Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:39, 29 March 2022

• 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

24rhhtr7 and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

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

Can someone please pry this user out of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page, or at least issue a stern warning? Post after post after post is just dripping with piss & vinegar making an already-contentious discussion even worse.

• It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try.
• The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia.
• Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are.
• I'm not talking about Misplaced Pages. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism".

The latter is a tacit admission that they're here to argue the topic, not contribute meaningfully to the project. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This comment also confirms we're dealing with a fringe editor (defined as one who believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources). They create problems as they constantly oppose reliably-sourced content, denigrate RS, vandalize articles, and waste the time of mainstream editors. Also, they don't know how to vet sources, a primary requirement for all editors. -- Valjean (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference being excluding someone for espousing wrongthink and banning someone for using talkpages to WP:SOAPBOX. Arguing that this person needs to be "removed" because they're an editor who "believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources" and decides to "waste the time of mainstream editors" pretty much turns them into a martyr and proves their point. If an admin takes action they should make it clear it's not because of this editor's opinions but because of their habit of going onto talk pages for the sole purpose of debating them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's literally what a talk page is for, bringing up or questioning something about the entry.

I "argued" because like in the cases of the other talk pages I "argued" on, it was full of original research and bias and editors who aren't even remotely adult enough to be objective and make sure the article is accurate. There's literally only one talk page you could claim I committed original research in, and that was on local basketball. I've made compelling points in every single Talk page I've commented on that not only challenged the asinine groupthink present in each talk page or article but also referenced credible things that completely refuted or called into question the assertions I was responding to.

Calling me argumentative rather than admitting that I was responding to baseless speculation and childish nonsense that I saw a grand total of one person even bothering to address or question is exactly what I expect from Misplaced Pages editors these days though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE, an editor absolutely can and should be removed if their edits seem devoted to promoting a fringe theory. Of course, any edits devoted to promoting anything are inappropriate, but per PROFRINGE, promotion of fringe theories is taken more seriously because it has the potential to do more harm to the encyclopedia. It isn't just a matter of being wrong; but holding fringe views is part of the problem when coupled with edits that seem intended to advance those views by eg. disputing clearly-reliable sources (one of the basic examples on WP:TEND.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  That Talk page is literally full of anti-Trump conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You have literally done nothing but post baseless conspiracy theories and denigrate any story that doesn't fit the narrative you choose to believe. It's unbelievably hilarious to me that you have not only the nerve but the complete lack of self-awareness to accuse me of believing conspiracy theories. Comment after comment of yours on that page is literally baseless speculation about it being Trump or the Russians, and the people you all accuse me of being disrespectful towards projected being a Fox News viewer onto me as well as a MAGA type. I'm neither, and you all want to play victim because somebody dared to direct that same vitriol back at you while pointing out how NOT ONE claim you posted or source you linked has turned out to be reliable in the end.

If you had any integrity whatsoever, you'd edit the Misplaced Pages entry to reflect the fact that sources you consider reliable have now verified the "conspiracy" claims and directly contradict basically the entire first paragraph of that entry.

Instead you want to sling mud and point fingers like a child then play martyr when some gets slung back at you.

I've edited plenty of articles thanks and have kept the same consistent values my entire time here, unlike you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've lost count of the amount of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories you posted in that Talk section. It's at least five if not more.

And you weren't alone in doing that. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha that page is literally full of lies and baselessly conspiracy theories pushed from clearly biased editors who were disrespectful before I ever was but yeah absolutely blame me. So predictable.

I really don't care in the slightest. That page is a complete embarrassment to Misplaced Pages but par for the course these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is we? You're one person, and I have seen this exact same behavior from you in every single Trump related entry. You have done nothing but baselessly speculate, and your "reliable sources" include blogs written by people who are connected to left-wing extremists and constantly lie and attack others on social media and opinion pieces from people who have been wrong time and time again without so much as an apology or promise to do better? You want receipts? Try basically every single story they've covered over the past five years.

Steele Dossier. Russian interference. The 2016 election being stolen. Every single hate hoax and story they spun or video they selectively edited to misrepresent an event. The "good people on both sides" lie. The lie about calling soldiers losers. The lie about Trump doing literally anything for Putin. The pro Antifa propaganda and encouraging doxxing and glorifying violence. Calling everything under the sun misinformation. The Brian Sicknick cause of death lie. The "Hands up, don't shoot" lie. The blaming white supremacists for the violence and destruction during the George Floyd protests and subsequent riots. The claim people on January 6 planned to kidnap or murder politicians. The actively calling for Trudeau to send in the military over the trucker protest after calling Trump a fascist for protecting DC during the riots of 2020. The refusal to cover what happened to Antonio Mays Jr despite the evidence being out there for almost two years and the acting as a mouthpiece for the people involved with CHAZ/CHOP. Do you want more? It'd literally been five years of lies and the complete opposite of journalistic integrity. Your sources stopped being reliable almost five years ago, and that has been made abundantly clear with each retraction they're forced to make and updated article they're forced to write.

Who are you to question anybody's sources or accuse anybody of believing in conspiracy theories? And who are you to label anybody argumentative when I've yet to do anything other than point out inconvenient truths and challenge the ridiculous assertions you and others have made with zero proof?

You're literally the ones who started with all the behavior you're accusing me of. Grow up. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would pick out isolated bits of content to which you object, and then discuss them in the context of what RS you can cite say about the matter, THEN we'd all be able to have a constructive discussion with you.

In fact, you might even convince us to change our minds because, as it so happens, we hold our opinions because they are based on the RS used in our articles.

But you have not chosen to use such constructive dialogue. Instead you have accused, complained, impugned our intelligence, insulted us, and otherwise violated WP:NOTFORUM in a manner that shows a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. You'll have to do better than that. -- Valjean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a serious comment?

You've called me a conspiracy theorist and implied I'm a Fox News viewer and MAGA type more times than once and thrown disrespect my way, all unprovoked.

You've literally done every single thing you're accusing me of multiple times, and have done so completely unprovoked. You're the one who turned it into a Battlefield, and you did it way before I made a single comment. I'm just the only one who responded in kind. This is all there for anybody to see. You gonna blame your behavior in those other topics on me as well? Or hey how about when you started an edit war with Mr. Ernie but accused him on his talk page of being the one to do it and threatened to have him disciplined? You seriously think I don't make sure to get receipts before I make a claim?. I'm sure I can find plenty of other examples of similar behavior from you considering I've only looked at a handful of Talk pages you've participated in.

The only time I've ever had a problem on this site is dealing with dismissive and disrespectful people like you yet you have displayed this exact behavior over and over in multiple Talk pages of topics at all regarding Trump. It's all there for anybody to see. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: 24rhhtr7 edited this statement to make it look like I was accusing him of baselessly accusing other users. Originally this statement was about popular political misconceptions. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I've combed this entire wall of text and literally the the only factual statement is the the January 6 protesters did not mean to kidnap or murder politicians. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Literally not true but way to show your maturity level. Every single thing I said was factual and backed up by evidence. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to list some of that evidence? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As one can see in the rambling tirade above about Trump, Russia, CHAZ/CHOP, and the like, this person is just here to argue the topic, it has nothing to do with the Misplaced Pages. Also the Biden-Ukraine article has seen a 4 different editors in the last 12 hours, with similarly unproductive rants. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rambling tirade? Rant? And you have the nerve to accuse me of argumentative behavior? You're literally acting like a dismissive bully. Point blank period.

You have the nerve to accuse me of being argumentative while you're disrespectful towards me completely unprovoked and rather than actually carefully reading what I write, react like some high schooler. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhh no. I was calling out the obvious bias and inability to be objective of the people who were basically running the Talk page like it was an anti-Trump club meeting. I guess you missed the countless number of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories, the completely unprovoked disrespect and dismissiveness towards anybody who questioned the prevailing narrative being pushed in that Talk section, and the overall complete lack of professionalism from people who are supposed to be objective.

And maybe I'm being "argumentative" because I don't appreciate being ganged up on having my name dragged through the mud by people who can't even own up to their own behavior or see a situation objectively.

I won't be returning to this page so don't bother responding to me or trying to get my attention on my Talk page. I've had just about enough of this kangaroo court you put me through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that articles like the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory are so hopelessly filled with bad content and muddled topics that it is thoroughly impossible to go back and correct everything. This dispute was kicked off with a new NYT piece. I am issuing an open call to uninvolved editors to read that NYT piece, read the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory page, and help make the relevant improvements. I can understand 24rhhtr7's frustration, even if I wouldn't phrase it the same way as they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This stuff is exactly why I've stuck largely to editing mainly uncontroversial historical pages and municipalities. It's amazing the behavior the very people trying to lecture me engage in regularly completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of this case but there is a problem with that article and what it displaces, and extra questioning there is needed. The article should confine itself to "conspiracy theory" items but instead it is Misplaced Pages's main coverage of all of the real factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material from that era, thus having Misplaced Pages brand the latter as "conspiracy theory". And "groupthink" could be a part of the cause. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I share your concern. The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in that article. It only belongs on his biography. If any of that material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used there. Currently it just confuses people. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for unacceptable comments like this one, but there are more, including "insanity and childish behavior displayed on that Talk page and in that entry" on their own talk page. I have not looked far enough into their history yet (it took me a while to clean up their posts here, which were done in installments that messed up chronology and indenting), but this already seems one of these cases between CIR and NOTHERE. North8000, Mr Ernie, poor article quality is not a justification for blatant name calling and violations of AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On your latter points, I agree and did not imply otherwise. What's needed "there" is for somebody to start an article on the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine matters, fight off the people who will accuse it of being a fork, and than bring the two articles in line with their titles. But that's not my dance.North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally didn't say one bad thing to anybody unprovoked but yeah no you're totally objective.

Here's what I was responding to on my own talk page, by the way.

"They are personal attacks that only rebound upon yourself as you are obviously partisan. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. We're just people here."

The second time Valjean has called me partisan or a conspiracy theorist completely unprovoked. And I was more than civil in responding. If I were gonna insult any of you, you'd know it.

This is blatant hypocrisy and proof that some of you clearly aren't fit for your positions.

But whatever. You got your scalp. Congrats. I'm really impressed.

Thanks for reminding me exactly why I stay away from articles where people can't constructively work towards an accurate and factual entry, which sadly is many these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted a discretionary sanctions notification at your talk. You will be topic banned unless future comments focus on actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're literally dragging my name through the mud and putting me through a trial, and I can't defend myself? I can't point out how certain editors have engaged in exactly the kind of behavior they're accusing me of and worse or point out when somebody is very clearly not being objective about a situation where the evidence is there for everybody to see and/or says completely uncalled for and disrespectful things like "rambling tirade, unhinged, rant, conspiracy theorist" or accusing me of being partisan or argumentative while engaging in uncivil behavior towards me when I haven't ever said a single word to them? Really?

So basically everybody commenting here but me can be as disrespectful and biased and uncalled for as they like towards me and I should just take it and not defend myself or present a counter-argument or pick apart theirs with facts to back my claims up?

Do you literally ever hold these people accountable for their behavior? What they've said on that Talk page, on my own Talk page, and here is ten times worse than anything I did, and they did so completely unprovoked.

There's been multiple disrespectful comments and at least five Trump-Russia conspiracy theories added to that Talk page in the time I've been temp banned alone. Plan on doing literally anything about that? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried whining about it yet? Evoke Heir (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so impressed by how hardcore you are. I mean I totally haven't been around that energy you're sending at me completely unprovoked my whole life or anything. It's totally new and tough and hilarious in a completely original way.

Note how I've been civil while you're trying to grandstand on me and showing exactly your maturity level.

You know what's funny though? Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody. I've never had to talk that stuff a day in my life. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You think Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody is a WP:CIVIL comment? Paging Drmies... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, while I agree with you in substance, it's such a feckless comment that I am not sure it's worth continuing the tsuris. Just an outside thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With one feckless comment, I'd agree. But with a wall of them, it's a chronic issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Have you tried whining about it?" is?

Don't direct that tough guy energy at somebody unprovoked like this person did if you aren't ready to have it directed back at you.

Thank you so much for jumping in and giving me an opening to post all my evidence of your behavior on that Talk page. That was very helpful of you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you responding, again, to a troll account that was blocked several days ago? --JBL (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been on this page or edited Misplaced Pages and was not aware this person was banned. My mistake. I was responding to Muboshgu in my most recent comment though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention soibangla broke a rule against reverting edits three times and was merely warned, this on top of the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect they have directed at other editors who don't agree or point that out or make a general and largely civil comment this particular editor doesn't like.

or how the person warning him has been engaging in the exact same conspiracy theorizing and completely unprovoked disrespect towards the same people as soibangla and Valjean. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You've made your points and I can understand your frustration, but it would be more helpful to link to diffs where you believe other editors have been uncivil so it is easier for uninvolved passersby to verify. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I copied and pasted at the bottom of this section because I don't know how to link to talk page contributions. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, I encourage you to demonstrate the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect and that I have referenced nothing but opinion pieces. If you cannot, I encourage you to retract. I am prepared to demonstrate many instances of your persistently disruptive and uncivil behavior that includes false or misleading assertions. soibangla (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

I always have receipts. I'll have my proof copied and pasted in here by end of day EST. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There are other behavioral issues by other editors that need to be examined, as it is unfair to put singular focus on 24rhhtr7. At 24's talk page, Valjean writes "Don't make accusations of partisanship" directly before saying "you are obviously partisan." A few days ago on my talk page Valjean also writes that I am "extremist right-wing partisan warrior" and says my edits are vandalism, without bothering to include any diffs. There is also an edit warring complaint regarding Soibangla which no admin has bothered to respond to. I can understand why 24 feels singled out and unfairly targeted. Our policies and guidelines apply to all editors, so I would appreciate an even handed response by admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, if I mentioned an editor in a contentious ANI discussion, I'd ping them. But that's just me. soibangla (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I should have pinged you. Sorry for that. My thinking was that you were already aware of the edit warring noticeboard discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7's comments here literally suggest they are having a very hard time working in a collaborative atmosphere. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree and they need to take a step back. But we have very experienced editors who are also misbehaving in smarter and less obvious ways. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring those users up on the board, Mr Ernie--let's deal with em one at a time, and not fall for WHATABOUTISM. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla was reported here, but there are no admin responses yet. They all seem much more eager to upbraid the less experienced editor. I had hoped there could be appetite here to look at the simple diffs I provided here, as I dread AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ernie you have been around long enough to skip the Whataboutism aspersions. Any concerns, and you can gather your diffs and file a complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ernie. Where is the same condemnation for these edits? It's certainly within the scope of this discussion. We shouldn't need to restart this process and frequently condemn multiple people when both sides are out of line. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's whataboutism. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Explain how it's whataboutisn when these people dragged my name through the mud for behavior they engage in towards multiple different people completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to worry about that. I'm done playing in the sandbox that is political entries on Misplaced Pages. This behavior is junior high level.

I appreciate you pointing out the problem behavior I've been referring to this whole time though. Vi respect your objectivity and level-headedness. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That talk page is the furthest thing from a collaborative environment. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: 24rhhtr7 seems to have vanished into the ether after I asked him for evidence to back up his claims. I suspect his claims may actually be unfounded. Drmies, could you please block this user as WP:NOTHERE? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose A break for ~2 days is hardly "vanished" and certainly doesn't meet the intent of WP:NOTHERE/warrant a block. I do not support his conclusions, but it's important for due process so we are consistent in our application of policy. That said, his editing history is sporadic. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I was suspecting that I was a little hasty. I'm not a fan of waiting one month for a response, though. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 11:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone right now for, essentially, not editing. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's called wanting to get away from a toxic environment for a bit and reboot.

And yes, my editing history has always been sporadic. I mostly only edit or contribute when I feel no one else will. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's actually more than enough evidence to back up my claims but I find the behavior and conspiracy theorizing completely disgusting and wanted to take a break before having to read entire walls of text again and copy them. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll list my proof of the behavior of certain editors on that Talk page and the conspiracy theory pushing under this new section here. Be patient with me because it's a lot of text to go through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I will start a new section for the conspiracy theories and disrespectful and dismissive behavior that occurred after my exchanges after posting this edit here.24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's still a full half a Talk page of this just as of last night. I am taking a break before tackling the rest. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever collapsed my evidence and put the disclaimer on it that it was copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'm really out of my depth doing this kind of editing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've just dropped formal sanctions alerts on 24rhhtr7's talk page. I've found that AE is usually a better place to deal with people who're only here to fight battles in ethno-political areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 19:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions for what? Love to hear your justification for this. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@24rhhtr7: Discretionary sanctions alerts for editors working in the American politics and Eastern Europe and the Balkans topic-areas, which your edits fall under. (And before you complain about Eastern Europe not being in play, edits about those topic-areas are part of the area as well.) Now that you have been formally alerted to the existence of those sanctions, any uninvolved administrator may ban you from the topic-areas, in whole or in part, with breaches of and attempts to evade or game those bans being met with escalating blocks, going up to a year in length. While these sorts of sanctions are generally levied at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, nothing stops those admins from issuing sanctions based on reports to this board. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about anything but thanks for using that weasel word. I was under the impression that a sanction alert meant it was about my behavior rather than just a notice on the general topic. Again, I am new to these controversial topics. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, "complain" is not a weasel word. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a term loaded with condescension and hostility meant to make the recipient of said energy out to be whiny and/or emotional and weak. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, as I advised at your talkpage. Walk away from any article related to Biden or Trump. That means stop posting about it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice but my name was dragged through the mud here, and I was shown nothing but disrespect and childish behavior from people claiming to be objective and adult editors. I have every right to present my case and argue it, and I will continue to until I feel satisfied. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are practically asking for a WP:BATTLEGROUND block at this point. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for yet again proving not just your hypocrisy but your complete lack of objectivity.

I provided incontrovertible proof that the very people who have accused me and threatened myself and others with admin action have been engaging in exactly the behavior they've accused me of and even worse, unprovoked towards multiple people across multiple Talk pages.

I was temp banned for far less than what they do near constantly, and you have the NERVE to threaten me with further action?

How's this for incivility? Literally don't talk to me ever again. You clearly deserve neither my respect nor my civility, and this power tripping comment is a perfect example of why. This process was also the perfect example of exactly why Misplaced Pages has lost all the credibility it ever had. Congrats on that. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Pinging @Liz:. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 22:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Since Liz is very busy, I will ping three other admins: @El C, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Valereee: This is not WP:CANVASSING; I am merely pinging multiple admins to maximize the chance of a response. I will put this in the ANI Hall of Fame, too. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

JulieMinkai, I don't know why you ping'd me here. I didn't even know this thread existed. El_C 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I pinged the best admins I knew so 24rhhtr7 could be blocked for his extremely combative behavior. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I_C. Thanks! But that's a lot of material to review, I'm afraid. El_C 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish you good luck! /gen /pos Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To incoming admins: this diff may be of interest. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This has gone on for far too long. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring

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

Just a little over a month ago, I had started a discussion regarding the same user, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc. While I had hoped that this could possibly lead to a change in behavior from the editor in question, it appears to be quite the opposite occurring.

Since that previous ANI discussion, there have been many more edit wars/content disputes involving the editor, another ANI discussion involving the editor, and continued assumption of bad faith, the latest time here, right after the warning about casting aspersions about other editors.

All the latest warnings/issues can be found following this thread onwards. Quite frankly, the amount of disputes/issues involving the user in the past month alone is a bit troubling. It appears even when suggested to cool off/take a break from editing, even more issues start to arise. Hoping something can be done at this point, as I have a hunch even more will happen in the future, given the continuing behavior here. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because they involve me doesn’t mean I am the perpetrator. @C.Fred: can attest that I have been directly attacked and antagonized by multiple users. I am sick of the undue antagonism. It doesn’t matter how hard I try to mind my own business or follow the rules, I’m still being put up on the noticeboard. With my luck, I’ll be told my frustrations are invalid. If you’re troubled by my behavior when I’m not the one randomly throwing homophobia accusations, I don’t know what to tell you because then I’ll be accused of being uncivil. The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

While you may not be the primary(?) perpetrator in every case, this continuing behavior is still a problem. Putting aside any personal attacks sent from other users towards you, there are still issues continuing that was brought up in the previous ANI thread, including edit warring. Your comments (including the above, such as, "The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.") is yourself continuing to attempt to remove any blame from yourself whatsoever, and say that every person is against you, which again, is just more bad faith assumption (and possibly assuming good faith onto yourself?...) Not every single issue is to blame on one person alone, but at this point, it's starting to look like you're just trying to cause new issues/disputes. This needs to stop. Magitroopa (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally have two people who have openly stated they’re working against me, and somehow I’m still the problem because I acknowledge that it happened? You are only taking into consideration piecesof the disputes into your reports, continuing to frame me as the problem, and accusing me of trying to cause new disputes? Without any evidence? My comments are 100% factual. You just stated that you’re putting aside the evidence that I’m not the issue in order to insist I’m the issue. How is this in any way a fair assessment? You created another dispute about me to claim that I seek them out. I didn’t ask for this to happen, let alone at 2AM CreecregofLife (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

However, whether you want to believe it or not, you seem to downplaying your involvement with all of this. Even if you didn't start every single issue, you tend to continue them, and then (as you are here) claim to be entirely innocent and accuse bad faith of others, whether they were actually acting in bad faith or not.

And yes, I have seen some attacks against yourself, but I do wish to know if everything you believe to be an attack against you actually is or not. For example, where do you see the personal attack against yourself in this (as you have previously claimed)? Do you mean just the, "...weird stance to take"?... Magitroopa (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Open the collapse. You claim I’m downplaying when I’m describing exactly what goes on. If you didn’t exacerbate my wrongdoing you wouldn’t be accusing me of “downplaying”. You harp on the negative, reframe my involvement as seeking it out, while disregarding every behavioral improvement. Again, you’re not playing fair.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see the collapse, yes, that is clearly put into a collapsible due to the personal attacking. However, you seem to be confusing the two. I am referring to this specific edit from Historyday01, which you claimed to contain a personal attack. Everything in the collapsible happened later on and didn't exist at this point (check the timestamps of the comments). Magitroopa (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Where they accused me of being a corporate shill, basically out of nowhere--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the first thread, I share Magitroopa's concerns. It's clear this editor just doesn't get it, with their continued edit warring and disruptive editing and behavior. They are right on the border of WP:NOTHERE, but, quite frankly, they are probably past it. I would support a block at this point. Amaury • 07:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

How is any of that “clear”? If you only see me for what you perceive to be my disruptions, of course you’re going to see it that way, but your perceptions are wrong, and a block shouldn’t even be in the question--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree that this editor seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, which does not seem to be improving. Though I have doubts that ANI will do anything about it, as that's the usual pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

So what am I to do when multiple users throw personal attacks at me, while several other users disregard it to portray me as the bad guy because I spoke out against them? Sit there and take it? You'd rather put me on the admin noticeboard than actually work with me and try to see things my way. It's very apparent that the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem is not mine. Because you didn't hear my efforts at being a better user, you came in here with old and outdated perceptions to say it's okay for me to be punished for the abuse I've taken, otherwise it's I'm too "combative"--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

When multiple, multiple editors are reporting problems with you, doubling down on " not the problem, they are" is usually the wrong direction to go in. The fact that you can admit absolutely no fault here really makes me wonder if editing Misplaced Pages is right for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've only had limited interactions with this editor, but in addition to the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, there's a real WP:CIR issue here as well. Their discussions on sourcing is problematic because of this. This personal attack is just another example as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that this is also partially a WP:CIR issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Define competence if it's such a "real" competence issue. I can't control who has a problem with me. It doesn't make me the problem. Why should I take responsibility for others' perceptions? You keep making judgments about me, tripling down on arguing my character rather than my edits, and I'm not supposed to defend myself? You are making it sound as if it is impossible for you to be wrong and me to be right. On anything. Multiple people can say the same thing and still be wrong. I cannot believe you are blaming me for defending myself, while giving me reason to defend myself, but yet I'm the only one doing anything wrong? If you really had a problem with it, you could've tried to talk to me, with any compassion or understanding, but you refused--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even admit to your edit warring/disruptive behavior means you're still not getting it or are intentionally refusing to. Amaury • 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you won’t even bother listening to any of my concerns or objections means you’re still not getting it or are intentionally refusing to. CreecregofLife (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a hint... the response above is exactly why editors are saying IDHT, BATTLEGROUND and now CIR. Not once in this thread have you made a policy based or really any defense other than they don't like me. I encourage your next response to directly address other editor's concerns without using it's the other editor's fault as a defense.Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, especially when they couldn't even think of something original and basically plagiarized, for lack of a better word, my message, only changing a few of the words. It was most definitely intentional, though, which isn't surprising, since all they've been doing, to piggyback off what you said, is crying, "Poor me! I'm being picked on!" without realizing or refusing to realize that they're the problem, especially when it's clear it's now multiple editors with virtually the same concerns. Amaury • 02:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because you literally just admitted you’re doing it to pick on me, but it’s okay because I didn’t cite what you specifically violated. For that matter, name dropping policies you think I violated isn’t a citation. I specifically asked how my competency could be brought into question, and it was never answered. You also have no evidence that I was being disruptive at the time of the report, because an admin explicitly stated on the talk page that I wasn’t being disruptive. You still have yet to actually explain how I’m the problem. I have done everything you have asked of me, but you won’t acknowledg it. You won’t address any of my concerns, just continue to mock me for acknowledging what’s going on exactly for what it is. And notice, you didn’t say my beliefs were wrong I already pointed out that the incidents being pointed to were taken out of context, such was admitted to, and then the admission was completely ignored. You haven’t proven I’m a disruptive editor, just that you perceive me to be. You are telling me I’m wrong for asking you to listen to me.CreecregofLife (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admitted nothing. All you're doing now is grasping for straws and doubling down on our WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and other concerns. You couldn't even form a proper response in your previous response and just used a copy and paste of what I responded with, changing only a few words. If there was any "mocking" going on, it was that response of yours. There are at least five editors here, including myself, saying your edits are disruptive, or, at the very least, problematic. That is more than just perception. It's reality. If you can't see that, that's on you. Furthermore, all I'm seeing here is that you are still not getting it, and continuing like this means your time on Misplaced Pages will be limited. This is your second or third time here within the last two months. Amaury • 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Nanedroppig policy isn’t a citation. If you can’t explicitly say how I violated the policy then you don’t have an argument
2. That wasa proper response you chose to dismiss, and you just proved you don’t listen to my concerns, you just treat them as invalid so you can keep up an incompetency narrative
3. It doesn’t matter how many people call me disruptive, they have to have evidence. You can claim something about me but that doesn’t make it true. You calling it reality doesn’t make it reality.
4. I don’t bring myself to the noticeboard, other people do. I have no control over that, and once again, that doesn’t automatically make me the problem.
5. I asked you how the “competency” problem was “clear” and you refused to answer. You are constantly attacking me, and not my argument. Have a little self reflection. CreecregofLife (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Copying and pasting another editor's response and then changing a few words to use it as your response is not a proper response. Under any other circumstances, that would be copyright infringement. You have yet to address any of our concerns here. And before you provide your crap statement that we haven't addressed yours, the behavior of myself and the other editors here is not what is under scrutiny. It is your behavior. We are not the focus here and are under no obligation to answer your concerns in a thread reporting your disruptive behavior. You, on the other hand, are the "star" of this thread and are required to address concerns raised by other editors. Continuing to play the victim and claim you are perfect and everyone else is the problem because they are "picking on you" is not a valid defense. You have failed and continue to fail to address any of the concerns raised here about your disruptive behavior. Continuing down this route can or will potentially result in disciplinary measures against yourself, and by keeping this up, your time here will again be limited. Consider this my final response here, at least for now. It's obvious you have no plans on changing your behavior and would rather just keep being reported, at least until enough is enough and you end up blocked. Amaury • 07:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, now this. Apparently multiple editors saying there is an issue is now being considered 'mistreated'. Also, "They’ll try to get me for edit warring they haven’t proven"- yet it's already been proven from the multiple times it's happened. You've had multiple talk page warnings regarding this, and the history at articles like Spider-Man: No Way Home, Betty White, Asher Angel, The Fungies!, 2022 in animation, and Pokémon Legends: Arceus clearly shows your edit warring.

Also worth pointing out these two past comments:

• "I see a couple participants are already annoyed." - due to edit warring & talk page of Pokémon Legends: Arceus
• "The phrase 'needlessly combative' seems to apply to both of you." - literally coming from an administrator saying that while warning two users, one of which being Creecreg. How true it was, and still is. And yet, plenty of edit warring/issues occurred afterwards in the past 3 months alone.

So yes, it is clear there is an issue, with the above examples, this entire discussion, a multitude of issues within the past months, and multiple editors saying there is an ongoing problem here. As much as you try to deny it, there still very clearly is an issue here. Magitroopa (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Add this to that list of yours where they've edit warred, which is where I first encountered them myself and about when they first appeared. And even putting my original concerns mentioned in your previous thread on this aside, again, there is clearly an issue here. It simply amazes me that they cannot see that their problematic, at the very least, behavior is the issue here and continue to play the victim and claim that they're just being picked on. Then again. at the same time, it also doesn't amaze me, given all the disruptive users I've come across here. Or, rather, it doesn't surprise me. Like I've said a couple times now, they won't be here for long if they keep this up. Amaury • 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Propose 1 month Siteban for CreecregofLife

User is unable to see that the community has real concerns with their combative tone. They have failed to address any concerns in this thread. Given the extensive WP:IDHT clearly evident in this thread, a timeout is necessary for the sake of the community and to give the editor a chance to reflect. If, when they return, the behavior continues then a longer ban can be implemented

• Support as proposer. I suspect many involved would prefer longer but they are a newish editor and giving them a definitive second chance to return per WP:ROPE seems appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose My actual recent edit history isn’t being considered at all. Proposing blocks and site bans on an actual good user is going to make them defensive. The user defending themselves is not a reason to impose such a ban. To use learning incidents like the Pokémon one against me (how was I supposed to know it was an MOS violation beforehand when the usage was unclear? Spider-Man No Way Home shows what happens when there’s actually good-faith conflict resolution. The Fungies and Gabby Duran are examples where users involved with this post colored their perceptions and are holding grudges. It is not fair to hold a small percentage of my edits against me for minor offenses. I never wanted any conflict, but several of the users here seemed unable to move on from the times they encountered me. I am a good user, but the users claiming IDHT are completely disregarding all the good I’ve done here just so that I have to be forced away from it. Understand that I had not been in an active conflict at the time that I was reported here by Magitroopa. Apparently it doesn’t matter if you walk away and try to do the right thing, it will always be held against me, and that’s not fair at all. Incidents are being lumped together without context, as if I didn't learn anything from them. I don't want any ban, I shouldn't have any ban. My second chance should come right now, without harsh discipline. Just let me edit like I actually have, and not what's been colored by users from isolated incidents--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I would personally support an indefinite block/site ban, but this is better than nothing. Slywriter is correct that this user is simply not getting it, as they continue to make clear by their response above. This has nothing to do with so-called grudges, but rather their history of disruptive, combative, and edit warring behavior, which is all still fairly recent. Amaury • 18:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support – I too would prefer an indef block, with a WP:Standard offer (which would force them to explain that they've learned their lesson), but I'll support this as the next best option. This editor clearly has demonstrated that they have no plans to change their current behavior. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, but... Creecreg mentioned their recent edits. When they just edit, they seem to do a good job. However, it's all the layers of interactions, like here, where the problems come out. Unfortunately, one can't edit in a vacuum, so they have to learn to interact if they're going to be a constructive participant in the project. The thought had crossed my mind: if edit warring is the behaviour that the community is worried about, what about a 0RR sanction? The problem is, this sanction is designed to encourage people to discuss at the talk page, and I'm not sure that civil, on-topic discussion would be the result of such a sanction.On the flip side, some kind of break does create a line in the sand, a clean divide where they can separate conduct before and conduct after—and in the event of a further noticeboard report, they could ask us to focus on conduct after that date. I'd rather have the sanction in the form of a siteblock than a siteban, and I'm thinking two weeks, maybe only one, rather than a full month. It would still be enough time for the user to review policy, to reflect on their behaviour, and hopefully to see what they do need to change on their return. I'm also thinking that even though I'd rather it be structured as a block, it might be good to protect their talk page to avoid potential trolling/baiting messages by other users during their absence. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support a lesser term and indifferent block vs ban. The clear line and a little reflection was intent of my proposal. Plus while Indef can mean 5 minutes, unblock requests can get heated and not sure it would be doing an editor any favors in this circumstance.Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's true, one can't edit in a vacuum, but this entire posting seemed to exist in the vacuum that I've only ever edited disruptively, that I never talk it out, that I've never been civil. What would blocking me do for "chilling out", as was the supposed intent? What would banning me teach me about my behavior, with every concern I expressed over the course of the discussion? What actual harm have I done here that long-term sanctions were even being considered?--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support/Oppose - I don't know what exactly, whether it be C.Fred's suggestion, the originally proposed one month block, an indef block, or something else entirely, but the above response clearly shows that something is needed here. If the editor still either doesn't actually understand or doesn't want (refusing) to understand why this entire discussion is even happening in the first place, then I doubt any change is happening anytime soon. "What actual harm have I done here that long-term sanctions were even being considered?" - any other editor here can easily look at this ANI discussion, as well as the previous, and I'm sure would fully understand why it's being considered/discussed.

I won't deny that the editor is making good edits, but Misplaced Pages is a collaborative site. If nothing is done here, I won't be surprised if we see the same problematic behavior continue on with another ANI thread(s?) here. Magitroopa (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Aren't edits collaborative though? I don't understand the repeated insistence on discarding my positive aspects if editing doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have repeatedly put aside context and circumstances for my behavior and why I may react the way I do, positive or negative, removing those things puts the behavior in a vacuum. Your response is making it seem as if me asking questions for better understanding is also a bad thing. That my willingness to learn, the very thing you want me to do, is a bad thing. If every response I make is bad, no matter the tone, what am I supposed to learn? I'm trying to work with you, but you seem to be brushing me off CreecregofLife (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of your 'questions' here are littered with denial/blames on others. Even in your above question, you yet again blame others despite what has been repeatedly said throughout this discussion: "If every response I make is bad, no matter the tone, what am I supposed to learn? I'm trying to work with you, but you seem to be brushing me off" Continuing to deny what others here are saying and failing/refusing to take accountability for your own actions/behavior will get you nowhere.

And no, just making any edits here does not mean you are collaborating- collaborating with others would be actually discussing any issue/problem with other editors (without just blaming it on them) and not trying to start feuds/edit wars, like you seem to actively be doing. Most of this entire discussion here is us saying what issues/problematic behavior there is, with you just going, "How is it possible that I'm doing that? It must be your fault!". I highly urge you to start taking accountability for your actions/behavior. Magitroopa (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. You are making a lot of claims and assumptions that you can't prove. Lots of seeming, nothing definitive. You aren't addressing my words, just the words you think I'm saying. I give you an inch and you immediately jump on me accusing me of not being genuine. If this was just an airing of grievances, you would have come to my page and talked it out with me instead of going to the noticeboard. You took the easy way out and are surprised when I find your arguments for doing so to be suspect. I will not have you raise your voice at me just because you don't believe I'm trying to take accountability. I gave you an inch and you spat in my face, putting me at a higher standard than anyone else. How am I supposed to learn accountability from someone who said everything I was ever involved in was my fault and everything I do is wrong? That's not holding someone accountable, that's guilt tripping. I never tried to start feuds or edit wars, and to claim such is irresponsible. I'm sorry for edit warring. I try to stay out of it, but you lie to my face by telling me that staying out of it is not what I'm actively doing. The only thing that has counted in my behavior in your eyes are my "problematic" edits. Editing does not exist in a vacuum. You can't isolate and invalidate my good behaviors just because they don't suit your narrative. You continue to deny what I'm saying, because you are not listening, or entertaining the idea that maybe you were wrong. I shouldn't be banned because I spoke out against the measures taken against me. You wouldn't even let me talk to a third party without telling me I'm wrong for doing so or holding it against me. If taking accountability conceding I've done wrong things doesn't meet your arbitrary threshold, how am I supposed to come out of this? It doesn't matter what I do or how genuine I am, it's somehow not enough CreecregofLife (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you continue to play the victim. If it were just one editor in dispute with you, I could maybe see that point, but there are multiple editors here, including an administrator, that can see you cannot work collaboratively. Nothing really has to be proven when there are multiple editors with shared concerns. This thread is about your behavior, not everyone else's, meaning you need to prove why you aren't being disruptive, which you continue failing to do so. And a few of the editors who have commented here aren't even involved parties and can still see how problematic you're being. If you weren't trying to edit war, then why has it happened multiple times? I do somewhat applaud you for finally admitting you've edit warred, even though I don't necessarily believe the apology is genuine. All you're doing is continuing to prove our points that you cannot work collaboratively here, among other things. Amaury • 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking me wouldn’t prove that I don’t possess the ability to work collaboratively, it just means you won’t allow me to. This thread is not a proper venue to prove how collaboratively I work, and to claim that it should is disingenuous. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you said that you should get a second chance- you've had ample chances, and the problems that have been discussed in this thread, as well most of your responses within this thread shows that you don't seem capable to work collaboratively at this point. The previous/first ANI discussion should've been your first indication that your behavior should change. Continuing with the same behavior following that discussion and now bringing it to here as well, downplaying the problems/concerns of other editors and continuing your blame game on others, isn't helping you in any way whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is ignoring your constructive edits, but this ANI thread clearly isn't about your constructive edits, it is about your disruptive behavior. Your constructive edits are the main reason you aren't already blocked. If there weren't constructive edits, there would be no discussion here, you'd just be a completely disruptive editor with nothing to offer. Since you're not simply that, we have this thread, where people can express their opinion and disagree about whether you should be blocked or not. It seems you have at least made some progress, from this talk page thread where you consistently refused to see that you had acted in any way incorrectly, even after I repeatedly listed you in detail how you had acted incorrectly, to now admitting you have actually edit-warred. —El Millo (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Realme233

Realme233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Hello, This user has been posting the same or similar content on random users talkpages, which appears to be spam, or (stretching it severely here) potentially advertising. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm seeing what I can do for 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, I left them a message to visit Teahouse with clear queation, feel free to revert me if the double-messaging is confusing.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

anks okra, good to see you again by the way.h PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG inbound Evoke Heir (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Evoke Heir: What are you talking about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh. They cannot answer. They are so blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is in relation to me, Being a good wikipedian and reporting things that dont seem right is not WP:BOOMERANG worthy. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This user has now showed up on my talk for some reason, they sound very distressed, but I cannot figure out what they are talking about. Moneytrees 02:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no clue at all if this is related - I'm only thinking this based off of the strikingly similar username, but there is a user blocked name 'Pleasureme23'. For all I know, it could be entirely unrelated, but thought it would at least be worth mentioning. Magitroopa (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think(?) I know why they were mentioning XTools in some of their edits- but I still don't fully understand it... See here. Two things to point out:

• User is already at several other Wiki sites and posted the same/similar messages there, see here.
• Could MusikAnimal be who is being referred to here (referred to as 'Muskit')?...

Hope this helps... Magitroopa (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• They appear to be talking about XTools, the suite of tools that produces statistics for Wikimedia wikis, e.g. edit counter. There’s nothing untoward about these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Harassment

I have been targeted for harassment by the user Unbh Special:Contributions/Unbh, who is following my account and has reversed almost every edit that I've made Special:Contributions/Baronet13. This editor also threatened to suspend my account (which I'm pretty sure they don't actually have the authority to do) as seen here: User talk:Baronet13 . This is a clear example of WP:HOUND and WP:HUSH.Baronet13 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a standard, garden variety edit war at Will Self, both of you could be sanctioned for that. Also, any user may warn any other user who is engaged in improper behavior at Misplaced Pages. The warning is a bit aggressive, but you were edit warring (they were too), and so the warning is not invalid. While they may not be able to block you, any admin could. The warning is a reminder that you can be blocked for edit warring. --Jayron32 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What Jayron said. You need to stop reverting and discuss your preferred version on the article talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." If discussion is fruitless, see some form of dispute resolution. The important thing now is to stop reverting and seek WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

While I think a consensus can be reached, that doesn't solve the problem of this user reverting every edit I make. Most of these are minor, non-controversial edits that don't really warrant a discussion. Baronet13 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is only one incident. Based on the fact that nearly every edit I've made has been reversed by this user, the issue is bigger than this one article and the warning. The aggressive tone of the warning and the wider context shows this is meant to be seen as a threat. Baronet13 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted, the warning is bog standard. While perhaps not the friendliest way to go about putting you on notice, it's well within the bounds of normal Misplaced Pages conduct. Feel free to remove it from your talk page should you care to do so, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems everyone is fixating a bit too much on the warning. The main issue is this user reverting nearly edit it make. Misplaced Pages is essentially unusable to me because of this. Baronet13 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not just them, is it? You have had similar edits reverted by other editors. I don't think Unbh has exactly covered themselves in glory here, but I would urge you to consider some of the sourcing issues brought up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the only user to revert an edit I've made, but they are the only one who follows and indiscriminately reverts edits I make, usually with either no explanation or baseless explanations. One example is their claim that redirects can't be categorized, despite the fact that many redirects do have categories. Unless this editor is scouring Misplaced Pages for redirects and removing categories, which doesn't seem to be the case, they're specifically targeting ones to which I've added categories (most of which, by the way, had already had been categorized for years). Baronet13 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The categories stuff is a bit outside my wheelhouse, and El_C is dealing with it below better than I could. My interest veers more toward the substantive edits--and while I have no doubt that your edits were made in good faith, I also think the reverts were reasonable. I'd encourage you to make more use of talk pages and see if you can't get some collaboration going. As ever, just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Unbh: after you removed categories added by the OP to the Susan Karolewski redirect with the edit summary that read don't need categories on a redirect (diff), they then reverted with an edit summary that read: Categories are allowed on redirects if the categories are incompatible with the main article (diff). However, you reverted again but this time unresponsively, with a blank (automated) edit summary (diff). Please explain. El_C 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

They're adding WP:NONDEF "people with" categories to bio pages that don't exist and are redirects. It's ridiculous. The category itself has already been deleted once. I'm clearly not reverting all their edits, despite what is being claimed. The Will Self edit does not accurately match the source and is not RS anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unbh: but how can that reasoning on your part be inferred when you don't leave an edit summary that mentions it? Or mentions anything, for that matter (i.e. blank/automated es). El_C 17:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll leave clearer edit summaries in future. This whole category would be treading really close to BLP violations if these redirects were actually bios. It's pretty problematic to have people listed in a category that states they have a personality disorder when they don't even have their own article.Unbh (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The edits I made to the redirects were valid, as they are in compliance with WP:INCOMPATIBLE. How would this editor even know about these without viewing my contributions? It's apparent I'm being targeted, unless this editor is removing categories from all redirects, which doesn't seem to be the case. Baronet13 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Baronet13: For an account that was created 4 days ago, you cite policy as if it were an old friend.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI: some similar editing behaviour (i.e. edit warring) has also been involved by Unbh and GustavoCza on some Coldplay articles on 8 March and I think it is ongoing today judging by what I see myself. Jonny Buckland is now a 3RR page for today as I've now noticed three reverts there. I haven't seen any harassment on either talk page of the two said users in my response here but edit summaries might. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So it looks like there is a pattern of behaviour exhibited by Unbh of at least being overly aggressive towards those whose edits they disagree with and often reverting edits with little to no explanation. Baronet13 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, including the contributions dated 14 January 2021 when the user got blocked for edit warring. That was the only block so far. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy isn't difficult to look up. Baronet13 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly possible to remain an IP editor while you familiarise yourself with the website, isn't it? Let's not go making baseless insinuations. — Jthistle38 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well ... where I got concerned was at actually looking at the reverted edits. Superficially, since they came from several different articles, one might jump to the hounding conclusion. But when one examines the diffs, they are also all attempts by Baronet13 to insert allegations of mental disorders into BLPs. I hope and trust Baronet13 understands not only that we need iron-clad sources for such provocative accusations, and that furthermore they ought not run afoul of WP:UNDUE nor of the standard of care necessary for BLP articles. So as long as he is accusing Unbh of hounding him, I'd like to ask @Baronet13: something in return: why are you so fixated on claiming that these people have mental disorders, to the exclusion of pretty much any other edit? Ravenswing 04:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  All of the information I added is reliably sourced. Baronet13 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  First off, that's not true. The first diff I looked at was , an interview on a website starting out by calling the subject "Germany’s most notorious confidence trickster" -- that's reliable?

  The second cites "360tv.ru," which judging by its headlines is yet another Russian propaganda organ.

  The third, the Will Self edit you've been edit warring over, doesn't say what you claim it does. The subject doesn't claim that he has psychological disorders; the interviewer does.

  In five other articles, you've added categories referencing various personality disorders, without any attribution or explanation. So once again, I ask you the question you failed to answer the first time: why are you so fixated on claiming that these people have mental disorders, to the exclusion of pretty much any other edit? Ravenswing 08:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quote from the Will Self interview:

  CH: On the South Bank Show a few years back you said that a psychologist had put “schizoid personality” on your case notes. Now, this might sound like a conceit from your own fiction, but I got the impression that you might have interpreted this as meaning that you were schizophrenic, but diagnostically it means a personality disorder characterised by “extreme shyness and oversensitivity to others”.

  WS: I did know that, but the same diagnosis had borderline personality written down as well which would be another form of that.

  The interviewer brings it up (mentioning that Will Self had said it on the South Bank Show) and Self confirms it. Your interpretation of the interviewer claiming Self has mental disorders is completely incorrect. Baronet13 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to read that interview more closely. The interviewer states that a psychologist wrote that down in his case notes. Short does not claim that it's accurate, just that yes, that's what was written down. It is not a confirmation that he has the disorder, just acknowledgement that it was written down.

Further, you failed to answer Ravenswing's question, which is the more relevant part: why are your fixated on adding mental disorders to BLP articles? — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

He describes it as a "diagnosis". I think this is good reason to believe he does have these disorders unless you have evidence proving otherwise. Also stated in this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=jRVfQI82hx8C&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22will+self%22+%22borderline+personality%22&source=bl&ots=U3w3cqSVry&sig=ACfU3U3gLg3dk3uVLtWLEHePEuzbU0YB7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFr_TY6Nz2AhUqIzQIHUGsAa84ChDoAXoECCMQAw#v=onepage&q=%22will%20self%22%20%22borderline%20personality%22&f=false Baronet13 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No. This is a BLP article; we need iron clad sources for these, not your interpretations of the same. (You've also failed to justify adding those mental disorder categories to several BLP articles, OR your creation of a category just for that purpose!) And stop ducking the question of your fixation on adding mental disorders to BLP articles, if you want to avoid a followup proposal to tban you from making further such additions. Further stonewalling or attempting to deflect the question will not work out well for you. Ravenswing 18:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your "interpretation" of the interview doesn't match what was actually said, but this had gotten far off topic. I think I've at least proven that the edit merits a discussion and that reverting it without explanation is not an acceptable response. The pertinent issue is harassment. Disagreeing with an edit I made doesn't justify harassment. Baronet13 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not see a pattern of behaviour that rises to the level of harassment. There is overlap in articles edited. It's not 100%, but it's reasonable for an editor who sees problematic edits from a new editor, particularly in an area related to BLPs, and checks further into their edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor has a history of edit warring (and has apparently been blocked for this before) and has been accused of harassment by others. Baronet13 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keeping a careful eye on your edit history, given your persistent efforts to tag BLP subjects with having mental disorders, based on questionable sourcing when you bother at all, isn't harassment. Rather, it's the sort of duty a conscientious editor undertakes. Given your stonewalling from defending your tagging, it's a duty I'm minded to take on myself. Ravenswing 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a single edit I've made where I didn't cite a source; that claim is wholly false. I don't know what your problem is, but it's obvious from your first comment that, for whatever reason, you've been excessively and unnecessarily antagonistic. From your "creative" interpretation of the source I cited, to your describing somebody who stalks my account and indiscriminately reverts every edit as a "conscientious editor", to your outright lie about my not citing sources, to what can only be described as a thinly veiled threat, you clearly have some bizarre bias against me. Baronet13 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I myself have had a mental condition. If I was notable and there was an article about me my diagnosis would be no more relevant than the fact that I had tonsillitis as a child or that I now get the odd day when my arthritis is painful, unless confirmed by impeccable reliable sources that don't need this sort of "reading between the lines" interpretation. The same goes for Will Self. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I should point out that Will Self also has Polycythemia vera, which is stated in the article. I don't see how this is more relevant than what I added. Baronet13 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's sourced in an extensive piece in an RS that is sigcov of the polycythemia, not a passing mention by someone else in an interview to something that is not explicitly a diagnosis.

For all you aspersions of harassment my reversions are not hounding. I've solely addressed your edits (obviously by looking at your edit history) adding this problematic category and BLP additions of this disease that are without sufficient sourcing, or justification for why the category should be added to redirect pages.Unbh (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I could have found another source or clarified the relevance had you addressed that issue instead of reverting my edits without explanation. You've reverted almost every edit I've made (admittedly by viewing my edit history), usually without explanation or with a explanation that doesn't make sense, such as the claim that redirects can't be categorized, despite the fact that Misplaced Pages has an entire page dedicated to categorizing redirects. Baronet13 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Outside of this page you've edited 10 pages. I made reversions of a specific type of edit on four of them that I, and others here seem to agree, think is a BLP problem. I made edit summaries on those edits, except this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jane_Laut&diff=1078388275&oldid=1078298498, which I should have done. This is not harassment. This is not reverting almost every edit you've ever made.

Additionally I I've not stated that redirects can't be categorised, but that the categories you have added are not needed ( a category which has now been deleted twice). These are different things. Unbh (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:REDIRECT, these types of pages are not usually categorized unless it's " more appropriate to the context of that category, e.g. Honey Lantree". I'm not sure if the removal of these categories is sensible or not given some of those do fit in with that person's actions. I agree that red link categories should not be in there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comment was "don't need categories on a redirect" and you removed all categories from these redirects, not just the ones I added. Baronet13 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, glad you agree. "Don't need" is not the same as "can't". As it happens I don't think the other categories were necessary either which is why I removed them - and further evidence, despite your claims, that this has nothing to do with targeting your edits. Unbh (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How did you arrive at the conclusion they were unnnecessary? What categories are necessary on a redirect? Do you remove all categories on every redirect or only the ones I edit? The category deletion seems arbitrary. Baronet13 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Because having things like a redirect that is categorised as living people redirecting to a case about dead babies is patently ridiculous. Unbh (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's only one category, which was referring to the mother, who is indeed a living person. Even you did want to remove that category, which wouldn't make sense, it still doesn't explain why you removed all of them. Baronet13 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The other categories are equally pointless in aredirect. If someone's not notable enough for their own blp page they shouldn't be in categories. This is not what WP:INCOMPATIBLE is about. Unbh (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I also note the more than 2/3rds (!) of your total edits have now been dedicated to keeping this rather tendentious ANI report going. There might be harassment going on here, but it's not by me. Unbh (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So you ARE saying redirects shouldn't have categories. Baronet13 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No. I'm saying these redirects don't need categories. Unbh (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost every redirect (except alternate names for things) is someone or something that isn't notable enough for their own article. If those redirects don't need categories, or shouldn't have them, or however you want to say it, then which ones do? Baronet13 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't. Which is why there's WP:INCOMPATIBLE which explains which ones, like alternative names, should have them. Regardless, this is a talk page argument, not one for ANI. Let's finish this discussion here and you can apply your WP:PRECOCIOUS talents on something more productive. Unbh (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems that alternative names should NOT be categorized, or else you'd have both the main article and redirect in the category. So your saying you don't think the redirects I edited need categories, but acknowledge that they can be categorized, yet took the time to remove all the categories and are committed to keeping it that way. You also tried to argue against particular categories in the redirect, seemingly without understanding it. Your argument doesn't track. Baronet13 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Vinrpm.p6054 and persistent copyright violations, edit warring etc

Vinrpm.p6054 (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding copyrighted images of the team logo of Red Bull Racing, ripping the image straight from their website. After first adding it, the image was shortly after deleted on basis of being a copyright violation, the editor then added the image once again, with the same result demanding people to ″not remove it″. They were warned on 5 March about violating copyright, only to add the same image the very next day claiming it is free use when it is ripped from their website (the file has not been deleted yet, but is very likely also a copyright violation) here at which point they were again warned. They last restored the image with this edit made on 18 March here. Aside from this blatant disregard of copyright, Vinrpm also engages in edit warring on the Delhi article as can be seen with these edits: 1 2 3 and 4. In addition to this their response to being told on the talk page of Red Bull Racing by multiple editors that the image is not ″needed″ as they had claimed was the rather snide ″Another one of those typical admins on wikipedia″ (I am not an admin) here.

Overall surely some kind of sanctions are due here, I would say at least a temporary block. Pinging @Fowler&fowler: as well in case you have anything to add since you've also had plenty of experience with the editor in question and their disruptive editing. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Oracle Red Bull Racing logo.png - see WP:Non-free content. That should solve any problem with the Red Bull logo. I haven't examined any other issues you mention. Begoon 10:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not seeing much of a case for administrator action here, now that the non-free image has been uploaded locally. Vinrpm.p6054 has been mostly arguing with CommonsDelinker, which is a 'bot. What has been happening is that xe has been uploading the image to Commons (3 times at this point); it has been speedily deleted from Commons; CommonsDelinker has come along and removed the link here {e.g. Special:Diff/1071436474); and Vinrpm.p6054 writes edit summaries at a robot. Rinse and repeat (e.g. Special:Diff/1075406029). The problem to solve is to get Vinrpm.p6054 to stop uploading non-free stuff to Commons, which a block here does not prevent. That's the actual locus of the problem, and it's not just this image according to the Commons logs, either. A case needs to be made at Commons for doing something as every single upload by this account there has been a copyright violation. There's a very slow motion edit war over images at Delhi, but there's also talk page discussion. It had a minor flare up two days ago. I'm inclined to protect The Wrong Version to force use of the talk page, but only if there's another flare up. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think a temporary block would at least be a strong way to communicate that the behaviour is not ok, since the editor seems to completely ignore warnings. Since Begoon was kind enough to sort out the image, that should no longer be an issue. However while Vinrpm does make some limited use of talk pages I feel like they are just going to keep doing what they are doing unless there's some kind of punishment here. TylerBurden (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That is against blocking policy. The project with the need to prevent something is Commons, where there's a need to prevent further uploads of non-free images. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, but persistently inserting copyright violations into articles is a block worthy offense though right? I am not active on Commons (other than obtaining images from it for use) so I am not familiar at all with that process. TylerBurden (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
      • This is not a court of law and we are not policemen. It's not about "offences". It's about preventing things from continuing to happen. Commons needs something to stop happening, and the people to stop it are at Commons, probably at commons:Project:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. If the editor uploads these things locally, with a proper and valid fair use rationale, then as you can see (because it's been done) there's nothing problematic here, so stopping xem from doing things here is entirely the opposite of what's needed. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

        I tried what I found the most appropriate venue based on what knowledge I do have, I think Vinrpm's conduct has been far from optimal and the complete silence on their part about this ANI thread both on it and about it on their own talk page is not unexpected based on previous warnings they have recieved appearing to have had about as much effect as speaking to a wall. If a report needs to be created on Commons and there is nothing to be done here about it then that is that I suppose, from what I can see they haven't been doing this since so I hope they've read this thread as well as the information they have recieved and better understand copyright and other issues that have been raised. If the problem persists then at least I know what venue to try next, but hopefully this thread will have been enough. TylerBurden (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Ladapo vandalism

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

Once again vandals are editing articles to put forward less than the truth on Joseph Ladapo BLP. Ladapo issued guidance recommending against healthy children receiving a covid vaccine. User:Snooganssnoogans had previously done that last week and is now again editing the article removing sourced information as cited by the source. I posted on his talk page asking him to stop and have not rereverted his edits vandalizing the article. Do not want to edit war though someone needs to have him stop vandalistic actions and maintain NPOV policies regardless of personal bias.2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Left message of this report though not sure if he will see/notice it. Thank you2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, the removal is not vandalism. The comments you added didn't have a reliable source. Even if the claim is true, Misplaced Pages needs sources to back such a claim. If I understand correctly, your concern is the article says he is opposed to vaccinating children and you are saying he is opposed only to vaccinating healthy (non-risk group?) children? If true that is a significant distinction and probably should be in the article. Do you have a source for the claim so editor scan assess it? Springee (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yo should slow down and go to the same source that is referenced and read it. t says healthy children shouldnt be vaxxed...Not all children and then the other edits same source where it staes four doctors disagree...in that source it says 17,000 mds signed a letter saying they agreed with Laado advisement. That is the other edit u removed with poor edits. When editing an article and reverting others good faith edits it would be wise to check the source and do due diligence to ascertain what the correct edit is. Please revert your incorrect edits to Ladapo and stop vandalizing the BLP 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what the source states. It is the same source that editors keep changing to remove the word healthy. The source is "The Palm Beach Post" That is the very source and only source in that portion of the paragraph. It is the source for the 17,000 doctors letter agreeing with SG Joseph Lapado of Florida. The edits by snoggins need to be self reverted maybe that will stop his vandalism. Thank you 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) SORRY DONT KNOW HOW TO SHRINK THIS DOWN...

That is exactly vandalistic behavior...editing an article to put forward an untruth. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation that healthy children in Florida not be vaccinated against COVID-19. In doing so, Florida became the first state in the US to issue such a recommendation. The recommendation was contrary to that of the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics

Now there is the aragraph in question...gee looks like it is a cited source though must admit if i had no NPOV Ii "might" say it isnt sourced or its not what the sourcesays. Check it out and the article needs to be reverted back back snoggins...2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not call this vandalism again. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, and false accusations of vandalism can result in you being blocked from editing. Vandalism does not mean "edits I disagree with." — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats really funny... that is exactly what vandalism is editing an article in opposition to what a reliable source says. That is also bias and a violation of NPOV on Misplaced Pages. The source's article is titled "Florida to be first state to recommend healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC". the source is "The Palm Beach Post". published 7 March 2022. The source actually says "healthy children" (believe it or not)

When an editor redacts the word healthy and allows the BLP to say just "children" that is misleading the reading public and dishonest. Whenever I see something I don't believe, I don't just edit the article to make it say what I believe the source says...I read the source and act and edit appropriately. Don't you? Otherwise Misplaced Pages would become a mishmash of people's bias and lack a neutral point of view which Misplaced Pages desires to avoid. The article needs to be reverted to correct the vandalism. Have a nice day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep insisting on using inaccurate words. The removal of the "healthy" thing clearly was not vandalism as other editors have told you. It was a BLP violation which frankly is far more serious than vandalism so it's particularly silly that you insist on calling it something that it isn't. However this time around, AFAICT, it was fixed in ~15 hours and has not been removed since. So while not ideal it's a meh situation. In the mean time you've been trying to add nonsense to the article, and have sometimes removed important information both before and after the recent flareup over the "healthy" thing so it's not like you've been helping the situation. I'd note that despite your apparent desire to add this nonsense to the article, you made no attempt to discuss it while the page was protected. And you've still made no effort to really discuss anything on the talk page beyond the healthy thing (for which there is no disagreement it belongs) and some generic rants. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Fins, Zac Anderson, James L. Rosica, Lindsey Leake, Liz Freeman, Emily Bloch and Antonio. "Florida to be first state to recommend healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC. Alternatively, " Dr. Robert Malone, who has risen to prominence for contradicting the scientific consensus on COVID-19, claimed that "the consensus of over 17,000 physicians and medical scientists are that the risk-benefit ratio for children does not justify vaccination. "Malone appeared to be referring to a declaration signed by medical professionals as part of the "Global COVID Summit" initiative"". The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved 2022-03-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Non-Admin comment Added reflist so references are contained in this section, rather than being appended at the bottom. ~ Matthewrb 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Childish vandalism from New Zealand: Summer Rogers name added

• MISS CALIFORNIA 3 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

2406:5A00:6CFF:3200:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using a wide range of New Zealand IPs, and the registered username MISS CALIFORNIA 3, has been vandalizing various articles by changing names to Summer Rogers. Quite often, their edit summary includes "true and correct". I saw nothing constructive from this person. Can we get a block? Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked. Although only one edit was recent, none of their edits are helpful and they are engaging in a childlike manner when asked about it. Not here to build an encyclopaedia. Secretlondon (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that does it. I'll check the IP range every so often to see if they continue the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring of two IP user and probably vandalism?

I'm not quite sure why this two IP users (seemed socks of each other or someone) , came to my user page asking for help from sysops saying they are engaged in edit war of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes with another editor user:Dora the Axe-plorer.

2603:6011:7501:7862:FCD1:EA01:D1E8:AB2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2603:6011:7501:7862:CC60:70EB:F3B2:4361 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

by the way, in my opinion, these two IP users were kept harassing me and user:Dora the Axe-plorer, and since I'm not a sysop at all, so I also had no choice but to come here for help. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP came to my talk page accusing me of not assuming good faith and engaging in and edit war 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes. Why would I? IP failed to explain what the changes were and add a citation to support their claim. Basically, IP changed the magnitude values in the infobox and body. User:Dawnseeker2000 reverted those changes on the basis that they were "unexplained". The revert was undone by IP who said they were "making these changes per the USGS website".

I assumed this was in reference to the USGS catalog of earthquakes (1 234). However, the new figured added by IP didn't reflect the USGS catalog, and again there uncited. IP also made changes in the body text, and the cited sources don't support their changes. I assumed these changes were WP:HIJACK and reverted them. Ultimately, it's not good practice to make scattered (but significant) changes and worse still, not add a citation.

There is no edit war; I reverted IP's edits and they didn't come back to fight. Though I was spammed with probably 20 alerts from my talk page by IP 5. IP dropped the first message and there were a bunch of alerts about smaller edits. Another message dropped but IP self-reverted them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I also got a bunch of alerts from my talk page. Even don't knowing why... Pavlov2 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm They're the same user on the same /64... wizzito | say hello! 04:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

user:Dora the Axe-plorer I was in the process of citing the necessary references, when you reverted my edits without giving me a chance to finish typing them and post them to the Misplaced Pages page. I didn't "come back to fight" because I did not want to be blocked for edit warring per WP:Edit war. 2603:6011:7501:7862:1D0D:E473:BED3:671C (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I wouldn't have reverted them if you had adequately explained your edits and your intentions in the edit summary. How can I take them as constructive and allow the changes to stay? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly this case solved. Closed? Pavlov2 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Assentior. Causa solvitur et causa clausa!!!!!!!! 2603:6011:7501:7862:B57D:6F:9C7A:93F2 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuous article hijacking by BIG FM COMEDIAN

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

Sorry if this is not article hijacking, but BIG FM COMEDIAN won't stop hijacking articles. The first article he tried to hijack was Moses Storm. He then give up and tried to hijack the article Archita Sahu. He's been warned numerous time and won't even listen. Now his edits are being stopped by the edit filter due to rapid disruption which of course he is now repeatedly triggering the edit filter. Kaseng55 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The user has already been reported at WP:AIV. Callmemirela 🍁 21:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. firefly ( t · c ) 21:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a zero tolerance spam vandal thing. I'd have blocked for the first offense. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at John Tyler

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

Users are vandalizing the John Tyler page. Please block them. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The page may also have to be protected again because after it expired, users begin to vandalize the page again. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits have been rev-del'd and Alexf has protected the article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Continued original research by Heesxiisolehh

User:Heesxiisolehh is continuing to add original research despite an earlier report where he had agreed to stop (in essence an admission) (). I have already mentioned this to the involved admin twice (, ) where he advised me to go back to ANI () so here we are again.

After Heesxiisolehh agreed to stop adding original research/analysis he proceeded to add original research a mere four days after the agreement (, ), going against the WP:Mainstream view (for a more in-depth analysis see here).

Since then he has added even more original research and/or original analysis not supported by the cited sources, including:

• (Not supported by cited source)
• (Not supported by cited source)
• (Nugaal not mentioned on pages 199-200 of Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism: The Case of Sayid Mahammad 'Abdille Hasan (African Studies) see link)
• Not supported by cited source, source only mentions a raid
• (This is an unattributed war dispatch from 1903 in the Cardiff Evening Express, a terrible source for claims like these, and it doesn't support the content Heesxiisolehh has cited it for)
• (Translation is wrong, also doesn't support his claim of Nugaal being the Dervishes' "main objective")
• (Original analysis on primary source)

I highly doubt that Heesxiisolehh is here to build an encyclopedia, instead desiring to add his own original research and rewriting history to suit him. Gebagebo (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo I would suggest taking this to WP:OR/N. Theknightwho (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Will do, thank you! Gebagebo (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Aggressive retaliation from 92.29.96.111

This anonymous user retaliated with an aggressive harassment after reverting his gibberish vandalism. on Piracy in the Caribbean. See this revision difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kaseng55&diff=1079094772&oldid=1062462150

The user will have to be blocked and the revision has to be deleted. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Also, for any reviewing admins, please note the filter log. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, highly disruptive IPs on TalkTalk can be blocked for two weeks or maybe a month without collateral. I wouldn't go longer than a month because I've never seen them stay allocated to someone longer than that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Elinruby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple kinds of WP:INAPPNOTE

Repeated and inappropriate spamming of user talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azerbaijan POV

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

according to user Toghrul R and Nicat49, Azerbaijani name is more important than Armenian name for a carpet: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karabakh_carpet&oldid=1079229164 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karabakh_carpet&oldid=1078940472.

Then, Azerbaijan terrorize Armenian residents of Karabakh and occupy a village. Toghrul R calls it seizure: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Farukh&oldid=1079227278. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Farukh&oldid=1079228426.

Greetings from Iran, please do something

Navruz azeri (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG sanctions would be appropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• OP has been CU blocked as a sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

an attack from a group

• 116.87.181.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.206.172.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.52.201.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have recently become a target of a hostile trio of IP addresses. Their attacks are so heavy that warnings do not seem to be necessary.

Firstly, '116.87.181.45', which is likely to be from Singapore, removed a paragraph co-written by me and 'Justanothersgwikieditor', such that the article 'Resorts World Sentosa' described the business as all-singing-all-dancing and flawless. Of course, I brought it back.

Secondly, '114.206.172.109' which is likely to be from South Korea, repeated the above-mentioned procedure.

Thirdly, '218.52.201.69', which should be from South Korea, just like the second one on the list, reverted another edit by me. They also put a notice on my talk page that shows some information of my IP address.

Just click on the links below to see how obvious their bad will is. Each of them has only edited once or twice, and are all against me. They are in the know of the rules here, and definitely do not look like newcomers. Their mission seems to be abusing Misplaced Pages as a free advertising platform.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/116.87.181.45

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/114.206.172.109

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/218.52.201.69

I am a normal person who believe gambling has pros and cons. When I see articles written totally in the interest of the casino companies, I add things to make them less biased. There are only two casinos in Singapore. I have done the same to improve both of their articles, to roughly the same extent. 110.174.132.162 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the {{advert}} template to Resorts World Sentosa, for blindingly obvious reasons. I'm afraid I can't do any more at the moment because I am cooking dinner. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Pending Changes Protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/49.228.138.135

• 49.228.138.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A new IP address seemingly from Thailand who had never edited before has just joined the team. Take a look at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quebec_French_phonology&type=revision&diff=1079347086&oldid=1079303161'. Why would so many 'new' IP users coincidently have so much interest on a topic as specialized as this all of a sudden? They are apparently commercial writers. Please notice that they do not have knowledge of that subject such that they could only roll back and leave a general excuse. Are there more advanced tools that could be used to find out whether they belong to a certain blacklisted advertising company?--110.174.132.162 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Page Protected by El C. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• 114.206.172.109, 218.52.201.69 and 49.228.138.135 are VPNs; I have blocked these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/121.130.137.225

• 121.130.137.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The vandalizers continue to do unnecessary work. I cannot understand why? Do they receive a piece rate for their job?--110.174.132.162 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Posts like this do nothing to resolve any issues. Please stop using article talk pages as a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

All right. I shall stop reporting news about the vandalizers on that talk page. But please at least keep that message visible. You are clearly not a paid editor. That paragraph does relieve your workload and save your time. When the enemies are very flexible, we should be at least a bit flexible in response. More importantly, it reminds everyone to beware of similar malicious edits there.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We deal with vandals and POV-pushers all the time, and have established procedures (including reversion, blocking and page protection) for doing so. You are simply distracting people from that issue by posting such edits on the talk page. The way to counteract them is not by behaving as they do and violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for advising. I shall continue to learn the rules. It seems that they are too professional to deal with. May you protect my talk page for a month? What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger : I like to highlight 110.174.132.162's own editing problems. Beside the obvious rightgreatwrongs issue, looking at his edit summaries, , , the particular reference is to my copyedit at here (which I like to emphasize a purely copyedit exercise and does not endorse any of my viewpoints), IP editor's August to November 2021 edits seems to indicate SPA or at least highly motivated against a particular topic. IP editor may be but close to casting aspersions here at this talkpage edit here when I decided that the incident is simply news and in my edit summary also indicated it is WP:NOTNEWS. While IP editor has every right to remove his own talkpage messages on the talkpage here which I believed is not recommended as others might have read them. Then IP editor subsequently asked here to keep that message visible (aka IP editor's other messages on the talkpage) seems to be a behavioural problem. All this seems to me is IP editor is treating the integrated resorts (having the casinos) in Singapore as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I do admit that my editing style has problems, please accept my apologies. It is being improved continuously. Those problems in the article all obviously existed while I put on the relevant templates about the multiple issues. The overlapping meaning of them are a headache for many. I have now learnt that 'advert' and 'pov' should not be used together. I feel sorry for not reading the manuals in details. However, what is the correct response to imperfect criticism? Should one trim off the excessive parts or should one remove the whole of it? On Misplaced Pages, there are rules and 'culture' that differ in many ways from the usual types of common sense that schools and universities teach. I may be an amateur in your eyes, but I can assure you that I am trying to make Misplaced Pages better. It is normal for systems to change in certain complicated ways considering how intense the fight between watchmen and abusers are. I am still trying to get used to it. This edit is certainly abnormal: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Resorts_World_Sentosa&diff=1070146248&oldid=1065973372. That suspicious IP address added loads of positive content and removed all negative content, but did not mention anything about rules related to 'news'. When I saw 'Justanothersgwikieditor' delete a section whose writers included me, I was not aware that he or she was the very main writer of that (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Resorts_World_Sentosa&diff=1058247511&oldid=1056550991). Then, I looked back and discovered something strange. I could not understand why 'Justanothersgwikieditor' suddenly changed his mind, condemning his own past actions. That edit was a significant addition of detailed information, instead of copy-editing – grammar, punctuation, spelling correction, etc. I cannot see how '128.114.255.25' succeeded in persuading 'Justanothersgwikieditor' to admit his previous 'wrongdoing'. I did not suppose 'Justanothersgwikieditor' to want to do damaging things here. Hence I believed that he or she had just misread something. It is quite normal for us to make careless mistakes. A real surprise came when 'Justanothersgwikieditor' replied above, pointing out that it was improper to retreat that piece of comment in the talk page. When I started to treat his or her strange behaviour as a negligible mistake, I tried to prevent more people from noticing 'Justanothersgwikieditor's' unexplained coming back on his own decisions. That section in question drew attention to 'Justanothersgwikieditor's' inconsistency. I tried to play it down but he or she wanted to play it up. Things are bizzare, are they not? Still, I am inclined to compliment that 'Justanothersgwikieditor' is being brave and honest. In my humble opinion, it is crucial to at least explain to the VPN abusers that they should not violate the 'battleground' rule. I do appreciate 'AndyTheGrump's' attitudes. He or she had actually reduced the advertisement composition a lot. 'Phil Bridger' also did well. He or she admitted seeing the huge 'elephant' dancing in the middle of the room, and subsequently invited others to take action. Everyone else were actively discussing how 'gigantic' a little 'mouse' sitting at a corner of the very same room was, fearing that its tiny weight could soon destroy the floor. Misplaced Pages's norms differ too much from those of the academic field.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@110.174.132.162: I like to remind you, you are the main editor who added the controvesy section, see here and as I previously mentioned, I only did copyedit (which does not merely include grammar, punctuation, spelling correction in Misplaced Pages) on your section here. As I had previously mentioned earlier, reviewing the incident, I decided that it is WP:NOTNEWS and hence removed it with the appropriate edit summary. An appropriate way to contact me will be either to ping me on either the article's talkpage or my talkpage, which you did neither. I am afraid you do not understand the meaning of WP:BATTLEGROUND when your edit history clearly indicated you are highly motivated against slot machines and casinos in Singapore and you like to keep the articles firmly against both topics.

I am also strongly highlighting that there are some guidelines on talkpage messages, do see WP:TALK#REPLIED, and how you should handle retraction of statements. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I have done a good job for Misplaced Pages. Initially, the abusers insisted that nothing was wrong with their versions of the article. As the attention of much better editors and administrators was attracted, things began to improve. The current consensus recognize(s/d) the existence of great wrongs, the criticism is that my approach of righting those great wrongs is wrong. Correcting mistakes imperfectly is way better than not correcting them at all. Serving readers and pleasing abusers are mutually exclusive goals. Quarrels were destined to happen. I need better skills for handling them next time. I shall show that I have benefitted from your guidance through making better edits in the future.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/175.210.68.18

• 175.210.68.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

@Malcolmxl5: Please investigate IPs number 5 & 6 as well. In case they are also found to be bad, please protect my talk page for a month or two. If possible, summon some experts to judge whether my edits at 'Quebec French phonology' were up to standard. That article is suffering collateral damage.--110.174.132.162 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked IP number 6 - another VPN. I can’t confirm IP number 5 as a VPN but have blocked it as all these IPs seem obviously one person to me. I've protected your talk page for a few days, let’s see how that goes - if they return after that then we can increase the protection. As for the article Quebec French phonology, perhaps someone reading this will take a look. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks!--110.174.132.162 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Spekkios and Nemov WP:STONEWALLING on Flag of Alabama

Nemov and Spekkios keep WP:STONEWALLING on Flag of Alabama while misrepresenting sources.

I added cited information here and here

IP address reverted without discussion here. User also misrepresents sources and says they are "improper".

This was reverted by Dystopos here because it was well cited information.

Spekkios then reverts here and falsely claims that the Washington Post link is dead. Also misrepresents the other source and fails to mention the "youtube video" is from the Huffington Post, a reputable publication.

It looks like there's just small miscommunication so Dystopos reverts again and correctly says the link is not dead and that the sources are reputable.

Nemov then reverts again and incorrectly claims that the information is already in the article and doesn't need to be in the MOS:LEAD.

I then revert again because the sources are accurate and reliable and ask for users to explain their issues with the sources on the talk page.

Spekkios again reverts and misrepresents the sources by dismissing the Huffington Post video as a "youtube video". They then change their claim and say that the Washington Post cites a dead link and that's why it can't be used. Spekkios also falsely claims that the Denver Post link is dead. They again revert to the supposed "status quo" (clear example of WP:SQS)

I then revert again and make no more reverts after this because I am aware of the WP:3RR. I said the links are not dead and I made sure to verify that they were in fact not dead links.

Spekkios then reverts again and says that the Washington Post "cites a dead link, even on webarchive". They say that it doesn't matter if the youtube video is from the Huffington Post because it do not "cite its sources". They also falsely claim that the Denver Post source "links to an opinion derived from the study from one person" which is not true.

Toddy1 then reverts after making sure the links are not dead and improves the citation with a webarchive link.

Finally, Nemov reverts Toddy1 and claims, without consensus, that the information is already in the article and doesn't belong in the lead.

Toddy1 then starts a discussion on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Flag_of_Alabama#The_Washington_Post_article) and correctly states that the links are not dead. Spekkios and Nemov move the goalposts and change their argument so they don't have to address the false claims that the links were dead. Desertambition (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Expanded reasoning - This also seems to be a clear example of WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:BADFAITHNEG, WP:FIXFIRST, and WP:GASLIGHTING. Desertambition (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I had gotten involved just by noticing that the cited AG's opinion was verifiable and accessible despite the claim made in the edit summary of improper sourcing. I had not read the entire article and didn't realize at the time that the same source was cited elsewhere. I think that Siegelman's attribution of the design to a Confederate flag is relevant and could be more clearly stated, but perhaps going beyond that fact to offer interpretation of its significance merits better citations. --Dystopos (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The attorney general of Alabama, the Denver Post, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post (none of which were opinion articles) all seem like legitimate sources to me. I am curious as to what would potentially satisfy you. Desertambition (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I support making it more clear that the flag is derived from a Confederate flag and I support citing the AG's statement for that. I don't know if it needs to be in the lede paragraph or not. And if we're going to say what significance that fact carries, then other sources are needed. If the ones you mention support such a claim, then I don't have a problem. I'm just explaining why I intervened when I did and why I bowed out. --Dystopos (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

    Ok thank you for elaborating. Desertambition (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is simply preposterous. There were four people involved in the Flag of Alabama discussion and this is the only person who has an issue. This bigger issue here is Desertambition. This is a problem user who was blocked indefinitely and only received a pardon if they proved to be a better editor in the future. That hasn't happened and the user was blocked again for edit warring. I wasn't involved in those issues, but my limited interaction with the user fits a normal pattern. User makes changes, doesn't follow guidance, ignores the full context of the article, and then attacks anyone who happens to disagree. At first I was in favor of topic banning this user, but now I believe they need to be banned indefinitely. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would appreciate if you would address the content of what I am saying rather than engaging in whataboutism. Desertambition (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  This isn’t an ANI issue folks. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:9813:D677:242D:CEFA (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Only place I could think to go to. Where else should I report this? Also strange that this is the only edit you have ever made. Desertambition (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because this is a non-static IP, lol? Grow up and stop throwing baseless accusations around. You are unduly aggressive and need to learn more about what "consensus" is, instead of running off to the admins everytime someone gets your back up. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:B4CA:9A67:2D2A:EFDC (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  This would be more impactful if you were logged into your account. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to say. Desertambition (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• A lot of this report seems to turn on the allegation that an editor falsely claimed a Wapo link was dead. The edit summary of the diff used to substantiate this refers to "a Washington Post article that cites a dead link". When this issue was raised on the talk page days ago, Spekkios reiterated: "The claim wasn't that the Washington Post article is a dead link, but that it cites a dead link." Desertambition characterizes this as them "changing their story", but that seems like an extremely uncharitable reading of the situation. This just seems like a big misunderstanding that's been blown up to an unreasonable scale. Regarding the content question, I would suggest continuing to discuss this on the talk page. If you think the discussion would benefit from more voices, maybe start an RfC? Colin M (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  That seems to be an uncharitable reading of my post and misses a lot of what I said. They misrepresented the "youtube" link and claimed the Denver Post article was dead as well. I didn't know that secondary sources had to provide sources themselves, is that commonplace on Misplaced Pages? Is it also appropriate to delete well cited information? I am a bit puzzled by your response and would appreciate some elaboration. Desertambition (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• This has to be a joke. Nowhere have I stated that the Washington Post link is dead. Here I very clearly state that Washington Post article cites a dead link and another article on a Confederate Battle Flag without any mention of the state flag or it's design. Here I state that The Washington post article cites a dead link, even on Webarchive. Also see here, and here. Anyway, if you follow the link that was cited you can very clearly see that there are no active sources for the Alabama flag. I placed the article URL into the Web Archive and the article cites this which doesn't mention the current flag and this which is nothing useful. Eventually I found that the article originally cited this which is already included in the article. Currently it's citation 5. The Huffington Post youtube video mentions the Alabama flag once at about 1:40 and just mentions that they are both saltire flags. The Denver Post article cites this which mentions a study conducted by one person. Desertambition is accusing me of things which are verifiably not true.

I also note that DesertAmbition has previously edited the Tennessee flag and the Florida flag page in a similar manner, and went to the talk page in the case of the Tennessee flag, so they obviously know what the proper procedure is when their edit is reverted. Instead they have continued to revert to their edit and gone on to accuse me of stonewalling and hounding.

On a slightly different note, since the user has brought this up on ANI I would like to make everyone aware that this user has constantly been making unfounded accusations against me starting with this, accusing me of hounding and stonewalling. Despite my effort to engage with the user about their concerns I received no response, so I still have no idea what they were referring to. The next time I heard from them was when they accused me of closing a merge proposal because I "personally disagreed with it" which is blatantly false as I very clearly stated my rational for closing the discussion in the edit summary. They then go on to again accuse me of stonewalling and hounding again, and for reverting edits for "not really liking it" despite my afformentioned reasons for reverting their edit on the Alabama article. This is not good-faith discussion.

Essentially, this user has a history of not engaging in discussion and being overtly hostile. These allegations are a waste of time to read and respond to. This user has also previously been blocked for leveling unfounded accusations against other editors and now they are doing the same to me. --Spekkios (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You ignored what I said about the Denver Post article while claiming it was a dead link. It's strange to me that you would delete these things while saying they are dead links and then claim that you just disagree with the reputable sources. I understand you want me banned but that is not relevant to the conversation. The Denver Post, Washington Post, and the Huffington Post are reliable sources, I do not understand why a source would need to provide further sources. I have also recently linked newspaper articles on the talk page of the article. You reverted/changed my edits without discussion and it's frustrating. You are saying that the Denver Post, Washington Post, Huffington Post, and the attorney general of Alabama are wrong. There is no debate or speculation on the origins of the flag and the article currently misrepresents the history by prominently displaying the colonial Spanish flag. Nemov also is trying to turn the discussion back to me and get me WP:BOOMERANG banned but all I am saying is what actually happened. If an article not providing further sources was disqualifying, 90% of articles would not be allowed. The reputable publications are sources in-and-of themselves. What sources would satisfy you? It seems like nothing will. Desertambition (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Read my comment again and read the edit summaries. I have never claimed that the Wapo or DP article are dead links. I am not arguing that they are wrong, but that the information they present is not authoritative enough for the lead of the article to make such an authoritative statement on the issue. That information is better presented later in the article just like it is on the Tennessee and Florida pages. When someone reverts your edit take it to the talk page like you did with the Tennessee article and stop causing drama by accusing people of doing things they clearly aren't doing. Take the discussion of the sources back to the talk page and stop wasting everyone's time. --Spekkios (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You did claim that the Denver Post link was dead here . You also claimed that the Washington Post cited a dead link and then said that the Washington Post was not authoritative enough when you finally got the link to work. You decided by yourself what was authoritative and what was not. What you are saying here is false and the diffs back me up. The links I cited are from reliable sources, and you are missing the newspaper articles I recently posted in the talk page. Please Spekkios, I am just asking you what sources would satisfy you? It's not a gotcha question, I am asking so I can provide those sources. You just keep saying my sources are bad after I provide more and more sources. Desertambition (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I got mixed up with the DP article. That link only works in Webarchive and the current doesn't work. The Washington post article cited a dead link as I explained above, and a small note about the Alabama flag on the Wapo article is not authoritative enough for the lead statement. That is what I said, not that Wapo isn't an authoritative source entirely. Regardless, this is not the place to discuss article-related matters. Take it back to the talk page. --Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The complaint is about your obvious WP:STONEWALLING, WP:FIXFIRST and WP:BADFAITHNEG, not the content of the article. Just a second ago you were claiming you never said what I claimed and now you're saying you just got mixed up. I have literally checked that link every single time you have claimed it doesn't work and it works perfectly for me. I don't know why you couldn't check that originally. You still have not said what sources would satisfy you and I strongly suspect it's due to stonewalling more than a real objection to the sources. If your complaint was so minor, why delete the entire section and repeat false claims of dead links/bad sources? You could have just asked for more sources and I hope it's obvious I would have been happy to provide them. You don't think the sources I have provided are authoritative enough so I have linked two newspaper articles and you have not engaged with them either. Desertambition (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I got mixed up with the DP article. Everything else stands. I'm not engaging in a discussion about sources because that isn't relevant to ANI and should be discussed on the talk page. I have repeatedly stated my issue with your edit's in the edit summaries and on my talk page. If you still don't get the picture then that isn't my fault. I'm not stonewalling because you have made no attempt to reach consensus before editing the page. This is not fix first because your edit isn't the status quo. This isn't bad faith negotiating because there has been no good-faith negotiation regarding your edits on your part. You made an edit, it got reverted, and instead of launching a discussion on the talk page you threw a fit and accused me of hounding and stonewalling before taking it to ANI. Your actions are utterly ridiculous. --Spekkios (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about sources are absolutely relevant when we are talking about WP:STONEWALLING, WP:FIXFIRST, and WP:BADFAITHNEG.

Reminder of WP:BADFAITHNEG:

"Example: An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the core content policies."

Reminder of WP:FIXFIRST:

"Example: An editor adds a paragraph of verifiable information, but it is removed entirely because of a typographical error that could easily be fixed."

You keep personally attacking me but you are not engaging with what I am saying. You have repeatedly made false claims and continue to revert after being corrected. There is a discussion on the talk page and I have provided more sources but they are still not enough for you. Desertambition (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The citation does not clearly fulfill the core content policies as I have already discussed many times. The changes you were implementing were not discussed beforehand or after the first reversion. Fix it first is not applicable here because the edit you made was to the lead when the information is within the article itself and not required in the lead, which is what I have said and continue to have said all this time. Had you bothered to discuss this on the talk page first I would've said the same thing. You fundamentally misunderstand the policies you are citing as they simply aren't applicable here. --Spekkios (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If we go back to Desertambition's complaint (at the top of this section), he/she got the order of some events wrong: "Toddy1 then starts a discussion on the talk page" happened immediately after "Toddy1 then reverts after making sure the links are not dead", and before "Nemov reverts Toddy1". What happened next was that Nemov explained why he/she reverted, and entered into a discussion that Spekkios later joined. This is the complete opposite of "stonewalling".

The situation was confusing because the version of the Washington Post article that was on their website did not have the information needed for it to be a valid citation for the information it was being cited for in the article. Spekkios produced an archive-URL that had an older version of the same article, which did. Without the talk page discussion, it was very easy to misunderstand what Spekkios had meant in his/her edit summaries. What Desertambition calls move the goalposts and change their argument, the rest of us call being helpful, discussing the issues, and explaining themselves more clearly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, this is primarily a content dispute that should be resolved through talk page conversation with the goal of creating genuine consensus among all the editors interested in this matter. Not endless bickering. I will not express any opinion about the core content issue but I will say that a reference to coverage in the Washington Post does not become invalid in any way because a link within that article has gone dead. That's an absurd argument. On the other hand, a Washington Post article that is a listicle that pretty much says, "These several state flags of former Confederate states still contain some Confederate imagery" with minimal discussion of this specific flag is a pretty weak source, in my opinion. Certainly, there must exist reliable sources of a much higher quality that offer a detailed scholarly analysis of the history of this specific state flag. All involved editors should strive to find and cite and accurately and neutrally summarize such sources. So, I will conclude with a warning that I intend to to page block any editor who engages in any tendentious editing at Flag of Alabama or any related article. All of you, abandon your POV pushing entirely, and work this out collaboratively at Talk: Flag of Alabama. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Your opinion appears to be the consensus position. As I mentioned in the subsection below, the other editors involved were discussing this in good faith. The real issue is Desertambition's behavior (outlined further by CaptainEek here) that needs to be addressed. Nemov (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Nemov, you are incorrect if you think that my comments are in support of what you see as the "consensus position". Nothing could be further from the truth. How to best describe two diagonal red bars on a white background of the flag of a state that I have spent three days visiting in my entire long life is of zero interest to me personally. All I care about as an administrator is that good faith editors stop arguing and start collaborating. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the core content issues. I mean about the Washington Post article in general. There was confusion about a "dead link." The editors had worked through that before this "issue" was raised. The only reason this is being discussed here is because one user (with a bad track record) is arguing in bad faith. Nemov (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really surprising, but after asking for discussion, Desertambition ignored the other editors and started making edits anyway. It's clear this user has no interest in building consensus or working with others. I'm stepping away from this article until something is resolved since I've wasted considerable amount of time researching and attempting to find a solution. Nemov (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Constantly trying to get me banned with false accusations of bad faith are inappropriate. You're conveniently ignoring the edits you made without consensus. I make two edits with sources and detailed edit summaries and you immediately try to get me banned. It's absurd. Desertambition (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I am no longer going to interact with you. I hope you find peace. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Desertambition

I apologize in advance if I'm going about this the wrong way. I was hesitant to bring this up here because I'd rather sort this out in a reasonable manner, but it's clear after my interaction with Desertambition that there's no hope going forward. This user has shown to be consistently hostile and unable to work with others in good faith. My interactions have been on the Flag of Alabama. After a disagreement the user ignored discussion in TALK and went straight to the noticeboard. This seems to be a pattern. Instead of building consensus the user accuses other users of breaking rules. The user had just come off a block for edit warring and immediately started reverting my good faith edits. A quick review of the user's talk ] is full of examples of incivility and open hostility] for anyone who with whom the user has a disagreement. Given the second chance after the indefinite block, the additional block for edit warring, this user isn't learning how to work with others in a productive manner. If the admins are going to continue to tolerate this user's antics it might be wise to move towards a topic ban. I'm not sure the user is able to edit some pages in good faith. Nemov (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You should move this into a subheading of the section above, rather than splitting the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This better? Nemov (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Easier for uninvolved people to see the whole discussion. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Threat of trial

Hello. User Mileniumik is threatening me with legal action on this page (diff for this). It's clear that this is a violation of WP:NLT. Please take the appropriate steps. Thanks, --Mehman 97 21:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have issued a warning; it isn't a direct threat, but an "if I were them" statement. Certainly using the threat to suppress discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe a NOTHERE block, very nationalist and argumentative. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This is just the usual not even grasping what encyclopaedia inclusion criteria are, and failure to argue the case on its merits. It's a regular occurrence at AFD when people come here from other Wikipedias where they've hit resistance and find that we have standards to be met as well. Phil Bridger has attempted to get things on track, which is the best approach. I've pushed for sources, too.

    At the moment this and az:Davit Osepaşvili are both up for deletion, with people across at least two Wikipedias pointing (e.g. ka:Special:Diff/4331515) the single-purpose multi-project article creator to various kinds of notability and sourcing policies. (I suspect that it's only a matter of time for fr:David Osepachvili, sq:Davit Osepashvili, simple:David Osepashvili, and tr:Davit Osepaşvili to be noticed and questioned.)

    All that said, if the single-purpose account starts doing here what xe did at ka:Special:Diff/4345411, which is both personal attacks and direct legal threats, a swift ejection from the English Misplaced Pages will be necessary.

    Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:71 by multiple ISP accounts

The initial edit at Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), prior to being blocked, was here: Diff1‎

Which was again reverted three times:

• 2603:301b:98:f000:61a0:6cfe:1d46:bbb4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff2

• 2603:301b:98:f000:740e:6c52:d935:a04e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff3

• 2601:80:4500:43b2:fcd3:e457:3d85:5bf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff4

It looks like the same editor is using a VPN to evade their block. Is temporary page protection the more logical way to go? Blue Riband► 23:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be moot for the time being as there have been no further edits by any of the above ISPs as of the writing. Blue Riband► 18:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at Isaac Rochell

Anonymous users are vandalizing the page Issac Rochell, adding unreferenced BLP stuff, and adding slurs to the page. The page may have to be protected. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Page has been protected. For future references Kaseng55, take page protection requests to WP:RFPP unless there is something that specifically needs to be handled here. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's block of Evoke Heir

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

The story here is straightforward. New user Evoke Heir makes seven edits: five to ANI , one to mainspace , one to userspace . The only warning on Evoke Heir's talk page is from the mainspace edit, and it wasn't followed by any more misbehavior. An hour later, HJ Mitchell blocks Evoke Heir indefinitely, with talk-page and email access disabled, and does not explain the block on the user talk page. The block log entry is Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Discussion with admin is at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Block of Evoke Heir.

So, good block or bad block? My argument is below. Modulus12 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe this block complies with the blocking policy. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. Were the edits nonconstructive? Yes. Were they so egregious as to be treated the same as our worst vandals and LTA sockpuppets? No. HJ Mitchell says this is "obviously a troll account". That's definitely possible, maybe even more likely than not. But the possibility of it being someone with WP:NOCLUE, under the lens of assuming good faith, is large enough to not be able to ignore here. The first three comments at ANI could be nonsense mimicry of other users (shouts of "BOOMERANG" at ANI are frequent). The last edit to ANI was clearly snark, but it's not outside the realm of snark that ANI regulars make from time to time, and they don't get indeffed for it. The mainspace edit was an extremely mild form of "vandalism" and could just be a test edit. This is not indef territory. Let's look at the policy: WP:BEFOREBLOCK: Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. WP:EXPLAINBLOCK: Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. ... Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. In my opinion, the edits we see and HJ Mitchell's suspicions are insufficient to justify skipping these steps. The blocking policy also says editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged on serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring. Disabling talk-page access was clearly outside the bounds of policy. This editor should be allowed to appeal.

I also dislike how the block log entry says one thing (WP:NOTHERE, the vaguest of all block reasons), and when queried, HJ Mitchell's actual reasons for blocking are not any of the items listed at that link sitting on solid evidence. Instead it's a sprawling bunch of vague suspicions ("clearly not a new user", "trolling", "vandalism", "sockpuppet"). That discrepancy is unfair to the blocked individual, the block reason is not clear and specific, and it forces the rest of us to ask the admin for clarification. In this case, that comes bundled with patronizing statements like I'm astonished that we're even debating this, I'm dumbfounded that I'm having to explain such an obvious cut and dried block, we're wasting so many words. Maybe me and JBW are naive for questioning this block, but explaining how your admin actions comply with policy is not a waste of your time. It is part of the job you signed up for. Modulus12 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator, I looked at every one of this editor's contributions, and every one of them looked like minor, moderate or major trolling. In other words, a sophisticated troll here to make trouble for as long as possible. I consider the odds that this person would have gone on to become a productive Misplaced Pages editor to be a tiny fraction of 1%. Newbies who really want to help out do not come here in full blown troll mode. I endorse the block. As for the NOTHERE block reasoning, it is entirely appropriate when a disruptive new editor has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As for failure to leave warnings, warnings are only of value to editors who truly want to contribute constructively and are amenable to constructive criticism. Trolls take such warnings as badges of honor and redouble their trolling. WP:DENY should be the standard practice with trolls. Briefly and neutrally describe the misconduct in the edit summary of the block notice. Move on and forget them. Deny them the twisted glory that they crave. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Good block. This is not a newbie, this is obviously a returning troll. You don't warn obvious trolls, you just stop the trolling promptly and without fuss. Oh, and Modulus12, I really think you could spend your time more constructively by working on the encyclopedia rather than escalating pointless drama and feeding the trolls. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the block. Without going into specifics Evoke Heir's behaviour isn't that of a genuinely new user; it's that of a user who already has some experience and is well aware AN/I is the best crowded theatre to yell "Fire!" in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 07:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Obvious block of obvious troll. Modulus, see WP:DUCK, WP:RBI, Occam's razor, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:COMMONSENSE for the principles we operate under when we issue NOTHERE blocks. Thanks for giving me a chuckle though. ~Swarm~ 07:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• An obvious throwaway troll account. Their very first edit is to ANI and references WP:BOOMERANG. The chances that this is a new or potentially productive editor are virtually zero. Pawnkingthree (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, this is more of the same from Modulus12, namely, a lack of clue leading to a timesink and a drain on admin resources, and a strain on the individual admin/s targeted. Can we please ban them from the dharma boards until they figure things out in a more well-rounded way? And JBW, it's disappointing (and surprising) to see you emboldening this kind of conduct (even with just one comment), as you, yourself, may well end up on the receiving end of clueless reports such as this (and probably do). While I wouldn't have disabled TPA, it isn't a great loss to have this user go through UTRS if they're serious about contributing positively. If this wasn't a WP:PACT matter, at least, which it almost certainly is. El_C 08:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• And adding to El_C's point, Modulus12 was partial-blocked from ANI in 2021 for persistently messing about with other people's edits, at which point they promised to not do it any more; however, they're still doing it - not only pointless tweaking but also taking it upon themselves to remove humourous posts because they "don't belong". Possibly any new block needs to be a lot longer, since they clearly can't stop themselves doing it. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Modulus12

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

• For the record, I disagree, no offence, with Ritchie333's close; further discussion does not yet seem to have run its course. SN54129 13:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  On that note, I have left a message on Modulus12's talk page telling them to stay away from ANI. Hopefully that will do the trick, and somewhat pacify those calling for stronger sanctions. Ritchie333 13:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Let them call for stronger sanctions all they want. I'm not a new editor. If this admin or that admin thinks I'm being disruptive or "a timesink" and a "drain on admin resources" because the only interaction I've ever had with them here was asking a simple question about their close (really User:El C?), then they should put up some proper evidence and try to reach a consensus for blocking me. Also, it looks like El C partially agrees with me (talk-page access should be restored).

  Black Kite has dredged up the previous ill-fated attempt to kick me off ANI. I had forgotten about that proposal to unblock, Black Kite, but 331dot did not accept the unblock on those terms. Ivanvector eventually realized he had messed up badly in blocking me (full discussion here) and undid the whole thing. I took a long break because the admin misbehavior in that mess pissed me off from contributing, and the way it resolved does not seem to require me to hold to that promise. As for pointless tweaking I refer you to WP:TPO where fixing format and layout errors is explicitly allowed, and to WP:INDENT which explains why I moved the comments. That's just an essay, but properly locating and indenting your posts is a requirement of the talk page guidelines. I'm certainly not the only one who fixes these things around here when they spot them. taking it upon themselves to remove humourous posts because they "don't belong". Yes, that's how editing works. WP:BRD. EEng boldly added a joke, I reverted, and then EEng opened discussion just reverted again, so I went to discuss at User talk:EEng#Yellow card. You're welcome to join the discussion there.

  Finally, here we go again rushing to close discussion sections after only 10 hours. Why? I don't see HJ Mitchell claiming my nonsense is staining his reputation by being left open. I'm OK with 50 editors telling me the block was good, I'm OK with this section being ignored by everyone because all the points have been made. So why can't you just leave it open for three or four days so everyone has a chance to see and comment? Why is it that every time an admin action is questioned, it is rushed to close and swept under the rug as quickly as possible? Modulus12 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  It doesn't actually happen every time; it's much more likely when the claim is particularly dumb, and the discussion is a particularly deep timesink. You might be OK with 50 editors telling you you're being thick, but after the first 10, it's kind of a waste of everyone's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Modulus12: Your attitude stinks, and I don't think things will work out well for you if you don't change it. You need to drop your obvious animosity towards admins and start being a cooperative contributor. Just stop trying to be the admin police. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Now I'm the admin police? For what, two posts about admin actions? One of which was entirely successful (Bbb23 was abusing rollback). I think I'm allowed one misfire, and if the community thinks this was a good indef-no-appeals-block, I think we need to tweak the blocking policy text to make that more clear. My misunderstanding was reasonable. It's not my mission to go searching for admin misbehavior; these two instances were stumbled upon via reading the diffs on this page right here. As for your attitude stinks, from what I have seen at ANI, awful attitudes and even occasional incivility are not blockable offenses for anybody but brand-new users. If I appear hostile, it might be because polite questions result in hostile attitudes from admins. And admins, to a certain extent, should welcome policing of their actions, not belittle editors for making a mistake in questioning their authority. Modulus12 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  You were agitating for an indef block on another admin recently. Yes, most admins welcome good faith feedback, but your clueless animosity is not that. Anyway, you don't seem to be in the mood for listening, so just carry on with the attitude and see what happens, if that's what you want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agitating? Politely brainstorming, more like. Mostly a procedural indef block in that case, only requiring the bare minimum of acknowledging their failure as a requirement for unblock. It seems everyone else is fine with letting policy-violators continue editing and receive a free ticket to restart the drama at a later date. Oh well, I stood alone on that one, nobody liked the idea, I've moved on. Modulus12 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest you move on from this one too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion at WT:ACN has been freely open for anyone to comment at. I'm satisfied with it. The discussion here quickly brought on the scary purple box that effectively says "Nothing to see here, move along, obviously a silly editor who's obviously wrong because the five admins who showed up first must obviously speak for everyone." Big difference. Modulus12 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Another way to see it is that, at the time of closing, eight experienced editors (not all of whom are admins) thought your complaint was without merit, and nobody supported you. You are the one trying to make it an "us vs them" conflict with admins. And that is the attitude of which I speak. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Modulus12: Maybe I have powers of observation that aren't limited just to my own experiences. Also, I didn't ask for a "block," I asked for a ban. FYI: WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 16:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  " taking it upon themselves to remove humourous posts because they "don't belong". Yes, that's how editing works. WP:BRD. EEng boldly added a joke, I reverted, and then EEng opened discussion just reverted again, so I went to discuss at User talk:EEng#Yellow card. You're welcome to join the discussion there." Who gave you the right to unilaterally remove someone's comment? Stop trying to be the WP:FUNPOLICE. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I dunno, WP:TALK#TOPIC? WP:COMMONSENSE? WP:IAR? If you look at User talk:EEng#Yellow card, after EEng's restoration, Newyorkbrad was planning to remove it, and Primefac has now removed it. Maybe ask them. I think most of the pure humor comments on this already overly long and busy page can be done without, but I don't remove those. Adding a butt joke into someone's closing statement that is trying to explain acceptable behavior crosses a line. Modulus12 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, and have a healthy disrespect for any form of authority, but what causes this page to be overly long and busy is leaving discussions open for too long after the outcome is obvious. That has a much greater effect than occasional attempts at humour. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's moreso the article-related disputes between two editors that quickly generate endless back-and-forth walls of text. Those should be quickly controlled by admins; discussions of admin actions should be left open until everyone is happy that consensus is achieved, or some reasonable amount of days. Too many admins have forgotten that WP:SNOW also says An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. ... Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness. WP:SNOW#A cautionary note has more good advice. There was an admin agreeing with me at User talk:HJ Mitchell. I don't know if they've changed their mind or what, but they have not had a chance to comment here. I myself didn't have a chance to respond to any of the counterpoints raised before it was closed. A little reasoned discourse isn't going to hurt anyone. Modulus12 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, JCW555, an interesting thought experiment is to ask what if it was Evoke Heir cracking butt jokes in closing statements instead of EEng. It seems entirely incompatible with WP:AGF and principles of fairness to say that inappropriate behavior from an unwarned new editor should catch an indef, while inappropriate behavior from an experienced editor (who knows better) should be tolerated. Modulus12 (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you love hearing yourself? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not gonna comment on a scenario that didn't happen (and engage in whataboutism). Again, who made you the judge and jury of what humor is acceptable? ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:BLUDGEON needs a serious read right now, as well as WP:DROPIT, before the ban hammer is weilded. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Srsly. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as it seems to be this is being dragged out by a user who is very close (I suspect, I may be wrong) to losing any and all sympathy. Precisely because they will not drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

^^^ SN54129 19:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see how it looks that way. I think I've said everything I want to say in this meta-discussion on the close, and if the original discussion is not re-opened, I can't really elaborate on my arguments there. Also, I should have courtesy-pinged Ivanvector above when I commented on his behavior. I'll shut up now unless anyone has a question for me or the discussion above is re-opened. Modulus12 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have no intention of getting involved in the discussion on Modulus12's conduct, which is what this has become. However, I see that El_C had criticised me, including accusing me of "emboldening this kind of conduct", and I should like to comment on that. I did not endorse or condone the activity of the blocked editor, and I certainly did not do anything which I saw, or see, as "emboldening" their conduct. I didn't even criticise HJ Mitchell for blocking. The main thing which I did do was criticise him for blocking without access to any means of appeal. I may have made a serious error of judgement in making that criticism, but I don't see "emboldening this kind of conduct" as a fair description of doing so. I am also surprised that El_C, in the same post as saying that they would not have disabled talk page access and that it was reasonable to "have this user go through UTRS", is so heavily critical of me for a post the essential points were (1) likewise suggesting that talk page access might not have been removed, and (2) suggesting that if that access was removed then the option of going through UTRS should have been made available. As far as I can see, on both those points the view I expressed was merely a more strongly held version of the view that El_C has expressed, and while obviously there is room for expressing disagreement with my more strongly held version, I don't understand how they can condemn me in such strong terms for opinions which, while much more strongly expressed, are essentially in the same direction as their own opinions. JBW (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• RE: I didn't even criticise HJ Mitchell for blocking. JBW, what you actually said was: It seems to me that immediately blocking rather than warning was questionable, but removing talk page access makes no sense at all That's "criticism for blocking" in my book. The edit summary even read: Questionable, to say the least (diff). Which ordinarily would be okay'ish (even if WP:PACT naïve), but you had made this fire-and-forget comment in response to Modulus12, specifically. That's the issue here. And Modulus12 was, in my view, emboldened by it. You even began your comment with: Prompted by that message from Modulus12, I have checked Evoke Heir's editing Anyway, I realize it displeases you to hear me express that criticism, but it is what it is. I don't think it was a grave condemnation on my part because I don't think it was a grave mistake on yours. But I challenge that this carelessness on your part was a mistake, nonetheless. El_C 23:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

El_C (1) OK, "questionable" was an unfortunate word to use, as it was likely to be taken as criticism. I am some distance along the autism spectrum, and tend to use words in more literal ways than they are likely to be taken, and I meant that literally that it could be questioned, not that I criticised it. (2) From what you now say, it is evident that you meant that I was "emboldening" the action by Modulus12, not the original activity by the blocked editor. That being so I now understand your point, though I'm not sure I can reasonably have been expected to know that Modulus12 was likely to produce the nonsense that is now on this page. (3) There's probably no point in going deeply into the semantics of the word "displeases", but "surprises" comes closer to what I intended to convey, perhaps with a faint colouring of "puzzles". (4) OK, it's good to read that you "don't think it was a grave condemnation", but it did come across to me as one. JBW (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't. What I said was disappointing (and surprising). And, no, you weren't expected to necessarily be aware of Modulus12's seemingly indiscriminate admin RGW impulses, but I still felt that your analysis of the blocked account inadvertently emboldened them to make this CIR report (which I tend to doubt they'd have gone for otherwise). Maybe it stemmed from your note to HJ Mitchell a few days prior about another indef, I dunno. So that is what I tried to get across. Next time, get telepathic. Anyway, I'm good with both of us moving on from this, hopefully, with no bad blood. Personally I've none, I was just trying to point out, perhaps too strongly, some of the key mechanics that led us all here. Regards, El_C 08:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: OK. JBW (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Clerking this page while this discussion is happening is pretty giant red flag that you are looking for conflict.Slywriter (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm still unclear why El C gets to add a BBC joke to a close but I can't add a footy joke. I think all fetishes should be equally acceptable in closes. EEng 06:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ricky, is that you? It's your uncle Randal. I'm the leader of a gang now. El_C 08:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• (Post-close) I have boldly updated the blocking policy to conform with the consensus above that HJ Mitchell's blocking choices were appropriate, whereas before the policy stood in contradiction. Hopefully this prevents anyone in the future from making the same mistake that I did. Modulus12 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  So says the editor who complains about this page being "overly long and busy". Just shut up and edit some articles, will you? So the policy didn't have all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed. Well, guess what, none of our policies do, because this is not a bureaucracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe it's time an uninvolved admin blocked Modulus from editing the Misplaced Pages namespace in order to prevent them further disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wtf. I agree with HJMitchell. Callmemirela 🍁 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them from editing the Misplaced Pages mainspace. They can clearly contribute to the project elsewhere, however the fact they have been brought to task about this WP:POINT editing shows they do not get it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. -- JBL (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Egorku56

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

Egorku56 (talk · contribs) obtrusive cross-wiki spammer, see Emir Marlo, deletes the speedy deletion tag all the time. See also e.g. de:Emir Marlo, tr:Emir Marlo, pl:Emir Marlo (have all been deleted). --Icodense (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Fan content of 173.162.220.17

173.162.220.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)This user kept adding a lot of Fan content to wrestling and some stuff like that and making the articles full of over detailed tables. I wouldn't sure it is constructive or not?Pavlov2 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds more like a content dispute. Callmemirela 🍁 16:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

FelicityWiki reported by Comedymod

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comedymod,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More activity from banned HarveyCarter

• Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter
• 86.149.119.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 31.53.205.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Inveterate troll User:HarveyCarter was banned 15 years ago, but he has evaded his ban thousands of times. The latest activity is at the IP range Special:Contributions/86.149.119.0/24, as seen by this edit today, harping on the same thing he's been hammering for years—that Darlan assured Churchill the fleet would be scuttled.

HarveyCarter was also active at Special:Contributions/31.53.205.0/24 as recently as two weeks ago. The range Special:Contributions/86.150.120.0/21 was blocked for a year starting 11 days ago. Can we get another lengthy rangeblock or two? Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As they keep coming back, unsure what can be done, maybe a page protection. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of pages are involved, ranging from film actors to political and military history. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, well as it seems so easy for them to block evade I am unsure what else can be down. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocking ranges for this IP (British Telecom) is also pointless as they are very dynamic and users can hop from one to another - even from IPv4 to IPv6 and back - very easily by just hard-rebooting their router a few times. Not to mention most of them are very busy. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Closure mess involving off-wiki discussion

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

I need some advice from editors experienced with messes. A few days ago, an anonymous editor requested the closure of a five-month old merge proposal here, which I did. My closure was quickly reverted by participant MarioProtIV (talk · contribs), who claimed that the discussion wasn't thorough enough for a consensus to have emerged. Then, the entire proposal was quickly "withdrawn" by the editor who started the discussion; when I questioned him about it, he explained that he and other participants don't have the time and/or desire to deal with it right now. I then explained to MarioProtIV that reverting closures without consulting the person who made it is inappropriate and that his general conduct could be interpreted as stonewalling. He replied that the discussion's participants had discussed the issue off-wiki, where they agreed to handle things differently than the on-wiki discussion would indicate, and that he would be more careful with his behavior going forward. I am satisfied with his response to my behavioral concerns, but as far as the final disposition of the merger proposal goes, I feel out of my depth: off-wiki discussion cannot override on-wiki consensus, but if the article's regular contributors have a plan, maybe it would be best to just leave them to it. (Neither the article nor the talk page has been edited much recently, so I can't tell what's actually going on.) I think this needs attention from people smarter and more experienced with these things than me. —Compassionate727  21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TheresNoTime for notifying the involved parties for me. —Compassionate727  21:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I'm taking a look at this now; off the bat I can say that a direct revert of a closure is pretty bad form, and MarioProtIV should know better. Apologies for jumping on the ANI notices! ~TNT (talk • she/her) 21:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Weather events seem to be one of those topics, like cars or professional wrestling, that attract people with strong opinions who are not prepared to discuss things with non-fanatics. My approach would simply be to leave it as "no consensus", but with the proviso that anyone who has an opinion can start another discussion immediately if they want, and with a reminder to the participants that decisions about Misplaced Pages are made on Misplaced Pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling those involved have already had reminders/warnings about off-wiki canvassing—this time its going to be blocks if I can prove my suspicion of where this took place. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I request an indef block for myself as I have quite a bit of guilt in matters related to this over the past couple of years. While I have never asked someone to blatantly support or oppose anything, just mentioning a discussion period is still canvassing. If I am being honest, myself and at least 15-20 other people in the wiki project have participated in stealth canvassing as people always bring up on wiki discussions and discuss things off wiki. The RfC in November for colors was canvassed as has the current one since it has been mentioned and discussed off wiki. There have been other discussions linked to off wiki as well. All of us should be held accountable and punished for our crimes. Noah 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The WPTC discord server has been warned multiple times about off-wiki canvassing (most recently by Enterprisey, and previously by Worm That Turned I believe?), so its apparent this is a systemic issue that warnings alone are unable to prevent. Real-time communication platforms allow like-minded Wikipedians to collaborate on content, and the vast majority of groups who use it do so constructively and with respect for their on-wiki colleagues—in this case, it is apparent to me that you (MarioProtIV and Hurricane Noah) have repeatedly engaged in off-wiki collusion despite multiple warnings.

I'm still trying to work out what we should do about this, and I'd welcome any suggestions.. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, I repeat my request to be stripped of my rights and indef blocked. Noah 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I also want to reiterate that the scale of the stealth canvassing in this situation involves over a dozen people in the project, not just Mario and myself. Many others have mentioned discussions and participated in off-wiki discussions. We all need to be held responsible for what has transpired. Noah 22:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What does blocking you solve though Noah, other than preventing a normally fairly decent editor from editing? Misplaced Pages:Canvassing states I can block you both for this, but it doesn't stop the systemic issue as you mention—I can't exactly block 15-20 other people when its only you two who have been reported.. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 22:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The only to stop it is to block me indefinitely. Other people will inadvertently rope me into something or ask me about something which makes me just as guilty as them. This is the only way to prevent it from occurring again. Noah 23:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are either unable or unwilling to control your own actions? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I am saying I am unable to control myself. Either people block me here or I will find someone who will. Noah 23:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to provide evidence of this, you may do so here or, if doing so would involve outing, email it to the Arbitration Committee instead. Otherwise, your bizarre request that you and twenty other people be blocked seems more like an attempt to derail this discussion than anything else. —Compassionate727  23:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the behaviour in this case solely in the scope of weather and related articles? Would a topic ban be sufficient from this area be sufficient to prevent further disruption? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be pointless since that's all I edit. Might as well just indef block and get it done and over with. Noah 23:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

All right I will say at least, from my view, earlier on I had been made aware of bringing others from off-wiki to discussions was a form of canvassing. Now it seems that applies to the whole project in general, which I was not aware of at all. I, for the most admit I’ve made my mistakes in the past and for that I apologize to all. Also, I will say that in my case, I was called into the discussions off-wiki by Noah mostly, and did not do so to Noah my own record (again for that I apologize for getting involved). I am in no way shifting my blame here as I do own a little bit of it but I am stating my own view which is that I did not really know what I was getting involved into. I do agree with TNT that something should be done to stop this from going on. Also Noah, I appreciate your inputs but I don’t think you need to bring this so much down on yourself. Plus you’re an essential member of WPTC and I think you do have its considerations at heart even though the ways of discussing of it has been thorny.

TL;DR I’ve made my mistakes before but was not fully aware of the scale this was breaching and was unknowingly drawn into it. --MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the off-wiki elements involved, I'm going to put together an arbcom case—I don't think there's anything more we can do here.. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 23:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

KingsofLondon's disruptive editing

• KingsofLondon (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:RomanceLove88 and the endless redirects

User:RomanceLove88 has seemingly been going on an endless redirect spree recently, creating an incredible amount of somewhat absurd and unnecessary redirects that have resulted in a large headache for other users. Their redirects have been the subject of numerous RFD discussions in the past week, with 130 nominated on March 22nd alone. After their initial batch of Pointless MCU redirects (None of the MCU movies have ever been called "episodes"), were sent to RFD, they started creating redirects for what was apparently EVERY SINGLE Mii ever included in Nintendo games (note that the number of redirects was far larger than what was shown in the RFD thread, the list was simply too large and I gave up 1/3 of the way through), redirects that truncated "The Amazing Spider-Man" to just "Amazing", and even redirects for a sequel to a movie that was never produced. This eventually got to the point where User:Tavix nuked all of their recent creations.

Despite efforts from editors such as User:InfiniteNexus, User:Tamzin and myself to get them to stop, they have recently created 신비아파트: 고스트볼Z (which one could argue would violate WP:RFOREIGN) and does not appear to be able to comprehend why their editing is disruptive, as evidenced by their recent edits on Tavix and their own talk page. This disruptive behavior cannot continue, and having to patrol their edits for further creations is exhausting. I am proposing either a T-Ban on all redirects or harsher action, despite their otherwise clean record- this is as their promises that they would stop have proven to be empty.Padgriffin 08:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would support a TBAN (allowing AFC/R as an alternative, as I, Padgriffin, and Tavix have all suggested), as well as a revocation of their WP:RWHITELIST pseudo-perm. However, there are communication issues (and maybe competence as well) here that concern me much more than the redirects do. "New(er) user fails to understand a set of norms and makes a huge mess" is a tale as old as Misplaced Pages, and usually it can be resolved by experienced users explaining those norms, the new(er) user saying "Oh shit, I'm sorry", and everyone moving on. When we decide to TBAN someone, it's usually because they rejected that advice but are still a net-positive. Here, though, RL88 hasn't so much rejected my and others' advice as clearly failed to understand it. I pointed out that they were about to have 130 redirects deleted, and that that meant they should ease up. Their response was to continue creating redirects. I posted on their talk again, saying they really needed to answer. Their response was to defend two newer redirects I'd mentioned, completely ignoring everything else I'd said. When I asked if they understood my broader points, they replied simply "yep". Comments since are comparably disheartening. I fundamentally question whether this is someone capable of editing as part of a collaborative project now or anytime in the near future.Disclaimer that Padgriffin and I discussed this matter off-wiki, but as an RfD regular I had already been aware of the issues RL88 had caused, and, as I've in the past been able to successfully intervene when users were serially creating bad redirects, I decided I would try my hand here. I was not asked to come comment in this thread. -- Tamzin (she/they) 09:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  It was an accident, i forgot Tamzin tell me for waiting in the next month. RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  And almost forgot, i confused this Misplaced Pages rule. RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN and rwhitelist perm revocation. These redirects are Neelix-level absurd, and responses here and elsewhere suggest the user in question hasn't a clue. —Compassionate727  14:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and rwhitelist perm revocation. There also is a language competency issue. This person is young and may grow out of it, but for now, we need this to avoid ongoing disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as I don't see how they will actually follow through with such ban given they're still doing it despite the ANI thread. Callmemirela 🍁 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked They're still creating pointless redirects despite the discussion and the existence of this thread. That's a simple competence issue so I have blocked them indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you all for taking care of this. A block seems like the right move. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support block Dealt with them last year involving crude machine translation of articles and just saw they restored a nigh-unsourced version of Disney XD (Japanese TV channel) which claims they erased production credits from other studios (they simply can never do that). Seems like they definitely haven't improved in the least, and this is a good call. Nate • (chatter) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• @Black Kite:, you might also want to indef User:StickminToppatAwesome, which User:RomanceLove88 outright admitted on his user page to opening as a second account. The alt account hasn't made any edits yet, but one never knows. Ravenswing 05:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  WOW. That's got to be the first time someone's tried the LITTLEBROTHER defense on an account they've already disclosed as an alt. Kinda wish Firefly had held off on blocking so we could see if "Alex" also likes creating pointless redirects. -- Tamzin (she/they) 15:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin not a terrible idea, but I tend to have a low tolerance for things that waste community time. Given that we've already had a 130-item(!) RfD, and this ANI thread, I thought it best to just nip this in the bud. For anyone wondering, RomanceLove88's userpage still states as of this moment this is my second user is User:StickminToppatAwesome. The StickminToppatAwesome account then tried to claim that they were operated by a different person in the diff Tamzin links above. StickminToppatAwesome has since posted an unblock request (which I corrected the template for so that it actually works) in which they maintain the same story. firefly ( t · c ) 16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Worse than Putin?

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

With

• this
• this, and
• this

I think AsiBakshish has crossed a line. Could an admin take a look? Alexbrn (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Indef please. Anybody who can't be bothered to type the word "are" is a net negative. – .O. 11:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed. If they provide a useful unblock criteria then fine, but we don't need that. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sorting. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive edits by User:Rkanstws

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

Rkanstws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): The User is continuously adding TRP ID section in Anupamaa, Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin and Imlie repeatedly by claiming that he owns media page on instagram and twitter. I warned him several times. But he did it again. I'm providing links to those edits also. From sources it's an evident that it's vandalism. Administrators please look into this matter.Pri2000 (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring across many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothere editing by Otukenli747

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

Otukenli747 has made 15 edits on English Wiki, 13 on the mainspace and 2 on talk pages, it's quite obvious that this user's edits have not improved the project in any way, here are some diffs : , , , , , , ...---Wikaviani 21:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Otukenli747 as a vandalism only account. Cullen328 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you just broke the record for the fastest block I've seen on wikipedia;-))---Wikaviani 21:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikaviani, I clicked on all seven of your diffs, and they were quite convincing. You did a good job presenting the case succinctly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad i could help. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani 07:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Samantha.earl2001

Samantha.earl2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user keeps making disruptive edits on Düdükçü and other articles despite multiple talk page warnings and has now also left a seemingly anti-Armenian comment on my talk page . AntonSamuel (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Cullen328 for 72 hours for edit warring and a personal attack. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:Signpost team ignores NPOV

Personal attack in edit summary by User:Zacwill

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

A recent interaction of mine with this editor over a mundane topic led to this edit summary: See this edit. Not sure if this meets WP:AN/I standards, but as far as I can see, it can't be addressed in the usual way that WP:INCIVIL suggests (strike out or Template:RPA), as it's a edit summary. --Inops (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• First you are required to notify all concerned parties when opening a discussion at ANI. Did you do this? (I don't see any notification but maybe I missed it.) Secondly, did you attempt to communicate with Zacwill before coming here? Third, I do agree that the edit summary was uncivil. And IF an attempt has been made to communicate over the issue w/o success then some form of warning is probably called for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • First point has been fixed now (I was unaware of that requirement past pinging them). To the second and third point: I have no wish to see them "templated". They've been here long enough to know that is not acceptable practice. A template substitution isn't going to do anything. I would merely like to have the edit summary stricken (however that's done). --Inops (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have revdeled the edit summary, which was in fact unacceptably rude. I have also dropped a note on their talk page. I think an apology is in order but that is between the two of you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ad Orientem! --Inops (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Vietnamese nationalist

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

Not sure how to handle this, but User:Vpha's description of their purpose on[REDACTED] seems be quite concerning. Numerous reversions in their history Special:Contributions/Vpha and advocates for inclusion of Quora answers as sources here. They were warned multiple times by multiple users including User:Largoplazo, User:Mathsci, User:Bakkster Man, User:Apokryltaros, User:Kanguole, and User:CentreLeftRight but seems to have doubled down judging by the new additions to their user page today, which now show discrimination of Chinese and Cambodian people on their user page. Qiushufang (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Also they uploaded an unhappy face doodle on commons specifically for use on their user page, which is really weird. Qiushufang (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Vpha got a standard WP:DS notice because of edits related to the article Intelligence quotient: consensus has been for that to be a factual neutral article, written from a mainstream perspective, so avoiding controversy. On their user talk page, Vpha made various complaints, for example about scores in the International Mathematical Olympiad; it was hard at that stage to give any response, since mathematical prowess in the Vietnamese diaspora, particularly in France and the US, is well known. The latest additions to their user page go way beyond their previous grievances. Mathsci (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that in general there are several accounts making the same kind of edits: Pushing Vietnamese perspectives on political articles related to Vietnamese history and politics with weak or no sources. It isn't just adding Vietnamese perspectives either, it's completely removing other ones by dismissing it as "Chinese propaganda" or "China bias", for example on Sino-Vietnamese War. If anyone cares to take a quick glance, I got quite the headache from some of my interactions with other editors, who seemed to intentionally misread sources they added or removed. I am beginning to wonder, given the similarities in article topics and policy violations by these accounts and anonymous editors, if they are the same person. Of course this is speculation that is inadequate for an investigation, and it may just be a committed community of netizens. I came across a Twitter thread a few weeks ago which I can't find anymore, but it was a bunch of users complaining specifically about the articles Qiushufang and I mentioned, with one user attacking my edits specifically. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Vpha also edits from a Sydney IP. Mathsci (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

is a Sydney ip edit as well seven minutes before Vpha made their edit. Not sure if the same person or if deliberate. They deleted some material from the lead and put the majority of content under "Chinese perspective." Vpha then deleted the Chinese perspective part but didn't re-add the other deleted content: . Qiushufang (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I was getting the same feeling as well from this user, which was why I checked their history. The Quora suggestion is rather innocuous itself, but they have edited the article already anyways, and possibly using an IP and then logging in, although this is speculation. Another user I had a run-in with on Song–Đại Việt war who edited Sino-Vietnamese War as well had similar anti-Chinese and anti-Cambodian biases in their edit history. However that could simply be overlapping interests. Qiushufang (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

In the linked message Vpha says: "I understand that using sites such as Quora is off limits on Misplaced Pages" so I don't know why you're saying they're advocating for the inclusion of Quora answers as sources. It sounds to me they're just saying "this is what I think and this is my source for such", which is more of a WP:NOTFORUM violation (less serious than actually pushing unreliable sources), especially since they've said they don't want to edit the article themselves.

Please post better diffs in the future, a contribution page and one talk page message isn't enough. Also, @CentreLeftRight:, they're not consistently taking an anti-Chinese perspective. See If this was a sock/propaganda account I would imagine they wouldn't vacillate between fervently pro-China and also go against China on key issues. Seems like someone who's genuinely expressing their own opinions in a disruptive way. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Their user page shows multiple biases and discriminatory language right now. Statements like "I am nearly always right. I do everything out of good faith." and "Cambodians or Chinese Cambodians or Chinese in general have been no good either. Useless. Mao and Pol Pot were USELESS." are completely inappropriate regardless of their intention. This was added *after* multiple reverts and warning by multiple users. See where they call User:Apokryltaros a liar after being warned, then proceeded to rv all the warnings. Regardless of whether or not they are pro or anti-China, they have accrued multiple warnings, showed no sign of willingness to engage in discussion, accused others of being liars, doubled down on discriminatory and inflammatory language, nationalistic jingoism, and blamed multiple ethnicities which they perceive to be harassing them. They also uploaded an unhappy face doodle onto commons solely to use for their user page as noted above. None of this behavior seems to be done in good faith simply to express an opinion, which is not what[REDACTED] is for anyways. Qiushufang (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also note that their attack on Taiwan's status as a country does not necessarily make them not anti-China or anti-Chinese judging by their user page currently. It mentions that he believes that he has been attacked by "Chinese, Taiwanese, or Cantonese, or something along those lines" as well as Cambodians or Chinese Cambodians, who they claim are all bad people. The focus is definitely on people of Han Chinese descent regardless of their nationality and is consistent with prejudicial attitudes towards ethnicity, not just country. Qiushufang (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

See this edit by Vpha: . Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan is a state, not a country. It has tried to affirm its country status by abusing Southeast Asians, mainly exploiting the poor to keep itself rich. It isn't a country and it is a state. Taiwanese are the same as Chinese and if they were to rule the Mainland, they would be worse then the PRC. Recently, Taiwan has been sucking up to Western powers and democracies in a bid to convince Taiwanese country status and an effort to be recognised as independent as South Korea and Vietnam. It lacks them all. I am in favour of saying that Taiwan is not a country, and is doomed to be subsumed by the Mainland. It cannot join ASEAN.

I have indefinitely blocked Vpha for disruptive editing; more specifically, aggressively nationalistic POV pushing. Their user page provides ample evidence that they are not here for collaboration but rather for nationalistic confrontation. I have rarely seen a worse userpage. Their edits simply confirm the overall impression. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Help needed at Veracrypt

Full protection at Veracrypt expires on 31 March 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

telegra.ph

I've seen a couple of attempts to use this domain in the past couple of days to create hoaxes, based on legitimate-appearing hoax content hosted there. See and both blocked. I am uncertain if this is more widespread than this, but it probably deserves blacklist attention if it is. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You can make this request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Compassionate727  03:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I mention it here first for a broader audience to see if anybody else has seen this trend. I've blocked a named account and an IP already. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this domain is not expected to host RS content, though now, when pretty much all independent Russian media have been blocked, sometimes people use it to repost there publications from blocked media. Anyway, probably should be blacklisted.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though it could be used to rehost RS content, there's no reason why we should use a mirror over the original RS in the first place. Padgriffin 13:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes sense to me, if the original is available. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

This LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

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

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

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

Posts in a RFC moved around and deleted by the OP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuous Disruptive Edits by User:NishaRawal 31

NishaRawal 31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): The User is repeatedly using excessive cheap, abusive and fandom language on Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin just to show one character as the "only good character" and the rest other characters as negative. Also she's creating negative image for Neil Bhatt and his wife Aishwarya Sharma Bhatt who plays Virat and Patralekha in the series respectively by combining their personal as well as reel lives. And the point to be noted is that she's using exactly same language which an IP used soon before pages semi-protection today. The User has been warned several times still she isn't stopping herself. I'm providing links to those edits. See after I reverted her edits she did it again and used exactly same language which she used with another fellow editor Manali Jain. It's more than evident that she's here just to make "Misplaced Pages Article a Fan Page of Ayesha Singh playing Sai" and she isn't following[REDACTED] rules and ignoring all warnings just to show one particular character in good light and rest all in negative light. Administrators please look into this matter Pri2000 (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am regular viewer of Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin and updated its plot on Misplaced Pages. However, some non-regular viewer are having a problem with plot. Request you to speak with serial makers and writers instead of reporting account on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishaRawal 31 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Administrators can see what she's saying. I mentioned in edit summary also that[REDACTED] runs over some rules not on personal views even after someone is regular viewer or not. And after experiencing[REDACTED] editing for over 9 months I understood that it isn't fan page but an encyclopedia where fan language can't be used and plot can't be updated daily. The User even removed her warning messages.Pri2000 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure what is going on here. They claim they do not know how to reply (but have done so here), but then they also constantly (including here (now removed)) use massage instead of message (hard to see how that is in any way possible). And in a way that dos make some grammatical sense (if it was meant as a joke). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Translation: The editor is repeatedly deleting a {{Long plot|section|date=March 2022}} notice and adding huge amounts of text that is full of editorization and unsourced analysis (example: "Terrorist"), which is not plot summary, in broken English (example: "Sai gets hurt while grinding but Pakhi enjoy it and makes her fun."), to an article that already has an overlong plot summary section full of broken English (example: "Sai convince Samrat to return home and Samrat gets agree."). The "Is this thing on?" discussion on the user talk page is probably peripheral. The best edit to happen to that article recently is Special:Diff/1079723040. That really is a pile of junk, nearly incomprehensible to readers. I think the best action here is to request: please stop adding more of this barely comprehensible junk to Misplaced Pages, NishaRawal 31. What you are adding to is already bad. Uncle G (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Reodorant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also note I already reported this here before, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban after a single revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pattern of behavior is in evidence to the administrator liberally banning without doing due diligence or following the ban evasion guidelines. 174.52.89.222 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BilledMammal is unnecessarily hostile and rude

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

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

A few more examples:

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

They make arguments that seem to go directly against what a policy appears to say:

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards