own edits that contained apparent nods to the talk page discussion (they reverted this restoration towards NPOV and this restoration of sources I previously added), while further not posting to that same talk page. Note also the edsum for the revert "since to be considered People of the Book religion must have a holy book and prophet", a nod this time to their own OR reasoning which they appear to think trumps sources (cf. [90]).

Are they trying to make a WP:POINT, or is this some kind of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, I'm not entirely sure. But the fact is that the way Mcvti is editing these articles while ignoring talk page discussion is just not acceptable. Like I stated above, I feel that a wider topic ban on Mandaeism, broadly construed, is needed at a minimum, but I feel hesitant to again be the one to formally propose it. I'm kind of exhausted. Please, we need input from other editors here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Mcvti for disruptive editing, with POV pushing being another factor. They have consistently wasted the time of productive neutral editors. Indefinite does not mean infinite. Several editors have commented that Mcvti has expertise that may be useful for the encyclopedia. A successful unblock request should include acceptance of editing restrictions that will minimize the chance of further disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Honestly, I think an indefinite block constitutes a big loss for the project. Mcvti has made many useful contributions to articles on Mandaeism, particularly many of the more obscure topics. Mcvti was practically the only user fixing my new articles on Mandaean religious texts and rituals. We need every single interested contributor, since this is an area that gets almost no editors due to its relative obscurity. I think blocking for a few days, one week, or a few weeks would be more appropriate if the community feels like blocking is needed to prevent further tensions, but an indefinite block is likely going too far. A topic ban (staying away from the topic of which historical figures and peoples can be connected to present-day Mandaeans) also seems fairer, rather an indefinite block. Nebulousquasar (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulousquasar, an indefinite block is not an infinite block. A block of a few days or a week or two is unlikely to be effective, as I see things, because editors with a strong POV that they are consistently pushing will just ride out the block and resume their POV pushing. An indefinite block requires the blocked editor to convince an uninvolved administrator that the disruption and POV pushing is over and will not resume. If this particular editor can make a convincing case to an uninvolved administrator, I will not oppose an unblock. Expertise in a niche topic area is not a valid defense against a block for disruptive editing. They need to commit to collaborative editing based on consensus, not forcing their preferred version through. That's how I see it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even now Mcvti is not accepting responsibility (heck he still doesn't even seem to understand why he was actually blocked). Highly concerning [91] [92] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a discussion from the village pump here. User:Sportsfan 1234 has nominated every Tuvaluan footballer except three (50+ in total, two of the remaining are also runners) for deletion in quick succession. Based on the speed of the nominations, it seems very clear WP:BEFORE was not done, and this is a bad faith attempt to remove good content on tenuous technical grounds (I'm speaking of Mau Penisula, Alopua Petoa, and Vaisua Liva especially). It also seems the same handful people are voting Delete on every AfD discussion in rapid succession, which cannot possibly be in good faith (and raises concerns of sockpuppetry). This is especially dangerous because we are setting a precedent of essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history just because they are small and underdeveloped and so don't have much internet presence. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of Wikipedia is not to serve as a promotional site for Tuvalan sport. Based on the speed of your objections to the nominations, it seems very clear that you did not trouble with WP:BEFORE yourself. Indeed, considering that you have only made a single mainspace edit to Wikipedia, there certainly appears to be a good bit more upon which to question your good faith than the other way around. (And beyond that, good grief: to claim that removing a handful of sub-stubs without independent sourcing is "essentially wiping out a whole nation's sporting history" isn't productive; it's hysteria.) Ravenswing 00:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A handful of sub-stubs? I just provided three articles with lots of good, well-sourced content. What you are saying is factually not even true. 172.58.160.64 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Cleary you do not have an understanding of WP:GNG. NONE of those three remotely come close to passing what's listed on WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm looking at the contribution lists for the anon IP addresses you're using, and seeing nothing. So if you are claiming to have added any content whatsoever, provide us with the diffs right here (and if they are under an actual registered account, perhaps you'll be so kind as to use that account in this discussion). Ravenswing 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notice at the top of this page, you have to notify editors you start discussions about, which I have done for you. Anyway, the issue seems to stem from the IP's viewpoint that a proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc.[93], which has no backing in the actual text of WP:BEFORE (The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects; it doesn't really take much time to click those four links and see that there's more or less nothing) Also, "raising concerns of" two long-standing administrators being sockpuppets just for !voting the same way in a set of very similar AfDs is patently silly. eviolite (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually wants to write about the whole nation's sporting history is free to edit the Sport in Tuvalu article, which is very unlikely to be nominated for deletion. CMD (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this over here: I do my research on a MASS basis first (if I know a lot of articles in a particular topic are leaning towards delete), then proceed with the nominations. With the BOTS doing most of the work, its no surprise 10 AFD's were done in 17 minutes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that mass nominations are not always good for the community. Sure, it might make your life easier to get the noms done in one go, but look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia/Article alerts#AfD. Each AfD has a time frame on it, and you are are now asking the community to weigh in on 52 separate discussions in a seven-day window (not all 52 are in the same 7-day window, but the nominations came over the course of five days). If someone actually has access to some print sources, you have just buried them under a mountain with a time-limit to get out from under it... If someone looks at all that, they might throw their hands up in the air thinking it's hopeless. It's probably better practice to nominate as you find each article to better space them out. Also, an attempt at constructive criticism, a simple "Fails GNG" statement doesn't give very a lot of information to help others that might not want to duplicate your efforts. -2pou (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that's the same excuse the inclusionists usually drag out upon seeing a mass nomination, and I'd be more sympathetic to it if their reaction to it wasn't invariably paired with an utter lack of any attempt to find adequate sourcing for ANY entries on it. (Or, come to that, if they had had any objection to the mass creation of such articles, often in very short timeframes and without critical examination as to whether each one could stand as an independent article.)

And it's much the same here. So rather than the mass "redirect" responses you put into the AfDs, one after another, would you be amenable to sourcing some of the articles properly? Some of them? Any of them? Ravenswing 21:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a nice long weekend! Other parts of this thread seem to have gone in an entirely different direction that I think I will steer clear of.
I'm happy to explain the process that I went through, though! For each of my !votes, I do my own BEFORE process to search out any additional finds just in case the nom or prior participants did not catch something. (In this particular subject matter, since I believe your inquiry is specific to it) I also searched out any potential availability from List of newspapers in Tuvalu, which was slightly fruitful in that I found an obscure archive of only seven issues, and a smattering of others randomly hosted on SquareSpace, that I can't decipher the actual host site from (all still from 2015 still from 2015, oddly enough). Unfortunately the coverage did not include much football news to choose from. Next, I searched the Fenui Facebook site for postings as well as this Tuvalu news site. This has led me to the same conclusion that you seem to have reached in several cases, that an independent article is not necessary. As AfD stats will show, "Redirect" and "Delete" votes/results are considered equivalent.
I tend not to stop there with a delete decision, though, as my next step is to see if there is any place that would end up pointing the average searcher to any tidbit of information. You'll notice that I did initially !vote to delete one article when I thought there was no suitable redirect target. I later learned of what I consider a suitable target, so I updated to a Redirect. It seems to me that several players already have existing entries on one of two pages, so the next step is to make sure the player's name is actually entered on one of those pages. If not, then I would !vote delte, if so, redirect. Although there is some copy/paste involved, there is never an automatic !vote without ensuring one of the targets is truly valid. I did not weigh in on all 52 mentioned discussions yet, as I hadn't gotten to several.
Regarding the mass creation of such articles... I actually do agree that such articles should not be created if not following guidelines. These seem to be older than then NPP and therefore grandfathered in or created when NFOOTY was more lax, so I don't find these nominations objectionable in and of themselves; cleanup is cleanup. What would I expect NPP to do when coming across these if created today? Probably redirect somewhere if there is a suitable target known to the patroller, as that's the easiest solution. Would I object to the mass creation of players as redirects? Absolutely not, since there is no notability requirement for one. Otherwise, (only because it is as a recent example and fresh in my mind) I wouldn't try to fix redirects from the name of a reality show contestants to the actual anchor of the show they had appeared on, I'd send to RfD.
Now, this is just my personal disposition. You appear to find redirects unhelpful, whereas I find them cheap, unharmful, and just maybe there's a chance to be useful. (Gahaha! Always great!) That's fine, no two people have to agree. You seemed offended by one of my comments, which was in no way my intent. I apologize for that. Maybe I should resume my quest to ensure that every plushie on the List of Sanrio characters has an incoming redirect! (My son: "Daddy... are you joking? ... I don't like your joking.") All the best to your own future editing endeavors! -2pou (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have a reasonable approach AfDs and actually put effort into finding sources, would you care to reevaluate the Sepetaio discussion now that the single alleged source of SIGCOV (40 words...) has been shown to be an unattributed press release rather than independent coverage? If there's a fair redirect target that's also an option. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can. -2pou (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to know there are more AfD participants willing to do thorough analyses of sources rather than just blindly !voting. JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be an issue here. The nominations appear to be appropriate, and they spread them out over a few days. If they had prodded the articles first, then I wouldn't even expect them to spread the nominations out - the issue in those circumstances would be editors removing the WP:PROD without demonstrating notability, rather than with a large number of nominations on the same day. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to accuse people of sock puppetry, sockpuppet investigations is the place to go. Note though that it isn't for unfounded fishing expeditions. Reyk _YO! 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to raise my own concerns on this user. I am aware that a lot of the deletion nominations may be "fair" by Wikipedia standards, but I find the pattern of these nominations to be rather sinister. Having gone through their recent activity, a lot of the deletion nominations have been for athletes from smaller, "less-developed" nations, including a couple of women footballers (who meet GNG), who we struggle to get representation for on Wikipedia in the first place.

This, this and this edit are page blanking with no discussion beforehand. I don't know what Wikipedia says about this exactly, but I am certain this goes against standards somewhere.

Also, as a side note, there was a situation in 2007 whereby Tuvalu could have technically qualified for the FIFA World Cup. They even had a goalscorer in World Cup qualification, Viliamu Sekifu, whose page is currently nominated for deletion. Sekifu is probably the most notable Tuvaluan footballer for the goal scored, and undoubtedly received coverage at the time in local Tuvaluan news sources. I just find it very frustrating that, just because the information is not readily available, common sense isn't used. If they had qualified for the World Cup, there would have of course been notability garnered internationally - but would there have been any local Tuvaluan sources covering individuals? I highly doubt it. Some nations just do not have much, if any, online news. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. These articles were all nominated because they do not meet GNG. As for the three articles I redirected, they all fail WP:GNG and I redirected them to the article discussing their participation at the Olympics (all three were the only participants for their country. Wikipedia is also not a speculation device. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think that there are sources for that footballer, divulge them. But c'mon. A key facet of notability guidelines is that they set forth criteria that subjects actually meet, not that they might have met. (Not that this was possible to happen, because whatever the local federation's take on things was, Tuvalu was not then and is not now a FIFA member, and as such, could not have taken part in actual World Cup matches.)

  I recognize that there is a longstanding fringe theory that if there is some putative excuse for a subject not to have received the significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources the GNG requires -- and so very many excuses have been proffered, over the years -- then the GNG, WP:V, WP:N and any other applicable criteria are waived in its favor. This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. To claim there is something "sinister" in seeking to correctly apply extant notability criteria is an unwarranted, unfounded and reprehensible personal attack. You would be far better off turning your energies to finding sources for these articles you are so invested in saving than in taking swings at those who feel that those criteria apply to all subjects across the board ... or, as we see below, descending into hyperbole-choked hysteria. Ravenswing 15:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "This curious theory, however, has no factual basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline." This simply isn't true. As fellow user John Pack Lambert stated in this edit: "We have a long precedent of keeping articles on every member of a state legislature we can verrify [sic] existed.". The bar for politicians is so low that the only thing required is verification that they existed? Yet for people who have represented their nation in international sporting events, we need 50 independent biographies written, 100 newspaper articles from 20 separate countries and access to the personal diary they kept as a child? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and here's another from notorious delete voter John Pack Lambert, in which he states that "Those who hold cabinet level in a first level subdivision in a federal government (that is states in the US, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, India, and a few other countries) are default notable.". Default notable??? So we just throw GNG out the window when it comes to politicians, but not for international sporting representatives?

  This website has articles on obscure lakes from Lithuania, but people who represent their nation are clearly not notable, right? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to WP:GNG, there are specific additional ways a subject can be presumed notable. WP:NPOL addresses first-level subdivisions in federal governments as mentioned by John Pack Lambert. There are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. See WP:NSPORT. Do any of those criteria apply? If not, then WP:GNG must be applied. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was also under the impression that there are specific additional ways an athlete can be notable. I know that the criteria for football has changed recently, but I cannot see anything specific on WP:NSPORT regarding association football. One of WP:SPORTBASIC's criteria is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.", which some (but not all) of the nominated articles do. Yet they are still being flagged for deletion as they are athletes from a nation seemingly deemed not worthy of articles. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davidlofgren1996 which articles have SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And there are no additional ways an athlete can be notable. This has been the case for a very long time now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From the masses that SportsFan 1234 has nominated, I found Sumithra Kamaraj, Anju Tamang, Indrit Cullhaj and Leah Parry. There may be more, there probably are, they have nominated a lot of articles.

  And I believe presumed notability still applies to athletes who competed before the internet existed, as it applies to non-athletes in the same boat. Please correct me if I am wrong. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, what is the SIGCOV source in each of those articles? Kamaraj has a handful of sentences on her by an anonymous author in what seems to be a clear non-RS. Tamang received routine transaction news and coverage by SPS, non-independent (e.g. the KHELNOW article written by the AIFF), and other unreliable sources. Cullhaj has some interviews and routine transaction news. Leah Parry has coverage in some anonymous wikimirror-like content farm.

  When has NSPORT ever presumed notability for pre-internet athletes? At most it has suggested more temporal leeway be given for finding sources on very old subjects, which doesn't apply here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note the solutions mentioned in WP:FAILN, such as Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages.. See, for example, Tuvalu_national_football_team. This is a way to retain information about the players without them having to meet individual notability requirements. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Davidlofgren1996 is certainly jacking the hysteria up to 11. No, we don't require 50 biographies or personal diaries. We require multiple (=2) independent, third-party reliable sources which provide significant coverage to the subjects involved, and which in the case of athletes doesn't involve casual mentions in routine match coverage. And you can't bring yourself to do even that much work for a single one of the AfDs you're complaining about. You are being routinely wrong about your assumptions, routinely wrong in these AfDs, and it's well past time that someone who's created as many articles as you have has a handle on the damn notability criteria that governs your work. What the hell, man? We shouldn't need "correct me if I'm wrong" answers. For all the football sub-stubs you're creating, you need to be right in the first place. Ravenswing 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop pinging me. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (bemused look) Look, man, if you want to stick your thumbs in your ears and cry out "Lalalalala I'm Not Listening You Can't Make Me," well, indeed, neither I nor anyone else can make you. But since I've yet to ping you, the request is moot. (If what you're asking me instead is not to respond to your public statements in public discussion pages, I would treat THAT request with exactly as much consideration as it merits.) Ravenswing 14:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Using the wikilink [[User:Davidlofgren1996]] pings them. It's one of the ways to ping someone as outlined in Help:Notifications. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You missed the second sentence of that paragraph, which says Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Articles that meet that requirement are probably not suitable for prod, but if additional sources can't be found then they should be deleted at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just now, there was an AIV report on an account named LuK3 (other account), which is blocked by Tamzin (thank you) for impersonation. The blocked account has closed an AfD on a Tuvaluan footballer as "delete". Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some new LTA. (I guess that's an oxymoron, but you know what I mean.) They've been doing this with a number of AfDs while impersonating admins. Both of their closes had already been reverted by the time I blocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you were impersonated. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiabethmas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making unusual content forks of UK radio station pages, conducting other vandalism, and even slapped an insult on me. Has received two 4im warnings in the last 30 days but no block has followed. Took this to AIV and was told it belonged at ANI.

Examples of their work:

• Moved Dream 100 FM to Greatest Hits Radio Essex without explanation, in contravention of a 2020 RM/RfC on this and other similar stations, and made it an odd fork of Greatest Hits Radio East.
• Other UK content forks have been deleted. In one case, I got a message from an IP about a CSD I made (see below)
• Created redirects including Rebeib nutsuj (CSD R3)
• Vandalized Liam Butcher, reverted here
• Vandalized Capital Cymru including a page move to claim it had been moved to the Heart radio network, see this diff of cleanup

This may also be an SPI case, as I suspect by their edits Special:Contributions/147.148.185.186 and especially Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:4307:3400:A913:F9CD:D921:D995 who told me to "stop ruining my life" on Rhiabethmas's talk page when all I did was send one of their content forks to CSD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to Sammi Brie's report above that yesterday I declined a speedy (A1 and A7) on a page Rhiabethmas created - Hexham Radio. I moved it to draft as it was not suitable for mainspace. I left a talk page message explaining what needed to change for it to return to mainspace. They have moved it back to mainspace with no changes except for removing the cleanup tags and changing some capitalization. Note their edit summary in that move diff - it seems to be the same whenever they move a page. They also don't seem to use talk pages. I wonder if a competence block is in order? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. Clearly, Rhia does not know quite what they are doing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook WP:IDHT. casualdejekyll 18:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the WP:CIR concerns Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this thread when I CSD'ed Hexham radio again. It was deleted this time. Other than that, I have had no interaction with this user but note that a relatively large percentage of their edit have been reverted. There definitely are concerns here. MB 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A third 4im was just put on their page by User:HughPugh2. Can we please get a block? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is ludicrous how quick IJBall is willing to reframe themselves as a hero in confrontations. I was updating references and links on two pages following the template renaming of Template:The WB which had finally dropped “Television Network”, including on Family Affair (2002 TV series) and Living with Fran. I even gave uniformity to the dating of the sources, which was in two different formats for date and access date. I come to find my work completely reverted by IJBall, despite my work being called good. It was the whole thing, not just the dates. I’m told my work was good, but if it was so good, why was it completely reverted and not just the stuff that was targeted. Turns out the compliment was a blatant attempt at a false sense of security, or as they put it “a courtesy”. Barely one revert later, and they’re calling my behavior “disruptive", when I’m restoring constructive content. All because I reverted reversions they had no business making. How was I supposed to know mixed dating formats were wholly accepted? It’s not citation styles being varied here, which they kept citing to justify their reversions. They have repeatedly called me disruptive for making edits they didn’t like. If anything, they disrupted. At this point, it’s a grudge and I’m not going to stand for it. It is blatant abuse.--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I quoted WP:CITEVAR to you, which you then ignored, and reverted, picking up your repeated pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:Edit warring (see any of the multiple previous ANI reports on CreecregofLife, who has been brought to ANI multiple times recently, by different editors). And then you did it elsewhere as well. The revert was so that you were clearly aware of the guidelines on the matter. You chose to ignore that. That's on you, not on me. Then I fixed your edits anyway, without a revert. Which is what you should have done in the first place. There is no "abuse". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, FTR, CreecregofLife also failed to properly (promptly) inform me of this ANI filing, as editors are required to do. Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I see here is a retaliatory report for the number of times they've genuinely been brought here, particularly by Magitroopa, but plenty of editors shared Magitroopa's concerns, including IJBall and myself. It's obvious this editor is never going to see how and why they're wrong, and an indefinite block seems like the only solution at this point for them. Amaury • 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add on: their BATTLEGROUND/WP:IDHT doesn't seem to have ended since the previous ANIs where other editors have voiced concern over that same behavior. Other than this, I think the discussions at Talk:Star Trek: Picard#Mentioning RedLetterMedia's Review and Negative Fan Reception, Talk:Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film)#Bobby Driscoll, and Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Is that Article a joke?. (mostly within the 'Break' section) are worth looking at as well. Also of note, Creecreg was also brought to WP:AN3 since the last ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive451#User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result:CreecregofLife and U-Mos both warned )).

Honestly, it's a miracle they made it out of the previous ANI alive, due to a technicality. Knowing how all the previous ANIs ended, it wouldn't surprise me that they somehow get out of this one as well.

Somewhat unrelated, but I'm also confused by their editing/behavior at WP:RPP/D- seems like they comment on most requests as if they have been involved in said articles, or as if they have page protection rights/their say is what ultimately matters (and has even needed to be told by an admin that their input is not needed). Magitroopa (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: you may wish to reiterate your comment at #Concerns about edits at NickRewind if this is your view. — Bilorv (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have considered the date formatting within the scope of WP:CITEVAR (I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying that's new to me). Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there don't seem to be any diffs anywhere in this thread, I'm not going to comment on whether WP:CITEVAR is applicable in this case. In general, I would expect CITEVAR to apply to dates where they are used in citations. For more general date formatting issues, MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:ERA are relevant, and for variant styles more broadly, there is MOS:VAR. All broadly say the same thing: don't just change styles for the sake of it without obtaining consensus. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- Creecreg now has an additional ANI below, at WP:ANI#Concerns about edits at NickRewind with more edit warring involved. At this point, an indefinite block seems appropriate, with the standard offer. Magitroopa (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: you violated WP:CITEVAR, bringing this to ANI is shooting yourself in the foot. Updating refs is great, but don't change ref date formats when you do as per WP:CITEVAR is very clear and easy to understand, IJBall is praising your updating of the links, but telling you date formats shouldn't be changed just because. By If updating refs is “great”, don’t revert them, you're ignoring the but... IJBall specified in their edit summary. I don't know if you purposely ignored it or just didn't realize, but you're not in the right in this case. Changing date formats like can be done only with consensus, and should be done if it is to bring consistency to an article that isn't consistent with itself. Neither of those were the case here. —El Millo (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn PScLim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099 § Disruptive template edits by Dawn PScLim

There was a discussion about Dawn PScLim's template space disruption a few days ago which was allowed to archive with no action. This editor does not appear to have listened to any of the comments in the previous discussion and the are continuing to disrupt template space with pointless and disruptive wording tweaks to cleanup and policy templates. Since they are unwilling or unable to address the issues themselves I feel that the proposed partial block from the template namespace is required.

A few examples of more disruption from after the prior ANI thread was started:

• Meaningless addition to a cleanup template [94]. What on earth is "and shows the intended information clearly" supposed to mean when applied to citations? The extra addition to the list is also ungrammatical.
• Changing the wording of a template to be plural for no explained reason [95].
• In the words of Spicy Unnecessary and ungrammatical addition to a template [96]
• Innapropriate addition of "unreliable sources" to a template about partisan sources [97]
• Incomprehensible addition a template's documentation page [98]

Their remaining edits mainly consist of bloating up the wording of templates with unnecessary and redundant words that add nothing of value to the message. Instead of "talk page discussion" Dawn PScLim insists we write "relevant talk page discussion". instead of "verifiable information" they insist we write "verifiable and relevant information" etc. [99] [100] [101].

A newbie with 300 total edits and a not very good grasp of either wikipedia policy or the English language should not be attempting to re-write major policy and cleanup templates. Their continuing contributions in this namespace are simply a timesink for everyone else. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is slow-motion disruption that is serious because of the ubiquity of the templates he is editing. Will someone do something? This is the second round at ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual to see a person with 300 edits changing the text of templates, but these aren't necessarily "ubiquitous". The first is Template:Page numbers improve, which is used in just 16 articles right now. Template:Contradicts others is used in just 9 articles. Template:Over-coverage appears in 108 articles. Template:Partisan sources is in 47 articles. Contrast that with, say, Template:Unreferenced, which appears in many tens of thousands of articles.

In general, I think we're pretty good at applying page protection to high-use templates. If someone is able to edit a template, it's probably not a template that will be seen by very many people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection is applied on pages with up to 2,500 transculusions, extended confirmed is used on pages with up to 5,000.

The fact that they can disrupt lots of pages at once by editing templates is a secondary issue, the big problem is that a huge proportion of their edits are wrong, either because they completely misunderstand and misrepresent policy or because they mangle the wording of the template into nonsense. Here: [102] they update the partisan sources template to say that they are unreliable, this is incorrect - a partisan source can be 100% reliable for certain types of information, like attributed opinion or a political parties stated policies. Here they update the self-references template to add the word "excessive" [103] - this is again wrong. The policy this template links to has no mention of anything related to "number of uses" because whether a self reference is appropriate or not depends on the context, not the number of times it is used. Here they mangle a template into nonsense with poor copyediting [104]. What is explain the said fiction more clearly supposed to mean? Why is it necessary to add the redundant explanation that a non-fictional perspective is also real world? The use of "point of view" is also potentially confusing here, given the common usage on wikipedia is related to neutrality, rather than the observation point of the writer. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two more disruptive edits today. In this edit here [105] the first addition is ungrammatical (This article was considered for deletion, and is kept), and it is completely unnecessary, "it was kept" is obvious from the fact it still exists; the second addition is pointless bloat that doesn't improve the template wording. This addition [106] completely misrepresents WP:V, that do not verify the text cited has the policy back to front, citations should verify the text of the article, not the text of the citation. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They’ve been warned and asked to participate here, and have deleted the warning/request from their user page, so it appears they are going to ignore our concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR block requested A bunch of us have to follow Dawn PScLim around and undo his template edits as he is mangling the verbiage and changing meanings inappropriately. E.g., Special:Diff/1090735243 Special:Diff/1090420852. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits outside template space are equally troubling. Here they changed "conditions on area lakes" to the ungrammatical "conditions on area around lakes" which at best means something different. I reverted and explained that that's not what "area lakes" means. They then changed it again to "areas with lakes". I reverted and explained that that is still not a correct replacement for "area lakes". They then changed it a third time, to "conditions on the affected area", removing mention of lakes. This is perhaps partly a result of limited Engish proficiency.

As in template space, they frequently expand text in a way that changes its meaning, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Here they change a definition that the source defines as "not entirely due to surface-based obscuring phenomena" to "not mostly or entirely due...", without a reason. Here, where the source definition is "an accumulation of freezing water droplets on a vessel" and which our article accurately restated, they change to "rapid accumulation and icing of freezing water droplets". Here they change "wave heights" to "severe wave heights", the meaning of which is unclear, and change the statement that tall waves can threaten vessels to the claim that they threaten "vessels and vehicles". Then there's weird stuff like this, where they added an obviously incorrect unit conversion. I reverted and then added a Convert template to do the conversion. For some reason they reverted this and added a hardcoded conversion, which at least was arithmetically correct, but they gave no reason for preferring this to the Convert template. Very few of their edits seem to me to be obvious improvements. CodeTalker (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 states CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator.

CutePeach is disrupting (and has been for a while) COVID-19 topics in a number of ways. Most notably, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects. I'd give you diffs if it were hard to find it, but as you see much of the discussion is CutePeach bludgeoning and sealioning. Also, note that CutePeach was specifically warned about this not only in the deletion thread but also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive343#Requesting_admin_close_of_COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects_AFD where CutePeach was reminded of the TBan.

Note also that CutePeach has written WP:MEDRSNOT, which seems to be an attempt to disrupt the guidance given in WP:MEDRS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the essay for G5 as a violation (or at least, skirting way too close on the edge of it, see WP:SANCTIONGAMING no. 3) of the topic ban. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at CutePeach talk page as of 2022-5-27T17:57 I see a number of COVID-19 related edit warnings: edit warring and other issues. I propose extending the topic ban to stop this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now Special:Contributions/Gimiv (already previously warned for personal attacks in this area) has taken the opportunity to engage in more WP:ASPERSIONS on the talk page of the essay... colour me surprised. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Since the CSD was hastily removed by Gimiv, I've now nominated the essay at MfD so we can get broader input on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the original AN/E submitter resulting in the TBAN, I do believe the pattern of behavior that resulted in sanctions is continuing outside the narrow TBAN, for both other COVID topics and editing on medical/political topics overall. I had hoped the result would an ability to collaborate effectively, but the diffs below suggest this isn't the case. Rather, I'd suggest it looks a lot less like learning to collaborate effectively, and lot more like WP:IDHT, with an inability to stay away from other highly contentious areas.

1. Less than a month after the TBAN which came with an explicit warning against continued disruption in any area, she moved to another contentious topic area under DS with the following DS alert
2. Voting in redirect discussion about the CCP Virus page, directly referencing its use in the lab origin theory. Self reverted after being reminded on talk page that WP:BMB, despite having been informed by admins originally, indicating a clear lack of care to abiding the TBAN.
3. Edit warring with five reverts on the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article, for which a 48h ban was given. The last edit was made after she responded to the report at AN/EW about her behavior (similar behavior to the AN/E resulting in the TBAN, where she continued editing in Talk space after asking for time to respond to AN, repeat diff explaining).
4. Created a page titled COVID-19 vaccine side effects, yet discussing exclusively severe side effects. Consistent arguing in the AfD discussion WP:SNOW, even after changing her vote from Keep. Despite agreement on path forward, a continuation to argue was exhibited. [107][108][109][110][111]
5. Created a supplement (moved to essay space by others) to further argue against MEDRS requirements, including the suggestion that editors who seek a strict compliance to MEDRS engage in TE. To wit: complaining about her opponents gish galloping, while she herself gish gallops.
6. Here's two diffs indicating she'd like to file at AN/E/ARBCOM about me (and MEDRS in general), provided here for convenience to whoever seeks a WP:BOOMERANG.
7. At least one admin has avoided enforcement over potential edging on the TBAN due to their past experience of hassle involved.

Existing sanctions haven't resolved the problematic editing by now, with continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that has appeared to result in admins being hesitant to increase sanctions despite the evidence of continued problem behavior. Behavior has not improved, it will continue if action isn't taken. User can not drop the WP:STICK, it's up to Admins to enforce. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakkster Man: please can you put your post in the right chronological order and use numbering instead of bulleting so that I can respond to each one. For example, I would like to respond to your diff about me creating an essay in projectspace with the supplement label, as I didn't even realize it had to first pass consensus for that, and I posted it in WP:VPP as soon as I did. It would be easier for administrators and arbitrators to see your accusations and my rebuttals side by side. CutePeach (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're numbered now. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, a report without diffs. This is (yet another) attempt to discredit and delete CutePeach's WP:MEDRSNOT essay and lobby administrators to ban a longtime critic of WP:MEDRS abuse on Wikipedia. It sure didn't take long for RandomCanadian, CP's longtime adversary and avid MEDRS deletionist, to show up here to pile it on and "speedily delete" the essay, and now he's accusing me of engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS for contesting his deletion on the basis of MEDRS abuse. CP posted her MEDRS essay on VPP to get feedback [112], just like MarshallKe did about the abuse of WP:FRINGE last year [113], and its always these same editors showing up to pour acid on complaints about their own malfeasance. In the VPP discussion, Alexbrn is intransigently claiming that Havana syndrome is a "conspiracy theory" [114], deleting political allegations as if they are biomedical claims [115], and claiming the CIA-convened panel isn't a WP:MEDORG [116] when WaPo says it is made up of an independent panel of experts [117]. This is an abuse of MEDRS.

CP's TBAN was very narrowly focused on COVID-19 origins and she was given the chance to contribute in the wider COVID-19 topic area, which was pointed the last time the MEDRS crew tried stringing her up [118]. Rsjaffe doesn't seem to be part of that group, but he was dared into it by two editors who most certainly are [119] [120], and I wouldn't be surprised if this has to do with skeptic coordinated editing [121]. RoySmith's warning of CP [122], like EvergreenFir's January block, was a mistake [123]. I have been watching the Chinese government COVID-19 undercounting dispute since January, waiting for it to blow up into a full ArbCom case to expose the hypocrisy. Alexbrn is insisting there that only medical sources can be used for his POV [124], but doesn't seem to care that preprints are being used for the CCP's POV [125] [126]. This is a blatant abuse of MEDRS and WP:PREPRINT.

On the content dispute. CP created an article on COVID-19 vaccine side effects, and Bakkster Man accused her of WP:GAMING for allegedly using a MEDRS source as cover for a BMI claim. She provided him with a WHO source listing tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side-effect, but fails to reply. What WhatamIdoing is doing in the AfD is classic WP:SEALIONING, making ten different arguments about why the claim is UNDUE there. CP changed her !vote to delete the side-effects article and asked WAID how to move it to the vaccine article, providing several review articles to answer the WP:NOTEVERYTHING concerns, but WAID just comes back at her with irrelevant philosophical ideas. I don't believe these editors even knew these sources existed when they decided to pick on CP. They dared not file this frivolous report themselves. Gimiv (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't post a diff of the talk page edit cause it was a page creation. As for the rest, the above has such a strong stench of WP:BATTLEGROUND, including wide-ranging accusations of misbehaviour which are exactly WP:ASPERSIONS (including but not limited to blatant lack of good faith - I haven't interacted with CP in months [in fact I've stayed mostly away from COVID, being kept busy with other matters], and I wasn't even the one that reported this here; accusations that an AfD is sealioning, ...); I'm going to ignore it. If somebody else wants to propose sanctions on Gimiv, be my guest.

I'm just going to note that CP's edit outside of the narrow origins area don't seem that much more productive, unless one willfully ignores such evidence as the litany of additional edit warring notices on their talk page since, the block for edit warring back at the end of March (on a COVID-related topic); and now the creation of an essay which is very borderline WP:SANCTIONGAMING; as well as the creation of an obvious WP:POVFORK, which thankfully looks like it's headed for deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the times here? Bakkster Man posts at 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC) with many diffs. Next, in line, (visually) a post by Gimiv 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC) complaining about a report with no diffs. Last, a post by RandomCanadian at 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Why are times skipping around...23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC), next 22:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC). I have no connection with any of these editors, but it's very confusing, shouldn't our "software" organize this chronologically? Seems to make editors look as if they haven't read, or are mis-replying to posts. Will duck back into my turtle shell, but color me confused. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the times skip because the conversation is threaded. Gimiv is replying to the original post, not the indented thread above him that contains Bakkster's diffs. That's how it should be. By convention new replies to the same comment are indented one level further then the comment they're replying to and usually added chronologically, but discussions down that tree will remain together. It's perfectly reasonable to follow, and the mediawiki software should in no way refactor user comments to be chronological. It would destroy the ability to know who is replying to who. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 12:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of TigerI think it's the new reply feature. Editors using it are going to have their post put under the person they are replying to, others will not. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't chronological because, as Doug points out, posts go under those they are replying to (WP:TPG). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for explaining, in a helpful, kind and AGF-polite manner. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian agreed. CP is rarely constructive anywhere and needs at least a Covid-wide TBAN. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to disagree with Doug Weller's comments at 14:05, 28 May 2022. I would agree to extend the CP TBAN towards all topics Covid (and perhaps all subjects MEDRS). It is not for me to parse the reasons why CP continues to edit (in my opinion) in a disruptive manner, but it is clear the envelope of the original TBAN has been pushed well past reasonableness. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of this report, quoting Guerillero's closing statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 § CutePeach, says all that needs to be said: If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area. Even CutePeach seems to acknowledge that they are coming into conflict with a large number of other users right now; I'm sure they wouldn't see that as disruptive on their part, but having the clue to recognize "It's not everyone else who's driving the wrong way" is critical in a sensitive topic area like COVID. If they're at the point of seeing the enforcers of WP:MEDRS as the villains, then it's in their best interests, those of other editors, and those of our readers that CutePeach not be editing on that topic. In not being fully TBANned from COVID initially, they were given a second chance to show that they can edit constructively in this area, and in their continuing battleground approach has shown a full ban to be in fact necessary. As authorized by WP:COVIDDS, CutePeach is indefinitely banned from the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed. I will notify them and log this sanction at WP:DSLOG momentarily. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for dealing with this. I hope that it will not be necessary to expand "the topic of COVID-19" to "the topic of medicine" in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  CutePeach got railroaded at AE by an experienced groups of white male editors including a sock puppet and it went straight to a topic ban instead of a warning, unlike some recent cases we’ve seen where warnings are given to experienced editors who should know better. In this comment where you are sanctioning you don’t even bother to link to any diffs. I wish you would examine the context and history here, as the tag team has showed up again to push the same POV. This is not the way things should be handled here. CutePeach identifies as a woman editor from a minority represented country on En wiki and is entitled to compassionate guidance instead of cold sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  CutePeach got railroaded at AE by an experienced groups of white male editors... CutePeach identifies as a woman editor from a minority represented country on En wiki and is entitled to compassionate guidance instead of cold sanctions.

  What the fuck does this have to do with anything? JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Saying that a group of uninvolved AE admins was tricked by a group of editors is a bit conspiracy theorist, don't you think? I would hope our admins are a bit harder to manipulate than that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously? What is with the recent trend in throwing around baseless racism and now sexism claims in ANI? Is there some expectation the community will back off just because magic words are invoked? As it's use earlier this is horribly bad faith and an attempt to chill the community by making editors fearful of specific good-faith actions lest they be accused and face an inquisition.Slywriter (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Such attempts at playing the race card (or the sexism card) are borderline insulting. If you're going to be blatantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS like that, you ought to back yourself up with solid evidence. That, or not profess such nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment that "CP is rarely constructive anywhere" is correct. I had a review of their last dozens of edits and I only see back-to-back bickering which I also saw this month with regards to their edit warring to restore blatant WP:BLP violation at Vladimir Putin. They made an unconvincing argument on Talk:Vladimir Putin and they got a warning from Cullen238 to stop it.[127] Instead of getting over it, they brought the discussion to WP:BLPN clearly for finding someone who may agree with them,[128] and here they were initially told by an experienced editor that "It'll likely be better if we just topic ban you from all people covered by BLP", and the same editor also left a warning on their talk page.[129] All of these efforts failed to stop CutePeach from edit warring to restore BLP violation, as days later they were back to falsely claiming a "consensus on BLPN" to retain their BLP violation.[130] Similar CIR issues were also pointed elsewhere this month.[131] Now that we already know that these topic bans fail to create any positive impact on CutePeach, and instead they would simply move to disrupt another subject, then why do we have to allow them to disrupt Wiki any further? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: thanks for joining this pile-on and demonstrating the personal prejudice against me. As a reminder, there was a consensus on BLPN that the paedophilia claims should be added to Vladimir Putin#Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, and it is no more a BLP violation than my alleged MEDRS violations here. If we cover the allegation that Putin poisoned Litvinenko, then it only makes sense to say what Litvinenko accused him of four months priod, which multiple secondary sources say are linked. CutePeach (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such consensus was reached at BLPN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through the whole thread at BLPN and I cannot see how that could be construed as a consensus in any way. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: there was at least a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and you yourself said in the TP that you were still thinking about the exact wording for inclusion [132], so I see you on the side of those who don't think it is a BLP violation, as Aman here claims. To say Putin allegedly killed someone but to leave out the reason why, per WP:BLP, is based on a misunderstanding of the policy. One can argue it may not be WP:DUE, but as discussed, there were many secondary sources putting Litvinenko's paedophilia allegation four months prior as one of the main reasons for Putin's hand in his poisoning. ActivelyDisinterested, please participate in the TP discussion, of which there were a few [133] [134]. CutePeach (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Cite peach I don't see any consensus, not even a rough one, and I'm not interested in getting into the content discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter BS. If there was any consensus to include the evidence-free 'pedeophilia' claims in the Putin biography, it would have been included. It wasn't, and at no point did I support including it - I argued the exact opposite, as anyone reading the discussions can clearly see. This seems to be part of a recurring pattern with CutePeach, who seem to have difficulty reading other peoples' comments regarding disputed content without either misrepresenting them or treating them as personal attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff CP probably meant to link and I will add this one where you argue against including the allegation per WP:WEIGHT but seem amenable to including something similar to CP's second try​​ [135]. Perhaps an RFC on the Vladimir Putin page is necessary to fulfil the "exact wording" promise you made. The pedophilia allegations were prominently reported as the alleged motivation behind the Putin linked Litvinenko's murder. Gimiv (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think CutePeach should be site banned because this back-to-back bickering and disruptive editing will continue no matter how many topic bans have been imposed. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. With this[136] promise to write a new essay on "scientific uncertainty" (what could this be an allusion to?) and attempt at an arbcom case, I think the Project should be spared the inevitable useless drama that will follow. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban The post below was the WP:FINALSTRAW. It includes a number of baseless claims included that "almost all the editors" who participated here "were involved in some kind of dispute with me" and such "participation here can be considered WP:HOUNDING and is highly inappropriate". This claims are being made without evidence and it shows that CutePeach is not here to accept any input and is set to cause further disruption. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sadly I don't see a way around this. CutePeach seems unable to listen to others, and that is critical for a collaborative environment. Instead they seem to double down and cast aspersions at other editors. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As can be seen in the 'appeal' section below, CutePeach seems incapable of reacting to criticism without responding in a manner which makes things worse. As Black Kite says, 'a massive time sink'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm willing to cooperate in any investigation into the WP:MEAT allegation made against me below, anticipating it will result in stronger WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support mostly because of the below, which gets a rather low reading on the "has got a clue"-meter. Wikipedia is a project built on collaboration and being able to resolve arguments through constructive dialogue. CP has shown themself, multiple times, to not be able or willing to engage in such dialogue with the right kind of attitude. An editor who, despite all warnings, keeps insisting that they are right and everybody else is wrong, repeatedly makes bad faith attacks, and keeps engaging in tendentious time-sinking editing, clearly isn't compatible with this project. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This editor is a tendentious axe-grinder who appears temperamentally unsuited to a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based wholly on their "rebuttal" below. They're not defending their actions so much as they are trying to relitigate the same issues that got them topic-banned in the first place. You can only do so much when a person is unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the rebuttal below did not help things either. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cullen328. ––FormalDude talk 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as they do not have the required competence (and no, I'm not talking about gender or race as alluded to in these threads) to edit in a sensitive area. Combative and the disruption will just move elsewhere at the edges of the topic ban. This should have been done when it was first breached. Star Mississippi 01:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wikipedia is a global movement. We need diverse voices like CutePeach. Diversity is a strength, to be nurtured and encouraged instead of stamped out. There appear to be a bunch of white men who are seeking sanctions against a minority woman. This doesn’t sit well with me. There’s been no attempts at mentoring, so going straight to a site ban for a viewpoint we need more of is not an improvement for the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how do you know who is or isn't a 'white man' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who identify as white men are the ones I consider to be white men. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. How about if people stop identifying themselves and just create and improve articles? EEng 05:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. How else will editors know they must put on their lady-gloves when interacting with me? JoelleJay (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why play the race card, if your intent wasn't to derail the discussion? We're not supporting banning her because she's a minority or a woman, we're supporting banning her because she refuses to take responsibility for her vehemence and blames everyone else for her own behaviour. We've gotten rid of white men for less aggressive IDHT. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ernie. This looks like a pile-on by everyone with a bone to pick with CP. Good thing Wikimedia's Trust and Safety team made a new appeals process for victims of harassment. An appeal to WP:ARBCOM might not be fruitful, but it may still be necessary to show Wikimedia that the community is unable to get its shit together.Gimiv (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to the T & S appeals process is a complete red herring, given that said process relates only to appeals made against decisions made as "Trust & Safety office actions". As for ArbCom, they don't normally get involved while active discussions at WP:AN/WP:ANI are taking place. Accordingly, I suggest you stick to actually discussing the matter at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know that making comments like the above and the one at the MfD - MEDRS and FRINGE zealots pushing their POV in medical and political topics ([137]) - only lends more weight to the idea that you, like CP, are treating this as some form of BATTLEGROUND, and are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and instead try attacking editors who do. I'd suggest you tread very carefully. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Whilst I am wary of getting involved in the discussion I have been wondering if a topic ban from anything broadly related to medicine and medical research would be the best way forward as it would allow them to work on areas not under the purview of WP:MEDRS which they appear to have concerns about. Gusfriend (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gusfriend: See above. They are even more disruptive at Russian and Ukrainian topics. Even if they are topic banned from these subjects they will just disrupt a new topic. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any disruption in Russia and Ukraine, only a dispute with you and your Wikifriends about the Litvinenko's pedophelia claims about Putin, which seems to be the only reason y'all came here with pitchforks. It's a bad look. Gimiv (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not any better than CP if you keep making disruptive comments like that. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you can't collaborate constructively with people, or if your proposed changes keep getting rejected, then the issue might be you, not the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• support clearly disruptive timesink who will not learn from a catalog of mistakes. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is not yet necessary. The disruption/timesink is primarily limited to a specific topic area, and CP should be allowed the opportunity to demonstrate that she can edit constructively outside of that area after this ANI discussion/her TBAN, before she is banned from the whole site. A look at her Xtools page shows that List of Filipino singers is her most edited article, and she should be given the chance to demonstrate she is capable of improving articles like that before she is banned from the whole site. I agree with Ernie that it appears there has been a bit of a pile on from people who disagree with her views, but Wikipedia is a global project, and we should welcome and encourage editors with a diverse range of backgrounds and viewpoints (which, yes, does include people other than nerdy Western white men, who are the bulk of Wikipedia's editors). Endwise (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Endwise: A few comments on this analysis.

  First, I'd suggest that the number of edits should not be the only metric used. Of those 200 edits to List of Filipino singers, all but one are under 100 characters, with the exception being 661 characters to create the page with the first three names. Multiple small edits is a completely valid editing style (especially for a mobile user like CP), but it does mean we need to take that into context for determining the most substantially edited article. While adding 4,184 bytes to this list is good productive editing, the 7,458 bytes added to COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory are significantly more substantial. Fewer edits on COVID-19 related topics, but those edits are frequently thousands of bytes long.

  Secondly, and relevant to the topic of the goal of the TBAN, CP's last edit on that list according to Xtools was made a month prior to her original TBAN. The goal was to create an opportunity for you to edit about non-contentious in the topic area, but this non-contentious article went unedited (most likely because the list was more or less completed prior to the TBAN). While I agree this list article shows that CP can make productive edits to non-contentious articles, this article doesn't demonstrate that she used the original TBAN time to actually do so. Perhaps an alternate example can be found, but my impression is that the majority of edits since the TBAN have been in some way contentious.

  And third, I'd suggest the majority of the editing found to be contentious by others happens outside of article space. In other namespaces, CP's most edited pages are Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK, Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information, and Draft:Criticism of the World Health Organization. The 52,984 bytes from 93 talk page edits dwarfs the 3,107 bytes from 18 edits to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. While this isn't by itself an issue (I have a similar talk to article ratio on that article, as one would expect from a contentious topic from editor aiming to avoid an edit war), the primary concerns are of WP:TE outside of article space. So to be clear, diff counts aren't necessarily indicative of a problem, but the contentious editing mostly happens in Talk space, so a raw diff analysis of article space alone is perhaps besides the point. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per especially RandomCanadian and Cullen328. This user appears unsuited to a collaborative project of this kind. As others have noted, the disruption is not limited to just the Covid-19 topic area, and the WP:NOTTHEM attitude on display below is indeed troubling. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support They are drawn towards editing (creating) topics of controversy where they seem to enjoy the battleground disruption they cause. They are consistently a timesink on other editors having to explain how policy restricts and shapes what we can write. They abuse talk pages to discuss their political views rather than to discuss the article text. They frequently push fringe and conspiracy views, which brings them into conflict with our policy and guidelines on these areas. Rather than listen to what other are saying, they dig in and now start writing essays (Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not) and draft guideline (Draft:WP:UNCERTAIN). I don't think specific topic bans are working and they will continue to be drawn into areas where there is conflict and political conspiracy.

Btw, I find Mr Ernie and Gimiv's comments unacceptable. We are here to discuss CutePeach's participation on the project, not to accuse good faith editors of being racist and sexist. I am surprised that such personal attacks are permitted. -- Colin°^Talk 09:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I and others have tried to work with this user to collaborate and incorporate their changes while also paying attention to policies and guidelines. It has failed, every time it has been tried. They incorporate a number of conspiracy theories into their chosen topic spaces, including the lab leak, the wuhan urns conspiracy (that millions more were dying in China than were being reported, based on how many unused funeral urns were shown in photos of a crematorium), the Hunter Biden's laptop was a hoax argument, supporting a number of unproven COVID vaccine side effects... the list goes on. This user is very adept at using sealion tactics to get these points across, and regularly engages in long and fraught discussions pushing POV points past their natural conclusion. If one point is exchanged, they switch to another tactic without skipping a beat, or truly admitting anyone else was ever right. It's exhausting. They are a drain on the project of time, effort, and poorly written policy drafts and redirects. They are not simply a misguided editor at this point. They are long past misguided, and very much in the category of "gleefully obstructionist." For these reasons, a site ban is unfortunately the only effective way to resolve this. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 09:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is too much for right now. I think the topic ban on COVID-19 related topics put in by Tamzin was good enough based on the evidence we have now. It's astonishing to me to see such support for a site topic ban with no evidence of substantial disruption outside of the COVID-19 area. CutePeach is a relatively new editor here and some leniency should be given to them, maybe a firm warning on WP:CIVILITY. It's pretty normal to see new editors be a little more passionate and uncivil because they are still getting a feel for the discussion process and for WP guideline and policies. I've seen people get off with warnings here for a lot worse and persistent behavior. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To explain what astonishes you: There is evidence (a re-ban that was discussed in the "Appeal" section below) of substantial disruption outside of an area the user had previously been banned from. This makes a site-ban a logical step, as banning the user from a specific area apparently just makes them find another disruption honeypot. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be back here so soon, but I guess it's just my luck. The user Turaids has for a long time now (since last year at least, if I recall correctly) been lurking at the kvass article and engaging in disruptive editing. Generally it boils down to their gradual erasure of sources and text mentioning the beverage's apparent Slavonic (particularly Kievan Rus') origins. In the past, they have actively vandalised and/or deleted portions of the article dealing with kvass in Slavic countries in favour of the sections that speak about kvass in other regions, especially their own home country of Latvia. To bring up examples from this would require me to dedicate way more time and effort than I am willing to give this person, but for those who assess this report I recommend looking at their contributions in the kvass article. More recently, they have been more careful with how they try to manoeuvre their way around Wikipedia guidelines on the actual kvass page, but way more aggressive and racist in their edit summaries and the comments they have left aimed at me on the kvass talk page.

Here are some recent examples: 1 - using the edit summary to goad me and singling out my ethnic group; 2 - bitter and baseless removal of new content that adds to the article, simply due to the fact that it expands the Polish section that Turaids seems to be on a mission against; 3 - seemingly racist comments and flaming another user, along with baseless and nonsensical accusations (see the Make kvass... Polish "again"? section for details) such as accusing me and Poles in general of "staking their claim" on kvass... apparently by using sources which say that kvass was invented in the Kievan Rus' (lands and nations corresponding to present-day Ukraine, Belarus, Russia - not Poland)? I don't know how one makes this illogical leap in conclusion, but it is in cases like this where you can clearly see the vehemently anti-Polish and anti-Slavic sentiment of Turaids. On this talk page you can also see Turaids calling me "hysterical", "incompetent", and "stubborn". The edit history for the kvass page itself also shows numerous attempts to start and continue edit wars made by Turaids over the course of the past few months.

If the edit warring, disruptive editing motivated by some kind of misplaced national pride, clear POV-pushing and OR, attempts to divide Wikipedians along ethnic lines, as well as personal attacks fuelled by a hatred towards another ethnic group are not basis enough for a ban then I don't know what is... --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only disruption here is the personal attacks made by Samotny Wędrowiec: your little snarky racist comments in the edit summaries of the article will NOT be tolerated .. Unlike you, I have no ulterior motive here [142] you are, in fact, a racist. [143]. ethnic groups you seem to despise. [144] Recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your game here is, but my comments in response to Turaids are very much available for all to see in the pages I linked to. Quoting me here is therefore quite redundant, since I quite literally invited whoever will assess this report to read through the conversation Turaids and I had, though I see that by removing the context of the attacks on my person you are trying to paint a more favourable view of Turaids and a very unfavourable one of me. This sensationalism is uncalled for. Let people have a look at the entire conversation, which I have already linked to (again, there is no need to link to the same pages, but with only my contributions highlighted and that of Turaids omitted).

Also, I still very much stand by what I said there and here. I do believe that Turaids is at least partially motivated by racist beliefs about my ethnicity. If I did not believe that and if their provocations were not so effective then I wouldn't be here and I would not be making such serious accusations. Usually, when someone is accused of racism, a civilised investigation occurs to assess the situation instead of just calling the accusation a personal attack itself in an effort to silence the party that feels they have been offended. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like boomerang territory. The edit history is hard to follow as neither used edit summaries until they started sniping at each other. I am not seeing anything racist here so the comments by Samotny are out of line. Aircorn (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a shame you see it this way. I am more than willing to let this all go if a consensus is reached that Turaids was not acting in a racist manner, but I still believe they should at least receive a warning with regards to their edit warring, disruptive editing, POV-pushing, and personal attacks. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samotny Wędrowiec Can you quote below an example of Turaids racist comment towards you, please? I believe you are a little thin-skinned. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samotny Wędrowiec Where is he calling you "hysterical", "incompetent", and “stubborn" ?? Diff’s please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I see it here [145]

You folks need to be both more civil and comment on content only. GizzyCatBella🍁 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the content becomes pointless after the other user has continiously disregarded your comments on some of the most fundamental of Wikipedia principles and assuming good faith goes out of the window once they start accusing you of many of the things they are doing themselves. Should I turn to Arbitration next time I encounter a user like that? –Turaids (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found these now, as I am just about to head to bed (very late here). I agree that I also overdid it with some of my responses, but that is because I let myself get provoked - not the other way around. Turaids seems obsessed with the fact that I am Polish and has over time developed some kind of vendetta against me because I dared to add information about kvass in Poland. They mistook this for trying to stake a claim on behalf of Poland, when in fact I never attempted this and the only reason I contribute so much to the Polish section is because I am fluent in Polish. Naturally, if I know Polish and English this puts me in a good position to translate information between these two languages.

Actually, this is the same as Turaids and the Latvian sections, only I never had an issue with their contributions there and never tried to ruin their efforts. It is only natural that they are focused primarily on Latvia when they can speak Latvian and know the situation there. What is not okay is their bitter resentment towards me and my attempts to continue adding information from Poland. I think the contributions of Turaids with regards to kvass in Latvia have been predominantly positive, especially after some better sources were used, but their opposition to improving other parts of the page and their seemingly anti-Slavic sentiment have grown to become an obstacle to bettering the article's overall content.

Perhaps, due to many experiences of racism as a Pole and a migrant - both in real life and online, I have become a bit too sensitive to what might be just normal personal attacks that use Polishness as an easy target but are not truly racist in nature. Maybe this has been the case here, I do not know for sure, but I stand by my comments regarding Turaids' disruptive editing and provocations in edit summaries that clearly aimed to start arguments. Regardless, I am writing too much again. I have to bid you goodnight/goodday for now and shall return to this discussion tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time to read this. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samotny Wędrowiec - Yes, you are over-reacting.

You folks (Samotny Wędrowiec and Turaids) should be warned and reminded to comment on content, not on an editor. I would also advise you both to cease editing that European Coca-Cola article for a couple of days. Now disingage and have some kvass. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I think about it more, you Samotny Wędrowiec should be slapped with a stronger warning ⚠️ or even a short block for filing this fallacious report (vandalism? where did you see vandalisms in Turaids’ edits? come on..). - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the user continued disruptive editing by arbitrary removing properly referenced content even AFTER I started the discussion. I will adhere your advice of leaving the article alone for now, but it would be nice to have a third party go through it and address the issues I've raised in the discussion section then. –Turaids (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Turaids, where is the "proper reference" at the end of the sentence that was removed? I don't see one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said content was removed, not the reference. The reference was still at the end of the paragraph. Removing references was actually one of the few things the user didn't do, but rather selectively removing and obscuring what they are attributed to. –Turaids (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your exact words were "removing properly referenced content". What I saw in the diff you linked looked like "removing unreferenced content, which any editor is entitled to do per WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGE". If the source cited at the end of the paragraph also supports that content, then you could add the ref at the end of that sentence, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not at the end of the paragraph, but after the second sentence. Garshol's book is a reference to both the sentence the said user removed and the one after that. And he did so based on a Polish governmental website and a newspaper article, the latter of which, now that I look at it again, doesn't even seem to explicitly say that kvass was invented by Slavs. This is clearly insufficient even under normal circumstances, let alone a dispute like this. –Turaids (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I think that is reasonable. I have not edited the kvass article or its talk page since last night, in fact I tried to end the discussion already at 21:47 UTC last night, while Turaids is still going at it - their most recent edit at the talk page being done at 13:41 UTC (about 11 hours after what you wrote here...). Also, just because we have different views of what transpired here does not make my report "fallacious". Now it looks like everyone here is ganging up on me. I am used to experiencing this as a foreigner in a different country, but not on Wikipedia.

I can see that I am outnumbered and everyone is focused on the racism accusation, seemingly giving no attention whatsoever to the personal attacks and disruptive editing of Turaids (which, I have already mentioned, goes months back to last year). But I am not going to risk a block and will just give up trying to get my point across, as clearly no one is interested in the wider picture anymore and too focused on one aspect of the whole situation. I have said my piece and given the appropriate links, if people are unwilling to have a proper look at the editing history of the other user far enough back to see repeated instances of disruptive editing (which, yes, can be seen as vandalism) and edit warring since last year then I have nothing else.

Unless someone else has any more questions aimed specifically at me, I will leave this discussion and distance myself from the kvass article for some time (on the assumption that Turaids will also follow the guidance given and do the same). However, I imagine no more questions will be asked, as it is quite obvious your minds are made up and no one seems to agree with me here or be willing to look far back enough to get the full picture. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"you are, in fact, a racist" might not be the best way to end a discussion. The more people look at the situation the more they seem to side against you. You clearly have an obsession with a single aspect of the article, while somehow I, contrary to your accusations of "blatant POV-pushing of Latvian nationalism", am the one adding Russian kvass expressions, writing about its nutritional content and traditions in Finland, Estonia, Sweden and China, citing an array of British, Russian, Chinese, Norwegian, Estonian and American sources, and my actual edits about kvass in Latvia make up a small portion of my overall contribution to the article. The very fact that it's you who's "back here so soon" might be an indicator of who's the problem. –Turaids (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to return here after two days only to find another personal attack and attempt to flame me by the above, though considering the user's utter lack of knowledge regarding what "back here so soon" referred to (meaning the swift block of another user who had been disruptive, not me) this is actually somewhat amusing - if a little pathetic. In any case, I will continue to steer clear of the kvass article as long as the other party continues to do the same. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I call out hypocrisy when I see it. If you see it as a personal attack then it is still your problem and just reaffirms what the administrators said about you being "thin-skinned" and "over-reacting". If me not editing the article saves it from you messing it up any further, then I'll leave it as it is, but I will be taking up the issues I've raised in the discussion section with the WikiProject Food and drink to have them addressed by someone more level-headed and objective. –Turaids (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing some IP users (probably a sockpuppet) have been making some unconstructive edits in various film articles, doing that one of the time, causing clutter in revision histories and such since March 2022. Evidence below are articles involved and IP address used on them.

Pages involved

Air Force One (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Olympus Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

London Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nixon (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Peacemaker (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Long Kiss Goodnight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Virtuosity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Con Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chain Reaction (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Saint (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Point of No Return (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP user links

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

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

2001:4455:5BA:5A00:2409:71FA:F19E:C51B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2001:4455:5B2:8700:49B0:B027:3650:F66F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BattleshipMan (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this IP is trying to do, but it is really weird and not helpful. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the still-active IP (49) for two weeks, and asked them to explain what they're doing. Open to unblocking if this turns out to be some misguided attempt to help with something, although their lack of response to their block by OverlordQ on the 158 IP makes me pessimistic about that. Meanwhile, @Suffusion of Yellow: Do you know why 1102 isn't catching these? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain it. But this should not be continued. We may have to page protect certain pages if that continues. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still scratching my head at this filter, but in the meantime, would anyone object if I did an oldschool selective-deletion revdel of all these whitespace edits? Unlike with a Special:RevisionDelete revdel, where the edit still shows up but is struck through, with selective deletion it's just as if the edit didn't happen, which would make these articles' histories much more navigable, and it's not like any important information is being omitted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see, 1102 not matching this is intended behavior. I'm now testing something that would match this in 1206 . Let's see how it goes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing those diffs may have to happen. I also hope that the new setup for the filter will solve that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was pinged here, but it seems y'all have this figure out now. I'll note there is also filter 1199 (hist · log), which catches some of what slips through the cracks in some of the other filters. It's log-only and should probably stay that way, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's more discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Okay to use selective deletion to clear out a bunch of whitespace edits?. Graham87 04:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. CreecregofLife has reverted edits on NickRewind that needed detail instead of helping out by expanding. He's also been disruping for months. Could there be somthing done about the situation?

Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackthewriterguy12, WP:V is a core policy. Once unsourced content is challenged, it can not be restored without a source.

Also note, that both editors are at 4RR.Slywriter (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a 3RR warning on their page that they clearly ignored. This report feels like a frivolous act of retaliation and is better off closed with no action CreecregofLife (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackthewriterguy12. Please be aware that there is no immunity for reporters. So, before bringing it up at ANI, please try discussing it on the talk page of the article first to reach an agreement instead of reverting repeatedly. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also, if you start a discussion about another editor, please be sure to notify them. You can use {{subst:Ani-notice}} to do so. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted the message, but please notify any users you start discussions about in future threads. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 22:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Creecreg is already involved in another matter here above at WP:ANI#IJBall’s passive aggressive comments and edit warring. Editor still continuing to get themselves into issues/edit wars despite multiple previous ANI discussions (and a still-active one) regarding their behavior. As I stated in that above section, an indef block + standard offer is probably appropriate now. Magitroopa (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This report has no merit. An indef block will never be appropriate CreecregofLife (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a different topic altogether. Neutrally observing both these issues, please don't bludgeon the conversation with a 'but they're also' point to get a certain result. As for this one, it's sorely in need of so much editing down and doesn't make for a good read, and either description is just way too long. It should stay removed, as the description is wholly unnecessary to burnish beneath a link to a list-of. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nate CreecregofLife (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackthewriterguy12: unsourced content already being present in an article isn't an excuse to add more unsourced content to it. @CreecregofLife: you must give an edit summary when you revert someone that seems to be editing in good faith. You can't expect editors to read your mind, and if you don't give an edit summary, the cant' expect them not to revert you back, since you just didn't offer any explanation whatsoever. —El Millo (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This i do agree on. I'll try to source more in the future Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Magitroopa that an indefinite block of CreecregofLife is warranted for their persistent attitude of not being here to work as part of a community. In this situation, there has been a clear bright line violation of WP:3RR; it does not matter that CreecregofLife is correct that the article is better off without the change. The point is that you must engage in discussion and avoid never-ending edit warring.

Indefinite does not mean infinite, but the issue is that CreecregofLife cannot accept when they are in the wrong, follow our conduct norms or understand feedback they are given. The block can be lifted when they show signs of changing all three of these patterns of behaviour. — Bilorv (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck per below.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support an indefinite block, per what has been mentioned directly above this comment and what I mentioned in the section they started several topics above regarding IJBall's supposed "behavior," especially since they just did it out of retaliation. Also as per my comments at all of the ANIs about them to date. Amaury • 14:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except you are taking incident s out of context to claim that this attitude exists or that my behavior hasn’t changed. And “all” the ANIs about me? Goes to show it doesn’t matter the motive behind the reports, they must have been right, because they were about me?

And apparently, veteran editors can’t behave improperly, no it’s gotta be “retaliation” by their target. Maybe stop judging me for the behaviors you want to see instead of what my actual behaviors are. Maybe if you’d talk to me as a person instead of a target you’d understand me better. You police how I talk about myself by claiming it violates Battleground, yet here you are. Nate specifically said not to bludgeon to get a certain way, yet here you are. This is utterly sickening. CreecregofLife (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: in regards to the first sentence of your comment, can you describe the ways in which you have changed your behaviour based on ANI reports or other recent feedback? I'm interested to hear more. — Bilorv (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I need to say is that merely limiting to ANI reports wh where I’ve been bludgeoned by people who haven’t actually observed my behaviors are forming artificial patterns instead of looking at the actual patterns. I’ve been doing good work. You claim you acknowledge that but in practice none of the bludgeoners have genuinely done so. I was just commended by Favrefan for my work switching archives and updating references. I have been using the talk page much more, and for that I’m marked against and get accused of being paid off? I walked away from at least three discussions before I got reheated. And most of all, all those “Battleground” accusations are unfounded in any discussion, but especially those where the status of my account is not at stake. I don’t want to be treated like the bad guy when I’m not the bad guy on a minor tactical error. At this point you’re gnawing at the bit to get me an indefinite block on something like this without actually reading the case, just because I was named in it. You really have to calm down CreecregofLife (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: it's good to see you acknowledge that you need to moderate your behaviour to avoid taking actions during moments of emotional intensity. In this situation specifically, regarding NickRewind edits, I have said that your edits (at least initially) instated a better version of the article. So could you explain to me what you think you did wrong in this circumstance? — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted too many times and didn’t focus enough on talk page discussion CreecregofLife (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, CreecregofLife. I've withdrawn my support for the block because I do now see that you are listening to feedback and cognizant of it. At this point, assuming we can move on from this particular situation, you know that each heated situation (including those in which others are in the wrong) present you with good choices and bad choices.

I hope also that the definition of edit warring is now clear to Jackthewriterguy12—every act of violating the three-revert rule is edit warring, but many actions that don't break this rule are still examples of edit warring. It will be crystal clear in future that you have been made aware of edit warring and that there is no justification for it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The usual and typical response of "I am doing nothing wrong. And poor me, I am the victim here!" That's all I see. You never and will never admit your wrongdoings. You have several editors, in this thread and across multiple ANIs, who all share the same concerns and you just brush all that off and claim you are the victim of abuse. Either change your behavior or don't. You either don't realize that your behavior is disruptive or you are just feigning ignorance. Whatever the case, keep at it like this, and your time will be limited here. Amaury • 15:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, the thing is, I did admit to wrongdoings, and you are selectively ignoring and forgetting that, in order to bludgeon how bad of an editor I allegedly am. I show examples of how I changed my behavior, but that’s not enough for you. You continue to call me disruptive without evidence, just your opinion. Just because you refuse to acknowledge that I changed my behavior doesn’t mean I didn’t. Just because I didn’t change to your arbitrary specifications doesnt mean I’m disruptive. You never talk to me personally, you make sure to do it in ANIs, to bludgeon a specific perception of me that goes against reality. You do so over and over and over again. I changed, sorry it wasn’t enough for you. What you’re doing here is behaving exactly as I described. How is anything I’ve done worth an indefinite block? CreecregofLife (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt their behavior will change: even after the previous ANIs with multiple editors expressing the same concern(s), even after multiple notices/warnings on their talk page, and during the fact that there are two ANIs currently open here, the editor is still demonstrating the exact battleground/combative behavior that has been expressed multiple times. See here. TL;DR- it's a, "I didn't like the answer the first person gave me, so I'm going to keep going until I find someone who does agree with me" - essentially trying to tell AfC reviewers that they are not properly reviewing their own draft.

An admin previously closed an edit warring noticeboard discussion they were involved in earlier this month, saying if either user edit wars again, "...it will likely be resolved with blocks." - and yet, here we are with two open ANIs, both involving edit warring/3RR/4RR. Clearly after all of the warnings/notices, and previous/ongoing ANI discussions, nothing has been learned. Indefinite block/standard offer until they can demonstrate that they are capable of working in/with a community and not bringing their "contentious attitude" everywhere they go on Wikipedia. This is getting absolutely ridiculous at this point. Magitroopa (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for not agreeing with every assault on my character like you repeatedly bludgeon. And thank you for demonstrating the true reason why you can’t stand my attitude, why you think I’m combative: Because I questioned the admin’s actions. All I did was follow procedure and give my interpretation of what happened. If merely questioning the process is competitive and battleground to you, maybe I’m not the actual issue. Maybe it’s your hostility getting in the way of the person wanting to work specifically with you. Notice how you want me to be held accountable for every little thing but you refuse to listen about bludgeoning. I work fine with the community. Clearly I’m capable but you continue to claim I’m not, with zero actual evidence. Again, I’ve changed my behavior, but you haven’t. Stop giving every ANI report against me credibility just because I’m named in it. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are still edit warring, as is clear by the very fact that you created a section above claiming IJBall is the problem, when in fact it's yourself, as you were the one edit warring, not him. Previous noticeboard discussions regarding your disruptive behavior are very much relevant, especially when you are still being disruptive. So please explain to me again how your behavior has changed. I'll give you a hint: It hasn't. The only reason you're not already blocked, as one of the commentators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring said, is because some of your edits are apparently constructive. That's the only reason. But even an administrator themselves pointed out your problems of not being able to edit collaboratively. Stop playing the victim and being in denial. Amaury • 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So to prove that you’re not hostile and that I’m “playing the victim”, you dismiss my my general contributions and you continue to function solely on two month old comments. Again, I’ve changed, and you’ve continued to bludgeon with hostility. Once again you refuse to prove how exactly I’m the problem. You’re not even denying your excessive hostility. Your entire argument is in bad faith and a conflict of interest to protect your misbehaving colleague who should know better. No really, why else would you call both sides of one incident edit warring, but the one where IJBall is involved, only the side they oppose is the edit warrer? At this point I’m not sure you ever had a right to call me disruptive CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't even see why you're wrong just reflects worse on you. You should know very well how it works around here, specifically with regard to WP:BRD. You were bold. Great! IJBall reverted you and even commended you for wanting to update references, but mentioned that, as per MOS:CITEVAR, date formats should not be changed across an entire article without strong consensus. At that point, it was time for you to go to the talk page and discuss without reverting further, leaving the article in the WP:STATUSQUO version. That's not what you did. You instead decided to revert again, which is disruptive. Date formats should also be uniform across the two separate parameters. If the date parameter is formatted as May 31, 2022, but the access date parameter is formatted as 31 May 2022, that's fine, as long as it's uniform for all references in an article. If an article has one reference with an access date format of 31 May 2022, but has 12 other references with an access date format of May 31, 2022, then that one reference formatted as 31 May 2022, should be fixed. However, as mentioned, specifically changing all the formats to another format requires a strong consensus. Amaury • 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's correct. All dates should be uniform, and there shouldn't be format differences between |access-date= and |date=, particularly when either DMY or MDY was chosen for a non-random reason, e.g. the nationality of the subject of the article. Everything else said I agree with. —El Millo (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't quite incorrect – |access-date= are allowed to be ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) format even when |date= formats are DMY or MDY. This is clear from MOS:DATEUNIFY. But I generally agree that it makes no sense to have, say, |date= formats be MDY, and |access-date= format be DMY, at the same article, even though it is technically allowed... As to the issue at hand, it's clear that ANI is collectively not going to do anything about this editor, though I expect they will eventually be taken to WP:ANEW at some point where action may finally be taken. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong consensus" is not needed when the topic has national ties, per MOS:DATERET. Policy is not clear on whether consensus is needed to change access/archive-date formats to match the format used in the rest of the article/referencing, though it seems common sense to do so, and MOS:DATEUNIFY highlights that consistency across these formats is desirable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR is pretty clear that you should not, in fact, do what you are suggesting, without discussion first. And, again, MOS:DATEUNIFY is clear that access-dates can be ISO format regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

82.173.160.29 (talk · contribs) has made several disruptive and reverted edits on List of roads in Iceland a month ago with more edits that are verifiable due to quantities of untrustable and rather bad sources which might have been taken directly from internet. I find this a concern, as it harms articles' integrity and might mislead readers. I think there is need for administrator action, as those edits are harmful to the encyclopedic goal of Wikipedia and replace it with other Wiki projects (like the edits on roads in Iceland which is more of Wikivoyage). 109.12.6.224 (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has not been notified of the discussion. I shall do so. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my first time being involved in an administered dispute and I welcome feedback.

I have been having repeated problems working with Alexbrn. These problems started at 2022 monkeypox outbreak, where Alexbrn seems to have violated 3RR:

1. First revert, with context on the talk page. The reverted edit included the comment "Please do discuss edits on Talk page, and do not wholesale revert, per WP:REVONLY—thanks kindly!" Alexbrn only joined the Talk discussion after being called out for the revert, and explicitly abandoned AGF during the discussion.
2. Second revert, for which he was chastised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Are you burned out yet?
3. Third revert

The edit war was successful: the article lede still reflects Alexbrn's preferences rather than the consensus of every other contributor to the Talk discussion.

The discussion at WikiProject Medicine led me to look at the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page where I was surprised to find that it was still dismissing the "lab leak" hypothesis, which was considered a conspiracy theory in 2020 but is widely acknowledged as plausible if unlikely since 2021. There was an existing thread on the Talk page, where Alexbrn and RandomCanadian were repeatedly reverting attempts by StN to acknowledge a small amount of uncertainty about the virus origins. StN was eventually banned for their efforts, but I haven't looked in to the full history there.

In response to my comments on that thread, my position was repeatedly dismissed as WP:FRINGE and I was accused of promulgating conspiracy theories. The thread was eventually closed by RandomCanadian on the pretext that someone (I don't know who) had been canvassing on Twitter. There is no evidence that I came to the thread from Twitter: I have described how I ended up there. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2010 (with a long hiatus from 2016 to 2021) and contribute in good faith. I looked at StN and it seems that they have been contributing since 2006. I don't know them, but no evidence was presented to link them to the Twitter post either. Nevertheless, some random Twitter post was cited as grounds for closing a good faith discussion.

I protested the closure on User talk:RandomCanadian - to my surprise, RandomCanadian avoided responding, and Alexbrn responded instead after some delay. The timing strongly suggests private canvassing: Alexbrn does not appear to monitor User talk:RandomCanadian. In general their coordinated actions on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 smell strongly of tag-teaming. RandomCanadian has deleted my protest from their talk page rather than responding: diff.

For completeness, other than the links so far, I think the only edits I have made on this subject are to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#COVID origin.

I should have complained about the edit warring within the 48 hour deadline, but I didn't know how at the time. I acknowledge that I became incensed at times during this interaction; until now my experiences with Wikipedia have been entirely positive and I am surprised and disappointed by this most recent experience. I suspect this Admin interaction will be more of the same, but having done the work to document this and learn about the admin process, I might as well finish my tour of the sausage factory. Reading this it feels like I am including too much detail but I don't know what's considered relevant and what isn't; apologies in advance to whoever has to wade through this.

These contributors both have long experience on the site; they should know better. As seen in the links, their responses to comments are frequently curt, dismissive, and in some cases coordinated. WP:AGF seems to carry no weight with Alexbrn in particular, but he gets his way regardless. I protest. -- Palpable (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of off-wiki communication is false; and shows (ironically) a lack of AGF by the person complaining about AGF here. I wouldn't be surprised if Alexbrn got to my talk page the same way you did, which is ostensibly from the SARS-CoV-2 talk page (or directly after noticing your edits to it). I have no obligation to respond expeditiously to comments on my talk page. The fact you decided to take this as an excuse for bad-faith accusations seems a confirmation that I indeed had no need to respond to it.

I closed the discussion because this is an old debate (which you might not be aware of), because it was clearly not going to effect any productive outcome, and WP:DROPTHESTICK is valid advice. This has been debated multiple times previously and there is no sign any of it is going to change.

I also don't understand why new or inexperienced editors have such an urge to attempt inserting themselves in controversial areas, and then get all angry when people correctly show them their edits are not in line with Wikipedia guidelines (such as, in this case, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES). Citing as an example a new (or possibly, canvassed from Twitter, I don't know) editor who was wasting people's time on the talk page (despite being challenged multiple times to present high-quality reliable sources on the matter) and got blocked for edit-warring doesn't seem to dispel the idea that newcomers shouldn't be rushing towards controversial areas. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never communicated off-wiki with RandomCanadian. The twitter canvassing[146] appears to involve other editors. The OP evidently does not understand what edit-warring is, as none happened and the evidence does not show any. As for the insistence that Wikipedia needs to headline the idea that COVID-19 might have been the result of a Chinese bio-engineered virus, that is a content dispute, and currently under discussion at WP:FTN. Suggest trout and close unless the OP wants to push it, in which case WP:BOOMERANG. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The OP evidently does not understand what edit-warring is" - I look forward to having this explained.

"the insistence that Wikipedia needs to headline the idea that COVID-19 might have been the result of a Chinese bio-engineered virus" - this is a gross mischaracterization of my comments. Palpable (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To understand edit-warring, please read WP:EW. Maybe look at WP:AN3 (where edit warring should be reported) to see practical applications of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EW:

The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

I linked to the three reverts. In this specific case, wouldn't a fourth revert have hit the 3RR bright line? What distinguishes this from edit warring? -- Palpable (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content is not necessarily a "revert" (in edit-warring a revert is usually to a previous version of the text made by the edit-warring editor); contiguous edits count as a single edit; any excessive reverts generally need to be within a 24 hour period, or demonstrably disruptive. You're confusing normal editing (which sometimes includes deletions of course) with edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a revert doesn't seem to include your provision that the restored version was made by the same editor.

The three reverts were within three hours.

The edits were non-contiguous, though I see the comment below saying that clarifies that "contiguous" to mean sequential in time. Nevertheless, the text of the 3RR rule doesn't seem to include this requirement and it's not clear how I'm supposed to learn about it.

As far as I can tell, you didn't add any text to replace the removed text so this wasn't quite the same as normal editing. Palpable (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't think I can usefully add anything more. I'll let others handle this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain in this case, this was genuinely helpful. -- Palpable (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I never edited the SARS-CoV-2 page. It was clearly controversial which is why I attempted to engage on the talk page instead. How many edits does somebody need to have before you don't consider them a burden? Palpable (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many edits does somebody need to have before you don't consider them a burden? The crucial part of being a burden is being challenged multiple times to present high-quality reliable sources on the matter and not "new editor". Being new is just evidence of not being familiar with policy, repeatedly ignoring links to policy is evidence of unwillingness to adhere to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a WP:3RR violation, for two reasons. First, WP:3RR means you cannot exceed three reverts in a 24-hour period. Second, more importantly, the second and third edits are consecutive with no edits by anyone else between them, which means that they count as one edit for 3RR purposes. Edit warring is still undesirable, but a single second revert five days ago hardly demands rushing to WP:ANI. And describing a belief as WP:FRINGE - even a belief you happen to hold - is not a WP:AGF violation; objecting the fringe-ness of a source or theory is raising an issue with content and sources, not with editors. How would we ever be able to discuss whether something is FRINGE if simply raising the possibility is treated as an AGF violation? --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully agree that it doesn't meet the bright line 3RR. That is a sufficient but not necessary condition for edit warring as I read it.

  Please note that I did not rush to WP:ANI; this is part of a more general complaint.

  The problem with the FRINGE accusation is that in normal discourse "fringe" has a much smaller application than "not published in a peer reviewed journal". -- Palpable (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, due to the last two edits counting as one, it's not even close to a 3RR violation. Two reverts, done once several days ago, isn't usually worth mentioning here. And - whether the FRINGE claims are correct or not, and whether they've made a good argument for them or not, isn't an ANI matter (unless you think they're so obviously, clearly wrong as to make it hard to accept the argument is made in good faith, which I don't think is the case here.) If you think they're claiming something is FRINGE and are just wrong about that, take it to WP:FRINGEN rather than asking for something to be done to them here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the comments so far:

• Thanks for the clarifications on 3RR: I retract my claim of edit-warring. I missed the consecutive edits exception at WP:3RR. I remain unimpressed by the talk page discussion.
• Alexbrn has acknowledged that I was not part of any canvassing effort.
• I retract my suggestion of off-wiki communication and apologize.
• I acknowledge that proximity to someone who was edit warring and canvassing on Twitter put my comments in a bad light. I was not aware of the other commenter's actions at the time.
• I acknowledge again that I became incensed to an unhelpful degree.
• I still feel tag-teamed and would appreciate third-party feedback on whether this is just business as usual.

Thanks - Palpable (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GANG#False accusations of tag teaming. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Palpable: from what I can see, you made a single short comment on Talk:2022 monkeypox outbreak nearly 7 days ago. This was before Alexbrn had said anything on that particular issue. Since then, Alexbrn has made an effort to explain their their PoV as has ElleTheBelle with some minor comments from others. So if there's a problem it's because you and others have no made an effort to actually talk about the problem in an attempt to seek consensus, which is not the case for Alexbrn. If you want to achieve consensus you need to actually take part in the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should include User:Bondegezou too as another editor who seems to have made a decent effort to take part in the discussion, partly because they left more than one comment but especially because they made an effort to engage with the concerns raised. I should add that I'm not defending ElleTheBelle's continually claims of censorship but while such comments are not ideal, they are often best ignored and more importantly ElleTheBelle did explain their PoV more thant just talking about censorship. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Palpable: In fact, looking further, there is nothing in the only comment you left on the talk page which even explains why you are concerned about the current version. You said "Nearly every public health source has mentioned the prevalence of MSM in the early outbreak. The largely successful attempts to keep it out of the article make Wikipedia look bad.". But the current version of the article does not keep this out, it has a whole section on it 2022 monkeypox outbreak#Transmission (permalink [147]). If that section is not long enough for you or you are not happy with the wording or whatever, you need to explain that and what you want to include instead. If you want to add info on the prevalence elsewhere, like in the lead, you need to explain that. You cannot expect editors to guess what you want. If you are not willing to take part in the talk page discussion and the only comment you leave seems to be satisfied by the current version of the article, then you have no reasonable complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see Alexbrn make any concessions there, he gave curt answers to longer and more thoughtful comments by ElleTheBelle and Bondegezou. At WikiProject Medicine, Alexbrn made it clear that his real motivation was anti-homophobia rather than WP:MEDRS.

Bondegezou has the best LGBT health credentials to explain why the health dangers are relevant in spite of the valid concerns about stigmatization; if Alexbrn won't compromise with them, nothing I could say would make a difference.

Eventually Bondegezou gave up too, in spite of being the most qualified person there. - Palpable (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Palpable: if you're not willing to take part in the talk page discussion, then don't complain about the result. It's that simple. Wikipedia operates by consensus which means discussion based on our policies and guidelines, and what's in reliable sources; not credentials or qualifications. And it's not possible for one editor to long term prevent the addition of content which has consensus from a lot of other participants. But that discussion only really had 3 participants. And one thing is clear, all forms of WP:dispute resolution require participants willing to discuss in good faith. As it stands, as I pointed out above, the only thing you ever said on the talk page suggests you are happy with the current version of the article as is apparently Alexbrn. So since both you aren Alexbrn are happy, why even open this thread? If it turns out that you are not happy with the current version of the article, you need to take part in the discussion and explain why so people actually know, rather than expect people to guess you are going to open an ANI thread a few days in the future because you aren't happy with the result despite never actually explaining you weren't happy. If your not willing to accept that we're not mind readers so have no idea you aren't happy when you don't actually explain so, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Ultimately because we're not mind readers, Wikipedia requires editors take part in discussion where there's dispute if they want to change things, rather than just open ill-founded ANI threads. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put things a different way, maybe one of the reasons Bondegezou gave up was because no one seemed to care. Only them and ElleTheBelle actually said anything substantial. From that talk page discussion, it's easily possible all other editors were happy with the end result which Alexbrn preferred. If there were any other editors who were not happy, we have no way of knowing. And the fact that no one including you bothered to comment on anything substantial means it's unsurprising if those editors like Bondegezou may feel it's simply not worth it even if you aren't totally happy with the result, especially since it's something that may be irrelevant in 1 month as things evolve. I mean beyond other editors simply speaking up, there are other dispute resolution steps that could be followed like posting in a relevant noticeboard or starting an RfC, but since no one including you were willing to take those steps, we have what we have. Except that for some reason despite not caring enough to do something to advance the discussion, the most basic in this case would be to actually discuss, you've opened this ANI partly about that discussion. (For clarity, something substantial would include stuff like here's what I think we should say and where we should say it, here's the sources which support such an addition, and this is why I do not think it's undue weight. Talk about censorship or accusations of bad faith or ill-motivations and other such comments ultimately do not advance the discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Palpable and Nil Einne: There's no need for discussion of my motives; I am here! I have not given up on the discussion at 2022 monkeypox outbreak. I have merely been busy with other editing and real life.

Alexbrn is a longstanding editor who has done much great work on Wikipedia. I think Alexbrn's edits on SARS-CoV-2 are sensible (but I have not been following the article closely). I think Alexbrn acted in good faith, but got it wrong on 2022 monkeypox outbreak on this issue and was perhaps too quick to revert and rather curt in comments. I understand that all of us can sometimes be rather curt!

I raised my credentials not to violate WP:EXPERT but because Alexbrn appeared to raise concerns about bad faith editing and I wanted to reassure Alexbrn that I was seeking to engage in good faith.

2022 monkeypox outbreak is a heavily-edited article and continues to change a lot. I hope we can resolve disagreements through normal editing and Talk discussion without having to go to more convoluted dispute resolution procedures. I hope other editors can input. Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely am not happy with the current version of the 2022 monkeypox outbreak article. The last WHO report I saw says that the majority(!) of cases are still in the MSM population, but you won't find that on Wikipedia. And my theory that Bondegezou gave up is way more plausible than your theory that they suddenly decided the article was fine but didn't bother to say so. I'm not going to drag them into this mudpit but you could ask if you want.

I understand how consensus building is supposed to work and I really wish it worked that way. But in the zoonotic origin discussion I have already been accused of promoting fringe and conspiracy theories, off-site canvassing and sealioning, been told to drop the stick, and threatened with being slapped with a trout. And you want me to open myself up to a charge of homophobia too?

There is a playbook where you can basically stonewall people until they walk away (like Bondegezou), get frustrated so you can discredit them with one of many civility guidelines (like ElleTheBelle) or, if they persist, accuse them of disruption and sealioning (like me in the zoonotic origin discussion). Walking away is clearly the best strategy. If I want to deal with office politics there are companies that will compensate me handsomely for doing so. This isn't worth it.

Hopefully this incident will be closed soon and I can take a nice long break from Wikipedia. It's not clear when I will feel like editing again but when I do it will be something controversy-free like fixing up all the broken links to the Jepson Manual.

I'm sure there's a guideline that says you should sanction anyone who decides to take their toys and go home. Oh well. - Palpable (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is really a content issue but the WHO in fact say[148] "Some cases have been identified through sexual health clinics in communities of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. It is important to note that the risk of monkeypox is not limited to men who have sex with men." It's this kind of elision of detail (where the cases have been reported confused with where they are, in a way the sources carefully avoid doing) which concerns me, especially when it's placed in the lede. The article fulsomely covers the MSM aspect, including speculation from non-WP:MEDRS sources, as it is. Too much of this would be undue. Your comments about stonewalling etc. are as obtuse as practically everything else you've written so if you confine yourself to WP:GNOMING that would probably be best for everyone, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who had the most discussion with the editor in question after he reverted my addition to the lead, which I had taken pains to discuss in advance in two sections on the article's Talk page. Like Palpable, I am a relatively new editor, and, in my admittedly limited experience, this situation is unfortunately quite common. The main source of the problem, as I see it, is the all-too-frequent failure to follow the clear guidance in WP:REV.

1. My entire edit was reverted with no discussion on the Talk page (as specifically requested in my edit summary), with the only explanation (and the entirety of the reversion summary) being "unreliable sourcing & WP:LEDEBOMB". The latter is an essay by the reverting editor himself which asserts: "If new material is truly WP:DUE it may be added to the article body and then, if it figures significantly for the article's topic, it may be summarized in the lede." The information I'd summarized in my edit to the lead was, of course, already in the main article.
2. When respectfully challenged on those claims, the editor dropped his complaints about a putative "LEDEBOMB" and the purported unreliability of the AP and Washington Post, switching to a new claim: that my edit somehow violated WP:MEDRS.
3. When challenged on that claim, the editor dropped any and all objections to the RS, and instead claimed that I had "reinterpreted in a novel POV way" transmission through "sexual networks"—and that saying that the recent, novel outbreak had been spread "primarily… by MSM" was "sidestepping" the fact that it can be spread by others and was thus "not true to the source".
4. When I dispatched with those claims , instead of responding to my request for clarification, the editor switched yet again; the fourth installment of his argument was that the information was already in the article—literally reversing and contradicting his initial rationale for his reversion. He further questioned the WP:INTEGRITY of my edit—"Where are you getting 'in contrast with prior outbreaks of monkeypox, it has spread person-to-person?'"—this despite the fact that the cited source quite clearly states that the current outbreak "marks a significant departure from the disease’s typical pattern of spread in central and western Africa, where people are mainly infected by animals like wild rodents and primates and outbreaks have not spilled across borders." In some ways, this is the most troubling, as it suggests a very real possibility that the editor hadn't even bothered to read the cited sources he initially challenged as "unreliable".
5. Only after a far more experienced editor than I challenged him, did the reverter completely change his reasoning for a fifth and (thus far) final time, now writing that he agreed that "greater coverage in the lead" of MSM transmission was "warranted"—and that in fact, all along: "My worry was more about the idea monkeypox had "morphed" into an STI, or the speculation about particular raves." In other words: he had been entirely disingenuous about his reason for reverting me—especially given that my edit included exactly nothing about monkeypox "morphing into an STI", let alone "speculation about particular raves".

In short, the reverting editor threw up five separate and even mutually exclusive claims to justify removing the sentence I'd added to the lead. In that context, I hope my question makes more sense:"Clearly you want to suppress this information, and I'm genuinely confused by and curious as to why. Explaining that would be a lot more productive than continuing to lob up nonsensical objections." Perhaps my use of the term "suppression" came across as intemperate; I didn't intend it to be an accusation of bad faith, and very much meant what I wrote in good faith: I was genuinely curious why the editor seemed so determined to keep the information out of the lead—to the point that he was willing to pick justifications out of a hat and then drop them like hot potatoes when challenged. He could have simply answered my sincerely curious question by explaining that he was "worried" about "specific raves" and suggestions that "monkeypox had morphed into an STI"—if, as he now claims, that was indeed his real reason for the revert from the start.

I always AGF—and at the same time it strikes me there is something WP:NOTHERE involved in an editor making endless different arguments to support a wholesale reversion, dropping each claim rather than responding when challenged and simply taking up a new one, all the while refusing (even when explicitly asked) to simply explain his real reason for the reversion. Honesty goes a long way here—and I have far more respect for someone who says "I'm worried this will encourage prejudice toward gay men" than someone who flips through a Rolodex of possible Wikilawyer objections, immediately swapping them out when challenged. I don't know the specific meaning of "edit warring" and neither understand nor want any part of the quasi-judicial process apparently at work here—so, to be clear, I'm not making a formal (or even informal) accusation of anything actionable. My hope is simply that editors will remember and strive to remain connected with the real reason we're building an encyclopedia, and not stoop to using it as a battleground to deploy their personal opinions, biases, and beliefs.

One of the most frustrating issues I encounter on Wikipedia is the lack of adherence to the clear guidance in WP:RV: "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." In my experience, this isn't respected in the slightest; the ratio of people who have reverted my edits to those who have edited them with an eye toward improving them (and thus the encyclopedia) is almost certainly more than 20:1, and the majority don't articulate anything resembling a thoughtful explanation, let alone bother to discuss them. How is it that this guidance is so routinely ignored, with so little comment or consequence? I personally cannot remember ever wholesale reverting another editor's work, let alone without discussion on the Talk page. Excepting cases of obvious vandalism, wholesale reverts are not only unwarranted and destructive but, as the WP:REV guidance takes pains to point out, are often the first volley in an edit war. When an edit is for some reason unsalvageable and wholesale reversion is genuinely necessary—perhaps because it is entirely inaccurate or violates an important policy like WP:BLP—it seems it should always be accompanied by a full, accurate, and, most of all, honest explanation. If someone has taken the time to work on our project, we ought to respect their work—and, ideally, to discuss it before deleting it. And when an editor finally drops all the innumerate arguments they've used to justify a reversion they've made—is it too much to ask that they undo it and reinstate the valid edit? As Palpable points out, despite having agreed that the information I added to the lede is "warranted", the reverting editor still has not undone his reversion—and that information is still missing from the current version of the article.

Thanks kindly for allowing me to contribute—and I will continue in my efforts to help build the best, most accurate, and least biased encyclopedia in world history! ElleTheBelle 17:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to reconcile your self-praise as "I always AGF" with you accusation "Clearly you want to suppress this information". Your version[149] of the article did indeed introduce novel, unreliable sources into the lede which was better dealt with in the body using reliable sources. Because I don't bother to repeat obvious things doesn't mean I "dropped" them. Your idea that "in contrast with prior outbreaks of monkeypox, it has spread person-to-person?" is just wrong, since person-to-person infection is long-established.[150] In any case, since better sources are now available this is mostly moot and the article is improving on a better-sourced foundation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link to that post, in my Talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Visionhelp#Rvs_Tiger_biography
--Visionhelp (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that is or why it's there, however you have exactly two choices: remove it, or leave it alone. The decision is yours. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz ^(talk), thank You very much. To leave it alone is no option for me. But, such behaviour, also just deleting: not, too.
I would prefer something as note to wikipedia and to the member also, this behaviour is not OK. As kind note, before having to know at all: what is the intention.
--Visionhelp (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Visionhelp! This page is for reporting urgent, chronic behavioral incidents. When you post about a user here, you must notify them on their talk page. I’ve done that for you this time.

The IP editor who wrote that message is probably confused, and/or is a new editor who doesn’t understand the purpose of user talk pages. The best thing to do is delete it from your talk page, and leave a message on their talk page asking why they wrote it. If you ask them not to post on your talk page but they continue to bother you, then it will become an issue, but for the time being it seems to me that this was just an innocuous mistake. (Non-administrator comment) — The Only Zac (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much Your support, The Only Zac (talk) I did an addition at this member´s Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2409:4052:219C:C20A:75CC:F5CB:7CC9:BA5A
Your help could let me do it now this way. With hope this trouble will end so very soon.
There are lots of other challenges which Wikipedia already presents. Thanks again.
Note: Using Your name You get a message. Using this members name (as done) doesn´t, so the member does not get an alert/notification, I have to fear. (Currently trying this: 2409:4052:219C:C20A:75CC:F5CB:7CC9:BA5A (talk))
Visionhelp (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome @Visionhelp, I’m happy to help. However, your use of the words “trouble” and “vandalism” worry me. In situations like this, it is important that we assume good faith of other editors. Also, you should be aware that the term vandalism has negative connotations, and you should avoid use it unless you are sure that an editor is intentionally and knowingly making disruptive edits (you may want to read the section of policy at this link: WP:NOTVAND).

Considering this IP editor has no other edits and seems to be confused about the purpose of user talk pages, it’s likely that posting the comment on your talk page was a simple mistake. It is most definitely not a chronic, intractable behavioral problem that needs urgent attention, and you may never hear from them again, so I would recommend that you simply delete their comment from your talk page and lay this issue to rest. — The Only Zac (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Zac (talk). Thanks.
To use this member´s name does not notify an alert, that this member gets a note about this here.
The content of the post tells me doing propagation. Yes, and posting such on a Talk page, is at least being confused or something similar, as of being ignoring, from my understanding. (This post appears as an article, or as a part of an article, but and additionly very misplaced.)
This being treated so kind by You I would like, would have liked, to me, to my not interpreting well or to my self-understanding.
Currently to me it appears as a big omission, not very easy, or not at all, being able to send an alert notification.
Thank You very much Your kindness, and again Your support. I will let pass some days.
(By the way: My conviction, being not registered at Wikipedia should not be possible to edit anything. This is inviting the public just to let say ´hello world´.)
Visionhelp (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Stratford-upon-Avon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Atherstone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kenilworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bedworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Coleshill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Southam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Dunchurch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Alcester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Studley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Part of a pattern of behaviour of repeatedly vandalising the layout and structure of articles. Continuing to ignore guidelines despite being made aware of them. User being reported: G-13114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin75aw (talk • contribs) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide evidence for "vandalising" (i.e. intentionally damaging the encyclopedia) please, or retract the accusation. Be more specific about the ignored guidelines and provide diff links for the behavior you're complaining about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously WP:NOTVAND, probably a legitimate editorial disagreement about article layout (I've made my contribution about that at the Stratford page); but more importantly, this does appear like a WP:OWN issue by Robin. I'd suggest editors try discussing this on the article talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD might be "only" an essay, but it contains good advice. Just discuss things on article talk pages rather than edit-war and call people you disagree with about content vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a tit for tat filing response to User:Robin75aw reported by User:G-13114 (Result: ) at the edit warring board, that is still open, down to the language used. Robin75aw is in the wrong here in placing this at the vandalism board and not responding at the edit warring board. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also the edit warring report alleges that Robin75aw is using 79.76.165.218 to edit war. In my opinion 79.76.167.138 is also involved in reverting in Atherstone. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StellarNerd: I've noticed that a new user called User:RawUtd (contributions here) suddenly appeared after this happened, who's editing seems suspiciously similar to that of Robin75aw. This seems like a potential sockpuppet account to me. Should this be investigated? G-13114 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@G-13114: I see the general resembelance in username, topics, and these long chains of edits to English towns making these small style, paragraph and images changes. However I am not sure if on the micro level they are the same. If you can present evidence showing that the little edits are very similar, in my opinion putting a report at WP:SPI would be a swell idea. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn has been banned from interacting with me as a result of this 2018 disscussion. The ban which was initially to alst for six months was extended indefinately later that same year. As recently as a year ago, Alansohn unsucesfully tried to have the IBAN lifted. In that discussion it was noted that he had actually violated his IBAN since the last time he requested it be terminated.

The terms of Alan Sohn's IBAN allow him an exemption to respond in a deletion discussion if it is an article that either he created or made a significant contribution to.

That brings us to now. I recently brought three article to AfD, see discussions [151], [152], [153]. Please note that two of the articles, Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey and Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey Alansohn never contributed to. The third aricle, Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey, he made a single contribution that I doubt anyone would considered significant. The exemption should not apply to these articles.

Therefore, Alansohn has violated his IBAN with these three edits:

• 1
• 2
• 3

There have been no other recent interactions between us and I clearly have not baited him into this. Since the IBAN was imposed he has violated it multiple times and thinks he can disregard it. Further sanctions are clearly warranted here, but I will leave it to the community to decide what exactly those should be.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For a period of years, during which I made many tens of thousands of edits, I had been systematically watching every single edit I made to ensure that there was no interaction with this editor. After a period of time of checking my watchlist and potential edits for possible interactions, it became apparent to me that this editor was either not editing or was certainly not editing articles where there was overlap and at some point, due to the absence of any editing by this editor, I stopped checking. After all, there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And now that this notice has been posted, it seems that in the past nine months, I can see that this editor has made under a hundred edits. The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; I did not notice and had had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per usual, Alansohn takes no responsibility. Look at the previous threads where he violated his IBAN, he uses the same excuses time after time. He instead blames me for not editing enough. there is no rational reason to waste my time checking to see if I am interacting with an editor who is not editing. And just how much of his precious time is wasted to actually read the opening statement at the AfD to see which editor nominated it? (you don't even have to look at the edit history for that, my signature is right there in front of you) The edits where there was interaction here were a sequence of votes at AfD for articles related to New Jersey, where I have a lengthy involvement in articles, even ones I never edited before; Now, we get to the real issue for Alansohn, if the article has anything to do with New Jersey, he owns it, doesn't matter whether he edited it before or not. Alansohn behavior is the textbook example of WP:OWNERSHIP. had no reason to believe that this editor had come back to life I'm not dead. It's time to end this IBAN once and for all, as the only purpose seems to be a reason to create ANI notices. There is no purpose served by the perpetuation of this IBAN. The purpose of the IBAN is to have a check against Alansohn's OWNERSHIP behavior and arrogance which is display in his above response.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But do these keep !votes really bother you? Why not let him !vote keep on everything New Jersey, even if you're the nom? (I mean a lot of people do that for various topics...) I don't find his reasoning persuasive but on the other hand, who cares if he !votes? (And isn't bludgeoning, canvassing, making personal attacks, etc.) Levivich 14:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Levivich: You'll have to go back and look at the history in the previous discussions (linked above) to fully understand the issue with his behavior, but I will say that it is precisely at these types of AfDs where the problem originated. If you lift all restrictions on his voting at AfDs, then we will go back to bludgeoning, canvassing, and making personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alansohn: Although you did not notice, now you are aware, but you haven't self-reverted or deleted/struck your edits to those pages, even though they violate the IBAN? Violating a sanction is usually not an effective way to convince the community to remove the sanction. Levivich 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levivich, now that I realized that there was an inadvertent good faith vote, and now that I've been asked to do so, I have self reverted; in the past even self reverts for inadvertent edits accomplished nothing. I have been doing everything possible to avoid any contact with anything that this editor has touched and after having disappeared for several months I now realize that this editor has very much returned, necessitating that every single edit I make be scrutinized for possible overlap with the editor in question.
      I will ask again to have the IBAN removed. As stated at WP:IBAN, "The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals." There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc., now or at any time in the future, then block away. A week, a month, a year, a decade or permanent, but I plead to end this purposeless IBAN once and for all, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no conflict here, certainly not on my part.That says it all, Alansohn does not now, nor has he ever taken any responsibility for the conflict. And that is why I will always oppose lifting this IBAN. If any editor believes that anything I have edited on Wikipedia is an example of bludgeoning, canvassing, personal attack, edit warring, ownership, etc....My response: Please refer to the previous ANI discussions.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        He qualified that statement with "now, or at any time in the future", which does not speak to the validity of any past sanction, and the qualification seems relevant. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alansohn my problem with your explanation is that, as I read it, you're telling us that you did not notice which editor had nominated the articles for deletion. I find that difficult to accept. That's going to be the first thing I notice, either from the edit on my watchlist, or from the signature at the top of the deletion discussion. Rusf10's relative level of activity shouldn't affect that behavior. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  AGFing that voters read the entire nomination statement before voting, it's not really credible to claim to have read every word of the nomination statement except "Rusf", and to have done that three times. Levivich 00:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mackensen and Levivich, the assumption that everyone does things the way you do is called projection, and I clearly edit differently from how you do. After seeing a new AfD, I clicked on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/New_Jersey, scrolled down to the bottom and worked my way up, while lots of other people go top down. I don't claim to have rad every word of the nomination, because I don't; it's the article itself that is of primary importance. I know that it's the article that's up for deletion, so I click on and read the article before passing judgment. Look at the order of the AfDs in that file and then at how I participated. I can assure you that I didn't pay attention to who submitted the deletion, nor do I see why I should. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You have an active interaction ban with someone and have previously come into conflict with them over New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The specific question of violating the IBAN by participating in a deletion discussion that Rusf10 started was raised in 2021, when you asked for the ban to be lifted (you did not engage when asked about this), and when the ban was extended in 2018. If you can't see why, given that history, you should at least look at who started an AfD, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say even aside from the IBAN, you shouldn't be voting on AFDs without reading the nomination statement. That's a problem in and of itself. Levivich 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted this here, it was my intention to have the community propose additional sanctions, but so far that has not happened. Based on his above responses above and the fact he has violated this sanction three times now, Alansohn clearly does not take it seriously. The last two times he violated this IBAN, he was blocked for 48 hours and 1 week respectively. Further actions are necessary. Therefore, I made the following proposals:

• Sanction #1: Alansohn is blocked for two weeks
• Sanction #2 Alansohn is TBANed from deletion discussions.

I will explain my reasoning below.@Levivich and Mackensen: would like your input.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support #1 & #2 As proposer. #1 is appropriate here as an escalating block, maybe it will give him so time to think about this. #2 will relieve Alansohn of the burden of reading AfD nominations (which he has admitted that he does not do anyway). He will no longer have to worry about who nominated the article. His attitude and disregard for the rules is what brought this on. I see no other way forward.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alansohn's last block was almost 4 years ago (August 2018). I cannot see any justification for a 2 week block at this time - it seems like overkill to me. Since there is no ongoing disruption, and Alansohn has reverted (albeit under pressure), a block would appear to be punitive. Nor do I think that Alansohn's behavior indicates that a TBAN from XfD in general is warranted - as far as I can see AS's problem is with Rusf10, and not with deletion discussions overall -- at least, no evidence of such has been presented.. I do think that an extended ban from requesting his IBAN be lifted, or simply commenting on the IBAN, could be justified, as Alansohn appears to have a blind spot regarding the need for it, which seems to me to have been fully justifiable at the time, and has continued to show justification since. Should Alansohn continue to violate his IBAN with Rusf10 on an ongoing basis, the entire matter can be reconsidered and other sanctions proposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness I should add that Alansohn and I have been involved in conflicts in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and as Beyond My Ken rightly notes Alansohn did (begrudgingly) revert himself. I'm not persuaded at this point that a TBAN from AfD would benefit the project, but I had considered it as an option. As much as I dislike warnings as a remedy, I think we need one here. We can't be back here at ANI with another mistaken AfD participation on the books. That be at least three times. It's not as though Alansohn is participating in AfD every day; it is not too much to ask that he look at who the nominator is. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Mac and BMK. A clear violation of the terms of their sanction? Yes. But blocks are preventative, not punitive, and for a TBAN, I'd want to see evidence of broader disruption than three IBAN vios, and the problem seems to be with Rus and not with AFD in general (I might be wrong about that, I just haven't seen diffs to that effect). An extended ban from appealing the IBAN makes sense, but this thread will serve that purpose anyway. It will now be at least another 12 months before it would be considered, I'd expect. So I'd be in favor of a logged final warning as a resolution of this thread. This is one of those rare situations where I think logging the final warning at WP:EDR makes sense, so if this happens again, we'll have an easy reference. Levivich 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writerfrom 1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing various pages related to Belinda Peregrín's songs in order to assert that she's Spanish, or to change "Mexican" or "Spanish-Mexican" to "Spanish". This seems to be unsourced agenda-pushing and goes against the consensus on the main page for Belinda Peregrín. Erinius (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me like a content dispute and should be taken to WP:DRN Oz\^InterAct 13:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Erinius. This is not a content dispute. This is a BLP violation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit, in the past there have been multiple sock puppets of Spanish users who only edit to promote a nationalism or just to over exalt it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not like they're just discussing this in talk page of Belinda's article, all they did there was make a single edit request. Instead they're just changing things with no consensus in other articles. Erinius (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of RosesAreBlueToo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are on Trace Lysette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or related to Lysette. On Hustlers (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), they keep adding Lysette's name in the infobox and lead section when she is not part of the film's main cast, as seen here. They had been warned about SPAs and paid editing but have continued. KyleJoan^talk 09:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked for UPE, as they have stated they are part of "her team". 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 331dot! KyleJoan^talk 16:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pri2000 keep adding Story Arcs in Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah instead of adding short summary, none page on Wikipedia add story arcs as far as I know. Kindly do something about it, Thank you. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am aware of Pri2000's habit of adding too many details, but I am also sure that you are at wrong place. You should really continue  discussion on article's talk page. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Abhishek0831996 please see the talk page discussion going on first where no common consensus hasn't reached and there's a suggestion of making a separate page for the same as we can't deny the fact that TMKOC is having inconsistent storyline with no connection of single storyline to any of the past storyline to make it condensed to a plot. Moreover condesing a 3000+ episodic series with inconsistent storyline to a plot isn't an easy task like Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai which is also a 3000+ episodic series but with a consistent storyline. Moreover I recently visited Yuu Haru Angelo's talk page and Contributions. There he removed sections like acquired and original anime series in List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network. And several editors warned him that Cartoon Network isn't an Indian origin anime channel but it's a worldwide distributed channel and has several original as well as acquired Indian as well as foreign series. But he replied rudely to them. Moreover I myself participated in several talk page discussion and found out that till the discussion is going on and no common consensus is reached no section is added or removed on the basis of personal point of view. I mentioned same thing in the edit summary. But he mentioned his own point of view which he kept in talk page discussion and removed them without waiting for the consensus reached. Moreover I request the editors to make a separate article for TMKOC: Story Arcs with link to SonyLIV app as the main and reliable notable primary link in External link section as it's the official Digital broadcaster of show. And please see his recent esit history first where he's personally attacking me by keeping a look at initial talk page discussion instead of maximum talk page discussion which ended on a good note with no history of edit war or misbehaviour with any other editor.Pri2000 (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Now lets have a logical discussion. We don't know about the storyline, and what is going on in the show, but if you think it practically, then a 70000~ byte 'story arcs' section, in my opinion is too much. And you are taking about Yuu. Maybe, things are wrong with him, but this ANI thread is about TMKOC's story arcs section and not him. If you are really concerned about him, then you can file a separate case, and then we can discuss the matter there. What is the point in talking about the user's behaviour, in this specific thread? And moreover, I don't think he removed made any edits to the page after I told him to stop. Are you talking about the edits he made previously? You are talking of making a separate article for story arcs section. Can you show us any such TV article which has a separate page just for the story arcs section itself? And could you "And please see his recent esit history first where he's personally attacking me by keeping a look at initial talk page discussion instead of maximum talk page discussion which ended on a good note with no history of edit war or misbehaviour with any other editor." say this clearly? Anyone can keep a watch on anything as far as I know. There isn't a restriction on who can watch what. What is the problem if he is watching the talk page discussion? Where did he personally attack you? Can you provide us with some diffs.

  You might think that I am going the wrong way, and am not understanding the situation. I am thereby pinging Bonadea for his valuable comment in this regard. I hope you won't think that he is also 'doesn't understand' like me. Thanks, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Itcouldbepossible: thanks for the ping, but I'm not quite sure what I could bring to this discussion. ANI is not the right place to talk about whether content belongs in an article or not. As Abhishek0831996 says, that should happen on the article's talk page, and if it is impossible to arrive at a consensus, there are various ways to resolve content disputes – but none of them involves ANI. If there are complaints about the behaviour of Yuu or Pri2000 or any other editor involved in the content dispute, that could be discussed at ANI. But as you say, an editor wanting to report serious problems with someone else's behaviour should probably start a new thread for that (and, as you also pointed out, they should provide diffs, not just say "there were personal attacks"). --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had pinged you because I like your expertise in commenting and your explaining attitude. I have, indeed, in many places seen how your confident attitude solved things. I just wanted to know from you, if I was going the right way, and not 'storming in a teacup'. That was the main motive behind the ping.

  Thanks for pointing out the RCD page though. I have also written on the Wikiproject Television's talk page, but little is interested in this matter. Probably because they have understood that there is no need for a 'consensus' in so simple a matter. A story arcs section (without consensus) can't be that huge, as you might have seen from the article's history already.

  And Yuu you should have talked with me before opening this case. ANI as Bonadea states is not he right place for this kinds of disputes. Also you didn't follow the right procedure of opening ANI cases. You should have left a message on Pri's talk page. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Itcouldbepossible I didn't know that I have to leave a message on user's talk page, But MiasmaEternal have left a message in Pri2000's talk page regarding this.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yuu Haru Angelo Don't say you didn't know that. First of all, before opening the case, you should have read the ANI instructions, and then should have gone for opening the case. Secondly, in WP:ANI#Reverting edits Storchy clearly told you to When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{ANI-notice}}Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC) to do so. But clearly, you didn't pay any heed to it. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Itcouldbepossible Yes Storchy told me but after starting this discussion. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pri2000 don't mix two different topics just to defend yourself and about Cartoon Network he is a sockpuppet of Jk deenu you can check that article's previous edits. Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you were supposed to notify Pri of this discussion using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ - I've done that for you. Just remember to do that next time. MiasmaEternal☎ 07:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not editing according to my own point of view you can check any Wikipedia page, none page add story arcs, and Abhishek0831996 is already aware of your habit that you add too much unnecessary information.Yuu Haru Angelo (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vda9ihancdibjocadjobvadoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Trolled after block using a lot of ping, I have warned them, but not useful. TPA revoke requested. PAVLOV (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of what is acceptable on a blocked user's Talk page is incorrect, and not for the first time. The blocked user's first set of edits you reverted should not have been reverted. The second set wasn't so good, but no doubt provoked by your revert. I've restored the first set, and unless the user becomes truly abusive, I see no reason to revoke TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I need to slowdown, please close this section if possible. PAVLOV (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user Jimknutt talk has been vandalizing and has been warned three times. I know this normally doesn’t warrant a ban, but he denies what he did, even claiming he has “no idea” what I’m talking about when I talked to him about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raltoid (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be incidental, not intentional. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this? Raltoid (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I have no skin in this game, but I would have done the exact same thing in this diff, as guided by MOS:ITALICS. It's definitely an improvement and most certainly not vandalism. That being said, Jimknutt, removing referenced content and supplementing unreferenced details raises concerns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no intention on my part to remove any content without reason. I was simply trying to correct some punctuations; i.e. quotation marks are being used when italics should be. Jimknutt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion shows why it's good to talk to another editor properly (i.e. not via templates or making accusations) before bringing them to a noticeboard. Raltoid made a mistake bringing this up here and Jimknutt made a mistake in an edit to lost films. Can't you just kiss and make up and collaborate with each other in the future, rather than concern anyone else with these mistakes? I see no reason for any admin to get involved here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was archived, so I'm adding it again, as it was not resolved. The report I made was referred to as frivolous by GenuineArt, claiming I was trying to win a content dispute. I do have an issue with the content, but there's an open RFC to address those issues. I opened the issue here because of TolWol56's behavior on Claire Danes. As Jayron32 noted, this user has been stonewalling three years worth of edit warring, in which they claim other editors are "whitewashing", "trolling", "POV pushing", "fanboying" and "censoring".

While it doesn't appear that TolWol has always been the person adding it in (this version is more balanced, for example), it does appear they have been acting like they own the content for a certain tone and POV since 2019. It should not take a WP:BLPN thread to get an editor to allow others to participate in editing constructively. TolWol also personally attacked me.

[154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163],[164], [165],[166], [167],[168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]

The editor has also engaged in edit wars over other content: [176], [177], and other articles: [178], [179], [180], [181]

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• After the earlier bogus ANI report failed to remove me from the dispute,[182] this user has now filed yet another bogus report only to double down with his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and inability to grasp that how things work here.
  It should be understandable to everyone now that the meaningless claims made above are clearly nothing more than yet another desperate attempt to get me removed from the dispute. Now he is also citing a page that was plagued by a sockpuppet and the sock is still being dealt with.[183] I hope the boomerang will hit hard this time because this user will keep filing these bogus ANI reports until he is forced to stop. TolWol56 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TolWol56: I personally pinged you to participate in the RFC, and I have tried to edit the passage with you collaboratively. I clearly have taken your pov into consideration, and I have not tried to stop you from collaboratively and constructively participating in content development. I reverted ONE of your reversions and tried to expand and improve sourcing of your updates. You reverted every single thing I contributed. You even reverted a fix I made to the way you styled your note incorrectly. The edit summaries involving Claire Danes from that IP address are clearly from you. You can see where you picked up from the IP, to your previous username, to the one you are using now. This is not a bogus report. Your behavior is problematic and clearly needs to be addressed, as I'm not the first editor you've engaged with in this manner, but I hope I'll be the last. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth three people have so far !voted in the rfc on the talk page of the article, and all three of them support the current version of the article (the version that TolWol56 is "protecting), i.e. none of them supports either of the new versions proposed by the OP, so this report seems to be just an attempt by the OP to get the most prominent obstacle to their whitewashing removed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What happened to assuming good faith? I provided a hefty list of the same exact behavior over the same content with multiple other editors. Look at the edit summaries. This is not an isolated incident where I am causing an issue. Others have found issues with the content, and TolWol has engaged in the exact same behavior. Furthermore, the RFC is still in progress, and 2/4 votes were from TolWol and myself. Also, the first proposed version is from Aircorn, not me. Others involved in the BLPN thread have not weighed in yet, nor have others who have voiced similar concerns over the content, and frankly, that's not the point of this notice. I tried to collaborate with the editor, and they did not allow it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a classic case of one editor who is mostly right being mostly uncivil and another editor who is mostly civil being mostly wrong. We often handle these very poorly and there are seldom good outcomes. Aircorn (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cite evidence that how I am being "uncivil" to SquareInARoundHole. He is the one filing bogus reports and falsely accusing me of BLP vio and personal attacks on him which is itself a form of WP:NPA and harassment. TolWol56 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew neither of you before I got involved, but you were by far and away the more difficult editor to communicate and work with. Aircorn (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TolWol56: Saying I'm "rambling" and "incompetent" are personal attacks. I apologize that you thought I was accusing you personally of WP:BLP. I wasn't. When I was doing a routine source check of the content you added and have been maintaining, I found that the content wasn't up to Wikipedia's standards and violated BLP based on improved sourcing. That is not a reflection on you. I understand you disagree, and that's what the RFC is for. Everyone might disagree with me, and that's perfectly fine. I'm happy to move on. My concern with you is that numerous people have come to Danes's article with the same or similar concerns and you appear to be refusing to allow that content to evolve collaboratively over the course of 3 years with combative reverting and edit summaries as shown in the diffs above with numerous other editors. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling your write-up a "rambling" is not a personal attack and questioning your competence after telling you many times not to falsely accuse me of BLP vio is not a personal attack as well. You don't have any concern and you just want to get me removed from the dispute as multiple others already observed. TolWol56 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that you meant you found what I wrote to be long and confusing, but calling another editor incompetent is a personal attack. This is the last time I'll say this: I have continued to include you in the conversation about the content, and my concern with your behavior is not about the content itself. Disengaging now as I've already apologized for not being clear that my WP:BLP concerns were about the content and not a reflection on you personally. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) It is undoubtedly obvious that this complaint was filed by OP, just like the one filed a few days earlier, only for winning the content dispute.

They are not understanding what is wrong with their action. Therefore, I am proposing a temporary topic ban from filing reports on AN and ANI for 6 months for the OP as follows:

SquareInARoundHole is restricted from filing reports to administrative noticeboards, namely WP:AN and WP:ANI, for 6 months. If SquareInARoundHole believes that an editor is engaging in misconduct that warrants a report on AN or ANI then they can make a single post on an administrator's talk page by citing this restriction. They can file the report only if they have been permitted by the administrator. Any edits giving the impression that they are evading the restriction by misusing another noticeboard, or violating this restriction will be met with escalating blocks.

• Support as proposer. GenuineArt (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally invited TolWol to participate in the RFC, and waited until he did to make this report. I cannot imagine what impact this report would have on the outcome of that RFC. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see either report as frivolous. Judging by the timeline, I don't think the three accounts, even if operated by the same user, have broken the rules on using multiple accounts. Still, there's obvious incivility in their recent behavior, and it might extend far into the past with the other accounts. I think the community has reason to look into this, and I think OPs decision to bring the conduct dispute here was and is reasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both reports were frivolous. OP clearly found the account name "Tolwol55" from TolWol56's own userpage and is now weaponizing this discovery just to add credibility to this frivolous report. You need to read WP:ASPERSIONS and avoid accusing another user of "obvious incivility" without citing any diffs (nobody would look at what happened in 2020). The "conduct dispute" only concerns the OP who is exhausting community's patience by relitigating a frivolous complaint. GenuineArt (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I went through the history of Claire Danes, actually, to find those diffs. I said in the previous report that the behavior was clearly a pattern based on the user's edits. You said I didn't provide relevant diffs. I did so, came back to add them, and the previous report had been archived. So I made a new one. With the diffs. I did not invent this editor's behavior. I am legitimately concerned about their behavior, and am reporting it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Bludgeoning together with saying that Thomas.W is not assuming good faith actually sums up why a break from ANI needs to be enforced. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is disproportionate and a far too overreaching (they have only filed two related reports about one editor so we shouldn't add extra steps if they run into trouble somewhere else). They do need to let this rest though. Aircorn (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How it is "overreaching"? According to the proposal he can still file reports on AN and ANI but not without a verification. I see nothing wrong with that. TolWol56 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it would require them go to an administrator first. It has not reached that level yet. Also you are not innocent in this and need to drop the stick too. Let the RFC run its course and move on. Aircorn (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And any admin would never allow them to file bogus report. I agree. That's why this is necessary. TolWol56 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comment above. SquareInARoundHole is not prohibited to file report but not without verification and validation. His current use of ANI for hairsplitting is nothing but disruptive and needs to be stopped. TolWol56 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the subject of proposal (OP). In good faith, I felt that TolWol56 has been long unwilling to collaborate with other editors after their behavior toward me and examination of the article's history (see the diffs I included above). I am open to understanding how their behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia, and not worthy of a report, a ban is not needed for that. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nyrobie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made two large-scale copyvio additions, to Camille Vasquez (diff) and Central Mindanao University (diff). I've undone those edits and left a copyvio note on their talk page (diff). They swiftly restored the copyrighted text (diff) without any explanation. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too unusual to see newer editors revert a copyvio removal, often because they are upset to see their work disappear in an instant. That obviously doesn't justify their actions, but I can understand their state of mind. I've left the editor a message explaining how copyright works on Wikipedia; we shall see if they take this message to heart or continue to include copyright-infringing text in articles. Their only other large edit also appears to be a copyvio, so I am not terribly hopeful, but maybe the engagement strategy will pay off. /wiae /tlk 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Describing copy-pasting text wholesale into a Wikipedia article as "hard work" is a very nice way of putting it, I guess. I'd already left them a note on their talk page before they undid my revert, so It's safe to assume they've ignored it the first time and will probably ignore it again. A reasonably short block seems much more sensible to me. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden the coypvios. It's 2 am the birds are singing and the sun came out from behind the clouds. Spring has returned to the Arctic. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, at Talk:Brian Meshkin. Could an Admin take a peek, please. there is COI history there. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 03:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only commenting to say that the complaint isn't entirely devoid of merit. A lot of the content [is/was] a copyright violation, excessive material based on a single source, and material that's more about a company than the person; the article has always been pretty critical (which isn't to judge whether or not that's appropriate in this case); and there's a so-so notability claim (it may be stronger from the company). I left a message on the talk page pointing to some relevant pages and VRT, and haven't decided yet if AfD is worth it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I don't see significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Only passing mentions and small interviews. This article should be taken to AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Meshkin. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a good case for deletion, but there is no basis for the legal threat, which is absurd. I have given a detailed explanation of why I hold that view on the talk page of the article. JBW (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden the coypvio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]