Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reviving this from the archive as Pmffl continues to remove my replies without due justification. ANI NOTICE DIFF

WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation

Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."

• 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
• 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
• 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"

• 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"

WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach

Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:

• 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
• 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
• 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
• 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

Here they remove my replies on the talk page:

• 14:28, May 9, 2021 "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind"
• 16:37, May 10, 2021 "exactly, MrOllie, which is why I'm removing this garbage"
• 12:38, May 16, 2021 - «‎Latest changes by Pmffl: removing the smear, as stated before; keep the specific items»
• 17:27, May 17, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023467424 by Alexander Davronov talk) No, not okay to say this as others have told you.»

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn Pmffl of his misbehavior and direct him to WP:HTBC essay and WP:EDITING (WP:PRESERVE/WP:DON'T PRESERVE) policy and impose WP:IBAN. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason you got no comments last time Alexander Davronov: no admin thought there was any action to take. Someone using mild curse words in edit summaries is not the kind of dispute that needs admin attention. You don't need all the structure btw, this isn't Arbitration Enforcement. You need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and that does not involve trawling your opponent's old edits for supposed wrongdoing. Fences&Windows 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows: Am I correct that you're saying that I can remove other's comments, including yours? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alexander Davronov. Pmffl restored your talk page comment, which is what I was aware of. However, this today was not OK. Pmffl, you must not remove others' article talk page comments. You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example. Pmfll, please promise not to repeat the removal of others' article talk comments unless you are strictly following WP:TPO and please correct your incorrect removals without archiving. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. His vaguely-worded post is merely a smear of me. As MrOllie and others have pointed out, it doesn't belong on the Javascript talkpage. So I keep removing it. -Pmffl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmffl: Letting everyone to know that I disagree with your edits isn't a "smear" of you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide, Pmffl. Let others do it: don’t edit war with someone who is critiquing you. You didn't reply about your inappropriate removal of old talk page comments without archiving. Will you clean up after your earlier inappropriate edits to create an archive? Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean restore Alexander's original post, in which he literally added a support line to his own idea? No, it's better to not have ridiculous stuff like that in a talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pmffl, you missed this: "You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example." That was another example of you "tidying" a talk page, Talk:Browser engine. Please address this by restoring the posts to an archive and please follow TPO and proper archiving in future. If you have concerns about someone's posts, follow WP:DR and don't edit war to remove them unless it is blatant vandalism, a severe BLP breach, or grossly offensive. Fences&Windows 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. From my reading, the parts you highlighted in yellow are indeed Pmfll commenting on content, with some mild language like "sloppy", "crap", "weird", "garbage". The only thing that is nearing a personal attack might be "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind". Leijurv (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, when that comment is "I think the latest edits by Pmffl must be revised and amended. Feel free to notify me of proposals." It does indeed sound like someone who is just against another user's edits, because. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: I wasn't able to elaborate because Pmffl has removed it the same day it was posted. The same thing has happened two times a day earlier (8 May) so I decided to fill ANI complaint instead of explaining anything. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv: In all three cases he was either editing or removing my replies. In very first diff above he's removed a diff link pointing out to his edit. That's what kind of "content" he has called a "weird crap". All these highlighted summaries are only about my replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Davronov, The way you format your talk page entries, with all the subsections and templated diffs and such, is fairly unusual. People who mostly read talk pages by looking at diffs are going to be confused, and it does tend to make for alerts that are difficult to understand. "weird crap" isn't a very charitable way to describe it, but I do understand what Pmffl means. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following should clarify why MrOllie is making remarks like that one above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Canvassing in Malassezia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do have a history of using ANI to try to win content disputes, thank you for pointing that out. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia) However, the reason I'm commenting on this dispute (and on Talk:Javascript) is that I have had the Javascript article on my watchlist for years. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: Just saying. I don't want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Davronov, bit late for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2603:8001:400:2:4032:DBCD:8A15:6999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:8001:400:2:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This person put terrible messages in their edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it’s all been done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you, all done. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my humble opinion, a good practice would be to email an admin and ask them for a revdel rather than disclose the purely disruptive material here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 37.248.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland

Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland has returned to disrupt music articles. Two IPs have been blocked recently: 37.248.171.152 and 37.248.168.89. As a preventative, can we block the /21 or /20 range containing these two? Lengthy rangeblocks have been made in the past, including a one year block of Special:Contributions/31.0.0.0/17. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've rangeblocked for three months, no objection to an extension if another admin prefers that. Fences&Windows 23:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to avoid coming here, but there's an IP who is insistent on getting the last word and engaging in uncivil behaviour and low-level personal attacks. At Talk:Scottish National Party there was a dispute about one of the sources (now resolved, mercifully) where 88.104.60.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) became fairly uncivil in his instance about how WP:BRD works. This didn't bother me too much; I tried to explain to him how it works and direct the conversation back on track, and fortunately it was resolved thanks to two other editors contributing. However, the IP took to a lengthy discussion on my talk page where he eventually made this post where he said, I realised you were an εejit and waited for better users to join in, thankfully they did. Please think about confining yourself to vandal swatting or something at your level, for the sake of the encyclopaedia. I wasn't wholly appreciative of this so I placed a warning on his talk page for personal attacks, and I removed this from my page. He then posted another uncivil comment on Talk:Scottish National Party here. By this point I simply wanted the arguing to end, as I could see he was more interested in having the last word and being belligerent despite my insistence that he WP:DROPIT. Consequently I removed his personal attack and hatted the discussion to prevent further useless arguments continuing. He posted on my talk page a few more times, even though the content dispute had long since finished [3][4][5], and then unhatted the discussion and re-added his uncivil comment, suggesting I bring an admin into this, so here I am. I'd appreciate if someone could restore my hatted version of the talk page (sans his uncivil comment) and maybe give him a talk about what WP:CIVIL behaviour looks like. — Czello 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate talk by the IP, in particular these comments: [6], [7], [8]. The IP is also giving off the vibe of an experienced user, not an IP, either evading scrutiny or a block.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does indeed claim in one edit that he has been a Wikipedia editor "for almost two decades" and also knew of certain policies (such as WP:BRD). So yes, I agree with your assessment. — Czello 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Too many users like yourself see anons as some sort of low level user on a MMORPG Wikipedia with yourselves just above, but anonymous editing since Wikipedia's dawn is just as legitimate as any other form of editing; there is no default requirement for anyone to edit under an account, and editing outside a registered account does not justify accusations of subversion. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad Czello has brought this here, calling more attention to himself, I hope that if he every pursues adminship this thread leads to a thorough reconstruction of events, not as he chooses to represent them but as they were. My side, sorry don't care enough to go digging for diffs, I was randomly reading the article on the Scottish National Party a few days ago and I noticed that an organisation founded in the 1970s was being described as 'proto-fascist'. This is impossible as a historical description since they post-date fascism and thus can't be 'proto' in any historic sense, so I attempted to improve the entry. The page has restrictions on anons, and Czello used those to make improving the article on the point unnecessarily difficult. He ignored the semantic problem, insisted without knowledge of the references that they supported the offending text, insisted I didn't have any right to change the text and continually reverted any attempt I made to improve the article. I even investigated the reference in question (I own the book), supplied the page number, but even that was reverted despite his rhetorical commitment to a 'don't remove cited material' stance t. I brought the matter to the talk and he largely ignored the issue and focused on trying to explain his understanding of certain wikipedia guidelines and principles and how I hadn't been acting right. As I showed, the reference did not even support the offending description, and thanks to the assistance of two uninvolved users the issue was resolved. Talk between Czello and I then did continue due to his apparent wish to get the last word. His insistence on talking down to me as an anon, dropping phoney hypocritical 'warning' templates on my talk page, and explaining guidelines he doesn't really understand was extremely irritating. Based on my own experience he is obviously not an editor who is fit to make advanced content decisions, I would normally have kept a thought like that to myself as it is quite impolite and it's not as if he's going to take me seriously, but I had no incentive to build a relationship with him by that stage and I found his petty, repetitive ritualistic personality so annoying that I didn't care. I realise my comments will be taken as unnecessarily uncivil by some, but I actually don't think 'civility' is the be all and end all of behaviour, this is an encyclopedia, he was making it difficult to improve it and he was frankly trying to bully me because I was an anon. He combines edit-warring and policing of behaviour, does the latter when he is involved, hypocritically, without any awareness of the issue; he responded to my concerns about his 'warnings' by dropping another 'warning' template on my talk page, he then deleted a comment I made on the article talk page on the grounds that I had been rude to him and 'closed' the discussion; and now he shows up here pretending to be the straight-playing mature actor. One of you can explain the issues with his approach if you like, but I doubt it would be worth earning his enmity, just please file this down mentally in case he every tries for 'promotion'. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct, so far as the insertion of the term "proto-fascism" is concerned, as the sources did not so much as mention it. However, you have embellished certain aspects of this dispute, such as Czello's alleged administrative aspirations, disrespect towards you for being an I.P. editor and the extent to the value of civility. Had you not lobbed incessant insults at Czello, this would not have been brought up here and your sound reasoning on the article talk page would have stood. You weren't just tort with Czello; you took a series of unnecessary jabs that violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is a policy and not a mere essay. You're obviously a good contributor, so I won't ask anything of you, other than perhaps keeping focused on the content dispute and not on amateur hour insults. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the 'jabs' & I understand that not everyone will like them, but do you seriously think he would have reverted any of these changes if I weren't editing as an IP? I mean, it's counter-factual obviously, but when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you No, long-term editing as an IP does not grant superhuman powers that allow you to "know" the motivations of another editor. That is textbook bad-faith assumption. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gie's peace, I didn't either mention either knowledge or motivation. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reading is, of course, very one-sided. I won't get into the nuances of the content dispute again, except to say that 1) During the talk page discussion I happily conceded that the first source was wrong (the IP neglects to mention that the "proto-fascist" label actually had two other sources attached to it, which they failed to address) and therefore could change, and I'm glad we found a good compromise for it; 2) contrary to what they say, I explained in careful detail how BRD and QUO work, but it is they who seems to have misunderstood them entirely to continue edit warring; 3) I find it rather ironic they accuses me of wanting to get the last word when I directly asked them to WP:DROPIT more than once, and so when they didn't I hatted the discussion to do it for them, which they undid (even though the discussion had ended). Furthermore, in their attempt to get the last word they even restored his uncivil comments, which I think demonstrates their rather poor attitude in this situation.

This could have ended very easily once the content dispute was over, but instead this IP seems insistent on wanting to WP:WIN the argument and engage in personal attacks. I really wish the'd have just let it end when we achieved a consensus, but they seems intent on continuing a pretty useless argument. — Czello 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Czello I'm not aware that the person behind the IP above has specified any gender preference. Please do not place emphasis on an editor while seeming to presume their gender. If they have indicated a gender preference, I apologise. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, changed to they/their — Czello 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czello, for all intents and purposes, everything you replied with has already been edified. Just as is the case while I address 88.104.60.179, I think you should take a step back, acknowledge your mistakes and move forward beyond this dispute. Both of you misstepped in different ways, so this can be settled just with the both of you agreeing to work more collaboratively and kindly with one another in the future. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy to do so; the reason I started this report is because the IP doesn't seem willing to. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong on this: I've now re-hatted the conversation and removed the uncivil comment -- if the IP leaves it at this (as I think is best) then we can all go our separate ways and get on with our lives. — Czello 21:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to remove their comment? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to undo my edit I won't revert; but given that I found it going against WP:CIVIL (not to mention it contributing nothing and largely being a bit disruptive), I feel justified in removing it and hatting the conversation. — Czello 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It very well might, but it's not egregious, and it's kinda rude to remove someone's comment, especially when you are already having a dispute with them. I think it'd be easier overall if you hatted the discussion while letting the comment stand. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he couldn't resist doing that during an ACTIVE AN/I thread tells its own story. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did is because there is a clear agreement above that you crossed a line. However, if you’re insistent on having the last word then go ahead and re-insert your comment — just do me a favour and leave it hatted. — Czello 21:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did is ... However, if you’re insistent on having the last word ... This pairing calls for some self-reflection. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Having active ANI threads about oneself does not stop one from anti-vandalism. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be honest I'm happy for an admin to close/hat this thread now; the IP has been reprimanded by several editors and I can't see this going any further. I think we can both go our separate ways and call this ended. (I actually tried to close the thread myself but apparently you're not allowed to close your own reports, which I was unaware of!) — Czello 10:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page which I had created earlier was recreated to insult me. Can you delete it please because its content and also edit summary consists swear words. Also could you block the IP for violating WP:CIV. Thank you.--V. E. (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Liz at 16:30.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago there was a vandalism going on due to the wording "ethnic cleansing" on the article Turkish War of Independence which is now locked. Due to this and refusal of using denailist sources in the article I guess based on what he wrote, the user Oyond called the situation as a "bad intent from users" which I warned him to be a PA since it was a baseless accusation.[9] Then he called me a demagogue although I have warned him of NPA policy.[10] Best regards --V. E. (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins please review the whole conversation mentioned above in the discussion. I will not edit anything i said. Edit: however same thing cannot be said about other people. Right now there is strong purge in the discussion form on all of the issues i pointed out in the paragraph. Please review the history of the discussion. I want to contribute to this topic but it needs to be fair. I saved the screenshot, I can provide it if necessary Oyond (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyond has also been disruptively undoing archiving: [11][12][13].--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a little over a week, Buidhe (talk · contribs) has racked up five challenges of her RfC and RM closes on her talk page:

• User talk:Buidhe#Improper Move for Pennsylvania German language (original discussion, now at move review)
• User talk:Buidhe#RfC Battle of Vukovar (original discussion)
• User talk:Buidhe#Your closure at DNSSEC (original discussion)
• User talk:Buidhe#Early European modern humans (original discussion, now at move review)
• User talk:Buidhe#Your closure of Elon Musk as engineer (original discussion)

Without getting into the specifics of each one, the frequency of these challenges on its own is a strong indicator that Buidhe is not following WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC, namely that discussions where the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial should be left to administrators. I also see two common threads to be found in the examples above. The first is Buidhe purporting to find a "clear" consensus in discussions with low participation and/or tight vote margins. The second is her not engaging with the argument that the close was incorrect: there is a quick response dismissing any fault, then silence, forcing the challenger to either drop it or go to move review etc. Indeed her response to the latest discussion seems to indicate that she does not think it is important to respond to those "dissatisfied" with her closes at all. This strikes me as Buidhe trying to have her cake and eat it too: if you're going to ignore the advice that non-admins should not make "close calls", fine, but you should then be prepared to be responsive and accountable for objections like an admin has to.

I haven't looked beyond the last week to see if this a recently-developed habit or a longer trend. Either way I think Buidhe's closes ought to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy pings for those involved in the above discussions: @Rosbif73, Kashmiri, OyMosby, Vaticidalprophet, TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, and Nardog: – Joe (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a comment: the reason WP:BADNAC exists is that for deletion discussions, where a discussion is on the verge of keep or delete, the large number of non-admin eyes verses the relatively smaller number of admin eyes would bias the outcome to almost always be "keep" - since non-admins cannot close as "delete". Such is not the case in any of the linked RfCs, which are not XfDs, but content disputes. Buidhe is an experienced editor - and I'd rather hand her the mop than prevent her from closing such discussions - though as a technical user right, it shouldn't be relevant to her closing ability. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NAC and its subsection WP:BADNAC are an essay about XfD closes. None of the closes brought up here were made at XfD. The relevant essay-ish-thing (it's not strictly clear what tier it's actually in) at RM, if we are to treat essays with such importance, is WP:RMNAC, prominently bearing the line Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. RM is also essentially unworked by admins, giving it the significantly different NAC attitude to AfD seen at e.g. TfD. The community of active participants at RM, including its admins, are quite confident in Buidhe's closes (pinging Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, and Wbm1058 due to their interest in such discussion) and hold her as its pre-eminent discussion closer. Buidhe's primary issue, as it is, is that her closes are followed by {{nac}}; I entirely concur with Elli that they shouldn't be. Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Buidhe is an experienced, excellent closer of discussions. This complaint reads like an attempt to forum shop because the move reviews are on course to endorse the RM closures. The solution to the issue raised is to make this red link blue. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two move reviews above. One I have absolutely no involvement in. The other I opened 30 minutes before this so it's probably a little early to call the result. I think it would be productive if we could focus on determining whether Buidhe's closes are correct, rather than making bare assertions of her good reputation amongst RMers, or casting aspersions about what ulterior motives I might have for making that request. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps I shouldn't have focused on the NAC aspect. I do agree that it's only the quality of the close that counts, not the closer's bits. The problem is that Buidhe does not seem to be making good closes. Five challenges in a week is an alarming rate for anyone. That said, WP:NAC is not just about deletion; it refers to just "discussions" and we have a separate policy specifically for deletion-related NACs (WP:NACD). WP:RMNAC also specifically says that NACs of RMs requires that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's anything to focus on here but the NAC aspect, realistically speaking. I think having that on her closes inspires challenges to them that wouldn't otherwise occur. (As for Black Kite's comments, she is indeed a highly prolific discussion-closer -- I keep planning out a close for (simple and uncontroversial) RMs to find she got there first.) Vaticidalprophet 10:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Indeed, WP:NAC is not only for XfDs - I'm specifically referring to The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. My interpretation of why this is the case is as I listed above. There is nothing inherent to admins about a better closing ability, the concern here is bias. As for challenges - anyone can challenge a closure, and seeing one is is a nac makes one much more likely to do so. Are Buidhe's moves getting overturned? Not seeing evidence of that. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you've got five complaints in five days about your closes, this means;

• (a) you're closing many dozens of discussions
• (b) you're specifically closing contentious discussions where there is more likely to be a large number of disgruntled editors, or
• (c) you're closing discussions badly.
• I'm not convinced by the two I've looked at so far, btw. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've looked at them all. The first two I looked at, I would probably hve closed differently, but neither is completely out of range. The other three I would probably have closed similarly, if not the same, and the same applies. I've commented on some below. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All five of the listed closures provide not only the outcome but a brief and succinct explanation. This is good practice, and should be encouraged. Sometimes closes are tricky, and whether or not someone is an admin will not change that. Agree with many above that the number of raised discussions doesn't say much about the quality of closures, if they are overturned that would be another matter. CMD (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples above are from the last seven days, so it's too soon for any of them to have been overturned (unless Buidhe did so voluntarily, which is part of the issue here). However looking back just a bit further I found e.g. Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_January#Admiralty_(United_Kingdom), where there was a clear consensus that Buidhe's close was premature, found consensus where there was none (note the parallels to the complaints above), and should be overturned. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That particular close isn't really a cut-and-dry "bad nac". Buidhe closed the original move as (paraphrasing) "consensus exists that 'Admiralty (United Kingdom)' is not the primary topic for 'Admiralty'". Given that both commenters agreed, that's not an unreasonable close. She particularly said a further move clarifying the eventual location of the British admiralty may be filed if desired. Looking at the further discussion - while some people said it was closed too early (I disagree, seven days is the length of the process, and there was no active disagreement on the point Buidhe closed on), the next RM did lead to what she closed in favor of - that said article was not the primary topic of "Admiralty" - being kept. Should she have moved it to Admiralty (United Kingdom) instead of British Admiralty? Perhaps, but given that no one suggested it in the discussion, I feel like that would've been a more controversial close. If this is the most recent example of a bad Buidhe close, I don't think we have a problem here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Buidhe is, in my experience, one of the more experienced regular closers at RM. She's willing to close discussions that stay in the backlogs for a while, or are otherwise controversial and people don't want to touch. In the past, whenever I've reviewed one of Buidhe's closures, for example in the situation Vaticidal links, my opinion is that she closed the discussion correctly. First some general points: WP:NAC is just an essay and for good reasons. The closure of content discussions is not an administrative matter, and the community affirmed this here. WP:NACD is a guideline which applies to deletion discussions, because deletion (and some other areas, like conduct) are exclusively in the purview of administrators. Still, WP:NACD does not accurately describe practice at all XfD venues, for example it does not accurately describe practice at TfD. Another general note is that sometimes involved parties who are upset with the outcome (or believe the 'policy' wasn't 'weighted' correctly) like to appeal on the closer's talk by virtue of the 'WP:NAC'. I understand the temptation, having felt it before. This is to say that volume of complaints alone can't be considered a problem IMO Unfortunately, the reality one has to accept is that sometimes consensus just sucks. NACs can get a harder time over it than admins, and the solution for Buidhe is turning this blue.
  On this specific ANI: of the discussion Vaticidal links, I think it reflects more poorly on the involved parties than on buidhe. Of the discussions linked in the opening comment, I think the Elon Musk one was closed correctly, with almost 75% opposed to the perennial proposal on reasonable policy grounds. However, the Early European modern humans concern seems reasonable, and if it were me I'd unclose and relist. The DNSSEC concern seems to be a matter of semantics ("consensus for current title" vs "no consensus to move"). There is a distinction between the two, yes; the term buidhe used could be intentional, if Buidhe determined the discussion showed explicit consensus for the current title. But even if we assume it didn't then it's still a minor error, and admins make far more impactful errors than this and nobody bothers point them out or complain about them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) e: 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I must echo the above sentiments that Buidhe run for adminship, and do it as soon as possible. Buidhe, my friend, you are disadvantaging yourself and this project by not running, as this ANI thread shows. So I will bold this: Buidhe should run for adminship. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am more concerned by the hounding of Buidhe and forum shopping exhibited both here and at WP:RM talk pages when closures don't go the way involved parties wanted them to go. Buidhe has far more experience than many admins in closing RM discussions so the idea that admin closures are better than NAC ones is wrong. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've looked through all five discussions. There's not a single close that I thought was incorrect, and there's no reason to avoid NACs in these specific circumstances (XfD is different), especially when the closer is clearly competent. Would support closing this discussion with no action taken. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NAC explicitly states that discussions should not be reopened just because the closer is not an administrator. I take that to mean broadly that only the quality of the close determines the quality of the close, not the status of the closer. So let's just look at the closures, shall we?
  • Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch language#Move to "Pennsylvania_Dutch"?: Personally, I would have relisted this, but Buidhe's close was well-reasoned and within discretion. The move review is informative here.
  • Talk:List of military disasters#RFC on Battle of Vukovar: There's at least one editor in here who is probably a VJ-Yugo sock (they haunt Balkans military topics) but Buidhe isn't expected to know that, and their comments probably didn't sway the discussion. I would have dismissed the main opposition argument that an event has to be described using the specific word "disaster", and not any of the supporters' noted reliably-sourced synonyms, in order to be included in the list, especially since the opposer who kept writing that comment clearly has poor grasp of English. But that's bordering on supervote territory. Otherwise I would have closed no-consensus rather than consensus against, but I can't call this a bad close.
  • Talk:Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#Requested_move_31_March_2021: This challenge is a good example of why counting the number of times an editor's closes are challenged is not good evidence whatsoever that the closes are bad, it's just evidence that our checks and balances work. The challenger's entire argument was that the head count in and of itself demands a no-consensus close, but that's not how closing discussions works at all. Consensus was clearly against the move and the close was excellent.
  • Talk:Upper Palaeolithic Europe#Requested move 9 May 2021: Personally I agree with Joe Roe here to the extent that the title should refer to the people and not the geography, but I did not participate in the discussion and he failed to convince a single other editor. I don't see how the discussion could be read any other way than "consensus to move". Joe hasn't really provided any valid rationale to overturn at move review, either, having commented only on the head count and closer's status.
  • Talk:Elon Musk#Should Musk be called an engineer?: How does one read a discussion with 22 opposes versus 6 supports as anything other than "consensus against"? The challenger again didn't cite any issue with the close other than the closer's status, and the fact that other challenges exist (which, as noted, is not evidence of anything).

I've noted some criticisms of these closes, but don't consider any of them to be inappropriate, nor do I find Buidhe's responses to the challenges lacking what we would expect from WP:ADMINACCT. Accountability requires responding to valid concerns; it does not require responding to endless gaslighting from editors who disagree with you. Good work, Buidhe, and I would also support if you choose to run the gauntlet. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. The simplest explanation here is that Buidhe is a prolific RM closer who shows an admirable willingness to tackle difficult discussions that have been languishing for a while in the backlog. If multiple of the cited RMs end up being overturned or relisted after making their way through MRV, then maybe there would be a case for asking them to cool down their closes. But until then, this feels premature. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree with those stating Buidhe should be an admin, I don't like the idea that contentious RfCs or RMs should be closed by admins at all. Buidhe has more experience with RM than I have, why should she not work on difficult closes? —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Two things 1) The NAC issue is a nonstarter for me. Only closures that require, or may require, the admin toolset (block, delete, protect) should have any restrictions on who can close them; for discussions where the outcome could be enacted by a non-admin closer, ANY closer will do, with no special preference to be given to admins. WP:NOBIGDEAL is apt here: Administrators were not intended to develop into a special subgroup. Rather, administrators should be a part of the community like other editors. Anyone can perform most maintenance and administration tasks on Wikipedia without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. (bold mine) 2) The five contested closures all fall within normal discretion, and none is particularly problematic. I'd go through and provide additional notes, but that would be redundant to the excellent analysis from Ivanvector's Squirrel above. I concur materially with every one of those results, and I found none of the challenged closures to be problematic. On the issue of Buidhe applying for adminship, I am going to buck the trend of the several earlier commenters and say that I find no reason to encourage them to apply. They are doing a find job as it is, and unless they want to be able to delete or block or protect, there's no compelling reason to get the toolset. I would support such an application, but if they don't want it, I feel no need to push them in that direction. Being an admin is only about access to tools, not about having more rights to have one's decisions respected. Buidhe is doing a commendable job, and I encourage them only to continue to trust their instincts and work in good faith to keep making Wikipedia better in their own way. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Largely per Jayron32 and Ivanvector. These being NACs doesn't matter here. I would not recommend anyone (admin or not) make 5 controversial closes in a week, but several of these should not have been considered controversial. I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe move discussion (the 3-1 vote being insufficient when several of Joe Roe's arguments had not been addressed). The other closes look fine; several of the objections seem no more substantial than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Looked at the diffs provided (guess I'll never get that time back). I agree with those above (such as but not limited to: Jayron, the Squirrel, and power-enwiki (sorry, that key's not on my keyboard.:)). I guess my response would be .. IDK Thank you Buidhe for all your hard work. — Ched (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your keyboard doesn't have a tilde (~)? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NAC is an essay. It does not enjoy global consensus. I'm not the only editor here who gives that essay zero weight. If you want to make the case that an editor is making too many bad closes, show us five overturned closes, not five challenges in progress. Joe shouldn't have started an MR and then also taken the closer to ANI; at the least, wait and see if you win your MR first. My thanks to buidhe for her volunteer work. I'd also support buidhe's nom, but I see no reason to suggest that buidhe running for admin is a "solution" to any "problem," because there is no problem. I know we want to encourage editors to run for admin but we shouldn't make editors feel obligated to do it, or feel bad for not doing it, or suggest that it's a step that the editor must take. The only valid reason for anyone to run for admin is if they want to; we should never treat it as an obligation. I'm all for enthusiastic support for a run, I'm just saying it's also just fine if she chooses not to. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure why I was pinged. I have no issue with @Buidhe:. Yes I came to them looking for somewhat of an explanation for their reasoning. I even reached out to a few Admins who aren’t involved in Balkan articles who are mainly admins or like Buihde very active and seasoned editors. Most of them felt that the closure decision was okay. One felt they would close the opposite. But the one agreeing with Bhuide’s take better explained the reasoning and I stated on her talk oage all is good and I agreed. I did not participate in “shopping” as some accused here. I find it ofd how it is frowned upon to have more eyes than one on a topic. Especially a highly contested one where even another admin voted to keep Vukovar. I don’t get the issue. Also I don’t understand why Bhuide is being reported here. Being I was pinged I wanted to make my stance clear. I stood in opposition on Bhuide’s stances on Balkan discussions of yhe past on sources but I know she does it out of good faith. At least I would hope. I don’t know them that well compared to others here. Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe one, as there was very little participation and no-one had refuted Joe's argument (and the close looked a little supervote-y). The Elon Musk one suffered from a surfeit of terrible non-policy compliant Opposes, but I can understand how a closer (even if they're not counting votes) could look at it and assume the 22 v 6 were right, even if they weren't. The rest look OK to me. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation with the Vukovar one, where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. OyMosby (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that you've explained it I can see the problem there (and this is exactly why I wouldn't have closed that particular one, but waited for someone with more familiarity). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no issue with Buidhe's closes other than them not being an admin, and I concur with others that they should consider an RFA soon.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• When it’s five different editors having the same issue, all of them, best I can tell, long standing contributors, I’m sorry but that strongly indicates that there is indeed a problem here. Don’t know how serious it is, but it does seem to be a pattern. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's nonsense. If you do a lot of closures then statistically there are always going to be some fraction of users who are unhappy. So that's your pattern. Polyamorph (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I and others have said, the frequency of challenges is not necessarily indicative of a problem with the closes. One of the challenges in this case was an editor upset that Buidhe didn't count votes, and another was based only on the fact that there were other challenges. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's not nonsense. If five different and unrelated long time editors in good standing complain about the same kind of behavior within a week that's not just a "statistical anomaly". How many closures overall did Buidhe do in this same period? What percentage is this? Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? You can't hand wave away what seems like a legitimate problem which is being brought up here. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. If we're going to cut the numbers, then an equally un/useful comparison could be between number of complaints brought against Buidhe here (five) and number of editors incl. admins dismissing said complaints here (~13). Man, thems some sweet sweet numbers. ——Serial 19:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? it's not like there is any difference between an admin closure and a non-admin closure here. Are her closes bad? Or are they not? General consensus seems to be that they're acceptable. She does indeed do quite a lot of closes - find the ones that have been overturned to actually make an argument here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the non admin angle is also nonsense.Polyamorph (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quickly looking at the examples of closing at the top of the thread, only Upper Palaeolithic Europe seems to be an incorrect closing and should be relisted. Just relist it. That does not seem to be a problem, and the matter is already under discussion on another noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Why not the Vukovar one as well being the same scenario? Where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. Had the same discussion with Black Kite above. I agree that these RfCs are a bit tricky hence why others are intimidated to close them. I applaud Buidhe for taking on the grunt work. OyMosby (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all contentious, difficult or close discussions should be closed only by admins. This should be written in the rules somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true even the very best will tend to get quite a bit of criticism if they have a high work rate. And I agree Buidhe is to be commended for taking on much difficult work, which she mostly does to a high standard. On the other hand, most of the RfCs do seem to have been close calls; as other are saying it probably makes sense for even an admin not to close too many tight RFCs in quick succession. Personally Id only take issue with the Musk close. Musk is shaping up to have more impact on human civilisation than even Cecil Rhodes did in his day. He's Tony Stark with a 007 twist, and his girlfriend is Grimes. Someone like that warrants the full 30 day discusion. Closing discussions prematurely is to be avoided. Still, no case for even a mild sanction, IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. This seems like a good illustration for my mini-essay: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_why_so_many_admin_heads_are_seen_sticking_in_the_sand_when_push_comes_to_shove. Anyway, the sample discussed here is useless. Unless someone feels like analyzing ad least few dozen, preferably over a 100 closes, this is all noise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem is not that Buidhe does close discussions but that she believes there is "consensus" (to move, rename, merge etc.) when there is obviously no consensus among the participating editors (like in the Upper Palaeolithic Europe case or the DNSSEC case), and that she closes the cases when the issue is stil being hotly debated and should preferably be left open (like in the Musk case). To put it simply, too often she is too quick to close and misjudges between the consensus and the lack thereof. Maybe she should spend more time carefully reading each discussion? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don’t think the Upper Paleolithic RfC is a different example from the Military Disasters one. OyMosby (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but this assertion cannot reasonably be made. Had I voted in the DNSSEC RM I would've also voted support (for DNSSEC), but the consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the current title. Other than the nominator, no supporter provided evidence for their COMMONNAME assertion, and the nominator only used ngrams. Keep in mind that it also takes less consensus to do nothing than to do something. I wouldn't say it was an amazing quality discussion, all in all, but many consensus discussions aren't evidence-finding missions with a logical progression towards a conclusion. Closers have to do the best with the discussion they're given, and that's the way any reasonable closer would've closed it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Roe - from reviewing this discussion, I'd say that there is consensus that there is no problem in need of any action here - I'm minded to close this thread, unless there's anything more you want people to consider? Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think overall consensus is there isn’t a major issue concerning Buidhe. The issue is more with RfCs themselves I’d say. Probably for a different discussion. OyMosby (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  support @Girth Summit: - This is safe to close. I've boldly reopened at least one challenged at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_May#Upper_Palaeolithic_Europe request so things move forward. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (non-admin comment) I've encountered buidhe several times, but AFAICR we've never crossed swords. I've disagreed with some of their actions, but that is neither here nor there. I have no doubt that buidhe is WP:HERE, and is willing to make difficult decisions judiciously. Others in this thread have suggested that buidhe apply for a mop and bucket, and I endorse that idea. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite being told multiple times and being warned[14][15] to stop, BrazilianNormalGuy continues to be disruptive by re-adding undue and unsourced material to Police rank.[16][17][18] Skjoldbro (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also personal attack. Given the 5 reverts in May (against multiple users), so far, this would be a fairly straightforward edit warring block at WP:AN3, but BrazilianNormalGuy hasn't been warned yet for edit warring (will place warning now). There was previous edit warring with the account and previously an IP (also charging "vandalism") on the same content in January and February.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a detailed message explaining, and linking, to what is expected. If he continues to edit war, then a block would be justified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He commits vandalism and I'm on the wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrazilianNormalGuy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrazilianNormalGuy: That's a serious allegation. Which edits are you asserting are so bad faith and disruptive that they are vandalism? —C.Fred (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chetsford, an editor has to be open to guidance and counseling before they'll help. I'm not sure that's what I'm seeing. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, that's very true. Though, in general, I think if impacted editors simply request offending editors to stop posting to their Talk page per WP:NOBAN we can usually tie these problems up without requiring the application of any editing restrictions. My personal view is that blocks should be used only when every conceivable other alternative has been tried and failed. In the case of these annoying comments to a Talk page, I'm not sure that level of exhaustion has been reached yet in the absence of a NOBAN request. That said, I defer to your and others' judgment. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting a response by Terjen. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't support a block. Although everyone involved would probably be better off if Terjen spent a week or two editing non-political topics (it's a big encyclopedia), I don't see cause for an admin-imposed AP2 topic-ban. To a certain extent, making insinuations about institutional bias is permitted and constructive, but editors should not make a habit of complaining to new users about their litany of injustices. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "How come you feel this is offending you?" is indeed dishonest. Bacondrum had good reason to place that template, and Terjen's "warning" essentially tells the warned editor that the warning came from an "activist" and thus is not to be taken seriously, a violation of good faith. One wonders why Terjen didn't place a warning like that under the edit war warning left by Acroterion, in the section below Bacondrum's. Why not, Terjen? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I too was concerned that Terjen seemed to be placing advice telling a new editor not to trust whatever processes they encounter here. That just doesn't seem all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Just adding that Terjen's response to this included this - Terjen had not previously commented on that page, and appeared just to tell another editor to disregard Bacondrum, specifically citing this discussion. I don't feel that's acceptable - overtly dragging a disagreement with an editor onto another page and directly trying to rally another editor against them falls afoul of both WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLEGROUND; that sort of behavior contributes to making disputes intractable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of Order Valereee was earlier in the year involved in the ANI blocking of an editor who argued to expand the viewpoints of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, with Bacondrum having raised the complaint. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• They started out being super disruptive and edit warring against a very firm consensus at Talk:Boogaloo movement, this went to Arbitration and the Edit warring noticeboard:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285#Terjen
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE)
• Where they received a block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Arbitration_Enforcement

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

• They are Gaming the system And appear to be WP:PUSHing their point of view (seems to be having issues contributing constructively with regard to American politics) with WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:Battleground behavior.
• WP:personal attack I then noticed this weird "welcome" where they essentially say I'm an activist and harassing other editors, which is bloody nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023696373 I asked them politely to remove this personal attack and he then throws his hands up like "what me? nah I was just being friendly" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen#Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks which is obviously nonsense. they then go on to make not so subtle accusations of bad faith against Acroterion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erlend_Kvitrud&diff=next&oldid=1023702066k

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

• Oppose indef at this point - I will say I don’t think Terjen was sealioning when they approached me to undo my close. I think Terjen was within their rights to make such a request. I rejected it and Terjen did not press the matter. The sarcasm and criticism at User talk:Erlend Kvitrud and WP:AE is something Terjen should apologise for. However I don’t think it rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE. starship.paint (exalt) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of Order I told Terjen I wasn't going to mention anything weird going on here this time, but Bacondrum subsequently made it extra weird by whatever sort of "game" it is where you repeatedly alternate between good cop and bad cop, drag a guy to AN/I on suspicion of being disruptive and cryptic [19], suddenly revert to friendly and apologetic again, withdraw the complaint (simultaneously edit-conflicting the defense) [20][21], then wish one all the best [22], before abruptly telling the same to fuck off [23]. I move to declare his testimony here incredible. Can't paste diffs, sorry, technical issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs added above, by myself, because InedibleHulk can't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the first or the last to think InedibleHulk's comments and edit summaries were disruptive, I acknowledged I was wrong and withdrew the complaint, made an apology and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABacondrum&type=revision&diff=1024245200&oldid=1024244947 some rude cryptic comment about who he does and doesn't like and I told him to "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. This is all illustrates the point that InedibleHulk "colourful" comments and edit summaries are in fact disruptive. Bacondrum 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rude or cryptic, it was plain Canadian English, with the only allusion I suspected you might need an assist with conveniently Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: - I perfectly understood the comment, well, because it was a pro-wrestling reference, he's saying you were going back and forth (which was also stated in the comment). It wasn't rude. He did clearly write: I don't like you and don't dislike you. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding rudeness when you're saying "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. starship.paint (exalt) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, getting told to fuck off was the least of my problems with Bacon, just naturally happened to be the last one. I don't want him to lose any privileges here. Just casting doubt on his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I lost my cool and told old mate to fuck off, this whole discourse is a bit of a joke really - seemed to me that he was being rude or antagonistic, but I can never tell what is meant by his oddball comments. I'm not engaging with this discussion anymore, I have better things to do. Bacondrum 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I can fuck off and leave with you just one solid morsel of food for thought, never conflate a sea lion with a Canadian, whole realer true Northern politeness up here (think harbour seal, if any pinniped must be presumed at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Bacondrum 05:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Added a new section to the Esequiel Hernández Jr. article.
• Expanded the motive section for the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article.
• Summarized a Reason article on the confusion surrounding the Death of Brian Sicknick.

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

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

I added a friendly welcome message directed to Kviterud:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Terjen: - "criticism" refers to the activist link (among other things), it has nothing to do with "Hipp hipp hurra". Exactly who were you implying to be activists, if you weren't referring to Bacondrum? starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, what is the point of asking someone to explain obvious, dishonest bullshitting? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: - to offer a path of redemption. If we're not interested in at least trying to set things right, we might as well just indef and get it over with. starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for redemption myself, but the response is indeed bullshit. If one feels someone else is being bitten, then a more proper response would be to leave a message on the talk page of the alleged biter, not to discredit them in a pretty sneaky way on the talk page of the bitten. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too am absolutely for learning from mistakes and correcting behavior. It has to be said though that Terjen certainly is bullshitting. Don't know what to say other than that it appears they are WP:NOTHERE, as I've already said. Bacondrum 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes, many were not me, the ones that were me are offered up here completely out of context in what I believe is a deliberate attempt to mislead...more bullshitting. Bacondrum 00:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: It's a link to the WP:Activist essay, recommended for working in AP2. It doesn't imply that anybody specifically is an activist. Terjen (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• it should also be noted that Terjen has never edited the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, nor had any interaction with Erlend Kvitrud previously. Evidence that they clearly went through my contributions and launched this shifty attack with intent. Bacondrum 10:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Erlend Kvitrud had earlier edited the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings article, where I have been a regular contributor. I haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general) but it seems like it could benefit from representing additional viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WpediatricEdit is continuously vandalising Wikipedia pages despite being warned several times by numerous editors in his talk page. I think he should be blocked once and for all as he is not contributing anything useful at all. UserNumber (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WpediatricEdit just tried to delete this report. — Czello 13:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UserNumber, you are obligated to inform the user about this thread. As they tried to blank the thread, though, they are clearly aware and there's no longer any need for a notification. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He just tried it again. Honestly should just be an indef at this point. — Czello 13:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've blocked them for 72 hours for blanking ANI reports. An indef block may be warranted for their other actions, but I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to determine if the article edits constitute disruption (though at a glance, it appears that several other longtime Wikipedia users seem to think so). I'm leaning toward favoring an indef block, but need to step away for a few hours and will leave for others to review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Congdon Street Baptist Church - [24], [25]

• Discussion - Talk:Congdon Street Baptist Church#Dispute

• Brick Schoolhouse - [26], [27], [28], [29]

• Discussion - [30], [31]

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence, Rhode Island - [32], [33]

• Discussion - [34]

• Waterplace Park - [35], new: [36]
• Providence City Hall - [37], [38], [39]

• Discussion - Talk:Providence City Hall#Images

• Shepard Company Building - [40], [41], [42], [43]

• Discussion - Talk:Shepard Company Building#Images

• Roger Williams National Memorial - [44]
• Rhode Island State House - [45], new: [46], [47], [48]

• Discussion - [49], new: [50]

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

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

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

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

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Edits marked "new were added after the original posting of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also wanted to add that this has been going on since April 27th. In other words, I waited three-and-a-half weeks before bringing this to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After checking a couple of these disputes, I think I agree with Filetime. For example, the first one (File:2021 Congdon Street Baptist Church, 11 Congdon Street, Providence.jpg is the one you (BMK) are advocating), the stated reason for removing the image is that it's out of focus. Well, it IS out of focus. Especially the top of the building is quite blurry and perspective distortion is serious. File:2021_Brick_Schoolhouse,_24_Meeting_Street,_Providence.jpg is even more blurry. Aesthetic quality is not the only or even main thing that we look at in infobox images, but when an image is seriously out of focus its encyclopedic value is also much less. The photographs taken by Filetime are more technically proficient and I think you (BMK) should show more understanding. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [51], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: According to you "can't be arsed to come by here and explain" though I literally wrote five lines of text an hour and a half before your first comment. As for the park, a photograph of the park itself is a "a picture of nothing"? Look into any travel guide or on google images and I assure you you will not find grainy photographs of parks signs but rather photographs of the outdoor spaces themselves. If you are so confident in your stance, I encourage you to try and promote this "picture of nothing" argument on the articles for Central Park or Grant Park and convince them that they should use images of signs for their infoboxes. Filetime (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This dappled and unclear image, esp. in thumbnail size, File:Roger Williams National Memoria entrance sign, Providence Rhode Island.jpg should not be mentioned in the same sentence as this one, File:Central Park - The Pond (48377220157).jpg . Drmies (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
        This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be content to see some kind of image-related 1RR/BRD or other kind of edit warring-related restriction for both BMK and Filetime here. A restriction that basically just asks editors to approach editing like basically everyone else does shouldn't be necessary, but it seems called for here. Filetime for tendentious edit warring and edit summaries over a short amount of time, and BMK for a years-long default dispute resolution style of edit warring and taking a battleground approach to pushing through preferred versions of articles. Note that in all of the examples that BMK provided, BMK changed the status quo, Filetime challenged it (sometimes with the support of others), and BMK just went ahead and restored it. Sometimes with an accusatory edit summary, sometimes with no edit summary, but always just jump right into edit warring to force a preferred version putting the burden on the other person to find consensus. This kind of behavior regarding personal image-related preferences images was the subject of a large ANI thread a couple years ago. There were also a couple times where Filetime changed the images, BMK reverted, and Filetime likewise edit warred, lest it seem like I think Filetime is entirely in the right here.
  In some cases Filetime's version was better (I weighed in on one of those); in some cases BMK's was better (I weighed in on one of those, too). But this most definitely is not the venue to get into which version was better. Suffice to say it's not uniformly clear and nobody should be taking the approach that they're taking here. It's disruptive and causes a miserable editing atmosphere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding: just since this thread was opened:
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
  • Again -- while this thread is open. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t be rude. I have read it, and it is not canvassing. I refer you to fifth bullet point under “Appropriate notification”. Pbrks (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [52], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I would like to note that the behavior chronicled here, i.e. the OWNERSHIP of a group of articles and the running off of a good-faith editor trying to contribute to them, is deeply antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos, and dangerous to the encyclopedia if allowed to thrive and spread. After all, we're not talking about reverting vandalism, or protecting the project from promotion or political propaganda, we're talking about simple disputes about the use of images being weaponized and utilized as a bludgeon. That Filetime continued (and for all I know continues, as I have not cared to check their contribution list since earlier today) even after their behavior has been exposed is disturbing, and potentially dangerous. Filetime has shown interest in other geographical areas as well: Massachusetts, specifically Boston, and Chicago, for instance. Will they replicate their exclusionary behavior in articles about those places as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous? Excuse me? Maybe dial down the rhetoric a bit. The pictures I checked that you uploaded were not improvements. When your work is removed it hurts, I get it. But let’s not make this into something it’s not. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to revisit some of those sites and try to improve your photography skills. If they are better I will join you in getting them added to the relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mr. Ernie (now that you're here, I know that I'm in the right), "dangerous". Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. When one editor takes it upon themselves, without the community's approval, to prevent another one from participating in a certain subject, collaboration is out the window, and when they call upon like-minded editors to back them up, without a general call for participation, consensus is undermined. If collaboration and consensus are gone, Wikipedia can no longer be what it intends to be -- so, yes, "dangerous" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the subject topic at hand, this section just feels like you're throwing a tantrum, BMK. If multiple other people are disagreeing with you, then it's clearly not just Filetime supporting these changes. From what I can tell from looking at the above linked talk pages and examples, you're correct in some cases with your images, but incorrect on others and instead are supporting inferior images. Silverseren^C 02:18, 22 May 2021 (UT)

Yes, Filetime's crew, and a few long-time adversaries who come out of the woodworks every time my name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

🙄 Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoddy earache demon stranded?  :) ——Serial 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that BMK is making claims of WP:OWNERSHIP, because I'm seeing the reverse. ANI is revealing a long-standing behavioral problem, yet again. This is a content dispute that should not have made its way to ANI. There are editors who cannot withstand having their edits altered or deleted in good faith and in accordance with policy. These editors, regardless of their editing talent, tenure, or friends here, are largely a net negative for the project if they're repeatedly unwilling to acknowledge their disruptive behavior. Frankly, at some point, BMK has to look at the common denominator. His colleagues are doing him a disservice by insisting on rushing to his defense rather than encouraging him to participate more collaboratively and develop methods to mentally overcome dissent to his edits. Worse, he begins a new section to passive-aggressively accuse his opponents of operating an anti-BMK cabal. This battleground mentality is a disruptive time-dump. RandomGnome (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off an attempted outing, User:Ibn Daud has accused me of making fervently ... anti-Semitic edits and then when asked for diffs of said edits replies with a link to an off-wiki harassment site. Me thinks a ban hammer is in order, but if unsupported accusations of anti-semitism and linking to webpages used to out editors isnt the ban worthy offense it used to be would be nice to know that. nableezy - 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a 1RR violation at State of Palestine, but can take that to AE to be dealt with if need be. nableezy - 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my preliminary thoughts, although I hope that other administrators and editors will also evaluate and comment. Editors with a pro-Palestinian or a pro-Israel POV are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, as long as they comply with our core content policies and key behavioral guidelines, have the necessary experience, and work toward consensus and NPOV. The fact that Nableezy has been active here as long as they have while editing in a highly contentious topic area is a testament (non-religious) to that editor's understanding of these policies and guidelines. Editors who choose to contribute anonymously are entitled to do so without snoops trying to dox them, and linking to off-Wiki hate sites targeting specific editors is not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000 has erased part of my talk page in which I point out that historically User:Nableezy has issued several false SPI’s to silence or remove pro-Israel editors. There are numerous examples of this. Nableezy, Zero0000, User:Nishidani, User:Selfstudier and many other Pro-Palestine, Anti-Zionist users are all savvy editors who have been able to maintain an anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time. They have done this through a series of manipulative tactics and have been immensely successful in doing so. I see now that they are much too influential on this website for anything to be done about this. Perhaps at some point, one day, some administrators will look into and maybe even fix this, but for now, I see that it is impossible, for me to try to revert or combat their anti-Israel agenda. That “off-wiki harassment site”, though definitely, fervent and a little unprofessional is not wrong in describing and cataloging examples of the following user’s manipulative tactics, which they use to force their viewpoint on one of the internet’s largest websites. For this reason, Wikipedia has a somewhat subtle and even sometimes evidently clear Anti-Israel bias, which is read by millions of individuals across the world. It’s truly a remarkable accomplishment that has only been achieved through thousands of hours of tireless Anti-Israel editing by users such as Zero0000, Nishidani, Nableezy, Selfstudier User:Huldra, User:Onceinawhile ect. I know I’m probably going to be topic banned, which I’m honestly fine with, as I now realize that right now, there is no changing this unfortunate status quo. Perhaps this message may even be censored or deleted, in the name of WP:PA, which would really just prove my point. I don’t mean to personally attack anyone, but I am instead just bringing up a disappointing reality. All in all, I’ll stop trying to edit on Israel/Palestine-related topics, and go back to editing my topics in my usual realm of interests, which are without a doubt much less controversial. Ibn Daud (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy was just recently brought to the drama boards for his posts, that you ignored it is fine. I would also ask that asking any new pro-Israel editor if they ever edited Wikipedia before is not CIVIL and yes, we do have an issue with false SPI being filed and anyone in certain timezones are immediately banned as socks because our team doesn't have the technical knowledge to investigate. Your post is clear as to why there is conflict on Wiki when you think it's one sided. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to said harassment site on ANI is special. nableezy - 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Daud, thank you for revealing that, unlike the other editors you revile, you have no intention of following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are here only to do battle with your ideological opponents rather than to collaborate to produce neutral content that accurately summarizes all points of view. You have presented no evidence of "manipulative tactics" used by these editors to maintain an "anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time", perhaps because Wikipedia's job is to report on the full range of what reliable sources say about these topics, as opposed to repeating what the Netanyahu government says at this particular moment in time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If its any consolation Ibn Daud you’re probably not looking at a topic ban but a more general WP:NOTHERE ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome, I would suggest that this editor read up a little. There is vast shouting in the press, reliable mainstream organs, about 'pro-Palestinians' hogging the discourse and spewing hate. We have a recent book on the phenomenon by an undisputed expert with all of the required credentials. Kenneth Stern, The Conflict Over the Conflict,, University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7. If one hasn't time for the long read, the gist is excerpted in Ed Pilkington's article today: 'US campuses become a growing front in Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' The Guardian 21 May 2021. Despite the title, the statistics show the realities on the ground have a far lower profile than what hysteria about groups, like the fictitious wiki mafia Ibn Daud conjures up, ganging up suggest in press reports. 'The paradox of such attempts to restrict academic exploration of the Middle East crisis, Stern told the Guardian, was that it gave the impression that US universities were on fire with pro-Palestinian activism when in fact major confrontations were relatively rare. “People paint campuses as burning over this issue, and anti-Israel activity as ubiquitous, but the data doesn’t bear that out,” he said.' Idem here. The I/P area, so often called 'toxic' no man's land, is a much quieter area than it was a decade ago, and the general conversation is civil, and well-informed between editors. Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a WP:NOTHERE ban. Ibn Daud's defence above was very convincing that way. Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Even worse, I also note that the outing occurred at a talkpage of a subject outside Ibn Daud's normal interests, where they had blatantly pursued Nishidani there merely to cast an opposing vote on a Requested Move. This is the sort of thing that WP:NOTHERE was invented for, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeffed for outing attempts. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, User talk:Cullen328. The fact that a problematic editor like Nableezy is still on Wikipedia is a testament to the fact that admins have made poor and biased decisions over and over again. You and other admins have damaged this project by banning and blocking editors with many good and valuable contributions, like User:Ibn Daud, just because they didn't always avoid conflict. That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the last block for violating your topic ban would have sent the message home to stop doing that. nableezy - 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser:, please self-revert. You know Nableezy is going to make a federal case about this when you both violate your topic ban and attack them, so why do it? To quote a wikipedian I respect greatly "That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that indefinitely blocking (not that a block should have been avoided) an editor that has created several articles [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] (these in 2021, see history of the user's sandbox going back to 2019 [58]), which are by the way not related to Palestine but rather to Jews in Belarus and Lithuania, for WP:NOTHERE looks excessive. I agree with Debresser that this is a loss for the project. Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have been "Indeffed for outing attempts." not for NOTHERE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I assumed WP:NOTHERE was the reason as I noticed it more than the word "outing" (didn't know its meaning before) in this thread. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is only deleting German Place names... So no constructive edits, just vandalism. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given them a somewhat stronger warning. Let's see if they heed that. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this user don't care. This is the third time on Opole for example [59]. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Beating (talk · contribs) blocked temporarily. Hopefully they will begin to communicate. Tiderolls 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dvgardens20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Would appear to be a spam-only account. Every edit I've checked plugs Designer Vertical Gardens directly or indirectly. The last was to Dr Pepper Adakiko (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indef spamblock by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palithanimala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding lovidhu.com to various articles as a reference. It seems the website is a travel blog, therefore cannot be considered a WP:RS. Furthermore, the user is connected to the said website, therefore, it is sort of spamming. Once he added a WP:FRINGE theory and cited it from their website. The user is not responding well to previous messages. Kindly do the needful here, Regards.--Chanaka L (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it looks a lot like linkspamming, I haven't reached a conclusion about the references - they're not the usual sort of tourist board bloggy spam, and it's a part of the world that wouldn't have a lot of high-quality English references to work with. However, Palithanimala blanked this report and has been uncommunicative. I will leave them a note about that and look through their contributions. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on discussion on their talkpage, it's the editor's own website, and it seems to be ultimately sourced from a particular book, presumably written in Sinhala.I've advised them that they need to cite the book for content, and not launder it through their personal project. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply googled "1967 Sigiriya frescoes", and it yielded a number of reliable sources reporting the 1967 vandalism incident. Hope they add an English source. Thanks Acroterion for mediation. Cheers.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their response to me isn't terribly encouraging, and their attitude toward you isn't any better. We'll see how they go. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offended, I was once a clueless newbie. Just hope they come around and keep the promise they made to you.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[62]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[63]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[64]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[65]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[66]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[67]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[68]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[69]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[70] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[71]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[72]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[73] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[74]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[75]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [76] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[77]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[78]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

• To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
• Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
• On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
• The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
• Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
• Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[94] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant comment[95] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

"Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [96] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [97] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [98]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [99], Joe Rogan[100], Elon Musk[101], Larry Sanger[102], and Jacob Gardner[103]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that they have caught the WP:ANIFLU. Note to self: if you ever get into trouble at ANI just stop editing. It doesn't always work, but it often leads to the report being archived or closed with a "no recent activity" comment. Further note to self: Do not immediately restart the behavior. People notice that sort of thing. Either start misbehaving on a new page or wait a couple of months before starting up again on the same page.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there's little energy to close this because there's little in the way of any actionable proposals. Other than a few large walls of text between the primary complainant (yourself) and the defense made by 46.97... there isn't much in the way of a firm way forward. Some people have proposed a few half-hearted hints at sanction ideas, but it is difficult for an admin to enact any sanctions based on such vagaries and any lack of clear consensus among the uninvolved. If you want this resolved in some sort of active sanction, you're going to need to call the question and propose a concise, concrete way forward. --Jayron32 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concrete proposal: A community-imposed topic ban from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed, with the usual invitation to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer of allowing an appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. I recommend no block or partial block at this time; let's see if they abide by the TB voluntarily.

Dr.Swag Lord thinks the TB should be extended to all BLPs. I say we wait on that and see if there is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Guy Macon's proposal (see my initial post for details). This would remove the topics that have cause the most problems for the IP and still all them to edit Wiki in other areas and, perhaps, pick up the norms. Squatch347 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal, would also support the BLP topic ban as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Reviewing the diffs shows that the ip holds strong opinions about the subjects in discussions about content choice allowable under WP:BLPTALK. I do not see the disruption here as I expect the community to have stronger tolerance and expectations that contentious subjects yield contentious opinions. BLP should not be used as a sword to hush these opinions because editors think they amount to IDONTLIKE and ILIKEIT rationales. We've shown great tolerance for other users who hold less than noble opinions in deletion discussions. I don't see how this should be any different. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Seriously? You actually think that "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is" and "Like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society" are allowed under BLPTALK? How do you explain the fact that 46.97.170.0/24 freely admitted that their comments violated our policies and retracted them? (46.97.170.0/24 does that every time they are reported an ANI and then go right back to the same behavior once the report is archived, but it is still an admission that they understand that what they are doing is not allowed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Shapiro comment was in context of whether his opinions were WP:UNDUE for the article and in response to another editor's accusations while the Peterson quote was in context of whether a section was WP:DUE (responding to an editor who commented on misogyny and nationalism from Peterson), qualifying BLPTALK.(See [104][105][106]) The ip's previous admissions only means they got heated and are willing to defer or yield to consensus; something again they have shown here. Let me ask how have these comments been disruptive to move for sanctions? Have they somehow improperly made to article space, improperly sway article discussion on what has gone into article space, or enraged other editors to the point of disruptive bludgeoning that distract from the actual content issue? You all are better than that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2409:4043:2D1F:FBBF:BAFA:74B7:C259:E08B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly making changes to airport related articles, even after letting them know that they need to link or cite sources. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place (often in favour of Pashtun). This is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Here are some examples: [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]

After I warned him, this was his response; Ethnic make up of some provinces is completely worong I will contineu my struggle for improving and to become weki pedia more relible --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's just vandalism, frankly. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time now, Mark P. 8301 seems to introduce deliberate but hard-to-detect factual errors into Wikipedia, and refuses to engage with other users. Here is a number of recent cases of vandalism: all of the following are factual errors, yet not obvious to non-experts; this makes them even worse, as it's more likely that these factual errors are not reverted [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121]. The list could be made much longer. Confounding the problem is that the user categorically refuses to use edit summaries. Despite close to 2000 edits, they have never used an edit summary. Several users (myself included) have encouraged them to use edit summaries, but to no avail. In addition to refusing edit summaries, they also refuse any talk page activity. In short, this user is completely unresponsive, has a long history of introducing subtle factual errors into articles, and refuses to explain their edits. All of this make them a highly problematic user. Jeppiz (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content. Do we think that it's a sock puppet of Peterjack1 (talk · contribs)? DrKay (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap is gigantic, DrKay. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These two editors have had some of this same behavior in and around New York road articles a while back. I would not be surprised if they were socks. –Fredddie™ 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

186.92.231.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This IP is posting obviously inappropriate content on the reference desk. Does it warrant a block or rev-del? aeschylus (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They claim they're "trying to fix and add valuable information that will help other article seekers to find information they are looking for." All they're really doing is spamming the article KTVA and my talk page. See this diff: [122] I reported them at WP:AIV but got rebuffed. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also a personal attack on my talk page. [123] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24 block by C Fred for edit warring, but they are a they". It's a group account.. See also UTRS appeal #43644. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]