Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 20 July 2021

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

HOUNDING:hounding on Misplaced Pages (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.

Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity.

• Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC ]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary ]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list ].

Edit: this list of grievances was started on 24 Feb. POLEMIC notes grievance lists are only permitted when used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. ].
• Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me ], ], ], ], ].

• Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
  • Odal rune RfC ]
  • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion ].
  • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April ]
  • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content ] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions

• Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
  • Earlier today ], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Misplaced Pages:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", ] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and ] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"

• Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st ] 2nd ]

• Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
  • ], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
  • ], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page ], Noteduck's page ]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from American politics, broadly construed. The bloody topic is enough of a permanent battlefield as it is, without the encouragement of new warriors to join the field. ——Serial 13:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If it's a violation of an AE warning, shouldn't this be at AE as well? Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page. My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page. "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before. I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News", which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month (plus BuzzFeed News and Bellingcat. Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April. I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER. The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway. Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere, and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Noteduck, please indicate when you change your text. You have made significant changes to your reply above. As I noted below such changes may result in replies to your text that no longer make sense since the original text has been altered with items added/removed. Springee (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It makes me uncomfortable when editors cite mental health conditions to explain their on-wiki behavior. A lot of people suffer from a lot of things; anyone who is not healthy enough to participate here should immediately log off. Levivich 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor ] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias ] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page ]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I ended up here because I lurk at HiLo48's talk page which references an ANN which references this one. I've seen Springee at work and they are a careful, polite editor who stays on the high road even when confronted by rough behavior such as that described above. I find the above construction of trying to paint an incorrect picture regarding Springee very opposite to that very telling. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000, what points in particular do you consider incorrect? –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically every (mis)characterization and claim about what every diff shows.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
  • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs . Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
  • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
  • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted . –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, don't pretend that Odal was some backwater article. You know it was well-trafficked and heavily edited after the CPAC incident, and you're having a meltdown because someone responded to the same RFC that you did.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first 1RR violation that I've seen from Noteduck, and they quickly apologized and self-reverted when it was pointed out. On the other hand you and I have had several disagreements over what constitutes a revert, so I asked an admin for advice and it seemed to me like the three of us had a nice productive discussion about it. Do you see it differently? –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. During the first month after the AE closed (24 Mar-24 Apr) Noteduck edited 7 article/talk pages that could be seen as AP related (Dennis Prager, WSJ, CPAC, Odal rune, Candace Owens, Douglas Murray, Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, 2020 US presidential election, A People's History of the US). Of those I have no involvement with the last 2. Noteduck had no involvement with WSJ, CPAC, Odal, Owens and Carlson but was either opposing my RfC comments or reverting my edits. They did have prior involvement with Ngo, Prager and Murray. If their comments and edits weren't related to mine it would be easier to see this as just hitting the same topics.

Was it Noteduck's first brush with edit warring? Edit warring was one of the AE concerns. You also haven't made it clear why you were quick to warn me when you felt I crossed the line but you didn't even provide a curtesy notice to Noteduck that they had crossed the line. When you asked an admin it was clear that you were fishing for sanctions and made accusations of 1RR violations on my part which you have yet to support. Springee (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Back to the sandbox thing: If we give you the benefit of the doubt, you had a list of grievances up for a month and you're claiming that keeping a similar list for three days violates POLEMIC. This is one of those things that really feels like a double standard: It's hounding and uncivil when Noteduck does it, but we're expected to give quite a bit of leeway for your similar actions. If you're so concerned about it, I would hope you would remember to keep your own sandbox clean. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The grievance list was started by Noteduck 10 Feb. It's almost July and and still being added to. Do you consider 5 months timely? Blanking means little if they note that they can bring the blanked content back (the "blanked" content was added below) and if they keep adding new entries. You claim what I did was similar so lets compare. A specific list in less than a month, used at AE, never used again until blanked when the sandbox was cleaned a month after the AE closed. VS a continuous 5 month list, including many obvious errors, a portion was blanked but in a way that was easy to restore after multiple complaints that the list violated POLEMIC. The accumulation has continued even after several POLEMIC warnings. It's clear Noteduck has decided I've wronged them. To that end they are making a list, following me to continue their grievances at other articles, trying to drum up other editors for support (yourself included) and not trying to claim "but civil POV pusher" rather than reflect on their own actions. If they agree to stop personalizing disputes, MfD the list, and leave me alone all would be fine and we could close this right away. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

on the point about leeway: Springee has been editing for more than a decade and has far, far, far more editorial experience than I do. I've only been regularly editing since December 2020 (I have a handful of edits under an old account earlier in 2020). "Springee" gets 98 hits in the WP:AN archive; "Noteduck" gets 5. Springee should know the rules very well by now - and in fact, Springee does appear to know them when it suits their perspective. There's no reason for Springee to claim ignorance of editorial policy or expect preferential treatment Noteduck (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page, dragging me away from other Misplaced Pages projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion ]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR ]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR ]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this ]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Just re the ping: sorry, I'm incredibly busy right now. I know I'm related to this stuff, and your retelling looks accurate at a glance, but I'll chime in properly a bit later when I have time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• An earlier encounter between User:Noteduck and User:Springee was a lengthy mediation about five months ago at DRN, Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU. My observations were that these two editors disagreed on content, and that Noteduck was verbose (which is common and unhelpful at DRN). It was a difficult content dispute that ended up as a lengthy RFC that was really six RFCs rolled into one. All of the parties in the dispute were civil, which, like accuracy, is a duty rather than a virtue. It was preceded by Noteduck filing a Request for Arbitration that the arbitrators and I agreed should go to DRN. I haven't been involved with subsequent interaction between Noteduck and Springee. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding the sandbox, from the content blanked in Special:Diff/1029281530, pasted below. The user accumulated a large number of grievances, mostly against Springee (talk · contribs). I note that some of the sources mentioned, such as CNN, are generally considered to be reliable, so they do have legitimate concerns about Springee. Their current revision says that they think it is Springee, not themselves, who should be AP2 topic-banned (esp. in relation to Andy Ngo). But, I think this warrants an interaction ban between the users as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary . Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier. I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox. As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix" without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month. Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion ]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

This is another case of two editors who do not like each other. I propose a two-way interaction ban between User:Noteduck and User:Springee with only the usual exceptions. Since they both edit in the area of American politics, this will inconvenience both of them. Antagonism between editors should be inconvenient to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine and Springee's contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Re-open and support - Robert McClenon has withdrawn this proposal, but I'd like to repropose it. There is a problem that has to be solved here, and I think this proposal solves it better than any other, and specifically better than any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. Loki (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The sandbox demonstrates tendentious behavior by Noteduck toward Springee, and an overview of User talk:Noteduck and its edit history shows Springee repeatedly complaining about Noteduck's edits and fighting between the users. Out of 145 edits to this user talk, Noteduck themselves made 46 and Springee made 44, or about 1/3 each of the entire edit history. A third opinion will be needed to determine if either user's edits about Andy Ngo are problematic, which would warrant a topic ban from this BLP or post-1992 American politics more broadly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 I'd be happy for an uninvolved party to look at Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, though it needs to be said that these are just part of a much larger pattern of blocking unflattering material on pages related to right-wing politics, particularly through the relentless and protracted contestation of material on talk pages. Note that Springee has made 521 edits on Talk:Andy Ngo (16.64% of ALL edits made to the page) Noteduck (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the two don't want it, the proposer withdrew it, and the problem is Noteduck, not Springee - there should be no false equivalence here. I say more below. Crossroads 05:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Enough has been seen and reviewed to at least raise concern about WP:hounding, WP:Battleground and against-WP:civility behavior by Noteduck particularly with respect to Springee. Noteduck is warned to avoid those types of behaviors. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support this or as an alternative I would accept a MfD Noteduck's sandbox with an understanding they may keep the content not related to me. This is a grievance list and a clear violation of POLEMIC. This is especially true since many of the claims are false if anyone actually looks at the diffs in question. Springee (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to see it deleted, why don't you nominate it for MfD yourself? –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I considered that but if we decide to MfD here it will be easier to ensure it is completed. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the discussion above, I'm not sure there's agreement that Noteduck's actions merit a warning or even meet the criteria for those issues. It may be wise to wait for more input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins, before making further proposals to close. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as proposer As the mildest remedy that has a reasonably good chance at resolving the situation. I didn't fully understand Springee's response/post. But they are referring to work there by Noteduck that appears to be aimed at using the system to "get" someone vs. just to solve an issue, would agree that that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've had limited access recently and will for a while longer. I think it's clear that Noteduck has been campaigning against me (see the diffs showing them contacting other editors out of the blue and in cases which they weren't previously involved). The POLEMIC list started in Feb is also a problem. Yes, they blanked it but then started it right back up so it never went away and as the collapsed section below shows, it's still very accessible. This list is a serious problem when editors presume it was in any way shape or form reliably collected. In addition to the fact that most examples don't contain context, they also have a lot of just plain wrong claims (saying sources were removed in cases where I was moving blocks of text, saying I violated 1RR when I self reverted then restored to correct my edit note etc). Finally, trying to bring being bipolar into this! Levivich is right, if a this is a problem that results in confrontational behavior then the editor should stay out of confrontational areas. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment not particularly sensitive Springee. At any rate, Springee seems to want an asymmetric rule that I can't collect material in my sandbox for use in WP:AN complaints. As we've already observed, this is a total double standard. I'll certainly be more mindful about the "timely" requirement of the policy but surely this is an important part of the sandbox function, especially for the sake of transparency about upcoming complaints. One glance at my sandbox reveals that the large majority does not focus on Springee but on my various pet projects to improve Wiki. I just made Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate btw and I'm quite happy with it Noteduck (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no double standard. You have maintained a grievance list since February. That is only allowed if the contents are to be used in a timely fashion which you have not done. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the list is a POLEMIC, 0% is the upper limit. The fact that you deleted the list on June 19 means nothing if you show that you have learned nothing and started a new one. Springee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused here, was Noteduck not supposed to start a new list (as new issues emerged) after deleting the previous one? –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think that the "timely" part serves to make a distinction between complaints to try to resolve a current problem vs longer term constructions to try to "get" (deprecate or remove) an editor or just do battle with an editor. And the latter is presumably a reason for the polemic rule, particularly against another editor. Perhaps, in addition to the proposed gentle warning, if Noteduck could (you) agree to be extra careful and mindful of these objectives? North8000 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good distinction. A month is reasonable period of time to collect diffs but if this list is still here mid July it will be a clear POLEMIC and now Noteduck would be clearly warned about the policy. Springee (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

well yes, I can certainly aim to keep material in my sandbox for no more than a month in line with the "timely" language of the policy. The material I gathered was not intended to be part of some aimless, vague polemic but rather the concrete basis for a WP:AN complaint. The sandbox is a convenient place to gather such evidence, which I'm sure is why you've used it for the same reason Springee Noteduck (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts, especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If timely is your intent why gave you been collecting grievances for 5 months with no action? I'm glad you are able to recognize that the content I removed from TPUSA does not belong on the page. I'm certainly not obligated to try to make a case for the content to be DUE on another page which is what you are asking me to do. Springee (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo, though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I and several other experienced editors did try to help you early on. Our efforts were met with hostility to the point that an AE was filled against you and you were formally warned. The Ngo material has been reverted by two editors and fails WP:V. The ONUS is on you to correct the problem. That you restored the same content you violated 1RR to add further shows that you didn't take your logged warning to heart. Springee (talk)`

Springee recently launched an action in Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence. They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material. Noteduck.

Mis-characterizations aside, those are good examples of the Wikipedian, polite, and content-focused way to deal with content questions/disputes. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages like Andy Ngo ("Springee" gets 600+ hits in the page archives), whoops strike through Charlie Kirk etc. I had it on the brain because of the point about TPUSA above - please don't cherry-pick. As I noted in the earlier dispute in April, based on samples of around ~1000 of your recent edits, at times 95%+ have related to conservative politics-related pages. I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying (talk) Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... ]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to your edit above], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support - a first time warning is customary for new editors, but in this case, it is overly gracious, especially considering Noteduck's comment just above Springee's which begins with "A gentle piece of advice to Springee", and their noting that 95% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics. Wow - that statement provides some pretty big evidence of HOUNDING. Why should any editor care, other than a POV pusher, if 100% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics? Those are the articles that need attention because of strong POV pushing, and left-leaning news media that dominates the echo chamber, not to mention an issue of noncompliance with RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; all of which means there is typically more work to do on those articles. We leave our biases at login. WP is a collaborative project - we don't "advise" other editors whose views oppose our own, especially veteran editors, where they should or shouldn't edit. Admins are the ones who make that decision when there's proven disruption, and right now the only disruption I'm seeing is coming from Noteduck. I commend Springee for exercising such patience. Atsme 💬 📧 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, how do you feel about Springee's similar assessment: Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity, followed by a detailed analysis of Noteduck's edits? Why is it OK for Springee to calculate percentages of where Noteduck has been editing, but when Noteduck does the same thing it's considered hounding? –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dlthewave - for the sake of brevity, Noteduck's comments are political in nature, whereas Springee is being hounded and is expected to provide evidence of same. Atsme 💬 📧 11:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As you note I think that a close review of this ANI thread itself says a lot about the situation. I'm not sure if you meant that my proposal #2 was too mild but for better or worse that's sort of how I roll. Perhaps a one way interaction ban would have been a better proposal to give decisive relief to Springee and be a stronger "we really mean it" regarding battleground mentality towards another editor. But the warning remains as the alternative that I support. And Springee themself supported it and so they likely feel that it is sufficient, at least at this "give it a try" stage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request. I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April ] and then again on 25 May ]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee none of your posts on my page referred to the timely manner requirement. Noteduck (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes your failure to remove even worse. The first time I just said it violated POLEMIC. You didn't bother to follow up and check so that's on you. Either way, you were informed. The second time I included this part, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.". So you just decided to ignore the whole thing since the only reason to keep such a list would have to fall under the timely exception. If you weren't aware of it, after being told where to look, what more do you want. It's clear you were keeping the list despite knowing it was against user talk page guidelines. Springee (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the best representation of the facts. Having started to regularly edit Wiki in December 2020, I had of course seen other editors use their sandboxes to assemble ANI complaints and discuss the use of sandboxes for this purpose, and in fact on 10 February I made an enquiry on your talk page about material you were preparing in sandbox for a complaint against me (though it was quickly blanked). You did indeed quote WP:POLEMIC in a post on my talk page on 25 May, specifically the passage warning against Example text For context, the very next sentence of WP:POLEMIC, in the same dot point, reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Why omit this, especially given that your main objection here appears to be related to the timely manner requirement? On 25 June you referred to the specific phrase timely manner in this complaint. It seems unduly to think I deserve sanctions based on not heeding specific points of editorial policy Noteduck (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As someone who's often edited on American political topics where both Springee and Noteduck were participating I have never seen a dispute between them that I honestly felt was Noteduck's fault to begin with. This is not to say that Noteduck has been a perfect editor, but that I strongly oppose any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. For what it's worth, I would support the interaction ban above or even a one-way interaction ban against Springee: I think that there's a far better case to be made for Springee hounding Noteduck than vice-versa. Loki (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying this because you can think of any actual examples or just because you see this as a tactical move? Noteduck was warned about civility and edit warring at AE. Did other editors (myself included) start those problems? Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing says "battleground mentality" like speculating about "tactical moves". Please, try to assume good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

struck Springee (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Loki, Springee has given pretty substantial examples of hounding. Perhaps you could give some to support your assertion of hounding by Springee?North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh certainly. Of the 37 sections on Noteduck's talk page, 11, or roughly a third, are sections started by Springee accusing Noteduck of bad behavior: , , , , , , , , , , . When these accusations have been actually reported to admins, none of them so far have resulted in sanctions for Noteduck more serious than one unenthusiastic warning once. Loki (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There have only been two trips to the notice board, the AE that resulted in a warning and this one. If you look, many are good faith efforts to help a new editor learn the ropes. Others are for the exact behaviors that resulted in a logged warning. It's unfortunate that you and Dlthewave are condoning vs discouraging such behaviors. Even if you think Noteduck hasn't crossed a sanctionable line why encourage it? Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, that's not hounding. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Loki and dlthewave for helping to set the record straight here. A search for edits made by Springee in my talk page history reveals 44 edits by Springee, or more than 30% of all edits in the page's history. A search of Springee's talk page history shows 13 edits by Noteduck (though all have since been wiped). This is hardly commensurate with the accusation of one-way, targeted WP:HOUNDING. Springee hasn't explained how they arrived at the point that "over 50% of Noteduck's edits since 25 March have been about me 'in some capacity'" , which they will need to clarify, and again I invite editors to look at the diversity of the contributions in my edit history and sandbox. Springee's stated desire to avoid interacting with me is hardly commensurate with their recent actions on the Andy Ngo talk page, where they:

• on 18 June Springee pinged me in a subheading I had no prior involvement in, having reverted a not prominent, 14-word short sentence I had added to a body paragraph on Ngo's page
• continued to contest this short sentence at length on Ngo's talk page for close to another two weeks, including repeatedly interacting with me without apparent distress
• on 25 June took this same short sentence to the no original research noticeboard, on the basis that it purportedly failed WP:V requirements, only for other uninvolved editors to quickly affirm my longstanding interpretation of the contested sentence..

Given the outcome of the WP:NORN discussion they launched, I hope Springee will be restoring the material. As I've noted above, I did not receive a specific reference to the point about assembling complaints in the sandbox being done in a timely manner from Springee, and would have applied the policy (though its wording doesn't lay out precise instructions for how to adhere to it) as best I could had I known. I'm happy to field any further questions Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? There is not a consensus of support and there are concerns about weight for such a claim. Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

do you not agree that the counter-arguments have been quite comprehensively refuted? Noteduck (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A review of this ANI thread alone says much about the situation. Seeking to resolve a situation vs. seeking to deprecate an editor. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per arguments of above support !votes, and how is this still open and unresolved? Closing with a warning and move on sounds reasonable. I also agree that the "evidence of hounding by Springee" above is not evidence of hounding. Levivich 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer topic ban for Noteduck, support warning if not. Their logged warning from March says they need to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics, and they have not been doing so regarding WP:HOUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE. The time for warnings is past; it is time for more than a slap on the wrist. (Closer: Note that Serial supported a topic ban also right after Springee's opening.) It's not like bans can't be appealed in the future anyway. It is clear from the above, both the evidence and from their own words, that they persistently hound Springee and are WP:NOTHERE to encyclopedically and neutrally portray American politics, but rather, to right great wrongs and portray conservatives as negatively as possible. That is exemplified by their own statement above: A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages... Only a POV pusher and hounder would say that. If this is what they say openly at ANI, I can only imagine what these article talk pages (many of them being BLPs!) are like. This crusade is WP:NOT what Misplaced Pages is for; it is the epitome of tendentious editing. A Misplaced Pages that is nothing but hit pieces on the right will do nothing but preach to the choir on the left, anyway. The topic area in no way benefits from these POV pushers that work their way in occasionally. Whether many editors agree with the POV being pushed is no grounds for leniency. Noteduck themselves states above, I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying, so let's help them stay away from this topic area. Crossroads 05:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in part due to the vagueness of the proposal; what exactly does a warning to avoid behaviors described by essays we've all seen actually amount to, particularly when the dispute is over who is hounding whom? In my general experience, a significant fraction of what gets described as "hounding" ends up being clashing opinions on areas of shared interest, exacerbated by a kind of passive aggression for which Misplaced Pages is unluckily fertile ground. I'm not sure that isn't the case here. (For example, on the face of it, "try working in a different topic area for a little while" can actually be darn good advice. I've given it to myself plenty of times. What matters is the tone in which it is said, as it were.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, it was deliberately a soft proposal, including avoiding an explicit finding of hounding behavior while having a good chance of providing the relief that is owed to Springee. Ifr that doesn't work, more concrete explicit findings and direction could be provided at that point.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Suppose an ANI report had been opened on an editor who was adding labels to pages on figures like, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez based on right-wing opinion outlets, telling their opponent to edit pages other than "left-wing" pages and following that editor around, talking about them all the time, and keeping a polemic about them. Would we be seeing the same sort of replies here? I suspect not. They'd probably be indeffed. Crossroads 20:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support warning only - I think Noteduck is being too combative towards Springee. If this continues, we can move on to IBAN. Hopefully that will not be needed. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of recent discussions at Talk:Andy Ngo

@Noteduck: Very well then. Looking at the most recent edits on Talk:Andy Ngo, I see that Springee keeps getting into content disputes.

• On 17 May, they disputed whether content added by Cedar777 (talk · contribs) about Don't Shoot Portland was WP:DUE for Andy Ngo. JzG (talk · contribs) stepped in and agreed with Cedar777's addition of the content. It's still in the article.
• On 10 June, you contested the removal of content by Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), which he alleged to be biased and poorly sourced. That's when Springee rebutted your claim, arguing that the BuzzFeed News piece in question is biased and that the statement might have been WP:UNDUE as well. You also contested some commentary by third parties about Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), again insisting that the repeatedly used term opinion is a misnomer in this discussion. The statement cited to the BFN piece is still in the article.
• On that same day, Springee argued with Cedar777 over an edit by Meng that condensed several citations to the same source, per WP:OVERCITE. Then, they mentioned out of the blue that they reverted one of your edits that allegedly misrepresented the sources cited and was undue. Another argument ensues on the talk page, this time a bit longer and with more involved parties. Ultimately, Springee won the dispute.
• A discussion on 17 June about covering a recent attack against Ngo, where Springee was involed. They also challenged an alleged WP:SYNTH addition by SomerIsland (talk · contribs), but then flip-flopped.
• A discussion on 19 June where neither you nor Springee was involved, apart from an aside by the latter about naming references.
• A discussion on 21 June about an ambiguous sentence. Springee definitely had a good point to raise, and there was little or no dispute.
• A discussion began on 30 June about the weasel word widely as used in a statement about RS consensus. You dropped in and changed the word to frequently . This word change was supported by other participants, apart from Springee, before TomReaan90 (talk · contribs) pivoted the discussion to a conversation about Al Jazeera and the Iraq War.
• That was the last discussion involving you, but it looks like subsequent discussions involving Springee are good-faith and they do not fight with anyone else.

In summary, Springee is editing Talk:Andy Ngo a lot because they are heavily involved in good-faith edits and discussions regarding the article. So it's clear that Springee's edits are unproblematic apart from their interactions with you, although I don't have enough evidence to evaluate your edits about Ngo. Maybe someone can evaluate the archives, but I need to go to bed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to look at my Ngo edits LaundryPizza03. I'd refer to diffs like this one as proof of my commitment to rigorously evaluating evidence on the page. It's necessary to see this all in the context of how Springee fights at length to get flattering sources added to Ngo's page, no matter how feeble.

• For example, take Springee's extended contestation in April in favour of restoring material from "Lacorte News" (apparently an obscure source tied to Fox alum Ken LaCorte). Springee was very lucky to avoid a topic ban later in April after an action brought by User:Dlthewave, brought about after Springee made a protracted attempt in March-April to get material from the deprecated Daily Caller and Daily Signal included on Ngo's page. Although Springee had reverted material from the Daily Signal from Ngo's page in February on the (correct) basis that it wasn't an RS, in March and April they defended Daily Signal's reliability on Ngo while rejecting WP:GREL-listed The Intercept, as well as turning to other weak sources like Daily Wire, The Western Journal, and a celebrity gossip site called "Meaww" to buttress their LaCorte News point. On 25 May there were happy to treat a website called "Katu", and the very non-impartial The College Fix as a reliable account of a BLM protest reported on by Ngo. With sources like these, Springee has been hyper-permissive and emphasized context, while warning against rejecting sources outright.
• Compare this to the scrutiny they have subjected a recent 14-word sentence sourced to Rolling Stone and Jacobin (magazine) to: reverting it on 18 June, extensively challenging it on the Ngo talk page on the frankly, clearly incorrect basis that the Rolling Stone source didn't support the claim in the sentence, opening a WP:NORN discussion on the sentence on 25 June, and after their argument was comprehensively rejected, now maintaining the material is undue. See also these extended challenges (both from April alone) Springee made to The Intercept and Bellingcat, which Springee took to WP:RSN to see their point be quickly rebuffed having contested Bellingcat content since November 2020, plus objecting to a thorough and methodical Buzzfeed News piece in June. Look at the stringency of Springee's evidentiary standards for Bellingcat and Daily Dot compared with some of the above-mentioned obscure (and weak) sources more flattering to Ngo.

Go further back and you see block reverts of the SPLC, Daily Beast, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian,, Salon (magazine) and Rolling Stone, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times,, BuzzFeed News Daily Dot,, Willamette Week The Oregonian, the Los Angeles Times - by no means a complete list. I've repeatedly reminded Springee of WP:ROWN without success. Springee often rejects new edits by invoking BLP, or employs an "injunction": block reverting an edit, starting a talk page discussion, and proceeding to resist any change at length on the talk page, while claiming there's no consensus for change. The clear, repeated pattern is that Springee fights hard to include sources seen to be flattering to Ngo, no matter how feeble, while those perceived as unflattering, even if high quality, are subject to impossibly high standards. I've seen them follow this same edit pattern across a range of political topics, and am happy to provide more diffs on request Noteduck (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And this is more of the same falsehoods. What you call an "extended fight" was a civil and not long talk page discussion where Springee was on the same side as numerous other editors. The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE. Meaww was only mentioned as a left-leaning source and alongside The Oregonian. He's right about Rolling Stone and Jacobin. The former is an entertainment magazine, not a serious news outlet, and does not have any pretenses of objectivity; the latter is openly opinionated and ideological for socialism. He's well within his rights on the rest, since context, due weight, and other policies matter, and discussion and being careful are very important on a WP:BLP. Many of those outlets are also inappropriate for political topics as they are very ideological and/or are not serious mainstream news sources that aim for objectivity, namely the Daily Beast, Salon, Willamette Week, and the Daily Dot. The only problem here is when editors such as yourself push for such glorified group blogs as sources on a BLP and then harass editors who disagree. Time to put a stop to it. Crossroads 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: As shown below, Noteduck revised their comment after I replied; the version I replied to is here. Crossroads 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I disagree that the Daily Caller/Daily Signal issue was "dismissed" at AE. It was in fact closed with a reminder to Springee to "Please be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources" along with a RS/verifiability reminder to the only admin who supported his point of view. I share Noteduck's valid concern that Springee has been challenging clearly reliable sources as biased while at the same time promoting sources that are so unreliable that they've been deprecated. Frankly I don't see how a good-faith editor can challenge Jacobin as too biased to use, while pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened; the clarification and pushback on your AE report is explained there and I'm not relitigating it. Also, deprecation "is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation", though one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP. Crossroads 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I recognize your opinion on the matter, but I need to ask you to respect the final outcome of the AE report instead of trying to relitigate. Although several editors (including yourself and one admin, who was admonished for their comments) did disagree, consensus among admins was clear: It was inappropriate to use Daily Caller in that context and Springee was reminded to be more careful with such sources. Unless you can explain how you interpret the outcome differently, I'm going to ask you to strike "The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE" and the accusation "Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened". I also ask that you strike "one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP" as inappropriate off-topic commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, per WP:REDACT (talk page guideline) please do not edit your comments after other editors have replied. if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. This was mentioned to you early on in this discussion (without a specfic guideline) ]. After being asked the first time you have continued to edit your comments after other editors have replied without proper edit markups (examples ] ]]]). Please follow talk page guidelines going forward. Springee (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee thank you for the useful heads up on WP:REDACT policy. I noticed that you weighed in on a discussion on talk:The Wall Street Journal today, shortly after I entered the same discussion yesterday. While you're of course welcome to do so, this isn't really commensurate with your stated wish to avoid me due to hounding or obstructionism. If my edits no long bother you perhaps make that clear Noteduck (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, in fairness, Springee has actually been involved in discussion on that talk page concerning the WSJ's editorial board from before you even joined the project (diff). El_C 07:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C they did indeed, but Springee's willingness to be involved in a new survey and discussion where I'm present and where we can respond to each others arguments doesn't suggest that they feel uncomfortable or crowded out by my edits. By the way Springee you said in your complaint that "over 50%" of my edits since March 25 have been about you "in some capacity". What do you mean by this exactly and how did you reach that figure? Noteduck (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the same RfC isn't WP:HOUNDING and wouldn't even be restricted by an WP:IBAN as long as you're not directly responding to each other. I too would be curious about the 50% statistic since some of the initial hounding accusations were also just Noteduck commenting in the same discussions as Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO this misleading construction further shows what the situation is and that Springee needs and deserves some relief. Some have in essence said that my "just an oblique warning" proposal #2 is too mild and that is probably true, but this needs to brought to some type of conclusion to provide that relief. If it doesn't work, something stronger can be tried later. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That Noteduck should be topic-banned from post-1992 American politics, or at least the associated BLPs? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a topic ban would be appropriate unless there's an overall pattern of disruption in the topic area. The accusations we're discussing here seem to be limited to their interactions with Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding what the "something" in the "Something stronger can be tried later." would be is a matter of conjecture at this point. But a topic ban is not what came to mind when I wrote that. Certainly even what is on this ANI page itself reinforces the situation. Besides hounding, no editor should have to endure a continuing aggressive onslaught of such things including mis-characterizations. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000, your comment would be taken more seriously if you could specific examples of these mischaracterizations and what exactly is problematic about Noteduck's conduct in this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well asserting/implying that nobody takes my careful summary seriously is not a good way to start.North8000 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My assessment didn't come from just any one item, it was deriving from an overview of the whole thread here. A part of that overview is that IMO I'd guess that at least 90% of Noteduck's posts here have been trying to deprecate Springee rather than addressing the topic at hand. Regarding specifics, nearly every use of diffs in that type of post had a negative characterization (IMO mis-characterization) of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to one diff and explain why it's mischaracterized? I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have any examples, since I've already asked before with no success. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on limited encounters not going too well, I choose to not deeply engage with you. But one structural note....I identified "mis-characterization" as just IMO. My statement in that area without the "IMO" qualifier was "had a negative characterization....of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself." You (or anybody) should feel free to reject or accept my assessment, or to skim this thread to assess whether or not they think that assessment is correct or incorrect. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

IP Sock

(Please note that my post below was moved here and the heading created by Dlthewave. While I noted the sock/evade basis for removal by someone else of the post, I am not knowledgeable enough of that IP situation to have identified it with this title) North8000 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been posts entered by 69.156.107.94 which have been removed per evade/ sock of blocked. The is IP has a history less than1 1/2 weeks old and ~90% those posts have been on this thread attempting to deprecate Springee. Springee is a polite, policy-conscious editor who has been subjected to far too much of this stuff from a few individuals. This type of abuse of editors must be stopped! The have asked for relief from the most egregious portion of that. I proposed an action which is probably too mild but something must be done! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For that IP address, a lifetime of 6 edits, the first fixing a typo in July 2021, and then 5 of the 6 were all on this page in the last 2 days attempting to deprecate Springee.North8000 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this to its own subsection since the IP comments are a separate issue the won't be helped by warning/sanctioning Noteduck. It looks like Awilley is handling the situation and has been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too slow on the draw. The sock was blocked via SPI. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Could somebody review and decide on this?

Could somebody review and decide on this? North8000 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man

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

• User talk:Autodidact1#MOS=Manual_of_shitty_typography
• Autodidact1 (talk · contribs)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case (" is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Misplaced Pages:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction , but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.

Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sayeth Ritchie333:

One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.

EEng 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy-editing as a battleground

While The Rambling Man was clearly being an ass on Autodidact1's talk page, trying (successfully) to provoke a reaction, Autodidact1 has editing problems of their own, as a skim through their contributions shows:

According to Autodidact1:

• Using "via" instead of "using" is "vulgar": "Replaced the vulgar preposition 'via ' with a descriptive verb, 'using'."
• Using "...he singled off Welch" instead of "...he singled against Welch" is "vulgar": "Replaced vulgar 'off ' with appropriate, 'against'.
• "as well as" are vulgar words in Fargo, North Dakota: "In two paragraphs, replaced three vulgar words, 'as well as ' with the correct one."
• They are an ornithological expert, and their knowledge is vital to the accuracy of I, Tonya: "That's not a 'parakeet '. Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure." and "An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.", as well as this elaborate rationale for their edits.

Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness, Autodidact1, it's a way to clarify communication and presentation of ideas.

(I know it's not within this noticeboard's remit, but I wish it were possible to ban Autodidact1 from constantly misusing "".) --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass

Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?

I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it

It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.

(good personal attack though!)

Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Misplaced Pages, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. So you think an accurate description of you is a personal attack. huh? Sounds like you could use a little self-perspective. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a personal attack. Obviously. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "obviously" I was previously unaware of. Your eccentric definition might explain your blathering on about "obvious" errors on User talk:Autodidact1. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you still here? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

===proposed: Autodidact1 may not make edits against the MOS===

• Support as proposer. Since Autodidact1 seems to just be ignoring this, and since they seem to lack competence in doing so, I think we need to prohibit them from making edits against the MOS. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Alt wording: Autodidact1 (talk · contribs) is banned from making stylistic or grammatical, or WP:ENGVAR changes to any article, broadly construed. This wording is similar to that TBAN imposed on Anthony22 (talk · contribs), to avoid haivng to judge if the edit violated MOS. They clearly have a habit of labeling styles as "vulgar" or otherwise improper, and some edits, such as Special:Diff/1017446054 at Brent Strom about MOS:FRAC, inadvertently changed factual information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If, at this late date, you still think your edits don't change facts or introduce errors, then there may be a WP:CIR block in your very near future. I suggest you move quickly to show that you recognize where you messed up article facts. (Hint: It's explained in this thread.) EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC) .

• The problem with "may not make edits against the MOS" is that no one on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) has absorbed all of MOS -- it's beyond human capability, so there would need to be a warning issued for each new kind of transgression. I think Mr. Pizza's idea is better, though I fear it may be overbroad. A third formulation to consider might be Autodidact1 needs to cut out the half-baked pedantry. EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Valid point. Maybe just a warning for disruptive editing, along with an explanation that introducing error in an attempt to "fix" what isn't broken is disruptive. At this point I think we could give an only warning, as Autodidact1 seems to be rejecting the notion that this introduced error. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time on this fail to note that in the very diff provided above, my summary was "actually changing the meaning of the sentences". If that wasn't clear enough for the user making the repeated errors to find, I call WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time...

  And what makes you think anyone missed it? What makes you think that one bit was sufficient? Also, how, exactly, is it "ironic"? Is it like rain on your wedding day? --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm bored of this thread and the pointless point-scoring here. Have fun, I'm going to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to bold an oppose, but there is so much to the MOS (and frankly, some of it is unhelpful or even arguably wrong) that I'd be happier simply blocking them for CIR if they continue to make factual errors without any recognition that they are doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Introducing factual errors while making stylistic changes is harmful, blockworthy incompetence, so much so that I'm even going to pass up this opportunity to give TRM a hard time–a difficult but justified sacrifice. Levivich 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with a blanket ban on MOS edits is that it's treating a symptom: yes, it'll stop the half-baked pedantry in that particular area, but it's no the only space where Autodidact1 exercises their unsourced certainty. Take their edit-warring at I, Tonya

• 07:14, June 22, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ →‎Critical response: That's not a "parakeet ". Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure.
• 20:46, June 23, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.

Their response on my User Talk page It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt...".

However, the very lede of Conure includes The term "conure" is used primarily in bird keeping, though it has appeared in some scientific journals. The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure, though Joseph Forshaw, a prominent Australian ornithologist, uses conure.

So this is someone who not only practices unsourced, self-assured pedantry, it's self-assured pedantry that that's contradicted by the source that they claims supports them. That's a WP:CIR issue at work. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like Autodidact1's got a case of WP:ANIFLU. EEng 17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well that's easy when you're not being asked to explain anything nor being told that there's a definitive approach to your edits going forward. This case will be toothless and nothing changes right now. What's the proposal? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, then... Autodidact1, do you recognize that many of your edits created problems and introduced errors? EEng 21:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  The user continues to edit without responding here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I commented at User talk:Autodidact1#Warning: collaboration is required (diff) and will review any claims of further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• I thought the username was familiar when I first saw this thread - it's come back to me. I actually referenced my only interaction with Autodidact1 in my answer to Question 3 of my RfA (Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?) The disagreement again centred on their dislike of the word 'via', and they used unnecessarily critical edit summaries to describe the use of the word here ("pretentious") and here ("lazy" and "stupid"). They did not respond to my talk page post here, in which I pointed out that the dictionaries and style guides that I turned to had nothing negative to say about the use of the word, and that it seemed entirely natural to me. I'm disappointed to see that they have continued to remove it, and to pour scorn on people who use it, based only on what appears to be a personal dislike of the word. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• The user just repeated what they wrote here on their own talk page. This shows a clear lack of understanding of the issues at hand and an apparently complete lack of competence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  The user is still in denial about the errors they introduced (to whit: My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors), along with their contra-MOS edits. Someone needs to explain explicitly as it's clear that competence is a serious problem here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• We've already got several retired equerries late of H. M. Stationery Office wandering about the project grumbling about dashes and vulgarities and typographical monstrosities. We don't need another pompous Sir Scoldalot. He's shown himself stubbornly incapable of recognizing his own fallibility so I think an indefinite block is now in order. EEng 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Via con Dios? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• So the same person who berates other editors over word usage issues would have us believe that My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors is good English? Sorry Autodidact, but if you're going to be a supercilious, self-appointed grammar cop, you're allowed zero mistakes of your own. I'd support an indef for competence reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, looks like Autodidact's ANIFLU has turned into ANICOVID. Can we please end this is an indef until he ackowledges the issues with his edits? EEng 04:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  ackowledges ? Vaticidalprophet 13:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Watch it or I'll sic my dog on you. EEng 15:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps they really are sic ... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Mebbe. Just skimming this thread made me sic from the ick. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block

Sometimes the community shows way too much patience in the face of patently obnoxious and disruptive behavior. This is one such case. The above thread (and its diffs) contain ample evidence that Autodidact makes careless mistakes in article space, refuses to follow the MOS, responds to criticism with juvenile insults and whataboutisms, and pulls a vanishing act when faced with the prospect of being held accountable. This is not something that we should tolerate any longer.

• Support as proposer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (indef block as an ordinary admin action, or community site ban; either way) for long-term disruptive pedantry, even after this thread was opened, with apparently no hope of change. See, e.g., this July 1 message as an example: . We don't have time to follow and check their edits, at some point it just has to end. Levivich 17:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban at this point as a net negative to the encyclopedia, and who wouldn't stop digging when reminded of the First Law of Holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support either indef or site ban. EEng 05:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef as an ordinary admin action. And certainly support the closure of this long-lasting section at an ordinary admin's earliest convenience. Happy days, Lindsay 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef - clear net negative; would need a convincing unblock request to be allowed to edit again.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ... for now. They seem now to be discussing things on their talk page. I think there is a chance they are beginning to understand things a bit better now. Their attitude aside, they do seem to make a lot of constructive edits. Paul August ☎ 17:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  They're not discussing anything, just hitting out at others and denying any responsibility for errors introduced. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ordinary indef that can be lifted from an ordinary appeal to a sympathetic admin. I don't think the level of annoyance here justifies a site ban, and I don't believe the subject here could never be a productive editor. If the block gets lifted and he starts the drive-by pedantry back up, well, we'll be back here soon enough. Vaticidalprophet 06:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

<sound of crickets> EEng 05:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Autodidact1 last edit was on July 2. Paul August ☎ 12:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's called WP:ANIFLU. It's not unusual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe CHINAFLU? Or else just good sense! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ban by community—Autodidact1 should have lived up to their user name by now. In a collaborative project, raising autodidacticism to a principle in editing and in relating to other members of this project is disruptive. Autodidact1 does not seem to take criticism on board easily (a few days after opening this complaint they blanked their talk page). Their participation in this boomerang is not showing understanding of why editors here find their editing problematic. This discussion is a time-sink. (Indefinite is not infinite). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 10:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indeff. In their last post they seem to have said they'll no longer revert fractions. Ignoring previous "fraction" edits, then on reviewing their contribs I'm seeing about 80% +ve, 15% debateable & only 5% -ve (such as where they miss subtle incorrect changes of meaning they've introduced like here or where the abrasive nature of their edit summary outweighed a trivial improvement.) 80% good edits is better than I'd rate most. While TRM was in the right & their impatience understandable, their approach was non collegial. So it's easily forgivable that Autodidact1's response to the criticism was sub optimal too. The disruption here seems no where near severe enough to justify going straight to an indeff for an occasionally grumpy but useful gnome with no prior blocks. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  You missed the part where there was literally no comprehension, acceptance or regret for introducing errors while editing directly against the MOS while then engaging in countless personal attacks, right? I wonder why. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Unlike the Brent Strom edits where they clearly in the wrong, I dont blame Autodidact for the timewasting MOS contention. MOS is a big document with several subpages. Considering the gulf in experience between the two of you (Auto has < 4k edits) it would have been kinder to point out the specific part you felt they were violating. They did ask several times. I guess you were thinking of MOS:FRAC, but even that doesnt seem especially explicit in mandating {{frac}} useage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Weird, he deliberately and wilfully violated MOS, knowingly so, and described it as the "manual of shitty typography". To claim some kind of good faith ignorance of what they were doing is patently absurd. And calling someone a lying SOB is find too I suppose. What a weird messed up place this really is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. In the very first edit about this on his talkpage, the title of the section was MOS:FRAC. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, MOS:FRAC doesn't seem to explicitly mandate using {{frac}} , though it certainly describes how to apply if editors make the choice to do so. Your claim that Auto was deliberately violating MOS seems false. (though I'll happily apologise if you can supply diff(s) that unambiguously demonstrate the opposite.) Auto repeatedly asked you to specify the MOS error, you just get doubling down on your dubious claim without specifying. Little wonder they eventually started to accuse you of lying. Even when you finally supplied a diff pointing out a specific mistake, the obvious error there was mathematical, not MOS related. Going back to the lying thing, if you wish to appear sincere, I'd suggest not repeatedly wishing an editor well, and then once it becomes clear you have some support on ANI, pivot to arguing for an indeff & badgering editors who dissent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  As you said, it was a clear case of WP:CIR and WP:NPA but yeah, just let it slide. I don't care about what happens to this user, but I do care when people make assertions that are simply bogus or give a perspective which is demonstrably one-sided. That's not badgering, that's simply correcting the record. I made no dubious claims, that's utter claptrap. The user repeatedly re-asserted the same edits containing the same errors, MOS and not MOS-related time after time after I gave warning after warning. But hey, let's just let people wilfully disrupt Misplaced Pages and make many personal attacks with impunity. Good one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  At least nine more false assertions in that post. As you wish to let this slide I won't dwell on them. The one point I can agree on is you do seem to care a great deal about accuracy. Passion isn't always a +ve, but in your case it does seem to result in excellent content creation, for which you're much appreciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The disruption doesn't seem bad enough for an indef yet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now. I'd support a block from article space, which might give this editor a chance to see which of their proposed edits are going to be seen as harmful and why. —valereee (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Moving to Support for an ordinary indef that can be lifted by an individual admin because this seems to have become a case of ANIFLU. Autodidact1, you can't just ignore a problem away. If you aren't going to engage here, IMO we need to engage you on your talk during an unblock request. —valereee (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Vaticidalprophet. Seems to be a total time-sink, complete with a case of WP:IDHT. Lugnuts 17:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose — Although TRM was indeed correct I’m opposing an indef For reasons predominantly covered by Valereee, and additional input by FeydHuxtable and Paul August. I feel an indef is a bit of stretch. I don’t see anything here a stern logged warning won’t solve. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Lugnuts. No room for immaturity. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to close

Please can we see the back of this? There's clearly a split community here, which means the result should default to the status quo. There's nothing practical to be gained by continuing this thread. Warnings, stern, logged, or otherwise are irrelevant, no interaction with the user over the past week or more means this is a waste of community time and energy. Please let's move on. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as I still get full pay for joining your posse. I don't cabal for free you know. Levivich 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Just let Rambler treat you at Claridge's. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Filed at closure requests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this some bizarre joke? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also cracked wise, or I would have closed this by now. HighInBC 06:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So the answer is: yes, this is a bizarre joke. Can we get on with this please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed this, but no issues if an admin wants to delete my closure and redo it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User Nkemonwudiwe Nothere and Coi Editing

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

• In the last 11 years the editor Nkemonwudiwe has violated our policy on image copyright over and over again, see to mention a few, simultaneously and more worrisome for me is their edit pattern, which is consistent with the edit pattern of editors engaged in less than ethical practices which comprise of creating promotional articles for non notable persons or articles they have a COI with, see this article. A quick glance at their talk page, see here tells the story. I do not know exactly what should be done thus I’m bringing this before the community. Today they created a very promotional article yet again see . Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  I changed all the links in your post to wikilinks, as they go directly to pages in the mobile version. I just A7'd another new article, PROdded an unused file of a person without an article, and FfD'd a file almost identical to a subsequent upload. Jane Michael Ekanem was previously deleted by AfD in 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, thank you, editing via mobile can be tough. The assistance is appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

They have had ample time to respond but have chosen no to, which is indicative of the obvious, thus I’m Proposing an indef block on Nkemonwudiwe as WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and using Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes

• Support — As proposer. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There has been some time ("ample" is a subjective adjective in this case), true, but the user has not edited at all in the past ten days, let alone in the four days since this ANI was opened; i hardly think the need exists to rush to a conclusion in that way, especially as small bursts of editing with large gaps in between is typically the pattern of contributions. If we block, it will have the appearance of coming out of nowhere, which i don't believe is particularly helpful. Happy days, Lindsay 16:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The behavior Nkemonwudiwe is engaging in is unlikely to stop unless the user is blocked. 11 years is quite a track record. Matuko (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Long history of promotional COI editing, which is chronic enough that this should not be archived until an admin closes to evaluate consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• They haven't edited since July 4, a week before this ANI, as pointed out above. They've only made a few edits in 2021 and 2020. Looks like maybe one upload to commons in April and a few in 2019. I'm not sure when the last enwiki upload was. I'm not seeing what a block is going to prevent. Levivich 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring

User:Johnpacklambert has nominated dozens of categories for deletion and merge. Before the nominations are closed, has started emptying some of them without any notice. When challenged, he refused to honour WP:BRD.

• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#1431 establishments in Ukraine: he removed Derazhnia and Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine from the category, reverted my revert,, and then at talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine, simply refused to respect the normal (academic, political, and Misplaced Pages) practice of treating earliest mention as the date of foundation.
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire (33 categories): removed articles
  • Lviv National Agrarian University
  • Trinity Monastery of St. Jonas
  • Odessa University
  • Grekov Odessa Art School
  • Odessa Military Academy
  • Beskydy Tunnel
  • Perechyn Timber-and-Chemical combine
  • Port of Skadovsk
  • Odessa Art Museum

There is no reason to remove these articles from the nominated categories during the merge discussion. If the proposal is accepted, then they would be removed as a matter of course. But if it is rejected, then these categories have been wrongfully removed. In my opinion he is doing so to stack the merge proposal by making it look like these categories are empty and unneeded. Perhaps he is also so sure that his rationale about the definition of “establishment” is the only possible correct view that he doesn’t need to wait for consensus to proceed.

In several of his nominations I have provided alternative valid rationales for inclusion of places in “establishment by country” categories, and on his talk page (User talk:Johnpacklambert#Historical categories by period) suggested that a central discussion is needed to establish a guideline for these scores or hundreds of changes, but he has refused to accept my arguments, and refused to start a broader discussion on the category framework.

As remedy, I suggest he revert all of his category changes under all of his nominations, including ones I may not have found, and make a note of this in each relevant discussion. The category discussions should remain open for a reasonable period afterwards. Perhaps discussion participants should be notified. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant categories fall under discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe), and the user has been alerted. —Michael Z. 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I was reading the discussion as it developed. From what I could tell Mzajsc and few othwr people repeatedly copy and pasted the same (or extremely similar) bad faithed acusations that the whole thing was (is) due to imperalism/colonialism, instead of engaging the counter points other people (not just JPL) were making. So I highly doubt any resonable admin would close the duscussions in Mzajac's direction.

Also, at one point JPL said someone (not him) had emptied out one of the catogries. So there should really be more of an investigation into who actually did what before the finger pointing/reverting takes place. Especially if he was just "following the crowd." Not that I think something being removed from a category matters that much during a discussion though. Who ever did it. Just like AfDs don't suddenly become invalid or are people normally chastized (let alone reported to ANI) if someone edits an article during one. Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: without comment on the detail of this case, I'd note that this seems more akin to someone blanking an article undergoing AfD, that would probably be viewed as rather more problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the case, going by what Liz said it sounds like there is precedent to remove links from categories that are going through a CfD. There's zero precedent to blank pages that are going through AfD. That doesn't mean I personally agree that the links should be removed, but I don't think it's worth sanctioning JPL over since it's already going on either. There should really be a broader discussion about it at WT:CFD instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask JPL to undo his revert-revert? Or am I just wasting everyone’s time at ANI when I could just push him to 3RR? Asking sincerely, since I tried to follow the advice at WP:WAR by coming here. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: That is false. Please back up your accusation with evidence, if you expect anyone to take it as in good faith. —Michael Z. 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a massive hassle to provide diffs when phone editing. Especially when they would be in the double digits. That said, the first thing I saw when I opened the link at the top of this complaint was Place Clichy saying "Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism...Etc..Etc.." Which they copied and pasted like 9 times, without ever responding to anything JPL was saying. You also opposed the whole thing because "It is eliminating national and social history in favour of colonialism." Plus "it represents an extremely dated colonial WP:POV and WP:BIAS against the national histories of nations." So claims of imperialism, nationalism, and colonialism were being tossed around a lot and at the expensive of actually engaging in the discussion. Especially with Place Clichy. That was just from a quick glance to. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I feel like contributing. BTW, I wasn't saying that it's a problem that or Place Clichy brought those things up, just that doing so was/is extremely unlikely to result in the categories being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not make bad-faith accusations. So someone else copy-pasted their own comment? I did not do that either (although it doesn’t seem unreasonable when several independent CFDs come off a production line making the same argument). Yes, there are historical (historiographical) views that are represented in current reliable sources, and others that come from the nineteenth century and Misplaced Pages should absolutely not uphold. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I copied and pasted your comments. They are bad faithed IMO because a CfD isn't the place to litigate wider historical (historiographical) views. Just like an AfD related to an ethnic minority isn't the place to discuss race relations in America. It's never productive. Also, since JPL was the one that initiated them, by claiming they have anything to do with imperalism/colonialism your associating him with those things. Even if you didn't directly say he was being imperialist. I'm not saying you know that or were intentionally trying to to derail the CfD discussion, just that it wasn't fair to JPL or other people to make the discussion about that. Especially at the cost of discussing the CfDs more directly. That's just my opinion though. It's more feedback on how to be more effective next time then anything else. Which your free to take or leave. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s my point that CFD is the wrong place. But JPL brought it to CFD when he decided to restructure dozens of categories to conform to his view, a change from the existing consensus that had interpreted categories “by country” broadly and variously. JPL declined to start the necessary conversation beforehand, and refused to consider it when I and others pointed out its necessity. He further committed to it by editing affected articles before his CFDs were concluded, and in fact after it was becoming clear that his view is not the consensus (you can read him complaining about opposition on his talk page). The result is likely to be a large random selection of categories changed out of thousands, and the issue no closer to a consensus or even a discussion. —Michael Z. 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your really not making any sense. If CfD was the wrong place to discuss colonialism/imperialism then why did you discuss them there? Also, your saying he should have started the necessary conversations when he literally took the categories to "Categories for Discussion." That's what it's there for. To discuss categories. Finally, how did JPL edit the categories after it was clear that "his view" was not consensus when the CfDs aren't concluded yet and even your saying there is no consensus? I just don't get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you thought I was saying it was okay to empty categories in the middle of a deletion discussion. I was just saying that I'm seeing it happen repeatedly and from CFD regulars. But I complain about it at WP:CFD all of the time. It is irritating because editors spend their time considering the merits of the deletion proposal and emptying out the categories prematurely is a waste of their time. It bypasses the consensus building process. It's one thing if a category has only one page in it or if the category doesn't fit into the existing category structure & is a mistaken creation but to do it on a regular and widespread basis is disruptive. Liz 02:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I miss-read or miss-represented your opinion. To me something is OK to do, as far as not being worth sanctioning any person over, if it's being done by a bunch of people already. Especially if there's no guideline against it. I don't think that means it "should" ultimately be done though and looking over your comment a second time (not on a cell phone) I can see that you weren't saying it was OK to do either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have no comments about the Johnpacklambert's edits but as someone who regularly deals with empty categories, it's becoming more common for categories to be emptied prior to a CFD decision. I'm not pointing fingers, just pointing at a trend for categories to be emptied prior to a decision of whether to delete, merge or rename categories. It can sometimes be a challenge to determine who is emptying them. It might be a good discussion to happen at WT:CFD. Liz 04:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• None of these entries fit in the category in question. Odessa was part of the area of the Ottoman Empire that as a unit was much further south. It was no more part of any logical Ukraine than anything in Bessarabia. In the case of the places in Austria-Hungary they cannot be placed in a category under the Russian Empire. In the first two cases there is not enough evidence to place them in a specific year. If something clearly does not belong in a category, it can be removed, even if it is the only entry. I even explained in depth about the first two having no evidence that was the year of their founding. There is no coherent way to say any of these things happened in Ukraine in those specific years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• The first example, the university in Lviv, was founded in what was then Lemberg. Which was in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Ukraine category for that year is a sub category of the Russian Empire category, so we cannot place in it things that clearly happened outside the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually that was in 1852, so it was in the Austrian Empire. There is no reason to allow categorization to be preserved in a case where it is so clearly wrong. Only a few years before the Polish nationalists in that area had insisted the very idea that there were Ukrainians was a ploy by the Austrian government to kill the asperations of Polish nationalists. National identities are very contested in the 19th century, but in Europe international boundaries at any given time are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    Johnpacklambert, please respect WP:BRD and discuss the specific category changes at the relevant articles’ talk pages, or better yet, wait for your CFD results before making changes. I filed this ANI because you refused to do that, there, and not to re-litigate the subject-specific questions here. —Michael Z. 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:BRD that dictates discussions have to occur on the articles talk pages when there's a dispute, otherwise there couldn't be RfCs or ANI complaints, and JPL was discussing the changes on the relevant CfD talk pages. Which is more then adequate. Or it would have needlessly created duplicate discussions with the same exact people and points being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert should stop emptying categories he nominated (or plans to nominate) for deletion, as that influences and pre-empts the discussion badly. In many cases, his nominations for "obviously wrong" categories failed to get consensus, as there is serious disagreement about the best way to categorize such establishment by country / region / whatever entries (for JPL and some others, only one view is possible, the "historical" one, and the "current" point of view, that something in "current" country X was established in year Y, is unacceptable and should be eradicated by all means possible: the idea that a lot of readers might be more interested in what was established in what was established Ukraine throughout the ages, year by year, even at times when the country didn't exist, seems to be totally alien or unacceptable to them, as it is "wrong" from their point of view and no other point of view is acceptable). If they are not willing to stop this, I guess another editing restriction is in order. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details and I don't feel like bludgeoning, but there was an AfD recently for what was essentially a personal essay written by someone who thought Afghanistan (which was formed in like 1949) should somehow be credited for something done 2,000 years ago by Sumerians, just because it took place in what is now modern day Afghanistan. Not surprisingly the article wasn't kept. If allowed, such articles are a huge slippery slope that can lead to a lot of nationalist type edit warring, arguing, and nonsensical duplication of historical subjects.

Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are, it wouldn't be a maintainable, fair way of doing things. Especially when people start wanting to go the other way with it, where Sumerians are supposedly responsible for things currently taking place in Afghanistan because time/ownership are just imperialist/colonialist Western scientific notions and other views are possible, or whatever. At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article. There's zero precedence for it either. Let alone is it worth restricting JBL's editing abilities due to him keeping the slope from being slid down. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

...which is hardly comparable to the current issue, i.e. that e.g. the Odessa University, a currently existing, major university in a major city in Ukraine, is removed from the "what things in Ukraine were established in what year" category tree because it wasn't Ukraine in that year, and may only be included in the Category:1865 establishments in the Russian Empire. Now, Johnpacklambert may argue that at CfD (though he could do with turning down the hyperbole about how terrible and stuoid it is to have the "current country" cats as well), but emptying the category at the same time is not allowed. That's the behaviour problem for which a restriction may be needed, the other issue is the way he treats the content issue as if his PoV is the only possibly correct one and the opposite position, which would allow for both categories (one historical, one from the current situation) is an abomination. A tree of what is or would be currently located in country (or US state or whatever), by year of (dis)establishment, is of interest to readers, and informs clearly and succinctly about things that shaped the current country, even if the country didn't exist at all at the time of establishment. The dogmatism that only one tree is valid and the other needs to be erased is highly tiring. Fram (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point. From what I can tell it also lines up with how historical subjects are handled in Misplaced Pages more broadly. Maybe the Ukraine/Russian Empire thing is (or should be) an exception. I really don't know. Anyway, with your tree thing sure it would be of interest to readers, but what readers find interesting shouldn't come at the cost of accuracy. You can't really have a "current situation" category for things that are in the past. Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period. Just like Spain/Mexico City/Tenochtitlan aren't all the same thing and things related to them shouldn't all be in the same category just because the area that comprises modern day Mexico City switched between them (and likely other groups) multiple times. So what if readers would find it interesting or that there were trees during the Silurian period on the landmass that now makes up the United States? Also, emptying the categories is allowed. Otherwise, can you point to a guideline/RfC/anything that's not an essay that says it isn't? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think it makes much sense to continue this discussion if you try to continue it with ridiculous examples, but without actually adressing the issues (simply "claiming" that it isn't accurate that e.g. the Odessa University is in Ukraine, and was established in 1855 or whetever year it is), and if you claim that something can't be someone's PoV if that position is shared by others as well (???). But to address your final point: the introduction of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion says "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.". Which is exactly what they are doing, and what is being discussed here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

How is it a ridiculous example when fossilized trees from the Silurian period exist on the landmass that the United States currently occupies? It's literally the exact same thing as the University. Just because one is a tree and the other is a building/organization doesn't make the standard we should apply to them any different, or one ridiculous and the other not. I think Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine is a perfectly example of that. There was no Ukraine in 1431. When you do a Google search for "1431 Ukraine" all that comes up is the Misplaced Pages category. So 100% that's exactly the same as the tree example. If one is ridiculous, then both are and so is the category.

With the CfDs being depopulated, the guideline says not to do it if doing so will be controversial. if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them. Unless I missed it I didn't see Mzajac ask JPL not to depopulate the categories in the CfDs themselves either. The fact that JPL, not Mzajac, brought up someone else doing it makes me think that Mzajac wasn't really that concerned about it at the time either. I'd hardly call one person taking issue with something in an ANI complaint after the fact a controversy. It's pretty clear that JPL is being singled out over it also. Since no one else that has done it is a part of this complaint. Plus, Mzajac went out of their way to specifically call out JPL and say he was doing it "to head off consensus." None of which should be encouraged. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Where did you get the "which seemed to be the case"? There have been plenty such discussions, and they nearly always are controversial. The issue of depopulating cats under discussion was already brought to their attention in 2011 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2#Note), 2012 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3#CfD a,d January 2021 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 7#Establishment in Taiwan categories) (the latter one makes it abundantly clear that they are aware that these nominations are controversial). And from his current talk page, we have User talk:Johnpacklambert#Russian Empire-categories. As for "ridiculous example", we are talking about the "established in" categories, and you discuss fossilized trees. If you consider that "literally the exact same thing", then our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about in the CfD. I don't think a discussion from 10 years ago on his talk page is that great of an example. With the one in 2021, it looks like what was said is that the categories shouldn't be emptied because it looks "like a sneaky attempt to circumvent the CfD process." In no way does that translate to "hey, maybe you shouldn't be emptying categories because it's controversial." Even if it did, one person saying something on a users talk page doesn't mean what they are saying has wider community support. Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD. Look at it this way, there's a tree on the landmass that the United States currently occupies. The tree (de)established before the United States was formed. Then there's a university in the Ukraine, that was started before the Ukraine was formed. How are those fundamentally different? If you think they are, cool. IMO figuring this out is fundamental both to if JPL did something or not and how to move forward the CfDs. Just saying they are different and that we can't have a meaningful discussion because of it doesn't help though. Pick a better example. I don't really care. What about Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine when there's literally nothing that connects Ukraine to that date? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to accent my point, it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started. So saying the category should not have been depopulated because of the CfD guidelines is wrong. Since there was no CfD at that point. Also, one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find), clearly states that they don't know when the city was founded. So, it clearly shouldn't have been in the category anyway. I have nothing more to add. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding the "don't depopulate during the CfD" by depopulating right before the CfD is hardly any better, but is a nice example of wikilawyering. And examples of his emptying of cats during the CfDs have been given, e.g. on Odessa University he removed the cat on 23 June, 5 days after he has nominated it, and at a time when there were already three oppositions to the nomination (so the "didn't know it would be controversial" defense is again shown to be clearly invalid). Also this one, this one, this one... Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point. It happens sometimes. I know I've done AfDs for articles that I edited beforehand because it turned out the sources weren't as solid as I originally thought they were. Specifically with Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine there doesn't have to be anything in the category for people to know that there wasn't such thing as the Ukraine in 1431. So nothing could have been established in the Ukraine at time. It doesn't matter to the CfD what's in the category or not, because it's literally a hoax. None of the keep "voters" ever addressed that fact either. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD??? Uh, bye, thanks for confirming my first impression that discussing this with you was a total waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD. Since that's what we were talking about. Either way, with your first example he said why he removed it in the changeset comment and it seems like a reasonable explanation. Same with the other one. There isn't a known establishment date for the city. Nothing says clear categorization errors can't be fixed while a CfD is going on. None of the edits that I've seen show a clear intent on his part to try and stake the CfD (or whatever claim Mzajac is making) either. Outside of that, I'm not going to litigate every single edit or discussion he's been involved in over the last 10 years just so I can read (IMO) non-existent bad intent into his actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." Such an edit doesn't seem to exist, not in the one article you provided, and not in the other one I provided; both of these were already given in the opening post of this thread, so nothing new there. So it appears that not only did you not provide a single new element, you furthermore made, again and again and again, incorrect claims about these old elements. I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling, but coupled with the "fossilized trees" attempt above it sure looks that way. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know we were required to add anything new to ANI complaints aside from our opinions about if action should be taken on them or not. Which I've clearly gone above and beyond. Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to. Outside of that I'm not engaging in this discussion anymore. Since I've said all I need to and it's pretty obvious that your just trying to provoke me. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment So the view of some is I shopuld leave in a category articles that either A-were clearly created outside of Ukraine in that year if Ukraine is as our own category structure says it was a sub-units of the Russian Empire, ignoring that the Russian Empire recognized no sub-unit. B- articles that expressly state that the year the subject was established is unknown, so how exactly do we then categorize it in a specific year. There should be no precendent to leave such very clearly wrong categorizations in place just because they happen to be the only one in a specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Liz and Fram have provided sufficiently clear reasoning for why editors should not depopulate categories that they have nominated or plan to nominate for deletion. You don't seem to be engaging with those reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Fram. Such edits with such justification (edit summary) are questionable. As reflected on our page Ukraine, this is not just the modern day country. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What about things that took place in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Just put them in multiple categories or one for "Ukraine" stuff and call it good there? Also, how is it fair to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or not robbing them of their history to credit stuff they did to the Ukraine just because both were in the same area at different times? Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI is not the proper forum for debating the merits of the disputed categories. If a category is problematic, get it fixed or deleted at CfD. If the CfD results in a delete outcome, then the category can easily be removed from all pages at that point. But if consensus does not support such removals, they should not be carried out. In short, JPL needs to get consensus before he blanks the categories. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that in general. The problem is that this ANI complaint is about specific edits. One of which was him removing an article from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine because it doesn't have a known establishment date. I don't see how it can be determined if that was the right action to take or not if we can't discuss categories. Nor is it a given that there needs to be consensus before removing an article for something that doesn't have an establishment date from a category that's about places with establishment dates. There is zero consensus that someone can put whatever they want in establishment date categories and then there has to be a protracted, consensus building discussion to find out if the edit is OK before the articles can be removed. No one is out there asking permission on talk pages to remove irrelevant, off topic entries from categories. Even if it empties the category. A few people complaining about something on a user page doesn't represent the broader consensus of the community either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the angle from which one endeavors to view the situation, the bare fact remains that JPL has been emptying categories shortly before and after he has nominated them for deletion. Moreover, he appears to have disengaged from this thread without acknowledging the substance of the concerns raised by Liz, Fram, and co. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that at the bare minimum JPL should acknowledge that a few people are concerned with him emptying categories. It's not like he's completely ignored that a couple of people think it's a problem though and in the meantime I'd still like to see the broader issue that led to this dealt with. It's not really helpful to the health of the platform (or editors) if everything ends in someone being blocked from editing because a few people took with their edits in an ANI complaint, without more being done to address the root cause of it. Totally, JPL should acknowledge that's it an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as participant) It's definitely best practice to leave the articles as is in categories so that other editors can evaluate them themselves in CFD. (I may have occasionally done this myself though when I thought I could save a cat before realizing that was hopeless and then nominating it for deletion.) There have also been a lot of other challenges with these CFD discussions with cutting and pasting, questioning motives, and especially WP:RGW. I don't think these nominations, including my edits, have brought us closer to a consensus about the categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Conversely, there seems to be mass-populating of categories going on with regards to expatriates. Raised on Lambert's talkpage, to be met with a wall of rambling text. When another query is raised, it's met with this reply. Hopefully every single one of those categories added is supported in the article and they aren't BLP violations. Lugnuts 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"A wall of rambling text" that the person he was writing it in response to enthusiastically thanked him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It was that long I gave up before getting that far! I read that reply has humouring Lambert. I may, of course, be wrong. Lugnuts 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• This was raised by Lugnuts just above; is replying "THis is just plain stupidity on your part." really acceptable? It again is a case of Johnpacklambert seeing his interpretation of a term as the only possible one, and rather vehemently denying that other interpretations are possible: but this time it doesn't attack the results, but the person asking a civil, logical question. If this is the stress caused to Johnpacklambert when his categorization edits are challenged, then it may be better to get him removed from discussing categorization. Fram (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Kind of like you telling someone "I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling" because you don't like their civil, logical questions? "If this is the stress caused to Fram when he's asked questions in ANI, then it may be better to get him removed from ANI discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can look for my comment in this discussion and judge whether it was a reply to a "civil logical question" or instead to yet another blatantly incorrect statement of fact. But feel free to raise my comment in a separate section or subsection if you think it was problematic: what I said to you doesn't really impact what a third person said to a fourth one. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"? Hypothetical questions don't have correct answers and they aren't facts either. Anyway, what I think is problematic (or really just kind of odd) is that your saying he should be blocked for calling something stupid, an extremely minor thing. When your ignoring him not acknowledging his edits are a problem. Which is something that has consensus is an issue and can actually lead to sanctions. If you want him to be blocked, why not bandwagon around something that actually has a chance of leading to it? "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The "blatantly incorrect statement of fact", as I pointed out in that part of the discussion, was you claiming " it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", and in a next post "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point", and in a third post "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD.", even when it was pointed out again and again that all edits removing articles from categories were made after the CfD had started. I hope this is finally clear now? Fram (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." Your the one lacking clarity here because for whatever reason you keep reading non-existent bad intent into the mistake when there was none. Are we finally clear about it now or are you going to keep acting like I miss-read the edit histories on purpose? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Where have you said that already? I can't find it in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So he removed Beskydy Tunnel from Category:1886 establishments in Ukraine at 13:28, on 18 June 2021. He also removed Lviv National Agrarian University from Category:1852 establishments in Ukraine at 13:24 on 18 June 2021. The CfD for both wasn't started until 14:00, 18 June 2021. Which was half an hour after he removed the articles from the categories. Those are the edits I was originally talking about. Are we clear now? Next time you repeatedly accuse someone of making "blatantly incorrect statements again and again", maybe at least check first to make sure they are actually incorrect. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So "you were originally talking about" these examples you never gave then, and not about the examples you gave at that time? Furthermore, your claim in your previous post (that you misread the dates and had already said this) is apparently something you made up and now try to ignore? Finally, the Lviv National Agrarian University edit was made at 13.24, but the CfD nomination was started at 13.23. In the next 40 minutes or so, he was adding cats to the nomination, and removing articles from the cats at the same time (e.g. the Beskydy edit at 13.28, and the cat nom at 13.29). So, as has been said all this time, he wasn't first removing articles from categories and only then realising that deleting the cats altogether would be better: he was removing some articles from the categories during and after the nominations. As was clear from the very start of this discussion, and is clear from his edit list (here, edits starting at 13.06 on 18 June and ending at 14.01 the same day). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to accuse me of trolling and trying to hide the discussion? Weird thing to do if your right and I'm just trolling. Also, it's Interesting that this whole conversation suddenly became off topic and of zero benefit when it turned out you were wrong, not back when you repeatedly trying to instigate and perpetuate things lol. Anyway, I did miss-read the date of one of his edits, which was the example I originally provided you. That doesn't mean it was the only example I had or was going to give you though. I just decided not to provide the other ones because you started accusing me of trolling and I didn't want to feed into your bad faithed baiting. So there was really zero point. Plus, it's not like you couldn't have looked at his edits yourself anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Catchpoke

Broken off from another section

I am unsure if this is relevant, but user:Firejuggler86 made a revert clearly in retaliation of my comment here. Catchpoke (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

These edits by Catchpoke were recently discussed at There's a lot of IDHT involved in bringing it up here. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

My intent is not to bring up my behavior; my intent is to note user:Firejuggler86's behavior. Catchpoke (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since Catchpoke had the poor judgment to inject himself into ANI, I think it's time to find out whether they can show they understand the concerns expressed by other editors at the discussion linked by Geogene. If not, I think a very simply topic ban is in order: Catchpoke is not to make any edit in any way involving the word "etymology" (or its variants: "etymological", "etymologically", etc.), nor any edit related to word or phrase meanings, denotations, connotations, implications, intimations, or origins, broadly construed. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Pedantry against consensus is behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I very much support EEng's suggestion. Catchpoke is on some sort of campaign, based on the sort of "faux precision" typical of non-native speakers, to replace anything about the origin of a name, expression, or anything else; of course "etymology" is a good word, but it has specific connotations of the lexical origin of a word through different languages. Much worse, Catchpoke is edit-warring against the opposing consensus, and engaging in other non-cooperative behavious like user talk page blanking. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had intended that we observe the ritual waiting period, during which Catchpoke could express some mea culpa, before the tar-and-feathering got underway. EEng 09:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  But the tar will be cold by then. Levivich 12:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  And let me guess: we're out of propane. EEng 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Been working late, used lots of gas lighting. Levivich 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, I mean it when I say that your wit is close on to Wildean. EEng 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." Levivich 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Great quote! I'm going to add it to my user page! EEng 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  hypocritesCatchpoke (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've stopped making section name changes. I've used MOS:SECTIONSTYLE and MOS:NOBACKREF as edit summaries at times which I felt were appropriate. I disagree with user:Imaginatorium's definition of etymology. I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". If people disagree, I am willing to reengage at . Catchpoke (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  A little late for that; at this point you'll need to reeengage right here. Let's start with I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". Do you recognize that a half-dozen experienced editors have told you that your campaign is inappropriate and disruptive, that at this point it does not matter what you think, and that if you do it again you're going to be blocked? Yes or no? EEng 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong and this is also wrong. I will in engage right here. All of the support votes right now are involved editors. I posted a request for an outside opinion at . User:Kwamikagami opines that my behavior is pedantic even when he, User:Veverve, and User:Bermicourt all agree that "etymology" is correct. If you look at WP:RM, article titles are debated for accuracy's sake. A section's title is a "subarticle". Are you saying people who volunteer there are being pedantic? Because if you are, that would be hypocritical. This isn't pedantic, it's a matter of accuracy. "A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article Silver Age of Comic Books, does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase Silver Age of Comic Books. Now cut it out.": understood.Catchpoke (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not agree that 'etymology' is correct. At best it would seem to be pushing it. Words mean what they're used to mean, and AFAICT 'etymology' is not used for this meaning. I might change my mind if you were to provide evidence that the word "etymology" is commonly used for the history of proper names that are transparent phrases. (As far as I can see, you haven't provided any evidence. Correct me if I missed something.) But your claim that "etymology" should be used because it's "correct" is specious even if it is correct: "the origin of the name" is *also* correct. So this wouldn't be a matter of correcting an error, but of a stylistic preference. Even if 'etymology' is used as you claim it is, I suspect that most readers will find "the origin of the name" to be a more legible way of presenting the article. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You are being pedantic. Gaslighting linked above uses "etymology". Both uses are correct. "Etymology" is correct and is a style issue. This should be discussed on WP:MOS so that we can standardize section names. Sorry for the trouble I've caused.Catchpoke (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite my fundamentally vicious and unforgiving nature, I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for you because I can see that you're really trying to contribute and don't get at all why this is happening. I earnestly hope you can find other areas ways to contribute to the project, and a year from now you'll understand what we've failed to make you understand over these past few days. I mean it when I say: good luck. EEng 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Propose three month restriction to articles containing the word entomology if consensus be reached. ::::::Otherwise...

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 17:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I make very similar edits for very similar reasons, and can use all the help I can get. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The user gets questioned about their editing and pretty much says, "No, you're wrong!" Your competence is required here. – The Grid (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (involved, as I was the first to object to these edits). Catchpoke's reactions throughouit, including here, show he still thinks he was entirely correct, despite a growing pile of editors disagreeing. A topic ban is in order. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, it seems obvious that being "correct" will prevent this editor from recognizing consensus. As such, I think a narrow sanction like the one proposed is necessary. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  The more entirely correct editors are disenfranchised from the consensus-building community, the less correctly consensus will turn out, you know. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase an aphorism, consensus is the worst possible way to build an encyclopedia, with the exception of all the other possibilities. Both approaches here seem reasonable to me, so I will go with consensus, and those who at least pay some sort of attention thereto. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye, for now, they may. But I don't need to tell you a universal united union of uniformity and unapartment is on the horizon. We all see it coming already, together. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unapartment doesn't appear to be a word, which seems a shame, actually. EEng 18:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence my edit summary. Literally, deal with it. You, the reader! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I remain unable to digest your Inedible post. EEng 04:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Support. Actually Catchpoke has misunderstood me in suggesting I unequivocally support his view. What I said (at Talk:Weser Renaissance was that "I'm inclined to agree given the definition of the etymology of a word (and surely by extension, a phrase) is 'its origin and development throughout history'". However, that was only an initial tentative conclusion prior to hearing the other side of the argument from the other editor involved (Johnbod as it happens). I'm more than happy to go with the consensus and I also agree that, unfortunately, the sanction proposed is needed in view of Catchpoke's apparent reluctance to engage constructively and accept the community consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per a pretty stark showing of disruption and inability to accept consensus. With due respect to IndelibleHulk's observations here, having an established consensus-based process here that cannot be simply short-circuited by one party by mere virtue of unwavering obstinance is far more important to "getting it right" across more articles than is the outcome of any one narrow, heavily pedantic debate about the best editorial approach to one descriptive/empirical term. This is clearly a WP:CIR call: editors who cannot WP:DROPTHESTICK in these kinds of circumstances will (almost invariably) consume increasingly an ever-larger proportion of time from the community, relative to the value of work hours implicit in their direct contributions. Snow 10:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronic violations of MOS:COLOUR by User:Kannweame7961

I recently encountered Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creating a series of articles titled Country Name at major beauty pageants (all of which are linked on {{Countries at major beauty pageants}}, the tables of which violated the colour section of MOS:ACCESS. I discussed these with Firefly and changed Angola at major beauty pageants to a MOS compliant format. I then dropped a note to them at their talkpage (User talk:Kannweame7961#Country Name at major beauty pageants formatting) about the issue in the hope this would solve it. Unfortunately enough they haven't responded and have continued creating these articles, as well as reverting the changes on several of them. While I hoped to avoid having to make this formal the rate at which they are creating these means I can't fix them quickly enough. -- Asartea 08:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does this sound familiar? Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, except that tables violating MOS:COLOUR are probably more common than tables which don't -- Asartea 13:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The colour choice is a bit yucky (to use a technical term) too ...i am placing a few {{Overcoloured}} guiding notices on top of some of the articles today, hope that is ok. ~ BOD ~ 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail, anyone specific in mind? I'll tell you already that I could not find anything, though I thought I saw a possible candidate in one of the articles. Asartea, thank you for reporting this and bringing this very important issue to this board--it is a good thing if more people start thinking about this. I propose that this post, following previous warnings and concerns, serve as a final warning to User:Kannweame7961, who seems loath to engage in discussion. The next violation of our accessibility guidelines should be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I just could have sworn we had a thread in the last year or so on country colours in beauty pageants. Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I don't remember that specific discussion, but I've come across any number of {{overcolored}} violations in things like reality shows, election results and genealogies (a non-exhaustive list) which hurt my eyes (and I have perfect colour vision). They need to be stamped on, very hard indeed, especially for the benefit of readers who don't have perfect colour vision. If I want to see what an explosion in a paint factory looks like, I'll try YouTube. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on Belize at major beauty pageants it seems that Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has headed the messages and is now creating MOS:COLOUR compliant versions of the tables. Therefore I'd like to propose closing this thread as no action taken, but making it clear to Kannweame7961 that this is a final warning and further violations may be met with a block. -- Asartea 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: it would also be appreciated if they could clean up the pages using the old colour scheme. -- Asartea 16:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Look, I know I'm getting to be a broken record on this, but why oh why do we host such pointless compilations as Belize at major beauty pageants, complete with small-type disclaimer reading

  The criteria for the Big Four inclusion is based on specific standards such as the pageants global prominence and prestige approved by worldwide media, the quality and quantity of crowned delegates recognized by international franchisees and pageant aficionados, the winner's post pageant activities; the pageants longevity, consistency, and history; the sincerity of the pageant's specific cause, platform, and advocacy; the overall pre-pageant activities, production quality and global telecast; the enormity of internet traffic; and the extent of popularity amongst pageant fans across the globe.

–? See Category:Nations_at_beauty_pageants. It's just absurd. There seems to be a knot of editors whose hobby is maintaining these endless lists no one looks at (complete with notes about who got "dethroned"), and the rest of us are roped into their battles over table colors and whatnot. I really feel that volunteer time is being wasted in the service of promoting the beauty-pageant industry, much the same way so much editor time has been hijacked for the refereeing of disputes over an elaborate walled garden of in-universe pro-wrestling storytelling. EEng 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean if you want to AFD these I won't stop you (I'm personally not convinced of their use either), but as long as we have them we should ensure they remain complaint with our accessibility guidelines. -- Asartea 17:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What I want is for pretty much all beauty pageant coverage sunk to the bottom of the sea. EEng 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, as usual Eeng, I'm not sure if you are being stylistically hyperbolic or sincere, but let's not try to shoot the moon here when I think your initial comments merit serious consideration: I think you are probably right that these particular 'Country X at Beauty Pageants' articles almost certainly violate WP:NOT along numerous parallel lines of the policy (WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the least as well as more basic arguments regarding a very WP:SYNTH-based approach to WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOT makes it clear that these kinds of bare bones stat tracking pages (which do not features as a WP:NOTABLE topic of independent discussion in WP:RELIABLE, independent and WP:SECONDARY sources) are not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but we would have to come to that conclusion anyway, even if not for that short-hand rule, since the lack of non-superficial detail covered in sources raises problems with meeting the burdens of pillar policies.

So by all means, let's not discount the possibility of dumping these articles in their entirety. With respect to Asartea's observation, we might as well start with the more basic existential questions about the articles before we nit-pick details. If a community discussion holds that we should not have the articles in the first place, it will save a lot of time on protracted style disputes, such as whether the colours being used in these charts are garish--or more to the point of our purposes here, whether they problematically fail to align with standard community consensus (limited as it is) with regard to the pragmatics of colour design. Of course, the answer to both is surely an unqualified "yes--they are and do." It seems like there probably are some dedicated contributors with a lot invested in these articles who will make every effort to oppose this clean-up, earnestly believing these articles make all the sense in the world for Misplaced Pages, but we've pushed back against these kind of fan culture myopic article sprawl before in recent years, with topics like Dungeons and Dragons and professional wrestling. We can do it again here, if consensus among general non-involved editors suggests it is advisable. But you'll want to host the main discussion in the only appropriate space given the breadth of articles and need for a high level of community engagement: WP:VPP. Snow 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

HOUNDING, TAGBOMBING, etc.

Timtrent has been hounding me since March 19. I am a declared paid editor and have followed all of the Misplaced Pages guidelines carefully, including immediate upfront articletalk and userpage declarations.

Prologue

I have created three new-article drafts (titles are the bold sections below), all submitted to AFC over a two-week period in February (along with userpage and article-talk disclosures). All three AFC submissions were declined in rapid succession , , (even though the last two were unrelated to the first and were two weeks later in the AFC queue) on March 15 within the space of 35 minutes , by User:Kashmorwiki, an admitted sockpuppet of a globally locked editor , whose account is also now globally locked .

Greg Fleming

When I asked for help regarding these rapid declines, specifically regarding Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman), at the AFC Help page , Timtrent tagged the draft as containing paid contributions and commented at the top of the draft that it had a WP:CITEKILL problem . I corrected that problem , , , removing all "extra" citations for single facts, and reducing the total number of citations used by 14%. His comment also said "We need to know what makes him notable" , so I added a summarization of that to the lead: . Five days later Timtrent left a negative and somewhat threatening comment at the top of the draft: .

To address his concerns, I addressed him at length and in good faith on the talkpage of the draft ; however he did not reply helpfully or respond to any of my points, but rather brushed me off by saying only "AlI can offer is advice. I hope you are correct. I suspect I am." When I resubmitted the AFC draft two months later, Timtrent declined the submission within less than 14 hours as being insufficiently notable: . When I demonstrated on the draft's talkpage, with dozens of major news articles and a number of well-known books, that the subject has been nationally and internationally notable since 2006, Timtrent did not respond helpfully, and in fact added a personal attack: .

Mike Salvino

Two hours after leaving a personal attack on the talkpage of Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman) , Timtrent TAGBOMBED Mike Salvino with five undiscussed tags three minutes prior to nominating it for AFD and recommending that the article be salted (bolding in original) . The AFD passed unanimously as "Keep" .

Rockefeller Capital Management

1.5 hours after Timtrent's last edit to the Mike Salvino AFD , he declined Draft:Rockefeller Capital Management , claiming that the subject lacked significant coverage, that the draft was written like an advertisement, and that it suffered a bombardment of citations, even though the subject has abundant independent reliable-source coverage and even though over a month previously I had carefully cleaned up, copyedited, and trimmed the draft plus removed all unnecessary citations and commented out the infobox , and had so stated at the top of the draft .

Summary

At this point, after the hounding, stalking, threatening, tagbombing, bad-faith AFD, personal attack, and refusal to discuss, I feel I have no choice but to file this report in order to remedy this situation. I feel I have acted in a good-faith and civil manner to all legitimate issues involved, but have been met with stonewalling and further attacks. Thank you for your time and consideration.

--TerryBG (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• @TerryBG, the editor Timtrent, is easily the kindest and most accommodating anti upe editor I’ve ever encountered, so this ANI thread is a major anomaly, what I can see here is you were making too many errors and they added you to their watchlist, it isn’t hounding if you are on their watchlist and they correct you if you err. Articles by declared Paid editors are scrutinized under a larger microscope, what you are experiencing isn’t solely applicable to you but a universal approach when dealing with articles that were created by declared Paid editors, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, any article retained on mainspace has to speak for itself on why it is encyclopedic and deserves to be published on mainspace. Being notable, and being of encyclopedic value are different things, anyone can be notable, but how is it encyclopedic? Every thing Timtrent has done is in accordance to policy. If you are unsatisfied about this, then it really becomes a “YOU” problem, Timtrent isn’t mandated by policy to clean up after you or help you source your article better, the onus lies on you. Prior creation of the aforementioned articles, did you read and internalize WP:RS? Celestina007 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Celestina007 Neutral editor here. One of the articles which Timtrent attacked from on high and nominated for deletion was overwhelmingly "kept". Why would that be, I ask? doktorb _words 23:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk, I’m NOT entirely sure how this comment correlates with the topic of the thread, if or not it was overwhelming kept does not validate nor prove hounding, hence my confusion on what your comment has to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore you can’t be “neutral” and in the same comment use the word “attacked” , it is contradictory to say the least. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina, I'm reporting actions (hounding, stalking, threatening, tagbombing, bad-faith AFD, personal attack, and refusal to discuss), not character or disposition. AFC reviewers are required to have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews" , , and Timtrent has repeatedly failed to do that. In addition, after my demonstration that Greg Fleming has been notable nationally and internationally since 2006 , Timtrent refused to discuss and added a personal attack, even though AFC guidelines state at least three times (in WP:AFCPURPOSE and WP:AFCSTANDARDS) that "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace." I would ask that you put aside your personal experience with and opinion of TimTrent and respond specifically to the specific actions I have reported, and that if you are referring to policies, please name and quote the specifics of the policy(ies). Thank you. TerryBG (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just on the content: Fleming is certainly notable. Bit lazy to check it thoroughly to see if the draft is puffy, but I'd note that even articles at HQRS (eg Reuters) about the subject read a bit puffy too, so... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• TerryBG, not sure you picked up on this, but payed editors aren't too popular on the project (with it being a volunteer project and all). I'm surprised, then, that you'd opt for such a long-winded report, one which repeats multiple diffs and incidents, including about a purported personal attack that isn't one (being a bit testy is not a personal attack). Anyway, please be more succinct.

That having been said, Timtrent, maybe let another AFC reviewer attend to TerryBG's submissions for a while. I think that would be good for a number of reasons. But I'll stress that overseeing 3 pages from the same user is not hounding, and that a reviewer may assess (follow up on) such a page repeatedly. That isn't hounding, either. El_C 02:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi El_C, I appreciate your comment. Could you also comment on the refusal to discuss (in violation of AFC reviewer guidelines which state that reviewers are required to have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews" , ), and on the undiscussed tagbombing? Thank you. I realize this was a long report but I couldn't figure out any way of shortening it without leaving out significant details. TerryBG (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TerryBG, I think what I already said suffices, for now. El_C 02:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I will let my edits speak for themselves. I'm interested in article quality. I believe that an editor who is paid for their contributions has a duty to earn their pay by getting it right. I have no interest in this editor, and had forgotten completely about them. I have nothing to add. Fiddle Faddle 06:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This is not the first time that I have seen a paid editor file an unreasonable complaint against a volunteer editor. I wonder whether some corporate editors think that, because they work for pay, they are the managers of the volunteer editors and can report us to our bosses if we don't take their direction. I am sort of inclined to think that the best way to deal with reports such as this one is by ridiculing the filing editor for their presumption. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm available to help with that. EEng 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Helmet? What helmet? Soft roads! El_C 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Despite the discussion here , fact is that guys on those stupid noisy Harleys always look gay . EEng 05:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Anyway, this noticeboard thread is probably a good a venue as any to source the claim that cats love whiskey... El_C 12:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Close

The filing editor seems to think that, because many paid editors do not make the required declaration, they have special privileges because they have made the required declaration. They don't, and instead have most of the privileges of volunteer editors, except for the right to make COI edits directly. I propose that this thread be closed, because no action is in order with regard to User:Timtrent and the filing editor has already been ridiculed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Looking at their contributions it seems that they may only edit here during shop hours. Do you think they ought to be given a further chance to throw sticks at me when they get to work on Monday? Fiddle Faddle 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks and casting aspersions

LeontinaVarlamonva (talk · contribs)

The editor keeps accusing me and other editors they don't agree with of "using Soviet tactics", "wanting what follows Kremlin's favorite talking points", "clean up things that Kremlin would not like" etc. etc. They have been warned by another editor that it is a breach of WP:CIVIL, but to no avail. This poisons talk page discussions and makes it impossible to make an argument based on the Misplaced Pages policies (this is an example of a discussion that should be about sources and notability and not about personal attacks). Also, this editor reverted my edits of Transnistria article, a topic they had had no interest in before my edit. I propose that the editor is reminded about WP:CIVIL and prevented from hounding me. Alaexis_¿question? 13:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I was registering my opinion about trends that I think I'm seeing, this includes not only Russia but also edits on China-related pages, where there have been attempts to whitewash facts. I'm sorry my straightforward manner hurts someone's feelings but facts hurt, which is why there is attempt to change them by all means. Also keep in mind that during the latest interaction, I was pinged for my opinion and only after that I offered my viewpoint, which is what it is. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Straightforward would be "You should not have made that edit because XYZ, lets do ABC instead because its supported by blahblahblah." Not calling something a "soviet tactic" or saying users are "doing what the Kremlin wanted" That is not straightforward, its uncivil and casting aspersions. Find a better way to discuss things. If you think these editors legitimately are editing NPOV- then report it. Don't just accuse. Otherwise- discuss civilly or move on. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Group of new editors adding/removing whitespace

Hi. Might be nothing, but there could be something going on with these accounts all either adding/removing a whitespace. I recall something similar happening before with sleeper accounts trying to get auto-confirmed. I've not notified any of these accounts of this discussion (yet), but let me know if I should in this case.

• Basudev Routizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crypto Satanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GlowingHash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. Lugnuts 14:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing un-necessary white space, is good. Adding them, is bad. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This might be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Isuzu.tf, a rather bizarre sockfarm that seems to focus on whitespace removal edits. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The rate of edits suggests a possible unauthorized bot. My gut is to warn, then block if there's no communication back. OhNoitsJamie 15:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• All three accounts CU-blocked by NinjaRobotPirate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not really 100% sure of this, but I think it's Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון, but it's someone who's activating sleepers to get a bunch of accounts extended confirmed. I suspect there's going to be more showing up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Lugnuts 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Your hunch paid off! Tommy von Mellenthin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Same m/o as the others. Lugnuts 16:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, same IP range. Blocked two more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pong3SouthFrieza34

This man making a WP:EW by making claims that the revival series of Johnny Test is the seventh season of the original series, but it actually isn't since Netflix lists the show as a separate series.

This is the same situation that has happened to previous shows that were revived on streaming services, like Animaniacs and iCarly. While some do claim the revival is a seventh season of the original series, it's not according to Netflix.

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As the notice in red near the top of the page reads, you must notify the user you are reporting on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Pong3SouthFrieza34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done it for you. However, this seems like a content dispute, which is not dealt with here. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Anything more suitable with this discussion? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: (Non-administrator comment) Report to WP:AN3. They edit warred on Johnny Test (2021 TV series) (1, 2, 3, 4). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement over fair use images

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

Earlier today, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed a fair use logo from Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, arguing that the "n.a." in the file's WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 are insufficient to claim fair use. However, those are added by default for non-free logos by Misplaced Pages:File Upload Wizard. Looking into the history, I saw there's a discussion ongoing about this at Misplaced Pages talk:File Upload Wizard, in which The Rambling Man has participated. Reading that discussion, it became clear to me that The Rambling Man feels quite strongly about this issue and has removed other fair use files for this reason in the past. However, other editors in that discussion disagree, and there doesn't appear to be consensus to change the Upload Wizard (at least not yet). I raised this on their talk page and reverted. We exchanged a couple reverts (, ) and talk page discussion.

The Rambling Man is arguing (with some borderline uncivil comments) that I don't understand our policies because... I'm uploading files with the Upload Wizard. This is obviously ridiculous. If there's a problem with the Wizard, then it can be changed, and they're already discussing that. In the meantime, I'd like to get my fair use file restored without having to go over 3RR. ― Tartan357  20:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Our policy at WP:NFCC is clear, it states Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Misplaced Pages only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. i.e. we can't just suddenly declare that certain criteria are "not applicable". It is abundantly clear, i.e all ten criteria are met. Suggesting that some of them are "n.a." is a failure to meet our policy on NFCC. This has come about a few times because people think a "wizard" does all the work. The wizard helps but ultimately it needs an actual human to fix this. It's not actually about fixing the wizard, it's about people taking responsibility for compliance with NFCC when they upload/maintain non-free images. It's a really easy fix, as I noted on my talkpage, but apparently that's a bridge too far for some users. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, and this heading here should be "The Rambling Man commenting out fair use files and asking for the n.a.'s to be replaced with real justifications". But yeah, whatever. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  That's not funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  As you like. Nor are you, nor is this comment useful. The point here is that I wasn't "removing" images, I was giving fair warning that the fair use criteria wasn't being met per our NFCC policy. What is your point here? How is your point cromulent? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Different titles reflect differing views, seriously consider them, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  You are obviously (or deliberately) oblivious to several threads on how the titles of AN(I) and Arbcom cases bias their outcome. I suggest you leave this alone now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the crux of the matter that the article wizard needs to help users add #1 and #2? Because as far as I'm aware, we do need to fulfill these parts of NfCC to meet our policy Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 21:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, apparently. Some users are arguing at Misplaced Pages talk:File Upload Wizard that those are trivial for logos. Regardless of what is decided there, I think it's unproductive to remove individual files in masse simply because they contain default language added by the wizard. ― Tartan357  21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe NFCC gives off any impression on us being anything other than strict. I'm happy if this is changed on the backend, or if each one is manually updated - however, we can't have fair use images without the criteria being explicit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that User:Jon698 has now entered a rationale for the n/a entries requiring an explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• (ec) Turns out that another decent editor fixed this issue which was pretty simple. But instead lets have a month-long ANI instead. So the file can be restored now the policy requirements of NFCC are met. A shame someone else had to do it for you but we got there in the end! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• The issue lies here. Seems like a bug with the script, but it's apparently always been this way. Iff this is required, then there could be many logos not in compliance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, exactly. Removing logos one-by-one for not being in compliance when the issue is systemic is not productive. ― Tartan357  21:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  The point is that whether there's a bug with a script or not, people uploading fair use images and failing to properly meet our policy on WP:NFCC isn't something we just "ignore" or get indignant about. Just fix it, and my advice all along was to do that. This was blown all out proportion sadly by this user who refused to just tweak the NFCC criteria that were listed as "n.a.". Someone else did that for them. What a lame response to a reasonable request. And yeah, blame the "wizard". Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  BTW the note in the script says:

           // I hate FURs filled with trivial/predictable/redundant verbiage,
           // so we'll just cut it short. And don't anybody dare complain that
           // that's not a valid FUR.
           descFields.Replaceability = "n.a.";
           descFields.Commercial     = "n.a.";

  Personally unsure of how legitimate that is, but sounds like it needs wider discussion elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is a red herring. Whatever the "wizard" does is irrelevant. Users are responsible for the content they add to Misplaced Pages. If it fails to meet policy, including NFCC, that's down to them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Let's say this violates policy. Then you caught one specific case and pointed it out, but there are probably hundreds (thousands?) of other cases. There are several non-free file categories that the script sets "n.a." rationales to. I don't really have a position on this ANI and I'm not saying either you or Tartan acted improperly; I'm just saying that if this kind of value violates NFCC then the script needs to be changed to force users to enter an explicit value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  It does violate policy, the uploader didn't meet NFCC, a policy. And sure, there are plenty of examples similar. Does that make my commenting out and advice to fix the "n.a."s incorrect? Does it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's absolutely nonsense in my eyes. This probably needs a wider catchment, but we can't just have items uploaded without FURs on someone's whim. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 21:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• That code snippet is funny. This is one of those let's-fix-it-at-the-source situations: how about replacing "n.a." with something like ""? Levivich 21:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. Or "ADD HUMAN INPUT HERE". Which, of course, is the crux of the problem. Actually having to take responsibility for certain elements of NFCC. Who knew? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And just another aside, if the uploader had done this properly, I guess they'd have used the {{Non-free logo}} template. I don't know why some users think that a "wizard" is a free pass to malformed and inappropriate uploads. I get it that a "wizard" is supposed to help, but the code fragment above clearly indicates little-to-no respect in general to what we're trying to maintain and perhaps the "easy-to-use" approach is now resulting in hundreds (thousands) of uploads being inadequately described. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, the wizard did add the {{non-free logo}} template, though... ― Tartan357  22:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And then you're responsible to ensure your upload meets WP:NFCC. You didn't and now you're blaming everyone else for your lack of attention to that detail. Do you want to continue this or do you want to close it down and accept that the issue has now been fixed and you realise how it went wrong? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don't agree with that characterization. I happen to agree with the authors of the wizard that that is a valid FUR. Also, WP:CIVIL. ― Tartan357  22:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well of course you're entitled to believe that "not applicable" is a valid FUR component of a policy we have which says all ten criteria need to be fulfilled. That, in itself, is patently absurd, so I think this is a done deal. Also, WP:CIVIL. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, what have I said that is uncivil? I do not believe I have made any uncivil remarks, and I'm sorry if something I said was interpreted that way. I objected to you accusing me of blaming everyone else for lack of attention to detail. ― Tartan357  22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"... This is obviously ridiculous ..." not at all. Park your horror. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And are you sure about that? It looks like it used the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template, which is still there. Did it use the logo fair use template or another one? Can you clarify please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, yes I am sure. ― Tartan357  22:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the "Non-free use rationale 2" template. It's done now, you're lucky that someone else has fixed your missing fields. So perhaps you can now accept that you need to move on and add these fields (per policy) going forward. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, look again. The non-free logo template is in the licensing section, where it belongs. ― Tartan357  22:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly done with this. You've brought me to ANI to complain about me removing a fair use image which was inappropriately justified. You're now clear on why that's the case. Apparently using a wizard absolves people from any kind of responsibility. It doesn't. It would have been much better to fix the issue rather than all this, but hey. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don't have to agree with your interpretation of the policy. You're not entitled to that. I'd rather go with the consensus version. ― Tartan357  22:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The consensus version? You mean the "wizard" version? Give me a break. This conversation is over, it seems like you're arguing for arguing sake now, especially as someone else has kindly finished the job for you. Hopefully you'll learn from this. NFCC isn't a community thing, it's a policy. Comply with the policy. Or else stop uploading fair use images until you can get to grips with it. End of story, cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I just added a tracking parameter to the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and set my bot to update it. It's used on almost 200k files so it'll take ~24hrs to finish, but judging by how quickly Category:Non-free rationale as na is filling up I suspect there's quite a lot of these... If this is really a problem, I'd be more worried about that than this spat over a single image. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, that's my concern. This affects a LOT of files. ― Tartan357  22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, so just ignore it and censure the guy who pointed it out. Well done! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: who is one of those that maintains the Misplaced Pages:File Upload Wizard, and has had past discussions in this area with TRM and myself (see current top thread on talk page of Wizard). There has been disagreement between whether the Upload Wizard (which is where these n.a.'s are coming from) are good or bad with no resolution, with FutPerf adamant that NFC does not require them and the Wizard avoids requiring them to do so under the KISS principle (I personally disagree, and TRM disagrees far more strongly to the point of considering them removals). It is important that the Wizard's output match expectation, and if based on this ANI that TRM is acting right and the Wizard's output is "faulty", then the Wizard likes needs updating. --Masem (t) 22:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm completely bemused by the concept that a "wizard" would do all the work. It's supposed to help with an upload, but then it's down to actual human beings to fulfil the remaining requirements of our policy on NFCC. To attempt to avoid that is disruptive and contrary to policy and should be considered problematic to Misplaced Pages. People have been blocked or banned for less. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  If the Upload Wizard fills the space with a n.a., then it's reasonable for a not-so-experienced editor to assume that at the very least it is not incorrect. Many editors are not attempt to avoid fulfil the remaining requirements of our policy on NFCC, they just think that leaving the n.a. there is correct based on that the Wizard did it. It should be fixed so that it can either be filled properly using the Wizard or that it is unambiguously clear that it should be manually filled afterwards. —El Millo (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  (ec) I agree, but once someone has been requested to fill in the "n.a." fields, it should be straight-forward, which is the case here and many other times. Don't blame the wizard, the human is always the problem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Both users' positions seem reasonable, especially since the values at File:LP New Hampshire logo.png are a bit cookie-cutter, but I don't see the value in picking apart individual uploads with the tool, especially when the issue has already been discussed. There's a limit to how much you can chastises users for using an official tool linked to in the sidebar. At this point it's apparent this is not an ANI issue though, and discussion should be redirected elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, after asking someone to fix the rationale, we get an edit war to reintroduce the image? That's not reasonable. And no, I didn't "chastise" the user, I asked for a properly formed NFCC rationale. Per policy. What was reasonable about the user's behaviour here? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Evidently there is a dispute between knowledgeable users (yourself and Future Perfect at Sunrise, who coded this behaviour into the wizard) on how NFCC 10c should be interpreted. That makes this a content/policy dispute, not a user behaviour one, yes? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, it's a WP:CIR issue if users are using wizards and then claiming their behaviour absolves them from responsibility. I'm sure you know that but whatever. It's never been an ANI issue but I wasn't the one making the big fuss. If you upload fair use images, KNOW HOW NFCC WORKS, don't assume a terribly-coded "wizard" does it all for you. Fair use isn't a joke, it's something we need people to understand. Clearly, in this situation, that's not quite worked out. I'm happy to accept an apology from Tartan357 for their misunderstandings and unnecessarily hostile approach here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: Please, just drop this. I don't see a point in perpetuating this thread when both of you got what you initially asked for: the file has a complete NFCC rationale and has now been restored. It shouldn't matter who does what thing as long as it is done, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 01:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, we fixed this specific problem, but it's quite surprising to see the complete reluctance to actually fix a policy-based problem. I'll remind you, it wasn't me opening a thread at ANI because I can't upload fair use images correctly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue of those rationales was discussed several times over the years at WT:FUW, the last time only in June. The Rambling Man was there, didn't get a consensus for changing it – or didn't in fact participate in any efforts to improve it, other than reiterating that he didn't like the status quo. For him to now go round removing random images yet again, knowing full well that these rationales have been accepted and endorsed by the community for almost 10 years, is unconstructive behavior, to say the least, but that's probably what we've all come to expect from him.

Any discussion about improving the wizard can of course continue on its talkpage. I maintain my position that those placeholder values are the least of several evils. The exact form of the placeholder ("n.a." or whatever else) is open to discussion, but forcing uploaders to actually write their own stuff into those slots (the ones where compliance is trivially obvious for a given category of files, such as "replaceability" for logos) will lead neither to better rationales nor to better uploads, but to the exact opposite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course, simply editing the n.a. fields after the upload isn't rocket science. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The 'opposite' would be that if the field is not filled in manually it wont let you upload an image. If the field is filled in manually with an non-valid rationale, then per WP:NFCC the image will be removed until it has a valid one. This is not substantially different from the current situation where you pre-fill it with duff/placeholder text. You have basically automated the act of deliberately ignoring NFCC and taken it away from editors. Well done on your approach to helping editors comply with one of our core policies there. Your 'lesser evil' is dependant on someone else coming along afterwards and fixing the problem rather than enable editors to understand our policies at the point they are required to use them. Well done on your approach to educating editors on our policies too. Bang up job all around I would say. WP:NFCC is non-negotiable. A non-free image either has a valid fair use rationale or it doesnt. If it doesnt, it gets removed. "Not applicable" is not a valid rationale for any non-free image. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What's "not applicable" is of course not compliance with the NFCC. As I've said dozens of times, what's "not applicable" is the need to explain that compliance, in those (few) specific sections where it's trivially obvious. Even with non-free use rationales, common sense applies. Things that are fucking obvious don't require fucking explanations. Nobody needs to be told why, if you're going to illustrate an article about a work of art, you cannot illustrate it with anything other than that artwork itself. Forcing uploaders to compose their own essays about such things only takes away their attention from those things that really matter – those parts of rationales that are specific to an individual image and actually need individual input (e.g. why do you need a screenshot of this particular scene; why couldn't you do that with text alone, etc). We want uploaders to concentrate on those parts and fill them in in plain, simple words. We don't want them to start copying over some nonsensical pseudo-legalistic boilerplate from elsewhere, like all that nonsense we had in the "canned" rationale templates. That helps nobody; it will only contribute further to the misunderstanding that all parts of the non-free use rationale are that kind of bureaucratic red tape, to be filled in mechanically and mindlessly.

Now, if you have a good idea about what else we should put in those few specific slots where we've been using "n.a." up to now, without causing information overload and taxing the attention span of the average uploader, do feeel free to head over to WT:FUW and propose it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is required that an explanation is given for why a non-free image satisfies NFCC. I have no need to head over to WT:FUW and propose anything, it is up to those in charge of the FUW to comply with the current policy. If, as you indicate, there is no consensus to change the FUW to stop it inserting incorrect rationales for NFCC criteria, then the consequences of that decision is that images uploaded through the wizard will continue to be removed where they lack valid rationales or obviously incorrect rationales. Now they can either manually put something in before or after the image has been uploaded, but leaving it as "not applicable" will have those consequences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Since those rationales are perfectly valid, and have been accepted as valid by project-wide consensus for more than 9 years, the consequences are that people who enage in spurious image removals for no other reason than their disagreement with those details will be blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Not applicable" is not a valid fair use rationale. "This criteria is met because XYZ" where XYZ is a valid reason would be. Threatening to block people who remove non-free material without valid rationales will not end well for the admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, threats from an involved "admin"? Honestly, you really couldn't make this up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ok here's my two cents: if the images are in fact logos, then having a FUR of "n.a." isn't ideal but it doesn't mean the image should be commented out or otherwise removed until the FUR is supplied. What's required is that a fair use image have a fair use rationale; it's not actually required that the rationale be coded into the template, and if the rationale is obvious, as it is for logos, then it's not doing any harm to have the image remain even if the rationale isn't added to the template. If TRM wanted to volunteer to remedy this situation, TRM should have supplied the rationale for logos (like "it's a logo of a company in an article about the company") rather than going around removing the logos. (I'd feel differently if the FUR was non-obvious, eg for pics other than logos.) But removing the images isn't really necessary and isn't the best solution. TRM: this is much like the last time when autodidactic asked you for examples six times and you refused to provide them: your approach to solving these problems makes the problems worse, not better. Sorry but it's true. Your responses in this thread suggest to me you are outraged by this and that's weird (you seem to take it so personally?) and counterproductive. If logos with "n.a." FURs is having an emotional effect on you, take a step back. At the same time, I can't figure out why the wizard doesn't just add the same boilerplate to the template code that already is presented to the user as part of the Wizard when they're selecting the FUR, eg "logo in an article about the organization" should be the default FUR for logos, "cover art used in an article about the work", etc. "n.a." suggest "not applicable" or "not available", which is not correct. Levivich 12:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, i explained clearly that n.a. is not acceptable, I pointed to NFCC which is the policy. Honestly, you couldn’t make this up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What you're not focusing on is your chosen remedy. While you are correct that n.a. is not applicable (heh), that doesn't mean removing the image was the right thing to do. For example, edit warring is against policy, it doesn't mean we remove editors for every 4RR. Instead of making an edit removing the image you could have done nothing or made an edit supplying the FUR, either of which would have been a better choice. Removing an image with an obvious FUR because the template field says "n.a.", like removing the logo of a company in an article about the company, is WP:POINTY: it's making the article worse (disrupting it) for the purpose of making a point about the wizard. What I'm telling you is that you have a knack for identifying the right problem and then implementing the wrong solution. And I'm like the umpteenth person to say this to you over the years, am I not? Levivich 12:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, it violates your interpretation of NFCC. There’s a key distinction there. Let’s consider the implications of if you’re right. Category:Non-free rationale as na is at 31,000 files and counting, will perhaps reach 100k by the time the refresh finishes. That would imply one of two things: either we have 100k files without a proper free use rationale, which would be a crisis, or our free use policies are too strict and encourage bureaucratic paper-work filling (if so, they must be adjusted). Given that the WMF has not yet been sued over this, I’m inclined to assume that either it’s the second option (our policies are too bureaucratic), or your interpretation is wrong. ProcSock (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'interpretation' of NFCC. All non-free images have to satisfy all 10 criteria. This is not a vaguely worded policy that is hard to parse. There are no criteria that are "not applicable". Either non-free work satisfies the criteria, or it doesnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They need to satisfy all ten, but the documentation requirements are exclusively spelled out in #10. The dispute here seems over the requirements of 10c, which requires a free use rationale to be provided on the image description page. ProcSock (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue points to the editors that have maintained the Upload Wizard (in the code pointed out above) that reject having to even include basis "cookie cutter" rationale pieces, given that the Upload Wizard is used by majority of editors to upload images. We don't have a proactive NFC review after the upload is made, so it is inappropriate to say our non-free policy is too strict. Further, this has nothing to do with legalities, or at least the chance of WP being sued. It is not a "fair use" policy, it is a "non-free" policy because we want to encourage the minimum amount of non-free media and encourage free media whenever possible. Filling in all 10 NFC criteria is a means to justify why the non-free is allowed to be used - and by happenstance better support a fair use defense, but that's not the primary goal. That's why all 10 metrics should be filled out beyond an "n.a.", even if for something like a logo the bulk of the rationale will be the same between all logos. --Masem (t) 15:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and commenting out fair use images being used with insufficient material in every field should not result in being threatened by some involved admin, such as Future Prefect with being blocked. While no shock, that's a really outstandingly bad attitude for an admin here. I'm flabbergasted by the users here defending this. It's pretty bloody obvious that if asked for rationales to be properly filled in, they should be. Laziness is no excuse. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fix and remediation

That "stopgap measure" would be the very worst of things you could do. The wizard is designed to elicit all relevant input from the user and assemble a complete file description page from it. Users rightfully expect that. If you think there's something more that should be added, you'll have to change the wizard so that it actually asks the user for it during the input process (which of course can be done, though I continue to warn against it). If you instead just leave a note to the user that they must add something else manually after the fact, you're basically just thumbing your nose at them. In that case, you're just breaking the wizard. It will be better to just return to the old Special:Upload. Have fun policing the rubbish uploads that will get you. As for the old cases, if you think they are invalid, you could have changed something ten years ago; everybody knew what the wizard was doing back then. I personally continue to believe nothing is broken and nothing is in need of repair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is of course patently untrue as "not applicable" is absolutely not a suitable justification for elements of NFCC. Indeed, that you have even threatened to block people for commenting out fair use images with such erroneous justifications speaks volumes, it appears you are too involved here to give a balanced view on this problem with the "wizard" which fails. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Right now, the tool is apparently not behaving as intended, if its intent is to elicit all relevant input from the user and assemble a complete file description page from it. It is not getting all necessary information, it is generating incomplete rationales, and its users are not being warned of that. With the "stopgap" measure, the first two will remain true, but the last will change at least to that its users are being warned of that. That's at least an improvement. Certainly the ultimate goal should be that the tool actually does generate complete rationales, but that will take time to achieve, and in the meantime we at least need to stop generating more bad rationales. No criterion ever may be marked "n.a.", since each and every criterion is applicable to each and every use of each and every nonfree image. There will never be a case where one is "not applicable" (which is what "n.a." stands for), but in this case it could also stand for "not acceptable". If you have a better idea for a fix, by all means put it forth, but it absolutely must be fixed, and sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"All necessary information" means: all necessary input from the user to allow us to judge if their use of the file is adequate. The contents of those particular slots aren't that, because they are trivial, predictable and self-obvious. No information value whatsoever. But well, if you must, there are several options in principle:

1. Make it insert some other placeholder string, other than literally "n.a.", to convey the idea that this particular criterion for this particular class of files is trivially and obviously fulfilled without further need of individual explanation. That's what the "n.a." was always meant to convey; if "n.a." is felt to be inadequate for that, I'm open for suggestions. People could have made such suggestions 9 years ago.
2. Make it (automatically) insert some boilerplate providing an actual explanation for how it's fulfilled. That boilerplate will by necessity be stupid and trivial, and therefore harmful, but of course that's also possible. I have general objections to doing this, but this will also be technically easy to do.
3. Offer the same kind of boilerplate explanation as a pre-filled option in an input field presented to the user (along with the others they already have to fill in), and then insert either that or whatever else the user overwrites it with. Slightly more involved in terms of coding, but also possible.
4. Simply offer an input field and force the user to provide their input individually. This will lead to nonsense responses in like 98% of all cases, have absolutely no positive value in improving the rationals, and cause an unavoidable loss of acceptance among the users being forced through it, but if you insist, be my guest.

Don't expect me to help with coding any of options 2–4. But it's a wiki, after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How about "fair use rationale evident from usage" for #1 as an interim measure (and #3 would be the best long term fix imo). Levivich 16:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not like to do #1, as that will just make invalid rationales with different language used, which will complicate any automated process for remediation. #2, if it turns out to be feasible, is ideal, since that both allows for automated remediation and is technically the most simple to implement (just changes to the values of some string constants). Looking at some areas affected, I think there is a realistic possibility for it at least for some areas. For example, with a logo, the "replaceability" portion could read Any derivative work based upon the logo would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible., and the "Commercial" one could read The use of a low-resolution image of an organization's logo in the article about that organization will not impact the commercial viability of the logo. So the hope certainly would be that there is a broadly applicable boilerplate like that for all the areas, and we could take care of this with as little pain as possible. If for any area widely applicable boilerplate is not possible, it should be #4; the uploader should then describe in their own words how the criterion is passed in that particular case. Seraphimblade 20:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This is tantamount to what I suggested from the get-go yet was still threatened by the involved admin user who said it would block me if I commented out images with incorrect fair use rationales because of the erroneous and lazy use of the not-so-magical "wizard". When all is said and done, there's clearly no reasonable editor here saying that "n.a." is a valid rationale for any NFCC criterion, and the badly-coded "wizard" shouldn't do that any longer, or at least those who use the "wizard" should be aware that it's not fit for purpose and their file uploads need work after the event. "evident from usage" is absolute nonsense, by the way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, not funny. What they did to you this time, I mean. If any credit is due, real recognizes real and you were right all along. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:NickCT edit-warring, re-inserting names of criminal suspects and disregarding consensus

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

This user has been persistently edit-warring and ignoring consensus that developed against naming suspects in the Assassination of Jovenel Moïse. The consensus developed on two pages Talk:Assassination of Jovenel Moïse and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse.

Despite this User:NickCT has restored suspect names (which he had originally added) thrice after I removed them , , .

The reason for restoring he claims on User talk:NickCT#Please don't restore suspect names is that since it's a rapidly evolving article, "new consensus" is needed. However , the only thing NickCT has added are new suspects. When I pointed it out, he claimed that the name of the suspects are now being more widely covered. But I already pointed this out to other users on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse in my very first comment Multiple sources have discussed their names and why their identities and nationalities are important, being entrepreneurs and ex-soldiers ensnared in the assassination. Yet they decided against including names of suspects.

Just because the consensus was made a few days ago (the last discussion was about 2 days ago), doesn't invalidate it. Yet NickCt has been wilfully disregarding it and has continued to add in the names despite a warning. A mere edit-warring is not really a problem, but an edit-warring where you keep re-inserting names of suspects despite probability of victimization and disregard consensus by making up your rules, is too far gone. I request a block on this editor. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Disappointing that LéKashmiriSocialiste didn't want to discuss this on the appropriate talk pages. Reviewing the the revision history for the page in question, it's pretty clear there may be some WP:OWN issues. It also seems as though LéKashmiriSocialiste] may have hit WP:3RR on this topic, so it's odd he'd come here to complain about my edit warring.

This appears to be a newer editor. I'll work with him to develop consensus. NickCT (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all User:NickCT you are clearly engaging in disrespectful mocking behaviour. Secondly yes I did breach 3RR but it was on accident and me reverting someone who makes up his own rules is bound to make that happen, especially when I have a poor memory. I thought I only did 3 reverts. But at least I didn't impose my own rules on the article. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: - I wish you had continued discussing this topic with me rather than coming here. I'm really not sure what behavior has been "disrespectful mocking behaviour". NickCT (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You were warned not to disregard consensus and unilaterally chose to do so. Besides starting out with "Hmmmmm.... Disappointing that" is exact mocking behaviour and so is talking in teasing terms like, "Reviewing the the revision history for the page in question, it's pretty clear there may be some WP:OWN issues. It also seems as though LéKashmiriSocialiste] may have hit WP:3RR on this topic, so it's odd he'd come here to complain about my edit warring. This appears to be a newer editor. I'll work with him to develop consensus." This despite my own talk page going back to 2020. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How far back does my talk page go?

It is "Disappointing that" you came here. This was not the right place to come until you've attempted to resolve your content dispute on the relevant talkpage. NickCT (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You could have exclusively used the talk page instead of restoring your edits multiple times and deciding if a new consensus is needed. You're also fighting over some English words. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You could have also used the talkpage. You still can..... I'm explaining English words. Not fighting. NickCT (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did message you many times over it and you decided to disregard them. Someone needs to revert and maintain status quo. See WP:STATUSQUO. And you violated a consensus you were fully aware of. Meanwhile you are trying to troll me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, "consensus" involves multiple people. Not just you.

Anyways, I'm going to restrict comments about content to the relevant talk page. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT: why are you saying repeatedly that LKS needs to use the talk page when they obviously already are, and have used multiple talk pages to discuss this with you? You appear to be being disruptive. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. I was explaining my edits on the talkpage, LKS was just reverting. He He only started discussing after the second or third revert. When you say "they obviously already are", his last comment were from a couple days ago right? He wasn't using the talkpage as he was reverting. 00:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did so after the second first revert. But even before then I warned you why names of suspects couldn't be added in edit summaries which you clearly saw. And you kept reverting instead of simply discussing and maintaining WP:STATUSQUO. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why say "actually" when you're just repeating what I said? Edit summaries aren't a substitute for talkpage discussion. NickCT (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I went to the talk page after my first revert, I'm sorry for the confusion. But I said "actually" because you aren't sure. When you're told you can't add names of suspects and it's against consensus you should easily understand that. And talk page discussions aren't an excuse for edit-warring or violating consensus. You knew fully well the consensus was against it and yet you continued to add the names. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused why the first time you came to the talk page, you seemed to agree with my comment about not reverting, then you reverted anyway without further discussion on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I've said repeatedly consensus is not in your favour. I assumed you knew that since the comments about it were visible publicly and you certainly didn't express ignorance at any point, but simply demanded a new consensus. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If you didn't think consensus was in my favor, why not say that on the talkpage before reverting? The fundamental issue here is the reporting on this recent event has changed substantially in the past 48 hr, and you seem to be deferring to comments made a while back in coming up with your perceived "consensus". WP looks a little bit silly when it moves slowly like this. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would I need to say something that would be publicly visible to you? Because unless you didn't read them, there are 3 or 4 people against (I'm not sure about Susmuffin). I actually did say consensus is against you many times later on, you continued reverting. The only thing that changed in the last 48 hours is new names. That doesn't matter. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Because edit summaries aren't a substitute for talkpage discussion. Those 3 or 4 people haven't commented for days. We seem to be going in circles. NickCT (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They are enough to inform you and make you aware. Which was my purpose. And the fact is those comments are easily visible. That is if you tried to read them. If you didn't bother reading them before jumping into the argument then it isn't my fault. It's yours that you didn't bother. Those comments were posted at least two days ago, not two years ago. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm on wikibreak but since this is a BLP issue I got a bit involved in I felt the urge to comment. I don't think this needs to be at ANI at the moment. But User:NickCT is making up the idea there is a new consensus developed over the last 2 days. There is no such thing. If there was an earlier consensus and I have no idea if there was, then it should be respected until there is clear evidence it has changed. not NickCT just making crap up. One IP raising a highly flawed argument and NickCT insisting things have changed is not an indication consensus has changed when there was I think over 105-7 editors involved in the earlier discussion, and nothing particularly new raised by either of them. If NickCT keeps at it and there is no actual indication consensus has changed then yeah, partially block them. But we're still a while away from there. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies I was mistaken. Taken both pages together, the number was 5-7 depending if you count me (since I was skeptical of reasons given for including the names, but never came to the conclusion we must exclude them) and another editor who said they removed the names and it looked fine, but didn't otherwise comment on whether it was necessary. However I also see the IP was already involved. This makes it even more perplexing why their argument at BLPN included stuff already dealt with but whatever. We still cannot take NickCT and the IP claiming things have changed then mostly repeating arguments already discussed or otherwise flawed and no one bothering to respond as an indication there is a new consensus over the past 2 days, despite NickCT's apparent belief of the contrary. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

For fairness I notified the IP who I mentioned in both my comments above, and the other editor who I didn't name but who's actions I directly mentioned. I did not notify the other participants of the talk page or BLPN as my comment on their actions was very broad. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Lots of noise. I'll keep it short. Nil saying an editor's argument is flawed doesn't make it so. Even his repeating it. For all the words here, empty broadsides simply seek to further needlessly encumber a page. (Nor does his saying an editor claimed things have changed is true - when the editor said no such thing). This sort of "reasoning" creates more heat than light. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E833:D2A0:C535:3756 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'm about to leave but I have to say I just looked into the most recent edits and I'm even more perplexed who's claiming what. I may have been mistaken about what NickCT is saying, and if so I apologise. Although in my defence, I don't see any way I could know from their comments on either of the three places that they were trying to develop a consensus for something other than what the earlier discussion at BLPN was about. The earlier discussion started off about whether it was okay to have bulleted point list of names of all suspects. Again I'm not evaluating consensus but several people objected to such a list for various reasons. Although I didn't explicitly oppose such a list, I did raise the issue that if for some reason these names mattered, this should be established in the article with reference to sources. It seems NickCT is not arguing for such a list, but instead for discussion of certain individuals along with their names. While BLPNAME issues still arise, this is quite a different thing from simply including a list of names. It may very well be that there is also merit to discuss in our article some suspects including their names and so consensus develops or has developed for that (although I think at best at the moment there is no clear consensus either way). Yet in that case, it may very well be the earlier consensus against including a list of names of all the suspects still holds. I think editors involved in those discussions need to be a lot clearer what they're advocating for. Assuming there is consensus to discuss and name some suspects, there may remain some dispute over other suspects whether to discuss them at all, or just whether to name this. All this can be resolved via discussion on the article talk page or maybe BLPN. I'm still fairly sure there is no clear consensus to include or exclude any particular suspect's name. I don't even think there is consensus to include any suspect's name, possibly not to exclude either. There may be consensus against a list of all suspects although I haven't personally evaluated that. IMO having looked at this more carefully, it would probably be better if all sides stop saying a consensus exists and focus on discussion to achieve it, again with clarity on what they're asking for. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: - re "I could know from their comments on either of the three places that they were trying to develop a consensus" - Agree. As I mentioned above, it's unfortunate this discussion was split. Can we move content discussions to the relevant talk page? I guess one benefit of coming to ANI was that at least we got more eyes.... NickCT (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT: There is nothing wrong in comments on another page. Hadron had requested opinions on the issue after coming at an impasse with other editors, including me. It's not like they're difficult to find, especially when the link to them was available on the talk page of the assassination article. There isn't going to be any new consensus because you demand it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we move content discussions to the relevant talk page? NickCT (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussions stopped 3 days ago, there's no point in transplanting another page's entire discussion that is not ongoing. It's just you fighting over the issue currently, so there's nothing to move. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

NickCt has broken 3RR himself, something he's been chiding me over even though I only did it by mistake, and left a mocking edit summary to punish me if I reverted again: . He is also threatening me "that he won't be patient" over it despite doing the same behaviour if not worse. I don't know if he's aware or not, though it seems he is given he's been keeping a count of reverts. But he's certainly too aggressive. On the talk page of the article too he threatened me . Please just block him already for edit-warring, disregarding consensus and hostile incivil behaviour. He's trolled me in the past too. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

LeKashmiriSocialiste, perhaps we should review your conduct first. You were blocked indefinitely last year for edit-warring and personal attacks, and then unblocked after making assurances about how you would work collaboratively to resolve future disputes, including "I will avoid attacking/insulting any person in future." Yet, you have used an edit summary insultingly to suggest that the other editor can't fix his own spelling and grammar (). A month later, you were blocked for edit-warring, after which you made another assurance: "I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted". Yet, here we have you persistently reverting after you were reverted ( ). I understand you are citing consensus on a BLP matter for your reversions (and NickCT cites that consensus has changed), but as edit-warring policy says, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Perhaps you should work harder to abide by your assurances. Editing restrictions aren't ideal, but perhaps a 1RR restriction will be beneficial, given your acknowledgement of breaching 3RR and that it is bound to happen with your memory issues regarding multiple reverts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure let's review my behaviour User:Ncmvocalist. There are key points you missed our Yes I was blocked last year but I was new and apologized. Also when I said "I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted" it was me offering an exchange for my unblock. However that assurance and condition wasn't accepted . Even in my unblock request which was declined you can see no such condition is mandated . So me reverting a very disruptive editor who won't consider a consensus isn't any violation of any assurance (which wasn't even accepted btw).

As far as "I will avoid attacking/insulting any person in future" goes, I didn't insult anybody. All I did was note their behaviour and criticise them for it, "You can fight a lot NickCT but you can't fix grammar and spelling mistakes in your own edits despite being made aware." That wasn't meant as an attack or insult, but in a neutral (though frustrated) tone. If that looks like an insult or attack, it's you incorrectly reading it.

It's ironic that you want a restriction on me for forgetting I breached 3RR, but you have no problem with another person breaching 3RR. I'm not the one who disregarded consensus here. Nor I broke any assurances. If you solely want to blame me then go ahead. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Also User:Ncmvocalist, if you didn't notice NickCT has been haranguing me about language skills and even trolling me over it , , , . You can get whatever restriction you want, you can be assured I won't violate it unlike NickCT or troll people like he did to me. I fulfil a promise made (unless others discard it first). LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

...when I said "I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted" it was me offering an exchange for my unblock. However that assurance and condition wasn't accepted.... The unblock process offers an opportunity to demonstrate you have learnt your lesson and will behave appropriately in any event so that a block is no longer necessary. At that time, you never actually said that your assurance was purely conditional upon you being unblocked at the time and that the assurance would fall away if your unblock request was declined, did you?

You also say I didn't insult anybody. All I did was note their behaviour and criticise them for it. Even so, that should still be avoided in an article edit summary.

I haven't said there isn't an issue with NickCT's conduct or that you are solely to blame. I have just said we should start with reviewing your conduct because you are edit-warring just about a year after you were blocked for doing so. Also, you are now egging for a block against another editor without acknowledging that you were in fact edit-warring - irrespective of whether or not you broke a bright line rule and irrespective of any dispute about the current or future consensus as such. I am not suggesting you be restricted because of the bright line rule itself; I am suggesting it would force you to cease edit-warring in the future and engage in more talk page discussion in the event of a dispute - which is beneficial as a whole.

Yes, I noticed the exchange on your user talk page about your prose - though I think it is a stretch to assert NickCT was "haranguing" or "trolling" you about it. While NickCT didn't need to question your English proficiency specifically, I think it is clear that he did so openly on your user talk page with a view to clarifying concerns he had about your use of language (such as a sentence in the article beginning with the word "Per"). AGF. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually it was conditional because it was part of my unblock request and it was me assuring that's what I'd do if unblocked. And my unblock request was declined . So I have no assurance to honour. If you want me to honour something that wasn't even accepted by others, it's not going to happen. I think I know more whether it was conditional or not?

Secondly yes, I did not insult anyone. "You can fight a lot NickCT but you can't fix grammar and spelling mistakes in your own edits despite being made aware," was describing the truth and was a reality. NickCT has been fighting and I did tell him how his own sentences had mistakes (which he didn't correct): .

Lastly Misplaced Pages is open on public so harassment on talk pages will be public too. And he wasn't expressing any concern, he was straight up mocking and threatening me. Which extended beyond my language skills. Someone who is expressing a concern merely does not say things like this (especially see the fourth one):

Ugh oh. You seem to be over WP:3RR, so technically, I could report you. Do you want to restore the content? - Threating me and mocking me, so I'll restore the content.

Based on some of your linguistics, I think English may be your second language? Most of your writing is very good, but so you know, words like "mastermind" are more typically used in English fiction and typically not in formal reporting/recounting. - Claiming my English as poor and claiming that news sources don't use words like "masterminds", when in fact they did on the very same article he edited: See this Washington Post article.

Regardless, the way[REDACTED] works is that I catch your bad language and you catch my bad "leads" and together we make a well written article. - Mocking me after I pointed out his own mistakes.

That seems a little cynical. "Mastermind" is a word, but using it the way you're using it sounds a little "comic-y" in English. If the obvious "comicy" insult asides from terming me cynical and highlighting with quotation marks didn't already suggest a direct insult, you're obviously ignoring it. This was especially showing his rude behaviour.

Those comments above are not really just expressing concerns. I will call for block of someone who has repeatedly harassed me, edit-warred, discarded consensus per his own convenience. Even if you deny, most of the allegations I've made are right for any neutral observer. Is that not wrong for you or am I the only one who can be wrong? I also notice that you haven't commented on his edit-warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

When you make a public assurance and do not explicitly say that it is temporary or conditional, others would reasonably expect you to abide by that assurance in any case; it is a matter of personal integrity. Misplaced Pages is not a marketplace where you exchange assurances to behave only if you are given what you want. By the way, the diff you have provided () does not show that your unblock was declined. As I understood it, your unblock was declined because your block already expired, not because of your assurances being inadequate.

I note that you have yet to acknowledge that your commentary about NickCT in an article edit summary was precisely what to avoid in an edit summary.

Even if you deny, most of the allegations I've made are right for any neutral observer - it seems you have difficulty dealing with disagreements appropriately. As a neutral, uninvolved editor, I am telling you that your allegations of harassment and threats lack merit. For you to repeatedly accuse NickCT of harassing you without evidence amounts to a personal attack.

Like you, NickCT ceased edit-warring too. Noting that blocks are not punitive, perhaps that is why nobody else has agreed with your calls for a block either. Perhaps you should drop the stick and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all what I said wasn't temporary, but conditional. And yes my unblock was declined, it is right on my talk page which you are ignoring. I tagged the wrong diff sorry, here's the correct one . Yes my unblock was declined. And so I discarded my assurance as the admins didn't accept my request.

If you feel what I said to NickCT is wrong, you should tell him to apologize for what he said first. My edit summary wasn't meant as an insult anyway, but just as a criticism of his disruptive behaviour. So I'm not saying sorry for that.

Nobody has difficulty dealing with disagreements here except a certain individual. NickCT never ceased his edit-warring. He just warned he'll complain me over breaking 3RR again, and he proceeded to do the same by making a 4th revert. It was me who never reverted him again.

I just notified the admins of NickCT's behaviour of knowingly breaking 3RR once after the initial dispute and never said anything again. It was you who came in to start blaming me for everything and deflecting everything I pointed out to you NickCT did. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Btw NickCT has directly insulted people recently, calling those opposing his proposal as fascist idiocrats. I'm sorry Ncmvocalist but this is a real example of behaviour that shouldn't be performed on Misplaced Pages. I called for his block because he deserves to be blocked without a doubt. Blaming me can't give him a free pass. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You have actually shown in that diff that NickCT provided examples of sources to address a request by outsiders who participated in the RfC. Rather than misleadingly characterising other editor's contributions, you should drop the stick and move on - as I suggested already. Unless you are incapable of voluntarily doing so, please disengage, so that outsiders can evaluate what is being said in the content dispute without the distracting conflicts that your combative editing style has contributed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It was just a wrong diff not misleading, mistakes happen sometimes in large discussions. Here is the right diff where he calls people fascist idiocrats. I don't think insulting people just because you have sources is justified?

You have actually been that to the page yourself, and it's quite easy to see that comment as it is the one you replied to. Pointing out someone blatantly insulting people is not combative. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Jibal personal attacks and POLEMIC

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

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

I think this post is a clear and inexcusable NPA violation ]. The background is Jibal made some comments in reply to a discussion on the Tucker Carlson talk page which cast aspersions on involved editors (none listed by name) ]. I noted this was not an appropriate comment for an article talk page. The reply was to expand the comment ]. I posted DS notices to their talk page which were removed while my name was added to others on a list of "Unpleasant people who have posted unpleasant things here". When I noted that was a POLEMIC violation the opening comment was posted. As a smaller thing, they comment on Soibangla's talk page ]. Springee (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents "Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported" -- I don't think this qualifies. I would note that I removed the POLEMIC violation as soon as I received notice. I would also note that I removed the "clear and inexcusable NPA violation" within seconds of posting it. I will not be responding to further comments from the above user. -- Jibal (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't a first incident. You attacked editors on the Carlson page. You had a list of "Unpleasant" editors on your talk page since 2018 ]. Additionally, your Carlson comments were lecturing others about the rules of Misplaced Pages. Which rule allows profanity laden personal attacks? Springee (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In line with our personal attack policy I have left a warning to this editor. While I feel we should be more strict with personal attacks I don't think the current policy justifies further action beyond this warning in this case. Should this pattern continue however it will become actionable. HighInBC 02:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything that Jibal posted is bile and still remains in the changelogs. Aside from a one and only warning, I propose that no disciplinary action is taken, though that their entire talk page and anywhere else their polemic garbage has been spread is redacted. BOTTO _(T•C) 04:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Jibal was aware enough of there being a personal attack policy that they posted that another user should check that policy (admittedly well in the past), and that problematic treatment of other editors has been a recurring feature of what little Misplaced Pages involvement they've had. I was on his list of the "unpleasant" because last month I placed a harassment caution template on his page after they had placed a series of responses to talk page discussions of a decade-gone editor with such additions as "LOL!" and "Wow, what a piece of work". I would heartily recommend that the editor reconsider their approach in dealing with other editors in general. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Jabil is trying to argue that they should be excused for a very clear and obvious personal attack because they weren't aware of the rules? While I might accept that, here they are lecturing others (a day later) about the exact same rules.] In the mean time the edit history still shows the attack. Springee (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Unawareness of the personal attack policy is not the reason they got a warning in stead of a block. People are assumed to already know that insults are bad before they get here. I don't think for a second that they thought it was okay.

The reason they got a warning is because that is what the policy calls for in such a situation. Blocks are reserved for egregious attacks and ongoing patterns of attacks.

Is the personal attack policy too lenient? I think it is. However until there is a consensus to make it more strict it is what I have to work with as an admin. If you go to WT:NPA and propose stricter standards I will probably support you. But as an administrator I need to enforce the policy, not what I think the policy should be. HighInBC 21:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not making the argument attributed to me here. I didn't ask to be excused, I simply said that I didn't think it was one of those rare "Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention". As I have noted several times, I removed the PA immediately, as well as the violation of POLEMIC upon notification. If there were a way for me to remove the ill-considered and offensive comment from the changelogs, I would do so ... I did a childish thing and stupidly expected somehow to get away with it, which gives little credit to the editors and administrators here, who are certainly no fools. Having ended up at ANI for the first time, I've decided to behave differently. That I subsequently pointed out a personal attack elsewhere on this page should not be held against me, I think. I apologize to User:Springee and everyone else for my previous behavior and expect to be held to it. -- Jibal (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You reverted talk page edits I made a month ago, saying "Jibal, what are you doing? Please don't respond to comments from 2011. That is just plain weird". I agree and won't do that sort of thing again. Looking at it objectively, it clearly serves no good or useful purpose and is understandably objectionable. If I feel that sort of urge again, I will find some other place to do it, not Misplaced Pages, which deserves better. I apologize. -- Jibal (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also see that you removed a link to a WP page from my talk page. I've never looked closely at the policy you referenced before. I see that it says "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." ... that doesn't apply to me, as I agree with the link I posted, but I suppose that it doesn't really matter whether I agree with it or disagree with it. I accept your judgment that it doesn't belong on my talk page. -- Jibal (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

As for "If you're unable to be gracious about your own missteps, best to say nothing", please see my latest edit to my talk page ... I hope that qualifies. -- Jibal (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin) I appreciate seeing Jibal showing some recognition of past missteps, and as one of the people he deemed "unpleasant", would be fine with him seeing no further sanction at this time. May he contribute mightily to the project! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation by new user

Not sure where else to report this. Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is going around claiming to be me. On talk pages as well as in article space. Just review their contribs for today... Skyerise (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this user for harassment. I am not seeing any useful contributions from this new user. HighInBC 06:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that skyrise and raxythecat have no similarities? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment} Expressing no view on that suggestion - it's rare for someone to start an argument with themself in a public forum, but it's not unknown. In the late 1940s, my father's oldest friend enlivened the correspondence columns of the Newbury Weekly News with letters from a retired colonel and from an elderly widow about ornithological sightings; which grew increasingly vitriolic, personal, and abusive. Trolling long predates the Internet. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A cursory look reveals no similarities to me. -- Jibal (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we can safely disregard the possibility that they are the same person. HighInBC 07:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Helios007

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

For Helios007: (talk) (block log) (logs) (filter log)

Possible hacked account. At the very least a bad actor: persistent disruptive editing.

Talk:Arjun (tank)#Half boiled liberals

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1033872601&oldid=1033833092

––FORMALDUDE 09:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Also made remarks such as "Misplaced Pages is not your property or your father's property" (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Echo1Charlie#Misquote) , and called fellow editors 'idiots' (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Arjun_(tank)&diff=1034024369&oldid=1034023973) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• The removal of others' posts here as their only edit to this discussion makes this pretty clear. Indeffed for disruptive editing, this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. —valereee (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• User has broken the WP:3RR with five attempted reverts within a 24 hour period at Arjun (tank). ––FORMALDUDE 12:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

103.246.39.46

103.246.39.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has accumulated 7 user warnings since 15 July, in connection with unsourced or poorly sourced content and edit-warring. In addition, they have been insisting on adding poorly sourced content at Legal system of Saudi Arabia (history). They seem to have an anti-Arab bias: . I recommend a block per WP:DIS/WP:CIR. JBchrch talk 15:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Arab bias?? You seem to have a pro-Saudi bias. The sources are good sources.103.246.39.46 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, why did you call Boko Haram an Arab group? It is a Nigerian organization with Black (sub-Saharan African) leadership. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You do know that many Africans are Arab background anyway. And vice versa. This Boko Haram group is also connected to Al Qaeda, bin Laden and ISIS.103.246.39.46 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, please furnish a link to a reliable source that calls Boko Haram "Arab". Far less than 1% of Nigerians speak Arabic. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about Nigerians per say. This particular group is not necessarily representative of Nigeria. This group uses Arabic103.246.39.46 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar issues in the IP making the repeated claim that the Nice truck attacker "drove his truck into many people and also shot at them", which is at best misleading and at worst false (he drove a truck into the public, then shot at police). Despite clear talk page requests to stop making the statement, the IP is still adding it to articles. They're also past WP:3RR at Alpes-Maritimes now. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No, he did both. And police are also people103.246.39.46 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for edit warring. No opinion on other claims here. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Red King 0905

Red King 0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adding hundreds of misspelled or incorrectly capitalized short descriptions:

• -"French General"...should be "French general".
• - "French cavalry Commnder"...should be "French cavalry commander".
• - "18th century Battle fought between French Army and Russo-Austro Army".
• - "Anglo-Irish Soldier and Politician".
• - "First defeat of Arthur Wellesley and A major Siege fought during the Peninsular War".

Numerous talk page warnings, but no response.

A previous ANI report about Red King 0905 was made at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits by relatively new user.

I recently reported User:Bachovan to ANI here for similar "short descriptions" edits. Both editors have also added a short description to the infrequently visited Jean-Étienne Championnet. See and . Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The phrase Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits is going to send our Dash Police completely round the bend. EEng 11:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hands up everyone who thinks that WP:SHORTDESC is a really really useful idea which adds value to the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unlike the Latin alphabet, the script has no concept of letter case" Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this discussion but, having stumbled across the above and wondered "script???", I followed the piped wikilink above to Devanagari, I don't see what the lack of case differences in that writing system has to do with this and I'm not really consumed with curiosity about that (perhaps it ought to be obvious to me), but I thought I would mention it in case others were wondering. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yet another android app editor we can't communicate with. Levivich 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why do we have an app that doesn't allow the user to fully use the site? Heck, considering I can edit on my phone using the desktop mode, why do we have the app at all? This strikes me as analogous to allowing a Big Wheel tricycle on the interstate highways. It's not fit for the task and just causes problems for everybody else. --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman

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

Could something please be done about User:GiantSnowman? He has been warned before, and is constantly condescending to other users (such as this edit). Also, this edit is very WP:OWN - "last good version? Just because it complies with how he wants his article to look? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Where was the attempt to discuss any concerns you had with me before running to ANI? Where was the notification to me of this discussion? (luckily I found it on my watchlist).

Regarding the diffs you have posted - the first edit is factually correct a valid comment (you have not complied with BEFORE, have you?), the second edit also valid (especially given another editor later restored the same height template)...nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you know "have not complied with BEFORE" is "factually correct"? Levivich 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well given they nominated two articles for AFD only one minute apart, and made no mention of searching for sources (I have found straight away). I have clarified my wording, however. GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, post the sources that you have found. Or, better yet, put them in the articles to begin with. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already found and added 2 further sources. Have you really brought me to ANI, wasting everybody's time, because you're annoyed I'm opposing your attempt to delete an article I started? Pathetic. This is not the place to argue about the notability (or not) of an article, that's what AFD is for. GiantSnowman 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're kidding right? "Player is called up to international team" is NOT enough to prove notability! This was the only source added since my nomination. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Again - this is all for discussion at AFD, not ANI (and I added another source in between your PROD and AFD, did you miss that? No need to answer.) GiantSnowman 18:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And yet again, condescending! You're only proving my point. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hypocrisy yet again. YOU did not comply with BEFORE here. The difference is, Simons met GNG, while I cannot find any real sources that prove that Tié does. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

BEFORE applies to nominating articles for deletion, not commenting on them. You are also - and I'll AGF and assume you merely forgot, as opposed to deliberately mis-representing facts - forgetting this later edit. GiantSnowman 18:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, I did look up both players, and have found NO significant coverage. And you are still yet to provide said evidence. I'm not forgetting anything, you changed your mind on your decision when you realised that the player was indeed notable. That doesn't mean you didn't check in the first place to see if he is. This may not be a breach of any "rules", but it's still irresponsible editing. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Then why didn't you state that on your AFD nomination? Why didn't you add the sources I found and added if you did a search and found them as well? But let's get this straight; you have an issue with me changing my view on an article's notability after somebody found and added a detailed source? I would say that is the opposite of irresponsible actually, but what do I know, I've only been editing for 15 years... GiantSnowman 18:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I stated that both players failed GNG. They do. There is no need to cite each and every source in both articles with reasons for why they do not pass GNG. And here you go, twisting my words. I said that you were editing irresponsibly by voting to delete Simons without looking through the article to see there were numerous sources which mean the player passes GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no reason to cite each and every source because none of them are SIGCOV. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not re-hashing an AFD from 14 months ago, but - GNG is subjective, and I was not the only person to think he failed GNG. Not that I need to justify myself to you, but you're making assumptions about what I did and did not do. I always check the article and Google the subject before !voting, actually. GiantSnowman 18:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You did? Then why did you change your vote from delete to keep? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I've already said - "somebody found and added a detailed source". And like I've already said - "I'm not re-hashing an AFD from 14 months ago". Last comment on the matter. GiantSnowman 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So, someone else found and added and added a detailed source? Sounds to me like you didn't Google enough then. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The second edit is correct, the editor reverted unsourced changes and an unexplained removal of the {{convert}} template. —El Millo (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question retaliated by calling me an "idiot". WP:BOOMERANG? GiantSnowman 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This statement is factually correct a valid comment. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Doubling down on referring to another editor as an "idiot"? Probably not your smartest move. WP:NPA. GiantSnowman 18:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between calling someone an idiot and calling them ignorant? Asking for a friend... Let's all agree that (1) it's counterproductive to accuse nominators in AFDs of failing BEFORE, (2) WP:LGV is standard lingo, (3) everything after that has been editors just losing their cool, and (4) none of this is really ANI-worthy and we should all just move on to something else. Levivich 18:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They called me it in that edit summary and repeated it here; I made a comment somebody had not done BEFORE because they did not show any evidence of having done so, including nominating two AFDS one minute apart. So yes, there's a difference. But nice to know you have a bigger concern with my comment than any of the comments or behaviour of the OP! GiantSnowman 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering this is not the first time you've had issues with other editors, perhaps it's time for some self-evaluation. (No disrespect meant, this is genuine concern). Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And on the first charge, the shoe appears to be on the other foot: personal attack -- Jibal (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out - is it acceptable for the OP to say "is there something wrong with you?" to me? @Levivich: would you like to come defend them again? GiantSnowman 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jibal: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that edit. It is not a personal attack at all. An editor was condescending to me (again), so I asked if there was an issue? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

All three of those statements are obviously false: there is much wrong with it, it is a personal attack, and that's not what you asked. WP:Boomerang -- Jibal (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So this edit has just cropped up. So now GS is going through my recently created articles? Kind of weird. But ironically, this article with one source has more SIGCOV in one article than either Tié or Paulsen do. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." -- the failure to do so was the first of many violations here. WP:Boomerang -- Jibal (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, usually I don't interact with others on Misplaced Pages (for the exact reasons given above - I don't like people like GS interacting with me the way he does). I just get on with editing. I don't know all the specific rules of Misplaced Pages. Sorry for the violation, officer. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a large warning on this page giving the rule. As for the condescending comment: WP:Boomerang -- Jibal (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, since being condescending is apparently allowed on Misplaced Pages, I don't see why some users are allowed to be, and some aren't. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to justify your "Sorry for the violation, officer" comment to me on the basis of your dubious charge against GS is not a good way to make your case. If you think that your comment is justified, then you're arguing that GS's is too, in which case your whole argument collapses. I seriously suggest that you read WP:Boomerang and drop this whole thing. As my intent is not to provoke you, I will not post again here. -- Jibal (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you do the same. All of your edits have been aimed at me, with nothing being said to GS. Please read this. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Jibal: you're not helping by ending each of your comments with WP:Boomerang. Let's be better than that.@GS: is anything David said to you worse than things you've said to me or others that I've complained about in the past? To refresh your memory, is "idiot" worse than "ignorant", is "what is wrong with you?" worse than "your obsession is flattering"? Did you get sanctioned for those? No? So let's take it easy on the calls for sanctions.I again invite all parties to move along before no parties move along. Levivich 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Levivich, for being a sane voice within this madness. I'm happy to move on. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I repeated it because it had been ignored. I don't think the editor has read it yet. All my comments were made with the intent to be "better", and I think the criticism is out of place. And the rest of your comment strikes me as a tu quoque fallacy, so maybe we can all be better. -- Jibal (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• With all due respect Levi, I don't see how your prior history with GS is relevant here. The OP opened this thread with the intention of getting someone to do something about very mild criticism from GS. Meanwhile, the OP is engaging in far more blatant condescension of their own. The calls for a boomerang are perfectly reasonable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Any prior history is entirely relevant, because it just shows that this is not the first time this editor has been involved in conflict with other editors. If there is a common denominator each time, surely it is best to focus on them with regards to sanctions? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe GS should receive sanctions? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just noticed this thread after having !voted keep in one of the referenced AfDs and having removed a CSD tag placed by the OP. IMO, it's pretty condescending to ask another editor if there is something wrong with them. This should be rule #1 for ANI: don't do the very thing you are accusing someone else of doing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  The more I see condescending comments like this one from the OP, the more I think a boomerang might be in order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You are voting keep in AfDs because you think these players will appear at The Olympics. This is more disruptive than an off-hand comment highlighting how ridiculous your logic is. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say I think that they will appear. I said we should wait a few weeks to see if they appear before having the deletion discussions. This is hardly comparable to writing articles about imaginary wars that might happen someday. It's almost as if you are in such a hurry to discredit my opinions that you haven't taken the time to understand them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "Paulsen is slated to appear in the Olympics". Says who, besides yourself? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is on a roster of people who might appear in the Olympics, which means that there is a strong possibility that he will. If he doesn't, we can easily revisit the matter in a few weeks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The complaint seems like a mishmash of disagreement and nothing actionable. I've had a run-in or two with GiantSnowman but on reflection they have always come out it well, dignified and fair, almost to a fault. I don't really know why this is even still a thread here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's abuse of the process, especially since the required talk page notice was not made (until that was pointed out for the second time). --- Jibal (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jibal, you've posted over a half dozen times in this section (after not participating at ANI in nearly 15 years) and you've only posted in the section about your own behavior once. You might want to go take care of business, because this feels kind of pot-stirringish. —valereee (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Valereee There is no rule limiting an editor's participation in a case, even if an editor is also subject to one. Please leave the editor alone. Jerm (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm, I've got my opinion, you've got yours. —valereee (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This digression from the main topic doesn't appear to add any value or more information to the matter at hand. I suggest you both take it elsewhere and allow the subject being discussed to continue unhindered by your chat. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG: Other than Davidlofgren1996 taking their sweet time in sending an ANI notice to GiantSnowman, calling GiantSnowman in the edit summary an "idiot" is unexceptable. Also, ANI is not meant to handle complaints concerning the accuracy of an AFD keep/deletion reasoning of another editor. Let the AFD closure determine that. ANI really handles inappropriate behavior of an editor such as the WP:NPA violation by Davidlofgren1996 against GiantSnowman. I highly recommend this case be closed with a warning to Davidlofgren1996. Jerm (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree on the call for this to be closed, for David's own good, as he seems to be digging himself a deeper hole.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible range block?

There seems to be an IP range that is continuous/persistent in WP:DE speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL) regarding Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards ceremony. From what I've reverted many times, they are always adding information/data for future year ceremonies, despite no source(s) indicating that it is actually happening. They have mainly been at Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards and Template:Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. The template has been protected thanks to them, but now they've most recently been at the main ceremony article, the latest adding information for 2022, despite there being no source of it actually going to happen- again, purely speculation.

Is there any range that can be blocked for this IP? Because I would think 2600:1003:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 would be way too big a range and would get a whole bunch who isn't this same person, but it seems to be the only possible range for this. Should be noted that the /32 range has been blocked before- previously in January 2017 and November 2018. Also, not sure if it is the same person as all the Kids' Choice Awards- related edits, but it does seem like the range tends to be problematic at times... (see User talk:2600:1003:B009:C935:0:50:B42F:2C01 for example- and ).

Just as an FYI, I've left an ANI notice on their latest IP from the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards edits today. Any help regarding this would be appreciated, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw there is a range within the range blocked- 2600:1003:B010:0:0:0:0:0/44. Hoping there's another 'range within a range' that can be blocked for the IP linked to the KCA edits... Magitroopa (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem with user Xezbeth

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

I don't know why, but lately Xezbeth has done a lot to reverse the number of edits on Japanese voice actors occupations incorrectly than me and the amount of IP that we have correctly corrected Japanese voice actors articles as well of the live action actors, now he says that all this time I do vandalism both on Wikidata and here and even so it is believed that it is necessary to add 3 or 4 occupations each (see 1, 2 and his or her contributions) and when I realize something , those occupations that were added by all users in the past have been looking for years uselessly in English Misplaced Pages because the separate occupations (e.g. Actor and voice actor) should be removed instead of merging them without any problem and on the subject of the short description, I myself complied with the data inclusion rules carefully and without vandalism (see below) but apparently he decided not to listen to me and has blocked me for a month because I have done vandalism imagine, I did not vandalize, I am not obsessive with any of the articles and I do not spam, I only came to correct everything that the IPs of unknown origin vandalized because one of them had been speculating if any of them debuted as a singer or something like that.

Honestly, I do not know what to do with him and her to stop continuing with their meaningless reversals, what if I ask is that they help me understand it, what I do all the time is to comply with the rules here, not he or she this has nothing to do with my edits, remember what two or three rules said WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I try to make peace here on Misplaced Pages if he had not reached a point of mutual agreement without any threats. 179.52.204.4 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

7falcon23, LGBT-phobic Afds and WP:NOTHERE behavior

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

User:7falcon23 recently nominated Queer coding for deletion for a rationale that is not only invalid, but also very LGBT-phobic. "Never in the history of Disney animation has there ever been an LGBTQ character unless its Onward. Painting beloved characters such as Jafar and Scar as queer is ruining the nostalgia and golden shimmer of the Disney classics." However, their comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Madonna as a gay icon made me want to bring this to ANI, as it indicates they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to impose an LGBT-phobic viewpoint on the site:

• These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Misplaced Pages's suffix meaningless.
• Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines.

Stuff like accusing articles about LGBT topics of being anti-heterosexual, throwing around conspiracy theories that Misplaced Pages users writing about LGBT topics ("criminals") are trying to brainwash a big chunk of the population to be LGBT, and that Disney films are being "hijacked" with LGBT people, just screams issues related to WP:NONAZIS that need to be taken care of immediately. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I stand by my belief that the article Queer coding is a wrong article becauase I have seen characters like Jafar and Scar in the movies and they weren't ever portrayed as LGBT. Also that article has pride.com/blogspot/youtube as citations. How can you label me as a Nazi when I adddressed a legitimate NPOV concern. And looks like from my nomination I am the only one who is on one side. Its frustrating when I am the only one in a debate who doesn't have any support. Last time its was an article on how Judy Garland is a gay icon. Many baby boomers grew up watching Judy Garland, and one day to find such an article under the template is in my opinion a disrespect to all those traditional viewers. This is the same issue with animated movies.7falcon23 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article should not use Youtube and blogspot sources but rather more reliable sources (although I haven't researched the reliability of pride.com), and I get the frustration of having no one on your side in a debate. Plus, even though Queer coding is a notable topic, you're absolutely right that Misplaced Pages articles need to be NPOV. However, you're going above and beyond stating there is an NPOV issue and making conspiracy theories about the LGBT community trying to take over the world with an evil agenda of some sort against tradition or values or whatever, which (1) Misplaced Pages is not a place for users to conceive of theories about conspiracy and (2) the theories strikes me as having very fascistic, alt-right tendencies. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Just to clarify: the YouTube source is a professional interview by ArtInsights Animation and Film Art with Andreas Deja, the animator for the Disney film in question. The Blogspot ref is Andreas Deja's blog post in which he discusses his creative process in drawing those characters, and WP:SPS states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert. These are acceptable sources for information they support in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I stand by my belief that the article Queer coding is a wrong article becauase I have seen characters like Jafar and Scar in the movies and they weren't ever portrayed as LGBT. -- First, Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, not on evaluations of the subject matter by editors. Second, the article doesn't say that they were ever portrayed as LGBT, so this belief isn't even relevant. How can you label me as a Nazi when I adddressed a legitimate NPOV concern. -- I don't want to comment on the charge, but a) even a Nazi could address a legitimate NPOV concern and b) it hasn't been established that it is a legitimate NPOV concern. And looks like from my nomination I am the only one who is on one side. Its frustrating when I am the only one in a debate who doesn't have any support. -- a plausible explanation for this sort of situation, in fact the most plausible explanation, is that the sole person on one side is in the wrong. Last time its was an article on how Judy Garland is a gay icon. -- a web search for "judy garland gay icon" strongly suggests that this is a well-established fact. Many baby boomers grew up watching Judy Garland -- this has no bearing on the fact that she's a gay icon. and one day to find such an article under the template is in my opinion a disrespect to all those traditional viewers -- this is not anything like the sort of basis that determines Misplaced Pages content. -- Jibal (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have WP:SNOW closed that discussion, as it was clearly not leading to deletion. I'm not sure what administrative action is requested here; this seems to be a new editor who doesn't understand WP:AFD policies, but I'm not sure what else is demonstrated. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe the main concern is the user’s uncivil, immature, highly bigoted behavior and how it might continue in the future. The user also seems to think they are entitled to support, and if they do not receive it they have the right to bypass the normal AfD process in a way that goes beyond simple misunderstanding. Dronebogus (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a issue of a new editor not understanding AFD. The user has been contributing on here since last year, as what is of issue is a potential LGBT-phobic agenda from the user that indicates WP:NOTHERE. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • 7falcon has less than 50 edits. It's very possible 7falcon didn't know talk pages existed until yesterday. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I see two possibilities: 7falcon23 genuinely believes in what they're writing and will continue to pursue their agenda to WP:RGW, or 7falcon23 is trolling the project. Either way, they should not be allowed to continue to edit. Schazjmd (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • 7falcon23's apparent inability to understand that gay icon and gay person mean different things is concerning. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was going to caution 7falcon23 about editing articles about gender, but it appears they've been indef blocked already. Probably for the best. Isabelle 01:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy link to thread that immediately preceded this one, and Special:Permalink/1033975070. Will RD2 be necessary and feasible for any of this user's edits? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• I was actually just about to make a post about this fellow, considering this is now the second time he's gone on a homophobic rant at AfD. This is textbook WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW (except in this case it's actually WGR). Mlb96 (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds like he's gay. EEng 02:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues from User:Truth Teller1222

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

• Truth Teller1222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Truth Teller1222 began their tenure here on Misplaced Pages by making BLP violating comments against a public figure (), and their contributions to the site don't really seem to have gone uphill since then despite multiple warnings (since deleted from their talk page): , , , . Basically all of their edits have been WP:NOTFORUM type posts to talk pages about various publications (for example , ), WP:IDHT regarding our reliable sources policy (for example ), and an attempt to add poorly-sourced OR material about a Twitter feud to an article.

Given the blanking of warnings, lack of improvement in behavior, and restoration of a talk page post that was removed for being forum-y it doesn't appear they intend to try to collaborate here, nor does the RGW username give me much hope in that regard. I considered blocking them myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED with respect to the Palmer Report article and so am leaving it up to someone else. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Anything with WP:TRUTH in an editor's username should at least be a yellow flag. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ray's Razor: Any editor whose username includes the word "truth" shall be assumed disruptive until conclusively shown otherwise. (See #258 of .) EEng 05:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would encourage an uninvolved admin to use Discretionary Sanctions to topic-ban them from American Politics. They got drawn to the site because of political controversy, and if they continue to edit in the AP2 topic area will certainly get themselves blocked from the whole site. TT12 restored this edit after a DS warning; clearly they aren't getting it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE, which is only really part of their problem, but it's not worth the time to be more elaborate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP removing references, making nonsensical changes on Faust article

• 72.92.0.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.92.1.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.92.1.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These IPs has been making low-quality, constantly reverted edits on the Faust (Avatar Press) page. This appears to be the same user, identifiable by the type of edits they make (and the fact that their scope seems entirely limited to this comic and its film adaptation). Usually they remove sources or context for statements to the point where sentences become meaningless fragments because the subject has been removed. Their edits also incorrectly change grammar and sentence structure .

I am not sure if semiprotecting the page or directly addressing the IP is the best course of action. Typically I've been popping over to the article every few months to make sure that Spawn hasn't been nonsensically cut out of that one sentence they seem to dislike, but obviously this is not a long-term solution. --Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Averroes 22

Averroes 22 has repeatedly called me an antisemite for reverting some unencyclopedic rubbish it put into Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

• Here, "Warring: anti-Semitism" and "motivated by anti-Semitism".
• Here, edit summary "Reverting edit by anti-Semitic editor".

This is intolerable. I would have immediately imposed a block if the target of this calumny was someone else, but since I'm the one under attack it would be better if another administrator takes care of it. Zero 14:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• And continuing in a second article here, edit summary "Reverting edit by anti-Semitic editor".

Please put a stop to this. Zero 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I'm sorry, I thought everything that was written in the sources could be put into the article. --Averroes 22 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a report about sources or articles, it is about you making personal attacks. I consider your response to be a continuation of those attacks. Zero 15:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for personal attacks against editors reverting Averroes 22's insertion of garbled commentary into articles. Block length reflects this editor's block history. There needs to be a significant change int heir approach to Misplaced Pages and other editors. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Also in the last few days he was removing number of sources claiming that the source doesn't support the text, for example: here); in the talk page some users showed concern that this user has been removing sources en masse, and making false statements that are not supported by the sources like here. Then last month he was adding misleading POV text, even after being told not to. This all comes after a pretty huge block log. I think a topic ban from 'religion' is absolutely warranted. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

82.16.147.172 repeatedly removing image

82.16.147.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing an image of Priti Patel from British Indians, because apparently "Everybody is sick of seeing her face". Could an uninvolved admin take a look? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A three-day wikibreak has been awarded to the IP. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Faysal.Mahamud.khan

• Faysal.Mahamud.khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has had a large history of disruptive editing, more recently related to page moves, with this move being the last straw due to incivility. Is there an admin that can take action before this gets worse? Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Affected pages have been deleted, but the user has still shown signs of incivility, taking their perceived rage into both their Talk page and my own in the past few minutes. This seems like it could go out of control. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the disruption noted by JalenFolf, the user also moved a draft created by brand new account User:OP VINCENZO into main space (List Of National Association Football Teams By International And Confederation Trophy), which unlike the others, has not been deleted. I have therefore indeffed Faysal for disruption, personal attacks, and sock or meat puppetry, along with OP VINCENZO.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP changing pronouns at RiRia Niimura

2600:8807:600A:6600:930:98B2:BC9C:4DF6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• I first reverted the aforementioned IP's edits when they changed the pronouns and removed a mention that the subject is non-binary. In my edit summary I said: "They are non-binary according to their Instagram account, though use she/them pronouns". When someone accepts multiple pronouns, I tend to revert to the ones present on the stable version. The IP proceeded to do that two more times, and on the third time I tried talking with them on their talk page. Moments after that, the IP decided to change the person's pronouns to "it", here. Not sure how to proceed, having reverted three times, attempting to talk to them, and then this transphobic edit. Isabelle 16:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The "it" was clearly not good faith, and as such I've blocked the user (upgraded to a longer rangeblock, thank you NinjaRobotPirate). Is there an issue with using "she" since that's specified in the subject's Twitter and Instagram profiles? OhNoitsJamie 16:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    @Ohnoitsjamie: Thanks. In the video, they essentially say they are non-binary and, as such, fully support the LGBTQI movement. Although I felt the information present in their social media pages were enough, I also tried to find a more clear statement from the subject themselves to start the discussion. Isabelle 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Isabelle is nothing but a liberal piece of trash. One look at their page proves it! I got IP's for years, good luck blocking the crusade! You will be cancelled keyboard warrior!

    Classy comment, 47.206.140.65. Does it ring a bell with anyone? Narky Blert (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Well I've blocked 47.206,140.65 for blatant unacceptable personal attacks and comments. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

      Might be worth blocking the /16 range. Isabelle 20:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent harassment by User:JesseRafe

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

• JesseRafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BlueboyLINY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My talk page has been invaded by JesseRafe on 5 different occasions, beginning notably with a false accusation of my being a sockpuppet here. And continuing on to try to make the vanguard article vastly different from state street and blackrock. Perhaps most egregiously, he actually tried to argue on behalf of blueboyliny here claiming that I was the editor who refused to go to the talk page. He also accused me of being WP:NOTHERE, despite hundreds of constructive edits and only a few instances of reverts. In each instance of reverts, I do always go to the talk page to discuss with other editors so that we continue to strive to make[REDACTED] a cleaner and more inclusive environment, and the blueboyliny case actually resulted in blueboyliny being banned, so.. Thank you for your consideration. Sucker for All (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: BlueboyLINY (talk · contribs) was partially-blocked from article space to get their attention. They were not banned, nor have they ever been. The block has since been lifted, and is irrelevant to any dispute between SfA and JesseRafe. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell everyone about the part where you wrote "deleted the jesserafe, doggy, shoestringnomad, lovi circlejerk ..." Levivich 18:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sucker for All, I've already advised you that you have no reasonable beef against JesseRafe and that you should drop this stick. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

JesseRafe has commented on your talk page 4 times, all of which were to leave templated warning messages. I'm not seeing any evidence that your talk page has been "invaded" by them. The first message was a SPI notice - leaving them on the talk pages of users involved in a SPI is completely standard. The next two were edit waring notices, and given that you've reverted The Vanguard Group to your preferred version 9 times at this point ( , , , , , , , ) they seem like completely appropriate notices. The final notice was a warning that referring to other editors discussing your conduct as a "circlejerk" was inappropriate, which doesn't seem unreasonable. If there's an editor being disruptive here it doesn't seem to be JesseRafe. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to keep this discussion open. @Sucker for All: You are not being harassed. The warnings left on your page by JesseRafe were appropriate and warranted. Continued unsubstantiated complaints against this editor are likely to result in actions against you. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

ÜçDörtBeşş personal attack

The user ÜçDörtBeşş made a personal attack on my talk page. His attack was racist: "Ermeni y(...) olmanız hakkında" (About you being a Armenian s(...)). Can you please block this user, thank you.--V. E. (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP Vandalism at Trung Le Nguyen

There's some repeated IP vandalism happening at Trung Le Nguyen despite multiple warnings. Morgan695 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please make reports of ongoing vandalism at WP:AIV instead of this noticeboard. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, edit warring, and CANTHEARYOU by Dan Koehl

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

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

Dan Koehl is currently on a mission to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Misplaced Pages, namely the use of the term Viking to refer to medieval Scandinavians during the Viking age. He is doing to this by:

1. spamming talk pages with endless repetitive discussions that include the same statements and images over and over across multiple pages, in multiple sections added all at once: , , , , , , , , , , , etc. etc. This isn't even half the "comments" that he's made since July 12. Edit: most of this can be seen at talk:Viking expansion and talk:Vikings.
2. edit warring over the addition of templates they've added , , ,
3. edit warring over unsourced and irrelevant content they they've chosen to add to the section discussing the term Norsemen at Norsemen: , , ,

Dan Koehl at the very least needs some sort of time out. He's been told by multiple editors that the page Viking follows wp:COMMONNAME, but he just keeps making the same arguments over and over. When he's reverted or someone confronts him on this, he accuses others of acting as a "mafia" and casts aspersions about admin abuse. This has gotten out of control.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I've tried pretty hard (after being accused at AN3 of 'trying to manipulate' the discussion) to reach this editor with no joy. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

From the tone and content of his various filings at admin boards, Dan Koehl does seem to be here on Misplaced Pages for WP:BATTLEGROUND purposes. In my experience, when someone appears to be trying hard to get blocked they are likely to get their wish. They have already succeeded in getting blocked on the Swedish Misplaced Pages on 15 July 2021 for a period of three years. The reason given by the admin there was "Unable or unwilling to behave. Previously warned and blocked several times, including a one-year block a few years back." EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I can add that they've been spamming this image with various ethnic slurs on multiple talk pages (and multiple times per talk page) to try to make their point. They've added it here, here, and here just at talk:Vikings and also here at talk:Viking expansion.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

probably to make a point. sigh. I feel I've entered slightly into involved territory because they accused me of trying to manipulate discussion, so I'm reluctant to take admin action here. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

CIR issue with User:Andyphan25

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

User:Andyphan25 has created several Misplaced Pages pages in the Help category: see here. These pages duplicate existing topics, and are going through MfD. I told this user that creating such pages is not useful if they duplicate existing topics here .

A major issue that I've noticed is that the Help pages, and every edit performed by Andyphan25, consists of nonsense. It's not merely poor English; the pages don't make any sense. I think there is a serious competence issue here as a result.

I want to add that I've been away from Misplaced Pages largely for a long time; this does appear to be the best place to post this, please let me know if I've made a mistake. I will notify this user I have posted here. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE. The "prose" (such as it is) almost looks like an AI that has been trained on existing Misplaced Pages documentation trying to generate new documentation. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal in North Carolina

• 2603:6080:9D04:F600:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Gastonia, North Carolina, has been changing release dates on a few song articles for the past six months. Some false chart stats have been posted, too. They have even worked against their own date changes. No blocks or warnings before today, but his person is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Pure, creeping vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked /64 for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

JMyrleFuller and WP:CBALL edits

User continues to make unsourced WP:CBALL edits despite warnings and ANIs. Most recent example adding "It will presumably carry the Sinclair-produced newscasts WUTV has been carrying since then in the event of sports preemptions" edited without any source.

User acknowledges actions adding CBALL/unsourced content after it was reverted by another editor.

Two previous ANIs within last 18 months resulted in no action:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#JMyrleFuller pattern of unsourced and WP:CBALL edit
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#JMyrleFuller continued unsourced WP:CBALL edits

Even though the user acknowledges issues with CBALL edits, pattern of behavior will likely continue without admin intervention. AldezD (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

My perception is that JMyrleFuller is a generally productive editor who makes an occasional mistake. In this specific case, they acknowledged the error readily. I do not think that any block or editing restriction is called for at this time, but I will leave a gently worded warning on their talk page. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanking someone for pointing out why an edit was reverted and supporting the reversal is not something that an editor should be punished for. "Two previous ANIs within last 18 months" -- all brought by the same person. "resulted in no action" -- appropriately so. There are a small number of incidents over a long period and each time JMyrleFuller has been gracious, including hsr response to this latest warning.-- Jibal (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Neutralhomer

In 14 years and over 8k edits, I have never needed to drag anyone to ANI. Until now. I literally begged Neutralhomer for an agreeable resolution and to avoid formal sanctions: Please explicitly withdraw your reverts on WP:Notability (media) and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and end this agreeably. Your rapid fire 4 reverts warring against three people leaves you bright-line toast. Please acknowledge it so we can avoid formal sanctions.

Neutralhomer has been notified of this discussion:

First evidence, bright line violation of three revert rule. 4 reverts in 22 minutes on WP:Notability (media), edit warring against THREE different editors:

• 00:31, 19 July 2021 Revert 1
• 00:41, 19 July 2021 Revert 2
• 00:48, 19 July 2021 Revert 3
• 00:53, 19 July 2021 Revert 4

Background evidence: Neutralhomer has been explicitly crusading on an agenda of, I quote, "no deletions" in his pet topic area, radio and TV broadcasting.

I updated WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media to say Licensed radio and TV stations have had conflicting outcomes if they lack significant coverage in Reliable Sources because, since June 12 there have been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AFDs all closed as deletes due to lack of significant RS coverage. In that time span only 1 2 AFDs closed as keep explicitly on the basis that they DID have significant coverage in reliable sources. My edit was, if anything, generous to say "conflicting outcomes" given that evidence of 100% delete outcomes when there is a lack of significant RS coverage. Nonetheless Neutralhomer reverted here as well for indiscriminate "keep" wording.

Neutralhomer's AFD stats show that on the last 9 Radio AFDs they cast 9 indiscriminate 'keep' votes. Only one AFD closed as keep (after sources were found and added), 4 closed as redirect, 3 closed as delete, and the only reason the final AFD has not yet closed as delete are "per Neutralhomer" and appeals to a falsified WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. This perhaps explains Neutralhomer's battle to hold onto a lost cause in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, it is a purely circular argument to evade consensus.

Neutralhomer has a banner message on their talk page. It currently includes the following: After 16 years, all the work that was started by Dravecky and many others (myself included) is being destroyed by a few deletionists. WP:WPRS and NMEDIA is being destroyed by people who couldn't give a fuck less. I have done my part to keep the walls from crumbling, but I can't hold them back when I'm there only one here.
So, I am going to walk away. I don't want to, but I have to. I will watch from the sidelines, but I will not participate. I've done what I can to help the project over the years, to help it grow, to help it flourish. It isn't just me, many, many, many others have done the same. But apparently the community-at-large is OK with a few coming in and destroying that work.
That message makes it abundantly clear that Neutralhomer is aware that the broader community does not support their crusade, that they feel they are the "only one" fighting to hold back the community. Neutralhomer states that they "have to" walk away on this issue. A (very limited) topic ban would help them do exactly what they say they need to do here.

I do not want to restrict Neutralhomer's ability to edit articles. As far as I'm aware they have been a productive editor in article space. However I would request a narrowly tailored topic ban from (1) Broadcast AFDs, where it is clear they push indiscriminate keeps; and from (2) policy/guideline issues of Notability-of-broadcast, where they are disruptively warring. Alsee (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "begg", but OK. I made it clear Alsee didn't "have" to do anything, they "wanted" to. See this edit summary "Last chance to avoid formal sanctions". Clearly they are gunning for me.

I had disengaged, still have. Though looking at their edits (since they looked at mine, it's only fair), this is their first foray into NMEDIA territory.

Now, I did exceed 3RR, I admit that, I admitted that on my talk page, and I will take the ding for it. But what I will not take the ding for is is this user's understanding. NMEDIA remained an "explanatory supplement to the Misplaced Pages:Notability guideline" during the rewrite. After the admittedly failed rewrite, it didn't become an essay or a "failed guideline", it stayed an "explanatory supplement to the Misplaced Pages:Notability guideline." This never changed. Why Alsee and others feel it did is beyond me. I won't take the ding for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my edits are supposed to be relevant, but 8 July 2021 I assessed consensus and preformed a closure on Village Pump. On that page revision I saw a notice of There's an open RfC proposing to make WP:Notability (media) into a {{Guideline}}. My next edit was on that RFC. I walked into this as a random uninvolved RFC invitee. I followed some links and examined some old radio AFDs, and I participated in a few open radio AFDs. Between the RFC and AFDs, I saw a small number of people were pushing a contrary-to-consensus agenda. Most of them appear to have gracefully adjusted to the RFC consensus, but one individual (Neutralhomer) dug in for a single-handed war against the world.

Regarding Neutralhomer's comment Why Alsee and others feel it did is beyond me: It is fine and normal for someone to not (yet) understand a particular point. However it is a serious problem when they know they are singlehandedly battling many editors at the same time. It's not about who's right or wrong. Neutralhomer couldn't escape the battleground even when they full well knew they were toast for revert-spam, they couldn't escape the battleground even when I double-please offered to let them withdraw their excessive reverts end this agreeably. Alsee (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing why this needs to extend beyond AN3 and the relevant talk pages. As far as the tone of NH's edits recently, I think it's pretty understandable to be upset when the trend of GNG expanding to apply to SNGs hits a topic area one has worked hard in (or rather, when there's greater attention to the fact that one such SNG you've used for years doesn't carry weight because it's not actually a guideline). NH also isn't necessarily wrong here. If a page is a proposal that's rejected, it makes sense to label it a failed proposal. If something was an information page or essay before and a rewrite of said page fails to be promoted to guideline status, that doesn't turn the page into a failed proposal -- the RfC or the rewrite would be the proposal, not the information page/essay. The change from supplement to essay is one I agree with, but also a change which should be decided on the talk page rather than taken for granted (and I see that it is being discussed). There's a single revert at WP:OUTCOMES, and no discussion on the talk page, so hard to see a big problem there. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The big problem is NeutralHomer's attitude. He seems to think that browbeating others into doing what he wants is acceptable. As an example, see this RFC discussion where he thought it appropriate to argue with anyone who Opposed the proposal then, when asked to stop doing so, complained If I didn't respond, I would be "failing" anyway. So, might as well "fail" in dramatic fashion.

This further expanded to his trolling my talk page for asking him to stop, where he bemoaned that he was not allowed to have a conversation. And then decided that since I replied, that meant he could drag it out: just seeing how long you can go by having to have the last word in this conversation. :)

NH just likes to poke people and civil POV-push. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what POV NH is pushing? Thinking there should be an SNG on something isn't really POV-pushing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 5 of those 9 broadcast-related AfD !votes cite a similar argument made by Superastig (talk · contribs). In the most recent of these, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DXFU, they used sources inadequate to prove GNG and told others not to ague with them; Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) characterized this as an explicit WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which suggests that they may be worth investigating as well. Weak support a temporary topic ban from WP:BCAST and broadcast media AfDs and PRODs, per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Spam website?

User:Pushkaraj1405 is adding english.gnptimes.in as a reference to several articles. I didn't find anything about the website. When I checked website, I find out the Pushkaraj Gharat (User:Pushkaraj1405) is one of their authors. Could any admin please review it? Thanks Hasan (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ulubatli Hasan, thank you for reporting this. If it were a less clearcut case of WP:CITESPAM, I might have directed you to WP:RSN to discuss the source; however, this is an obviously unreliable source, the editor is clearly affiliated, and all of their contributions have been to add content based on that source. I have reverted those edits which had not already been addressed, and asked them to stop doing that. Please let us know if you see them continuing with this. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ulubatli Hasan, for what it's worth, they do seem to listen when addressed on their talk page, so I think you can take it up with them there. For now, I see that Girth Summit already has. Cheers. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 11:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked the account as NOTHERE. I tried explaining that their two-person news blog wasn't a reliable source, and gave them links to RSN in case they wanted other opinions, but they insisted that they would keep adding it, and threatened to use socks to do so if blocked. What's the procedure for blacklisting a website? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack in defense of vandalism

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

05:21, 19 July 2021 (UFC)

This extensive message left on my talk page makes me believe there's no way User:Rccapps misunderstood their edits or my edits, and that they are simply peeved their vandalism was corrected. ––FORMALDUDE 05:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"FormalDude", let me repeat/paraphrase here what I wrote on your talk page: the "who is hot as hell" clause was not my contribution. My only contribution was a valid punctuation correction of a non-restrictive relative clause. So unless you are suggesting grammar/punctuation correction is vandalism, you are not now assuming good faith on my part with your insinuation that "they are simply peeved their vandalism was corrected." Nor were you assuming good faith then when you claimed my valid punctuation correction "did not appear to be constructive." According to the edit history/log, you reverted my punctuation correction first (taking the time to tell me it was not constructive), and only then did you remove the actual vandalism. As I commented on your talk page, you could have removed the entire clause - corrected punctuation and all - in a single edit without making an inappropriate reference to my edit. It would have taken less effort. But the extra effort to impugn my contribution, as well as your subsequent dismissal of my counter-critique, makes me believe you have abandoned good faith in favor of ego. But we can still make this right, as I proposed on your talk page. I will further refine my proposal here: if you remove/retract all of your comments from "did not appear to be constructive" until now, I will remove my comments in response. If you don't have the editing authority to do that, perhaps the administrators (whose attention you've undoubtedly attracted) can assist you. Rccapps (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right it is not your contribution because you've never contributed to Miesha Tate and accordingly I notified User:174.250.0.9 of their edit that maintained vandalism on the page: 05:43, 17 July 2021. Clearly you made the edit while logged out and saw my response and are now incorrectly accusing me on your main account. And BTW I did actually remove the vandalism if you look at the page history, which is apparently hard for you. ––FORMALDUDE 06:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• User:174.250.0.9 (who is currently blocked) made the edit in question that User:Rccapps called theirs (even though they've never edited that page). ––FORMALDUDE 06:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming even more bizarre, so let me see if I understand you, "FormalDude". You just wrote that "...you've never contributed to Meisha Tate...", and then in the very next sentence, you wrote that "...you made the edit while logged out...". I can accept that my punctuation edit was made while I was inadvertently logged out. If so: oopsie! But it is still my edit - I'm not dodging responsibility for it. As to "now incorrectly accusing me ", accusing you of what? Do you deny labeling the punctuation edit with the phrase "did not appear constructive"? Because that's the basis of my "accusation". Do you claim that the punctuation correction itself was incorrect? Because that was the substance of my "accusation". As to your further commentary "...BTW I did actually remove the vandalism if you look at the page history, which is apparently hard for you," you are failing to stay calm. I have acknowledged more than once that you removed the vandalism, as well as the provenance in the page history, most recently in my first comment on this very page (see above): "According to the edit history/log, you reverted my punctuation correction first...and only then did you remove the actual vandalism." Your insinuation that viewing this edit history is "hard for you " is clearly baseless. Why are you digging yourself in deeper? Rccapps (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay you have both had your say, now wait for the outside opinions that you came here for. HighInBC 07:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Observation. Rccapps admits to editing logged out as 174.250.0.9 who is part of a /18 partial-rangeblock on a happy tree friends LTA, @Ohnoitsjamie: might want to look at that to see if this is more than coincidental. As for FormalDude's vandalism warning of 174.250.0.9 it was miss-placed as the edit merely corrected punctuation. The warning should've been placed on 2600:6C4A:1B7F:A757:1895:A3CF:41CF:2AA0 talk page only as they inserted the vandalism. FormalDude should retract their wrongly placed warning.--Eostrix  ( _hoot🦉) 07:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Eostrix on all points made. I will add that correcting the grammar on vandalism shows a bit of carelessness. Surely they must have read the sentence in order to fix the punctuation. Other than looking into the suspicious IP range I don't think anything here requires an administrator. HighInBC 07:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that correcting punctuation on an added vandalism clause is less than optimal as a more alert editor would remove the vandalism, however it is not vandalism.--Eostrix  ( _hoot🦉) 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Making orthographical corrections to obvious vandalism is not constructive editing - I don't see anything wrong with FormalDude's Level 1 warning to the IP. Rccapps has made it clear that he didn't 'accidentally' leave the vandalism on the page - he thought it was funny, so fixed the punctuation rather than removing it. That is unconstructive, but instead of apologising for a silly joke, he has insulted FormalDude, and wasted a load of time with supercilious pedantry bordering on trolling. I see that as disruptive, and will block his account if he makes a habit of it. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt the deliberations, but I feel I must counter a point or two made by "Girth Summit". I'm not sure if the "silly joke" refers to the original vandalism or my grammatical correction, but the former was (as has been established) not my doing, and the latter was not a joke. The fact that I found the vandalism mildly amusing doesn't mean I endorse it, let alone wish to practice it myself (nor have I). I take proper grammar/punctuation seriously, and I don't believe understanding - let alone vigorously defending - the use of proper grammar is any more supercilious or pedantic than the use of such uncommon words as "orthographical", "supercilious" and "pedantry". Block my account if your conscience so dictates - it's your platform, not mine - but I vehemently disagree with the bad-faith label of "disruptive." Rccapps (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not investigated this so please excuse me if I am misunderstanding, but I will also block anyone who glorifies vandalism with any affirmation. The only thing to do with vandalism is to revert it with a very low-key edit summary ("rvv" is good). See WP:DENY. Do not correct vandalism and do not keep it around. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rccapps, disruptive editing is not necessarily done in bad faith. Perhaps you really are the sort of person who thinks that it is constructive to correct the punctuation of what you yourself describe as chauvinistic vandalism, and who thinks that it is collegiate to describe people who remove such content as humorless wiki-gendarmes. If you were to see a badly spelled racial slur in an article, perhaps you also believe that it would be constructive for you to fix the spelling? I don't know anything about you or your motivations, but I do know that such edits are not constructive, and that insulting FormalDude was a violation of our policy on personal attacks. This platform is no more mine than it is anybody else's, but I do have a mandate to prevent disruption to this project, and I am very close to blocking you at this point. Never do anything like that again. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Excessive hyphen use aside, I don't think a block is needed. However a light admonishment for recognizing vandalism and correcting the punctuation instead of removing it is in order. A firmer admonishment for insulting the person who called you out on it is also in order.

I hereby admonish thusly. Perhaps we can close this thread now? HighInBC 09:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Chatterjee95

User:Chatterjee95 has been creating countless spin-off articles (mostly filmographies) and categories which have all been redirected or deleted. The issues with his editing have been noted multiple times by different editors (for example here, here, here or here) (just see the whole of his talk page actually), but the editor doesn't change his appraoch or asks for any clarifications whatsoever. I noticed them when new page patrolling, when they created List of awards and nominations received by Tiger Shroff, a completely unnecessary spinoff (the awards section in the main article is very short anyway).

As this user is just wasting their own time and that of new page patrollers (and category patrollers and so on), and nearly everything they do gets deleted or redirected anyway, I think it is time for some sanction, perhaps a short block, to get their attention and to steer them towards actually helpful edits instead of this. Fram (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. I'm actually not sure that putting a clock on this would be the best. Happy to lift it, though, even with a nominal acknowledgment of the issues and commitment not to repeat the behaviour. El_C 11:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On further thought, I downgraded the block from sitewide to a mainspace p-block. El_C 11:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Adamant1

Can some uninvolved people pleasego through the above interactions between myself and User:Adamant1 (in the thread "User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring"), and see whether my feeling that all they are doing is simply trolling is correct or not? I'm way beyond the end of my patience. It started with my edit of 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC), and I hoped it would have finished with Adamant1s edit from 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC) where they seemed to say that they would disengage from the discussion.

However, when I today posted (08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)), Adamant1 continued where they stopped the last time. Basically, they simply make up stuff to be able to contradict, and when challenged on this move on to another made-up thing, with some other bizarre asides thrown in for good measure. Diffs are no use to illustrate this, the best thing is to read thowe two subsections to get an idea of the discussion.

Please just make them stop and hat the two sections which do nothing to help the discussion forward. Fram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A few things,

1. I didn't continue the back and forth. Nor did I start it. Fram did by responding to me on 1676_establishments_in_Ukraine when I asked Michael Z where they got their population numbers from after I said I was done talking to him. He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else. He was also repeatedly critical of my messages in the same discussions. Otherwise, I wouldn't have continued talking to him. It's rather weird to repeatedly start and continue conversations with someone, even after they say their done, and then blame them for it.

2. He was pretty disparaging from the start about my participation in the ANI complaint and the other conversations related to it. He accused me of trolling (including "incessant trolling" on my talk page) and lying multiple times. Without providing any evidence of either. He also said a lot of rather uncivil combative things when I was making a good faith effort to figure out what his problem was. Like "discussing it with me was a total waste of time", "our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion," "Acknowledging such errors would really make these discussions with you easier," "If you would start by reading what people are actually writing, and not what you think happened or was said, we may get some progress." None of that is civil or good faithed.

3. Fram say's that I'm repeatedly making stuff up and then moving on to other things. Since he didn't provide an example I assume it's in reference to me saying that JPL removed articles from the categories before he started the CfDs. Which I provided him examples of. Instead of accepting them, he just hid the discussion, continued accusing me of trolling, and opened this report when I unhid the discussion. Probably because he was trying to hide him being wrong and the evidence that JPL didn't remove the categories after he created the CfDs.

4. I would have liked it if Fram had of stopped accusing me of trolling and inserting themselves in conversations I was having with other people. If they had of, the conversation they are now taking issue with wouldn't have occurred. It did because Fram continued it. Also, I don't think the two sections should be hidden because they contain examples of JPL removing the categories before he did the CfDs. which IMO are important to the ANI complaint. Overall, I think I've been pretty civil about the whole thing. I sure don't see anything "trollish" about my behavior. Let alone incessantly so. I was just giving my opinion about why I thought JPL shouldn't be blocked from editing. Which for whatever reason was responded to by Fram with uncivility. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't plan on responding to your continually-edited post, but "He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else."? Diff please. My first post to the JPL discussion was this, a reply to the opening post, not to you. Then followed your reply, and a back-and-forth. I then stopped posting to the thread, until this morning, when I posted this, which again is not a reply to you or about you at all. You then again started responding, and eventually here we are. Your claim should be easy to support with a diff of what you mean, or easy to retract if it is a mistake. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"My first post to the JPL discussion was a reply to the opening post, not to you" My post below that (which you responded to) was in general and had nothing particular to do with you or what you said. I just didn't indent it probably. Something that for some dumb reason I routinely have issues with. That's why I said "Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are", instead of "whatever Fram's personal beliefs are." I was talking about the wider participates of the complaint, including myself. I guess your included in that, but it wasn't directed at you or your comment above it. Otherwise, I would have said so. I can see why you'd think it was though since I screwed up the indent. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the dubious claim that their reply to my first post wasn't actually a reply, we can at least agree that, contrary to #1 above, I didn't start at ANI by responding to "what you said to someone else" (which now turns out to have been a "general" post to no one in particular apparently). so let's move on to claim #2: "without providing any evidence of either" (i.e. of trolling or lying).

Their first reply to me (sorry, comment to someone else) was a post about some unnamed, unlinked AfD about some essay that got deleted. It then turned into claims that using my reasoning, "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article.".. I tried to get the discussion back on topic, only to be replied to with another ridiculous example ("Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period."), and other elements that didn't make sense at all ("I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point."???)

Adamant then started their claims that there was no problem with JPL's removing of articles from categories at CfD: at first because "if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them." I pointed out that such CfDs often have been controversial, that JPL knew this, and that he had been informed about the issues, both long ago and very recently.

Adamant's then changed tack, and started to claim that "Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD." They repeated that point in another post soon after: "it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", coupled with "one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find)"... Now, Khmelnytskyi, which was already posted in the opening post of the thread, was removed from the cat on 23 June, while the CfD was started on 18 June. So the only example "they could find" was completely incorrect. When I pointed out, with examples, that the depopulations were done after the CfD started, the reply was "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point.", another example of trolling.

I replied with "He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD???" again with diffs, but Adamant replied "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." As it had now been pointed out repeatedly that no such edit existed, I had to conclude that I was dealing with either someone lacking the necessary competence to even look at diffs, never mind have an ANI discussion about them, or someone who was trolling. The evidence pointed strongly in the second direction. When their incorrect claims were pointed out, they suddenly changed to "Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to." as if that wasn't clear.

The discussion one week later simply continued in the same vein, with Adamant changing their story multiple times, and providing examples which turned out to contradict his own claims. So yes, I fully stand by my claims that they are trolling and were making up things along the way. But contrary to what they claim, I provided evidence for this all along the way. Which also refutes their point 3, of course. They haven't provided a single example of JPL emptying categories, and only later deciding to CfD them. Their first examples were of category removals five days after the CfD started: their latest examples were of category removals during the time he created the CfD (literally). Inbetween, they claimed "Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " but when asked to provide the diff of where they did this, they changed the subject, probably because no such edit existed. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing dubious about the claim that I screwed up the indenting of my comment. I do it all the time. If you want other examples I just did a similar thing in this diff from awhile ago. Same here and here. This diff where I over indented it. This diff where I under indented. There's also this diff where I did the same thing. I also did it in this diff. Etc. Etc. That's just in the last week or two. Your really looking for things to have an issue with. Your probably going to just hide this message, call it trolling, and then claim in your next message that I never provided any evidence like you did before. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of that first reply, yes, it seems very obvious that it was a reply to me (I start about content, you reply about content: I finish with a call for a sanction, your reply ends while addressing that point). Looking at your many other claims which turned out to be false, I have no reason to believe you own your word on this one. In either case, it shows that your point 1 was wrong. As were points 2, 3 and 4. Fram (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "content" (every message is content and most of what everyone was saying had to with it), but the whole point in an ANI complaint is to decide if someone should be sanctioned for their behavior or not. I don't see how me bringing up something that is literally the point in the ANI complaint shows I was responding to you. Like five messages above that I said I didn't think it was worth sanctioning JPL and it had nothing to do with you. So can you point to anything I said that was directly responding to your message and not just a couple of vaguely related words that we both used? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Content" as different from, or in addition to, just "timing", "placement", "indentation". You acted as if only the indentation of your post was an indication of it being a reply to me, so I discussed its contents. No idea what's so hard to understand about this. Anyway, any news on your claim from 11:33, 19 July 2021 about that other mistake, "as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. "? Any post from before that time were you had actually said this? Fram (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. It's still not evidence of anything, but whatever. So you can't provide an example of anything I said that was directly responding to your message then? And here I thought you were all about diffs or it's just a false claim. Yet, weirdly you really haven't provided that many (if any). Let alone to show my message was responding to yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your whole message was a direct reply to my post, which you deny. What other diff can be presented for this than the one for your post? (a diff I already presented among the many posted above, which you apparently all missed?) I read this, due to the indentation and content, as a reply to my post, you deny this. In any case, it clearly indicates that your claim that my first post to the discussion was a reply to you, was false, as my first post was the one to which you "seemed to" reply. Meanwhile, you still haven't given an answer to support your claim from 11.33 from 19 July. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to close. Is this back and forth going anywhere? This is a discussion about a discussion on ANI? How about both sides stop discussing and back off?--Eostrix  ( _hoot🦉) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion about editor behaviour, with one side making one false claim after another, interspersed with alot of ridiculous or baffling statements. Their "defense" so far has been shown to be of the same calibre, and I'm trying to get them to respond to another claim they made which should be very easy to substantiate (or to simply admit that it was wrong), but where three requests so far have not produced any result. Of course you or anyone are free to close it, but I don't believe that letting people state whatever falsehoods they like in discussions is in any way acceptable or productive, and editors should be held accountable for such things. Closing this down simply because they try to wriggle out of it all the time and no one else is willing to wade into this is a rather sad state of affairs. The basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we can trust each other to tell the truth (with occasional mistakes, but not with multiple endlessly repeated falsehoods) and that we can try to resolve differences of opinion on that basis. With this editor, that trust is completely lacking, as they seem much more interested in trolling again, and again, and again. I see here that they got a two week block late last year for "bludgeoning, condescending, talking down to people, misconstruing and misrepresenting comments, and so forth". Only a few weeks ago, multiple editors were calling for an "indef and move on" block for Adamant1 for continuation of the same behaviour. Fram (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A call for an "indef and move on" that went nowhere because the majority of the people who commented thought the complaint was either completely meritless or didn't warrant a block. So what's your point? From my perspective the basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we will assume good faith and take people at their word when they say who their messages are written to, or editors who are unwilling to should be held accountable for such things. From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of. You've just been unwilling to assume good faith and accept my explanations. Instead, you keep baselessly repeating that I'm trying to "wriggle out of it all" and you keep wrongly saying I'm endlessly repeating falsehoods. Despite that, I'm more then willing to call this a wash if you are. I highly doubt anyone wants this to continue. Why not humor them? -Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, coupled with all other falsehoods, "mistakes", and ridiculous asides they proclaimed, I've now three times asked them to substantiate one simple thing they claimed, that what I claimed was a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact" was in fact Adamant1 misreading things, which they had already said at the time I repeated my claims. I asked them then to provide a diff of where they did this, and did so in this discussion again two times. Either they indeed did this, but I kept on banging on about it, in which case providing evidence of it would be a very good thing for them to do and would seriously weaken all my claims. Or they made another mistake, but they have had plenty of time to acknowledge this by now. Or, as was clear a long time ago, they are simply trolling. Despite this, they claim right above that they "provided evidence for everything you accused me of." An editor who makes up such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lets see, so far you've been wrong that I lied about JPL removing articles from the categories before he did the CfDs and you were wrong that my message was in response to yours. Not only that, but you've continued calling me a liar about both even after it was clear that you were wrong. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong. An editor who does such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Or, you could can just take the L since your currently 1 to 2 and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block Adamant1

They were blocked for 2 weeks last year, and narrowly escaped another block just weeks ago. They are now constantly trolling (see above). Enough is enough, this isn't an editor we need to keep around any longer. Please read the above and the previous two ANI discussions about them. Without trust, we can't build a collaborative encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Originally, you asked someone to read through the discussion and give their opinion about if I was trolling or not. Dumuzid did and wrote me a message on my talk page that I wasn't trolling. Yet, you've ignored it and are continuing to accuse me of constantly trolling and your trying to get me blocked for something I didn't even do. How exactly is that a way to build a collaborative encyclopedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since I have been invoked, I figure I had better chime in. I wrote on your talk page, Adamant1, because I wanted to offer advice rather than weigh in on an AN/I matter. I take no position on this proposal, but I will say even with my assumption of good faith, there is a lot of tendentious editing and bludgeoning here. If you are not blocked, I would again advise you to try to be a bit more succinct and that not every slight--imagined or otherwise--demands an elaborate response. As ever, just the way I see things, and you are more than welcome to disregard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for chimming in and the advice. It's always welcome when given in good faith. I've been a lot more succient in this complaint then past ones and its something I plan on continuing to work on. Reminders in the meantime don't hurt though. Cheers. Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(see above) - The above thread in turn points to another long thread, which points to various other threads. Proposing an indef based on such a "see above" seems like a big ask that would make it hard for people to evaluate without having already been involved. Is it clear-cut enough that there are specific diffs of trolling? — Rhododendrites \\ 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this may or may not be relevant (I think it may be, looking through some of this, so I'm just going to leave it here in case anyone finds it useful). I remember some years ago talking with DGG about heated discussions on Misplaced Pages in general. He said -- and I think he won't mind my paraphrasing here -- that he really tries to set a hard two-reply limit for himself in any particular thread. That way he thinks more about those replies and doesn't get dragged into a long, fruitless, and perhaps escalating back-and-forth. While I don't personally keep a number in mind, it's something I remember when I ask myself "do I really need to reply again." Jury's out whether I'm successful :) but I found it to be a simple and interesting approach to a common challenge. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try, but it is more of an accumulation of stuff than one or two very clear diffs.

• Ridiculous comparisons: in a discussion about whether e.g. Odessa University may be in a category for establishments in Ukraine in 1685, they posted this as a reply: "Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period." A previous reply already included "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article."
• Making false claims: they repeatedly claimed that JohnPackLambert had removed categories from articles before nominating these for CfD (instead of during the CfD), e.g. here, here, here and here (another good example of a trolling post as well). Each time, I pointed out that no such edits were made, that even in the example Adamant1 provided, the category removal in the article was done 5 days after the CfD started (and when multiple people had already opposed it), but then suddenly they didn't understand what I was talking about
• When the discussion restarted 6 days later, I confronted him with the above false statements, only to again be met with a lack of understanding what I meant
• He then suddenly changed direction, and claimed that they had already acknowledged their mistake: "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " Fine, it shouldn't be too hard to provide a diff of where this happened then, surely? But despite four requests so far, no diff of where this happened has been provided.

This is just a summary of some points, there are other examples (e.g. when I talk about the POV of JohnPackLambert, the reply I get starts with "First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point." Apparently, when there are others with the same PoV, it is no longer correct somehow to call this the POV of the one that started the CfD?) It's all these small and larger issues which make having a meaningful discussion impossible. Fram (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

With your first point, in hindsight I probably could have used a better example. I'd hardly call it trolling though. With your second, I provided the date and times of when JPL made the edits and they were done half an hour before he started the CfDs. So in no way was that trolling or making false claims. It's ridiculous that you keep saying it was. On your third, I'm pretty sure I had already said I miss-read the date of one of his edits. Maybe I said it to someone else though. I don't have the time or urge to look through a weeks worth of messages to figure it out. Someone forgetting what they said or who they said it to isn't trolling anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For people reading this, just look at this diff and the two edits preceding it (included in the diff). First post is Adamant1 stating or pretending that "How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"?" I then explained again that the incorrect statements were about the dates of JPL's edits, not about that tree thing. The reply (see diff): "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though.", and then followed the claim which they now can't remember any details about and is unwilling to look for. Despite claiming in this very section "From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of." And all that isn't trolling? Fram (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't trolling, but if not then it's very definitely a case of WP:CIR. The fact that this editor comprehensively fails that has been obvious ever since he started editing. Why has everyone let him carry on, despite several trips here? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm pretty incompetent about how to indent messages. I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower. Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Its wierd how when I provided the details of JPLs edits I was trolling, but if I don't provide the details of something I'm still trolling. Is there anything that your not going to say is trolling? At this point I really doubt it. And you wonder why I'm not in a hurry to figure out who I said what to. There's really zero point when its trolling all the way down either way. Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange vandalism on Jimbo Wales and other pages, possible socks

• Wikedneeded (talk · contribs)
• Flylikeaseagull (talk · contribs)

The first one, Wikedneeded, has been spamming the entirety of the article Nightingale College along with a plea for help for someone named "Ikip" and a lawsuit. To Mr. Sanger's page, to Mr. Wales' page, and so on. I'm not sure why they have not been blocked already, these are high-trafficked and watched pages. Also the posting of a youtube link to an article, which was reverted. Next, Flylikeaseagull restored some of the reverted edits here, and also posted the same youtube link in another article. ValarianB (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so for some background User:Okip (formerly Ikip, but he lost his password) got himself permabanned almost a decade ago for trolling and socking. While "inclusionist (wiki)lawyer" isn't an inaccurate description of this editor, I don't think he is an actual lawyer, and it's unclear what he could possibly have to do with whatever these two people are agitated about. This seems like an incomprehensibly bizarre false flag operation somehow. Reyk _YO! 14:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, Infinitepeace and these two editors are in the same city. That's not really saying much given the size of the city, but they're editing the same articles, restoring edits made by Okip socks, and referring to Okip/Ikip in bizarre rants. I really don't have the patience for this any more. I used to, and I would take hours if necessary to get to the bottom of what was going on. I would read every tl;dr rant posted to someone talk page, and I would engage with them to find out what their grievance was. I just can't keep up that level of engagement with the project any more. It's too emotionally draining, a huge time sink, and I can't even recall a single time when something useful came of it all that effort, anyway. So both editors are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As the numbers of people who can root out problems like this dwindle, the need to not dig that deep will increase. There just isn't time to do it all. I don't blame you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • My thanks as well. I ducked the issue but reverted Wikedneeded and thought I should have had the courage to indef them. I agree that as the number of long-term troublemakers increases, we are going to have to start getting more ruthless to avoid arguing for hours every day. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

SiddhaAS

SiddhaAS (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times (or just User_talk:SiddhaAS#June_2021), including final warnings this month , . They have continued to add unsourced material , . Desite 500+ edits, they have only edited a talk page when forced to because of ECP protection and never edited a user talk page. At this point, a block is needed. Two requests , where left on AIV yesterday but both timed out. This editor is a time-sink for other editors, this needs to stop. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support block Despite multiple warnings, the editor doesn’t communicate/respond to the warnings or stop adding unsourced content. Jerm (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add, the editor does mobile editing but doesn’t use the Android app, so it should be much easier to respond to messages. Any thoughts on this? Even now, I’m using my phone to add this message but the desktop version of Misplaced Pages. Jerm (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Partial block from mainspace until they start discussing? That would get them to a talk page, presumably. Levivich 15:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich, That might help. They clearly know how to use a talk page when forced there . This may be a good first option, but if they continue to ignore concerns, the block would need to swiftly change to a full block. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MetalDiablo666 being belligerent and ignoring edit guidelines

I added a redlink to a musician, whom I believe is notable, to a couple articles, including Suicidal Tendencies. After I did this, User:MetalDiablo666 reverted me, and kept doing so even after I pointed him to Misplaced Pages:Red link. When I posted to his talk page (User talk:MetalDiablo666#Redlinks), he posted this highly inappropriate vandalism warning to my talk page. Could somebody please discuss these issues with him?—Chowbok ☠ 14:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly how was I being belligerent when I kept reverting your changes, when I actually wasn't? Yes, I am aware of the guidelines, but the fact that not every article that doesn't exist needs to be "redlinked" (even if he or she is notable) is the only reason I kept reverting your changes. Also, I never said my edits or your edits were vandalism. I think you're confused. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, you're both edit warring, so stop that. Put the article back to the status quo, and have a chat on the talk page about whether the redlink would be useful. Redlink are allowed, but they're not obligatory - this is a matter of editorial judgment, which requires discussion to resolve. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah I agree that, if User:Chowbok agrees or disagrees that a "notable" member that has no article should be "redlinked", then it's better he/she should discuss it on Talk:Suicidal Tendencies. Other the other hand, I don't see a reason why he needed to be "redlinked" but I do apologize for being "belligerent", even though I was not, when I reverted Chowbok's changes. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• MetalDiablo666, both you and User:Chowbok were edit warring, so you were both being belligerent. TSventon (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This looks more like a content dispute than a behavioral issue. I think this case should be closed with a warning to both editors not to continue to edit war and just use the article talk page to resolve whatever issues. Jerm (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) <sigh />. This a pure content dispute, and nothing like ANI-worthy. If you think he's notable, the best approach is to do the research, write the article, and let the community decide at WP:AFD or WP:PROD. Failing that, create the redirect Louiche Mayorga and point it to the most appropriate target, tagged as {{R with possibilities}}, {{R from member}}, Category:Living people, and whatever, sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Mayorga, Louiche}}. How difficult is that? I could point to any number of non-notable band members who readers might be searching for where a redirect gives them useful information. Narky Blert (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• The DE template warning by MetalDiablo666 is unjustified and unhelpful. The rest is a content dispute that has resulted in an edit war. AN3 would have been a better venue to raise this complaint. Both of you should have gone to the article's talk page after one revert. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding maintenance template; refusing to discuss the item tagged. User Andrzejbanas.

• Quique (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the article Quique (album), following several edits to repeatedly try to completely blank the "genre" parameter in the infobox 1 2 3, User:Andrzejbanas tagged the parameter for discussion on 28 June. They said they want to make changes to it. Since that time, on article talk they have simply avoided or outright refused to discuss the issue they tagged. I have reminded them of the purpose of cleanup templates multiple times. I have been trying to elicit from them some discussion of the changes they want to make to this small infobox list for 3 weeks. But despite repeatedly reinserting the template, they refuse any discussion of the item they tagged. I have pointed the editor to the relevant WP:CLEANUPTAG and WP:NODISCLAIMERS. We are now 3 weeks since they added the tag, and despite responding to messages, every attempt to engage in discussion of the issue they have tagged is met with refusal or evasion. Diffs:

Editor posted a wall of text 3 weeks ago which did not contain a proposed change to the infobox.

I proposed one from Andrzejbanas’ summary. They indicated no opposition, but reverted the change anyway.

I asked what the editor found problematic to the changes to the infobox. They ignore the question, talk about the article body.

I ask again what change they wish to see to the infobox - that they tagged. They say they do have a proposed change, but refuse to share it.

I ask again what genres they wish to change. They continue editing but ignore the discussion, so I ask for their proposal and point out the purpose of the tag. They claim they are discussing it (while also claiming they don't know what "it" is, despite their repeatedly tagging the infobox parameter).

I ask them again to discuss the issue that they tagged. They refuse. Every attempt to point out this reality denial (claiming "I am discussing it", but then refusing to engage in discussion) is met with uncivility templates on talk and little else. Andrzejbans also claims the problem arises because they haven't replied in about 3 days, despite me being very explicit in three preceding messages that the issue is their refusal to discuss the aspect that they tagged for discussion (not a slow response on talk).

To be clear, I think the infobox is fine as it is. But as I've made clear to the editor, I'm perfectly open to discussing and implementing a change (I've even suggested one for them from their summary of some sources they selected). This editor seems to want to keep the cleanup tag on the article indefinitely, and avoid discussing what they've tagged – despite finding time to respond to messages with evasion or outright refusal to discuss it. I will appreciate a reminder to the user that maintenance templates are not there as semi-permanent features of the page, nor as a "badge of shame", and that after tagging an aspect of the page At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. Cambial foliage❧ 21:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as as a heads up, i've stated with this same editor to not remove the tag, as we have not reached a conclusion. They have forbid from editing their talk page and after posting an exhausting research on the topic, i was wiped out and needed a break before re-organizing the information. This was made clear on that talk page. They have continously removed the tag and when i asked what rule I was breaking, was never given a straight answer. To user is not following WP:CIVIL and has removed maintenance tags over 4 times in over a manner of days. I'm feeling reletiveily bullied and genre-warrior'd over here and it's not encouraging me to get to work faster with someone being as unco-operative as this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Further to the record, i've reached out to several wikiprojects to get more of a consensus with this article (WP:Alternative music, WP:Electronic music, and WP:Albums) to get more people. Prior to this user coming in, the genre was left blank and passed its GA status. I've attempted to take this article seriously and follow the rules. Outisde not running within this users patience, I don't know what I've really done wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As half-expected, this editor continues to simply make things up to fit their narrative. It's true that we have not reached a conclusion – because the editor refuses to discuss any change to the item they tagged. When on article talk they asked "what rule" this was contrary to, the answer was given with a link to the relevant content guideline. They didn't respond directly, but responded on their own talk with I'm specifically asking you to point out the wiki rule. Which one is it?. Contrary to Andrzejbanas' claim, the infobox was stable for 10 weeks prior to their moves to blank the parameter, and I hadn't edited the page in roughly a year. Cambial foliage❧ 23:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You say nobody is trying to rush me, but then you remove templates and say I haven't replied in various times (three days, etc.). You don't ask the status of things or what's happening, you just remove it. And also, before that the article was stable for years and passed its GA reiview with no genres in the lead. And you didn't say what part of WP:NODISCLAIMERS i'm breaking here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

More making things up. It was you who mentioned three days, not me. The lack of discussion from you that I am talking about is over a period of three weeks, as I've been very clear about several times over. I've explained to you multiple times (diffed above) the problem with misusing maintenance templates. You might also look at the relevant WP:TM/DISP. Cambial foliage❧ 23:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There may still time for both of you to promise to stop warring, to avoid enforcement of the edit warring policy. None of the recent reverts is exempt from consequences under WP:3RRNO. This is a classic long term edit war. A common response is to block both parties. Between the two of you we are up to about 14 reverts so far. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cambial Yellowing I just don't understand why you haven't considered pinging the other editors who tried to add genres (and were reverted) on the article's talk page? Wouldn't that have established consensus more easily? JBchrch talk 00:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston – A fair comment. I commit to stop edit warring immediately over the inclusion of this template. When a dispute arises, with or without a dispute template, it is expected that editors discuss the issue. This dispute is occasioned by Andrzejbanas' stated desire to alter the infobox. Here are the occasions on which I have tried to carry out this discussion with them: . They have not entered into any discussion, and several times simply refused to.

User:JBchrch I pinged the most recent editor, I think. I don't wish to be accused of (or in fact to be) canvassing. Cambial foliage❧ 00:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not canvasing if you are just asking people to weigh in. You don't have to ask them to side with you, you just ask for requested comments, like I did when I asked on the WikiProjects. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions is considered an inappropriate form of canvassing. I'm also perfectly fine with the status quo. Happy to discuss changes (and very open to them, as demonstrated). Andrzejbanas is also free to use the methods available to them to gather input. Leaving dispute templates on the page long-term and refusing to discuss the issue tagged is not one of those. Cambial foliage❧ 00:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected if the following is not true: I don't think it would be votestacking/canvassing if you notified all the editors who had try to change the genres section, even if their contributions seem to only go in one way. What would not be acceptable, hypothetically, is to cherrypick the editors based on their perceived opinion. On the other issues, I think you are both to blame, Andrzejbanas for displaying a mild WP:OWN attitude and you for losing your temper somewhat. JBchrch talk 09:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas continues to edit war. No sign of discussion of the issue they tagged. Cambial foliage❧ 11:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas blocked from that page for a week. Easier to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this happened as I had just responded right here to why I wanted to add discussion. Cambial Yellowing is false in stating I have not made discussion, and I'm actually reverting what they have removed several times and have yet to fully explain why removing a template for discussion was wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet once again your comment contained no mention of what your dispute is, what the problem you have with the infobox is, or what changes would resolve the problem. Instead you falsely state there is an ongoing discussion. Despite saying in the preceding sentence that It's not that I want to discuss anything per se. The claim that Cambial Yellowing is false in stating I have not made discussion is already discredited by the diffs above. Cambial foliage❧ 13:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to state that you and I going back forth is discussion. If not, what is it? Simple edit history shows we have been going back and forth each day. Thoughts @CambridgeBayWeather: ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the title of this section you'll note it says "refusing to discuss the item tagged". The problem is a lack of discussion of the supposed issue you have tagged, not your stream of messages refusing to discuss it. A continual refusal to on your part to discuss what you tagged is not a discussion. This has already been gone over in detail. Cambial foliage❧ 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I find that incredibly vague, i've created several points of discussion. I feel like your twisting the terms around. Regardless, removal of the template was wrong as there hasn't bene a solution to the problem. If the problem was with the tag, propose another one that suits the situation, if the problem was with my lack of discussion, you could easily ping or ask me whats up on my talk page (and you've asked me a dozen times that's the discussion, and i've replied and just because you are personally not satisified, i'm not sure what you are expecting. I've given my response. ) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You well know that I gave you more than ample warning on your talk page, and a detailed explanation of the problem with your lack of discussion of what you've tagged. You also know I pinged you on two occasions before posting here, asking to know what your dispute or desired change is. Your response each time was to avoid any mention of what change you want, saying "I am discussing it" and then "I'll get to it". Cambial foliage❧ 14:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You are taking my statements out of context. I'm discussing with you, i have not provided my alternative solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent promotional editing at Michael Knowles (film producer)

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

Requesting a user block and page protection, if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I have indefinitely partial blocked the user who was adding promotional and unsourced material from editing the article. They may still edit the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lack of etiquette behavior at User talk:Tarl N.

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

User violated WP:EQ: @Tarl N.: dedicated me in his edit summary and talk page the next messages: "Clean up, and formally tell Veloz that he's not welcome" and "you are no longer welcome on this talk page". I´ve requested him to stop his attitude but but he has responded with the next message: --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you're not welcome on his talk page. I would, therefore, stay off that talk page. Problem solved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As a note, do not edit other contributor's comments, as you did here. Best regards, Isabelle 02:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"I´ve requested him to stop his attitude" = Avoid messages that incite hatred and a worsening of the encyclopedia environment or I will report you to the administrators for etiquette violations (bold is my emphasis). Piquito veloz, hopefully the etiquette irony won't be lost on you, either. El_C 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry my level of english is basic, but i try to say "para usted de incitar al odio con sus mensajes" --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

First, Tarl N. acting like the owner of his talk page but user pages and talk pages not are his property, is CC-BY-SA. Second, because he feels that his talk page is his property, he believes that he has the right to commit violations of etiquette. I have never told him to leave my talk page and always I have answered objectively why i think that the images of Celestia can be allowed without any kind of insults. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, and this is better how...? You are being inflammatory, beyond mere etiquette. This is WP:NPA territory. El_C 02:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, Tarl N. can choose whom they wish to edit their own talk page at their discretion (barring certain exceptions which are inapplicable here). El_C 02:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, he does in fact "own" his talk page in the parlance of Misplaced Pages. He can ask you to stay off, and he need not do so in the most polite terms. Others may disagree, but it appears to me you are very distinctly in the wrong here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Argh. I had asked EdJohnston (on his talk page), to intervene. I have entirely lost my taste for Wikidrama, I just wanted him gone - He'd pissed me off, and I walked away for over a week to allow myself to cool down before telling him to stay off my talk page. His response was to not only refuse, but to delete my demand (again, modifying text I placed on my own talk page). I have a pile of problems with his edits, but he's not my problem. I'd hoped that with Ed telling him to stay off my talk page, this issue would go away, but I find I'm being mentioned on ANI, so I was forced to engage. For the record, I find veloz's behaviour to be unacceptable and don't care to interact with him.

Since he mentions he's not fully conversant in English: Piquito veloz: Tu atítud me ha encabronado. Estoy harto, te prohíbo utilizar la pagina User talk:Tarl N. - y tengo derecho de prohibirte.

Oh, and by the way, I note I have not been notified of this being brought to ANI. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don´t know what is the problem. I always answered him why i think Celestia images are allowed without any insult to him. If I tell him you're not welcome, he won't ever be able to go to my talk page too? --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave Tarl N. alone, Piquito veloz. They are not obliged to engage with you on their talk page in any way whatsoever. Stop imposing and take the out. Clear? El_C 03:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Partial block? One IP range from Thailand, one article disrupted

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

• Back of My Mind (H.E.R. album)
• 2405:9800:BA12:8606:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we get a partial block to stop a Thailand IP range from editing Back of My Mind (H.E.R. album)? They keep adding fake songwriting credit to Martin Mars. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected. One week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

IP edit-war over genres

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

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

Please could someone block the above IP for genre-waring? Esp. on the back of these personal attacks too: one and two. Thanks. Lugnuts 08:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts 16:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards