Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here. If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse. To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here. To challenge deletion, click here. To request page protection, click here. To report edit warring, click here. To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here. Before posting a complaint about a user on this page: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page Or try dispute resolution. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly. Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here. Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archives, search) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

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 Wikipedia for editors to fight my AfD (and seemingly wanting Azov members to escape Mariupol and... set the record straight on Wikipedia?), 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 [[1]] 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: [2] and then, an hour and a half after I deleted that, posted this canvassing: [3] 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 ([4]) with multiple allegations of personal attacks against another editor ([5], [6], [7]), combined with a general BATTLEGROUND approach ([8], [9]: 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia article to English Wikipedia.
• 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(T·C) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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."[10]
• 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." [11]
• Elinruby edit wars to strikeout parts of Buidhe's RfM statement that he considers personally attacked him [12][13][14]
• Elinruby removes from Buidhe's RfM her statement " In the event of no consensus, it should revert to the original title." [15]
• 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"[16]

WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 wikipedia would get a different picture of, say, Narendra Modi's article on english wikipedia or the 2002 Gujarat riots vis-à-vis the Gujarati-languange wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Azov_Battalion and canvassing and on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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.[17][18][19]
• Random insults including a false accusation that I wrote the March 2 article lede, an accusation also made without checking the article history[20]
• 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. [21]
• You appear to be suggesting that I should not have improved the article, Are you really unclear about the editing process?[22]
• 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?[23]
• 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[24]
• 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[25]
• 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[26]

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 Wikipedia 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[27] 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 [28] 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 [29] with him. I do realize that there is a dizzying array of accusations here Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There are three different editors that Elinruby is abusing on this talk page, all three of whom he calls "she" and treats with utter contempt, although he has been marginally more polite to me since I notified him that I am a "he."[30][31] The other two are User:Buidhe, a prolific and distinguised editor in the military history space, and BSMRD, a newish editor for whom WP:BITE would be relevant. Editors who identify as "she" are rare on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that Slatersteven didn't realize Elinruby uses this ANI to bludgeon three different editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that Elinruby felt a little more... hostile (perhaps hostile is the wrong word, maybe 'took things more personally') when referring to Buidhe or myself as I was digging through diffs and talk pages for my initial post. I didn't want to add it and still am not comfortable making any sort of direct accusation (I do actually believe in WP:AGF), but since you brought it up I will say it is something that crossed my mind. Also, and this I am comfortable saying directly, Elin seems to mix us up and cycle between us with annoying regularity, though they usually catch themselves before long. BSMRD (talk) 00:38, 30 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)

@GizzyCatBella: I for one would be happy if being warned or guided can persuade Elinruby to treat Wikipedia as a group project where collegial editing is a pillar of policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So have they been warned yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I would consider this whole thread a warning, as there have been multiple comments from others explaining problems with their behavior. Which Elinruby has ignored. A formal warning is just process for process' sake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I guess the "warning" here is for people who got attacked and accused without evidence: WP:CIVIL is NBD for an established editor with a clean block log. I'm taking the page I tried to improve off my watchlist. Congrats, Elinruby, you win! Life is short and Wikipedia is large. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I commented in the more recent RSN discussion[32] about the Azov Battalion lede but am basically uninvolved. I was invited to the RFC RSN discussion because I had posted a link on the AB talk page. I haven't looked into other parts of the story but I can see that Elinruby has been up against some rather obnoxious editing behaviour. Particularly, Elinruby was right about the rather thin sourcing being used to support an editorialization in the article lede that the AB is currently neo-Nazi. Maybe it is, I'd even say it probably is, but you need something close to WP:RS/AC to editorialize like that, and it still often ends up making us look like idiots. (Example: the article Hunter Biden's laptop currently redirects to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory even though even the NYT finally acknowledges[33] that the stuff on the laptop was real.)

  The thing about sneaks doesn't refer to any specific editor so it isn't a PA. As a take on the topic area in general, it does reflect known history such as the EEML arb case, which was about off-wiki coordination, i.e. sneaking. It wasn't the most decorous AFD post in history, but I can't get upset about it. Eggishorn's RSN comment I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to read through the entirety of a complaint that starts with "I am getting shouted down"-type allegations. Please read WP:CONSENSUS is either naive or disingenuous, since anyone who has been around contentious articles or Wikipedia DR knows that 1) getting shouted down really is a thing, and 2) consensus is not supposed to be synonymous with "mob rule".

  I can't comment on the wider pattern of Elinruby's editing, but in the small corner of it that I've had contact with, I see a justifiably frustrated editor who doesn't need a sanction. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I move we close this now, as it is clear no warning will be left on their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made an RFCL posting. Hopefully we can get a proper closure soon. BSMRD (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Any admin willing to check this death threat (?)

[34] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a death threat or just nonsense, but I'm leaning towards the latter. Either way, should be revdel'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No idea. Revdel'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reported it to emergency(AT)wikimedia.org, out of an abundance of caution, and as mentioned in the red edit notice here. sorry if someone else already did that. I've spoken with them about similar threats before, and they always tell me they'd rather have you report threats to them that you think are probably nonsense; they have people trained to make that call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Endorse decision. Deb (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

IP checks out to some of the information in the edit. Likely to have been written in a state of mental crisis or in a state of psychedelic intoxication... either way endorse Floqs' decision. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC) zzuuzz (and/or other admins, but pinging zzuuzz because it was they who revdelled), what possible good reason is there for revdelling a death threat? Concealing the fact that it was made does not make the recipient(s) of the threat any safer. If a person (gods forbid) were ever to try to make good on such a threat, hiding the fact that they made the threat would not hinder them in any way! I understand the desire to not have the appearance of such a thing being unacted upon, but I fail to see ho covering it up is of any benefit. It would be better to red flag it with some kind of administrators' statement saying such is unacceptable and edit &/or summary has been reported to WMF; but for transparency's sake, you all should not be hiding it! (Unless there's personally identifying information, &c..) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:25D7:83BA:434:F008 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, we do not allow grossly offensive content like threats of violence to remain visible to our readers anywhere on this project. It is removed from general public view but still available for use by editors who are administrators or who possess other advanced permissions. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP raises a good point that removing a threat doesn't prevent anything. But then Cullen328 raises a good response that relevant people can still see it. Speaking for myself only, as 'first on the scene', it wan't (and still isn't) clear to me whether this was a threat or not, but what was clear is that the message contained potentially troubling information which didn't belong on Wikipedia, and that it was appropriate to revdel it soon after being publicised here. My lack of summary was because I really couldn't understand it, but knew that this was going to be subject to peer review and that people would follow it up if they thought appropriate. Think of it as a sticking plaster. It has now been taken as far as it reasonably can be, which is not unexpected and not a wrong result. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the possible threat was directed at if anyone, but it's also worth remembering that readers can include the editor concerned. Depending on where the threat was made, the target etc, revdeleting it fast enough can ensure that the editor concerned may never have to read it. They may know something happened and if a more detailed revdeletion is left and they read it they may know what it was, but not having to read such things can definitely help reduce the harm. If for some reason they need to know what it said, well that's why report such things to the WMF so they can judge what needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F / The fate of User:JalenFolf

• 2A00:23C6:889A:8D01:DD24:2BC7:835E:422F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From looking at this anonymous user's contributions, I see a lot of edits that claim the edits are "on the grounds of" other articles, a serious violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for claims to make edits that, for example, violate MOS:TVNOW. Multiple warnings have not helped; the user continues to make these kinds of edits regardless. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This feels less OSE, more WP:CIR; the argument might read in an OSE manner, but they're just throwing in random television show titles to try to argue for their preferred tense, and no one would say a television show 'ceased operations'. Nate • (chatter) 20:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to contribute that the applicant jalen folf also systematically deletes contributions from some unregistered users sometimes obviously without any improvement of the article by the revert. Contributions can also be well-intentioned and made. This can also be seen in the changes of the complained user or in the applicant's history. it mainly leads to edit wars with users who are not familiar with the rules. I assume that he intends to do so here. this contradicts the procedure that one should assume good intentions of the user, and has a demotivating effect.91.41.254.22 (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First, may I request that a separate section be made for this very issue? This accusation is not what this thread is about. Second, in regards to Ben O'Toole, I had simply moved it into draftspace to allow you to improve the attempt without any intrusion from page reviewers. Now that the article has been accepted in Articles for creation, I have no reason to bother the page anymore. Thank you for your time. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In addition, any other neutral page reviewer would have made similar redirect restorations if they had seen what I had seen: at the time of draftification here there were very few sources present on that version of the article to establish notability. WP:THREE was followed, but with two sources from the same vendor. Additionally, I suspect AllFamous is an unreliable source; the About Us page on the website suggests it runs on WP:UGC. Luckily, this is no longer a problem thanks to improvements since draftification and Cabrils accepting the improved version of the article. I still do not see why this separate issue needs to be brought up in a case where now I feel another anonymous user is borderline WP:HOUNDing me. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made my article to the topic at all, neither i wanted to change the topic. But you just did. Anyway, reverts with a reason of advertising or promoting with tag RW included should be used carefully in my eyes, which made me drew attention. This and a systematical deteletion of contributions for the timespan.

So back to the topic - Outspoken warnings should be treated carefully. Systematic reverts too. Reverts to all contributions with the justification last good version is restored indicates that all contributions made were bad. in the present case you made these reverts within seconds. that this leads to displeasure is pretty obvious.

Also as far as i know, three reverts a day can be considered as an edit war. Please check your contributions history on that, especially if a users history can also be considered as a page. Polite pointers and suggestions for improvement are often much more appropriate than a warning, and a basis for collaboration. Please check your history on that and as already mentioned, reverts and warnings about my contributions are not the topic at all. 91.41.246.95 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think may have been an overreaction to a comment by a single anon editor, and have addressed it on the user's talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed community ban of User:JalenFolf I propose that the user JalenFolf be community banned from the English Wikipedia on grounds of a large history of edit warring, hounding, editing while logged out, and incivility towards anonymous users. Fine! I give up! This anonymous user is not letting me respond civilly to these accusations. If this is how it has to be, let’s see what the community says! Jalen Folf (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, anon! You just drove a long-term editor to leave the community! I'm done! For anyone else reading this, I don't care what happens to my fate; all that matters is I'm no longer comfortable editing on this encyclopedia. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to make an addendum to this thread that this matter just became worse with an IP owned by blocked user Glam-girlz targeting my Talk page for vandalism. This whole situation needs action, and FAST!!! I cannot stand this website anymore! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3 close paraphrasing from Fandom without attribution

Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rtkat3 has been copying or close paraphrasing from Fandom (website) (formerly Wikia) without attribution, including an edit after I approached him around a week ago. He was reminded of this requirement in 2020 and 2016 and was blocked for 24 hours in 2015.

Fandom sites generally use the CC BY-SA 3.0 license,^[35] which is compatible with Wikipedia, but attribution is required.

• WP:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?
• Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text
• WP:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources

From Fandom

Article	Diff	Apparent source
List of DC Comics characters: L#La Dama	29 March 2022	https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_(New_Earth) (history) https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Amparo_Cardenas_(Prime_Earth) (history)
Chimera in popular culture#Books (Percy Jackson)	21 March 2022	https://riordan.fandom.com/wiki/Chimera (history)
List of Marvel Comics characters: S#Ripley Ryan	5 January 2022	https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Ripley_Ryan_(Earth-616) (history)

Rtkat3 has also copied between articles without providing attribution as required by the WP:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. He received {{Uw-copying}} warnings in 2020 and 2016.

Within Wikipedia

Article	Diff	Source	Notes
Warcraft#Major races and factions	21 March 2022	Races and factions of Warcraft
Power Rangers RPM	15 March 2022	List of Power Rangers RPM characters	Revision deleted under WP:RD1 criterion
List of DC Comics characters: G#Grid	28 January 2022	Grid (comics)
Gotham City	7 January 2020	List of mayors of Gotham City	WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Rtkat3 and autopatrolled

Rtkat3 received several CorenSearchBot "possible copyvio" notifications between 2009 and 2015: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, and diff 6. I spot-checked two:

• Rtkat3 removed the tag from Monster High: Why Do Ghouls Fall in Love? without fixing the problem, and Crow removed the copy.
• Tricephalous (comics) was confirmed by MLauba and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2009 August 12.

This is a long-term pattern of copying edits that needs to be addressed. While attribution can be repaired later, actively creating problems is unacceptable. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In my defense on some of these charges, I have been trying to do some of the recent entries in my own words as best as I could. For some of the Wikipedia things, I was only trying to keep them from deletion in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Some characters in comics had to have to have their media appearances placed somewhere on this website. I also like to take this time to apologize for not leaving a special statement like how it was displayed on the page for Wonderland. Did I leave anything out in these comments of defense? --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've pointed to this before: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. It's a great resource to help you fix the close paraphrasing problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was able to do that with the examples listed above today. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing them. I added {{Fandom content}} to List of DC Comics characters: L#References because there were two source pages. Do you need guidance on the edit summaries required when copying between Wikipedia pages? Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll contact you if I need it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In the last day, you copied a phrase from Maia Mitchell#Personal life (permanent link) to Good Trouble (TV series)#Casting without an appropriate edit summary. All you have to do is enter an edit summary like copied content from [[Maia Mitchell]]; see that page's history for attribution, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution and WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia (guidelines). Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I was only adding the references and rephrasing information to the page because nobody else has added that information to the page to explain why Maia Mitchell departed from Good Trouble that involved being with her family. If that was wrong, I apologize for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That edit's content seems fine, although I am not familiar with the subject area. Its edit summary is the issue. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So I guess you want me to start being more specific about those types of edit summaries. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3, when you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary must say where you copied it from. Flatscan wrote out above what your edit summaries need to say, all you need to do is replace the article title. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So mention that the content was taken from Fandom or another Wikipedia page is what you are saying. How does one replace the article title? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Rtkat3, do not take content from Fandom. When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, your edit summary should be the following: copied content from [[ENTER ARTICLE TITLE HERE]]; see that page's history for attribution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the article title help. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

NPA and CIVIL issues with user Adamant1

I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [36] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have sadly seen the same pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
            • "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

            It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them, Mako001, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Miss representation

• • I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺

    As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"

    And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!

    Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find". ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,

1. 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.

1. 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.

1. 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?

As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit _(blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Post hawk justification

-EEng

It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed

I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Support tban from all deletion processes. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite tban from any deletion process, broadly construed, to be effective when the block expires. This is on the strength of the remarkable timesink and demonstration of incompetent battlegrounding which the editor treated us to below, subsequent to my original vote, and the bizarre revenge filing and flurry of talk page barbs. I get that they were upset at the looming tban, but they were surely given enough clues to back off and stop digging. I'm not confident this would not be a permanent, ongoing problem and resource drain, and I'm concerned about the good faith users it might hurt or drive away. I'm going to say that I also concur with those questioning general competence after this command performance, so if someone suggests something stronger and sensible the closer may interpret this comment as tacit support for that too, if it helps. Begoon 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: "battleground approach" 1. ["No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]

2. ["Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it."]

3. [Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]

4. [now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. ]

5. [voted deleted and then mentioned a potential redirect target - "It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect."]

6. Me conceding that I was wrong about something not being a controversy - "Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy." So hostile of me.

7. [for deletion/Bill Workman|Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it.]

8. "Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed."

9. ["Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward."]

Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place. But this is not helpful. It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!" I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One. Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future. Having done that, never look at this thread again. I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before. I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it. But I honestly think that would be the optimal move. Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My behavior has improved a lot since the other ANI complaints as the examples I provided show. In no way is how I acted in the Combermere School AfD comparable to what got me banned before either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not "have long standing issues that he [i.e. me] is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss". We simply have differing opinions. The problem is, you get hostile and aggressive whenever I state those opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but your constant attempts to bully editors who disagree with you and your increasing hostility and aggression to those who don't cave in are getting out of hand. You seem to have the impression that no one has a right to state a contrary opinion, and that is not acceptable. You even wrote that you hoped someone would report me to ANI for stating those opinions and implied that I was a vandal and/or troll, which is really beyond the pale. You then made claims that were patently untrue about editors being sanctioned at ANI for stating opinions such as mine. You need to learn that anyone (you, me, anyone else) is entitled to express their opinion at AfD without facing a barrage of condescension, unpleasantness, aggression and suggestions that they should not be allowed to say it. But it is quite clear from your comments thus far in this discussion that you really do not understand why your behaviour is concerning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement. Miniapolis 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote I don't know if this will do any good in the long term, but once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it, and it seems pretty certain that Adamant's behavior does not help foster a collegial atmosphere. It is possible that a next time we should consider a topic ban from that area, perhaps, but I really hope there won't be a next time. And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction: The block was in December, 2020. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you were blocked for condescending edits and continued badgering, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors to brush up on their colonial history.

What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Adamant1's behaviour has been extraordinary. Support GirthSummit's proposed TBan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Appears to be a pattern here. I've found this user to be repeatedly dismissive of valid sources. NemesisAT (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBan due to long-term disruption and failure to learn from previous sanctions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'd support a total XFD ban, but the initial proposal to be banned from education-related AFDs is at least a start. Adamant1 has a CIR issue, or they are being willfully obtuse, or deliberately ignoring when evidence to the contrary of their initial presumptions is presented. Any of those is an anathema to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY in AFD discussions, where new evidence is often dug up, and we require intellectual honesty when assessing that evidence. The WP:BLUDGEON issues at AFD as well seem a major problem, coupled with the tit-for-tat ANI report below, I think Adamant1 needs a formal ban of some sort. --Jayron32 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support for proposal at hand. Would also support a complete ban from deletion process, as it has been shown the BATTLEGROUND attitude is long term and not improving. It isn't out of range, per his behavior in this very thread, to consider a CBAN for CIR. It's seems that he's not grasping how Wikipedia works. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD? That's enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban from AFD discussions - this reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but even without all of the hostility and WP:BATTLEGROUND, this and this are good examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Adamant1's replying to everyone s/he disagrees with and arguing endlessly (rather than trying to find common ground and/or know when to let an issue go) and refusing to withdraw an AFD (even after having been shown multiple sources) is just more work that needs to be done for both the admins and non-admins closing AFD's. The writing large amounts of needless material and being a timesink at AFD makes it to where (as of right now), Adamant1's participation in AFD's is of little to no use versus the amount of disruption being caused and Adamant1's contributions to the project would be better served someplace else other than AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1#Block. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and subtle vandalism

RafaelHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been subtly vandalising fight records for a while now and/or replacing sourced information with that which isn't sourced. In [edit], RafaelHP goes so far as to completely alter a entire fight record in contrast to all reliable sources. They have changed a no contest to a loss and adapted the entire page to make the change. This is subtle vandalism and a big problem in MMA pages. The MMA fighter infobox contains a link to Sherdog, which is what we use unless stated otherwise by RS. The most common alternative is ESPN.

To return to the vandalism example, please see the two prominent RS on the fight Sylvia vs Arlovski, which have the fight as No Contest.

Sherdog: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Tim-Sylvia-1061 ESPN: https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/2354048/tim-sylvia

Now see RafaelHP's edit, which undoes the correct result and adapts the entire record to accommodate the vandalism:

[NC becomes a loss and the article is changed]

In another example on a different page, RafaelHP here changes an extraordinary 8 different pieces of sourced information and provides not a single source to back up the changes. Please see here for the source: https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Frank-Mir-2329

[8 sourced results without a single source]

Attempts by other editors and me to address this include:

[[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [[40]] [[41]]

Their responses, other than to delete the comments, tend to be petulant, as [[42]] and [[43]].

It's enormously frustrating having to identify subtle vandalism in fight records, and this editor's disruptive editing has, in my opinion, gone on long enough. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's enormously frustrating, having to redo all my legitimate work because of your lack of knowledge of wiki policies. So many times I update fight records with sourced information, and you always fight it and undo my work then proceed to spam my talk page with excuses. I don't know why I've had to explain my edits like 10 times in a row to you, it's like you believe Sherdog (the placeholder source we use for fight records that is considered less reliable then other sources [[44]]) is the only source that can be used for fight records, which goes against several different policies. It's even more absurd to me that I've seen you in discussions where it's been explained why Sherdog can't be the only source used for fight results, and yet you still ignore that and enforce your ideology onto me and other editors. That's frustrating. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This response does not address the issues raised in the complaint. NEDOCHAN is not saying that Sherdog is the only source that can be used; their complaint says that you changed it from something that was supported by both Sherdog and ESPN, and you provided no source when doing so. If you have explained that change somewhere, feel free to post a link to that explanation rather than typing it out again - I don't see anything on the article talk page, or on your own talk page (although you seem often to blank that, so it's not easy to read through older discussions, so I might have missed something). Girth Summit _(blether) 22:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the issues in the complaint and what I did. I changed the result because I was sure there was a source somewhere that would corroborate my edit, but there wasn't and that's my mistake for making the edit in the first place though. I also found it interesting that NEDOCHAN reverts edits that are supported by Sherdog without any sources given, essentially removing sourced content for strictly no reason. See here: [[45]] [[46]].

I'm also pretty positive that this ANI post was made in revenge. Notice how after he reverts my edit for the third time (without any proper explanation given) 20 minutes later an ANI post is made about me. [[47]] [[48]] [[49]]. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See the above example of vandalism on Tim Sylvia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tangentially, not having looked deeply at the MMA edits above, I'm concerned by Rafael's non-response to a query about a disruptive move. I'll credit that Rafael moved the article back, but I would have liked to see an explanation for why the edit happened in the first place. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing edit warrior making bogus claims of vandalism

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

---

See diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LifeSiteNews&diff=1080399880&oldid=1080395888 and the most recent history of LifeSite News in general. They’ve done this multiple times, please block as WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

MovingTree appears to believe they can remove whatever they don't like from the lead section at LifeSiteNews on the argument that it lacks citations. Citations are not actually required in the lead section, which summarizes the article, and its content is supposed to be (and is) referenced further down. Partial-blocked for three months from LifeSiteNews for persistent tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Dronebogus (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA

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

---

Tsans2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user @Tsans2: has added new material to an article. I opposed those additions with explanations, and reverted the user's changes. The user added back those information, after giving an explanation I deemed unsatisfactory; I reverted this re-addition and insisted the BRD process be carried out. The user added back those information once again, stating don't do this again. explain on talk page and stating on the talk page I don't revert. I put back what is supported by sources and I argued it here. You contstantly delete my additions, including the latest ones with Ukrainian historians. That proves you either don't read the article or don't like their views. I told the user they had to revert their addition otherwise I would open an ANI, to which the user replied that they would maintain their addition and that I was possibly "Ukrainophobic". The user has refused to go throught the BRD process, prefering to imply I had an agenda and could not read the sources (it's only your idea. no one revert my edits, but only you. you have been banned for a week from editing this page. and what? no one reverted my edits. what does that mean?; I reverted my edits because you even don't read the article. please be careful).

• As for the part Or you are Ukrainiphobic and the view of a Ukrainian historian is not worth mentioning here?, the user then changed the wording [50], but only after another user told them it was a personnal attack and that they should AGF; even then Tsans2 stated they had removed it because it is possible insulting and said nothing about questioning my good faith.

The user also stated concerning my behaviour:

• Personal attack:

  Nope, why should you care? because, you are the one who wanted to delete this article, and now, you are obsessed with it?

• Competency and the current elements of CONSENSUS concerning the scope of the article I had cited:

  nope, you don't know the topic neither you speak Ukrainian or Russian to understand it. Regarding this: Moreover, the vague consensus on this article's scope - it's just your idea or statement. You wrote it, you defend it, I'm lucky with that, but don't make it a point here.

I have already had problems with the methods and POV-pushing of the user and I had previously described them at this ANI from 14 March 2022; at the time I acted too hastily. The user also has a strong tendency to add WP:FICTREFs and to attempt to have them maintained without real justifications (see this other user's very recent remark to the revert of Tsans2 to which Tsans2 never argued back). I have described the problem with the user's use of sources in this whole talk page section and its sub-sections.
I feel sanctions need to be taken against Tsans2, who has already been one-week banned from editing this article for edit-warring on said article (I was also one-week banned from the article for the same reason, but I have hopefully learned my lesson). Veverve (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• As a related note, Tsan2 added the "propagandist" label to Marina Ovsyannikova without any sources: [51], added it back after it was reverted with some particularly crummy sources: [52], and after it was reverted and the sources challenged by Mellk, they added it again a third time with no explanation: [53]. Their behaviour on both of these articles seems like a classic case of tendentious editing, and I find it highly questionable that they are actually here to build an encyclopedia (as opposed to grinding their axe or trying to win in political battles). Endwise (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I noticed there is a tendency of continually restoring their preferred edits after being reverted and told why, so I would hope it does not continue. Mellk (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter @Veverve@Endwise I added sources as it was asked. I found that the article was non-neutral and I added a littlbe bit another information. Tsans2 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Endwise already started a discussion on the talk page. I will try to find better sources. Tsans2 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Starting a talk page discussion like that is a far more productive way to engage in disputes like this, so thank you. Endwise (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is clearly an editor only interested in POV pushing and not in anything else. See for example their edits at Odessa today: Even after they have been warned multiple times that the English name of the city if Odessa they still continue to write Odesa in the article. Their talk page is full of warnings, and they do not have any useful contributions. The sooner they get blocked indefinitely the better. We have currently enough editors who are adding neutral info in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is pure vandalism [54]: Replaced a valid link with a red link because they did not like the name of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I was never warned about Odessa/Odesa stuff. --Tsans2 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Or it is just incompetence with piping in wikitext, and no awareness that that doesn't necessarily mean a thing for the English language name. The editor isn't making up the name change, but what was bandied about in 2019 does not seem to have actually taken hold, at least from a cursory look on my part. See Talk:Yuzhne#Possible name change. Of course, there are challenges with this sort of stuff right at the moment, as I don't need to tell you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • @Uncle G: Tsans2 seem quite experienced, from what I get. Veverve (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Xe is clearly not a native English speaker, doesn't have even 300 edits here, has fewer edits on the Ukrainian Wikipedia than here if my count is right, and is still making markup errors such as boldface for subheadings as of a mere 3 days ago (Special:Diff/1080012976). Xe is possibly not as experienced or facile with either wikitext or English, or indeed with Wikipedia in general, as you might be thinking. ☺ Yes, ad hominems and personal attacks. But also yes, not very good with English, wikitext, or Wikipedia norms. By Hanlon's Razor, don't attribute to vandalism that which can be adequately explained by not knowing how to use MediaWiki markup properly and not knowing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Uncle G (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

          @Uncle G I'm not native speaker, that's true. If I made a mistake - please help to avoid it in the future. Thanks! Tsans2 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      • @Uncle G concerning Yuzhne - you are not carefull :( I changed the name of the Port, not the city. Port is named: Pivdennyi. Tsans2 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • No, you changed a hyperlink to Yuzhne to a redlink. Take up your idea of a 2019 name change at the port actually being effective in Ukrainian, let alone in the English language, with Олександр Кубраков visiting ПОРТ «ЮЖНИЙ» in 2021. I started the talk page section, as I pointed to before. Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

          @Uncle G no, I changed a hyperlink to the red one, as there were no article about Pivdennyi port. The hypelink was leading to the city, and I change it to the future article about Pivdennyi Port which I created today. Tsans2 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    My edit isn't a vandalism. Please read: Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism and Wikipedia:Yelling "Vandalism". Concerning "red link" and Port Pivdennyi - it was renamed from Yuzhnyi to Pivdennyi, as a decommunization and derussification of Ukraine. Please be careful and don't blame me. Tsans2 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Odessa or Odesa - is it written in the beginning of the article. The same as Kyiv or Kiev. It's both legal. Tsans2 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  For consistency sake, it would need to be "Odessa" throughout the article rather than "Odessa" one sentence then "Odesa" next sentence. "Odesa" in first sentence mentions alternative name. Mellk (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Mellk okay! but it's definitely not vandalism. Am I right? Tsans2 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Tsans2: you have completely ignored all the content of the criticism of your behaviours others have done so far, instead focusing on the form. Veverve (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Veverve I answered all the questions and bold accusations. Tsans2 (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Battleground behavior by user Jacona

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

---

The user Jacona has shown battleground behavior in multiple AfDs, repeatedly disparaged other users, and clearly has competence issues.

1. 1. In Combermere School they claimed news headlines are significant coverage

1. 2. In Combermere School they repeatedly claimed that I did not look for references before nominating the article after I told them I had.

1. 3. In Combermere School they said news stories that they hadn't read because they are behind a paywall were significant coverage.

1. 4. They disparaging the nominator in the Ian Holiday AfD, saying "the nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD."

1. 5. In the Raja Dashrath Medical College they claimed theirs a consensus that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources.

I'm sure there's other examples. I'm not super bothered by the second one, but the other ones show a clear disregard for the guidelines and a lack of civility toward people who nominate or vote delete on articles about non-English subjects. I'll leave it up to others to decide what an appropriate action is, but it's clear to me that his behavior is fostering a toxic environment in AfD discussions. Especially ones that are about subjects that lack English sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a clearcut revenge report by the filer, and is quite reminiscent if not identical to what is described in WP:REVENGE. The filer's behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Holliday was clearly disruptive. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, the filer bludgeoned the discussion with falsehoods, and doubled down after being called out. I recommend a figuratively large, heavy and speedy boomerang. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice deflection and here I thought you were about dealing with problematic users. I'd love to know how this can be a WP:REVENGE report when Jacona wasn't the one who filed the ANI complaint, suggested the topic ban, didn't advocate for me to be topic banned, and as far as I'm aware had no other involvement in it. If I was trying to get revenge on anyone wouldn't Girth Summit be the person to open the complaint about? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

All that any uninvolved editor or administrator needs to do is read the trainwreck that you created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School to see that you have a grudge against Jacona. It is clear to see for all neutral observers. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You can try and make this about me, but I think his comments in other places besides the Combermere School AfD speak for themselves. He was still uncivil toward other people and in discussions that I wasn't involved in at the time. So in no way does this complaint hinge on the Combermere School AfD and your free to disregard it. That said, I think your doing a major disserve to your former claims of being against dishonesty and for civility if you derail the whole complaint just because of an AfD me and Jacona got in a disagreement over out of the three I reported him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

"Thank you for proving your bigotry against the White race"

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

---

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

Over the course of a few hours, user transitions from WP:SOAPBOXing at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory ([55][56][57]) to adding wildly inappropriate WP:SYNTH to the article [58]. A user talk page warning about WP:OR and suggestion to read the policy before editing further rapidly escalates into this: [59]. Generalrelative (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I literally provided statistical data from two different government sources. You deleted that data because David Coleman (demographer) chose to publish on Daily Mail. That does not make his Office for National Statistics data incorrect. I fail to understand why numbers are so threatening. ClairelyClaire (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:DAILYMAIL is nigh-universally regarded by Wikipedians as a purveyor of utter crap… for starters. Dronebogus (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Dronebogus: I appreciate your support but I strongly suggest that we stick to clear behavioral violations here rather than discussing content. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, it wasn't the Daily Mail. It was Coleman 2016 and the Daily Mail published an "edited" version of that, which the Daily Mail article actually said. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Coleman, David (2016-05-24). "Uncontrolled Immigration Means Finis Britanniae". Standpoint. Archived from the original on 2021-06-21.
• Hey I just showed up with the same complaint about this user (Cla. Cla.) what do you know! Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ClairelyClaire seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. They made fewer than 100 edits from 2017-21 and now are suddenly focused on POV pushing on white genocide, examples being:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080380210 WP:SOAPBOX WP:NOTFORUM attempted legitimization of the conspiracy theory
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080380455 more of the same
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080419033 extreme WP:OR to legitimize topic
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080416045 more attempts at legitimization using the legendary and infamous WP:DAILYMAIL
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&diff=prev&oldid=1080421721 complaints about “censorship” typical of POV pushing fringe types, (and arguably yet more attempts to present the topic as “legitimate” by suggesting it is worth “learning” through some sort of dialogue with its supporters?)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1080416393 bludgeoning

Based on this evidence I’d say this user runs foul of WP:NORACISTS due to their unequivocal support for a racist conspiracy theory. They have also engaged in POV pushing over Donald Trump (of course) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DARVO&diff=prev&oldid=1080379835) to add to their list of disruptive activities. Dronebogus (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• (comment) For what its worth, their user page speaks for itself. Classic example of WP:RACISTBELIEFS#3. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I blanked the userpage as offensive and inflammatory racist content. Dronebogus (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Partial blocked I have ejected them from white genocide conspiracy theory and DARVO as those appear to be the problems at the moment (and I will be AFK shortly), though if any admin wishes to increase that sanction then feel free. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Fully blocked now per WP:NONAZIS and WP:POLEMIC. They just reverted Dronebogus. I'm fully blocking them now. --Jayron32 13:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks :) Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:WikiLinuz

Hi, can an administrator please help me? User:WikiLinuz created a section on my talk page earlier today and accusing me of posting incorrect stuff on the Honorary Aryan article. The user then threatened me with, “If you continue this disruptive POV editing on other articles, you will be reported at WP:ANI”. The user is now hounding my edits and reverting every edit I make as WP:OR which is not true and ignoring my attempts at a civilised discussion on the talk pages of Talk:Honorary Aryan and Talk:Aryan race. I have checked the user’s talk page archive and I can see that the user has a history of making false accusations against people, engaging in edit wars and reverting other people’s edits. I have contributed to many articles on Wikipedia and I wish to be able to do so freely without someone reverting my edits and making false accusations.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

FriendlyFerret9854 (talk · contribs) seems to have trouble abiding by (and understanding) our original research guidelines. Let me provide diffs of such conduct:

• Here, they didn't bother to look into the cited source prior to (incorrectly) removing the text and distorting facts.
• When I reverted that edit requesting them to re-read the cited material, they opened a thread asking me to quote the source, which I did here and explained our policies concerning the usage of WP:PRIMARY of subjects related to the article here.
• However, they were skeptical and asked if the author himself provided a source for his claims, which is clearly exhibiting unfamiliarity with WP:SECONDARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - something which I literally asked them to get familiar with on my very previous reply.
• They further accused me of not verifying that scholarly material here. On these diffs (here, here and here), they relentlessly engaged in disruptive behavior (holding on to their WP:OR) and didn't care to WP:LISTEN, even if another editor stepped in and tried to explain our policies (here, here and here).
• This behaviour continued at a related article. At our talk page discussions, they continue to cling on to their WP:OR (here, here) and accused me of being disingenuous and difficult to comprehend here. They continue to disruptively remove sourced text here, following their original research.
• I tried to explain to them about our WP:OR policies here and here, which they ignored.
• This disruptive behaviour and edit warring was continued on other articles, see this, this and this.

I tried to explain our policies (about 3 times), but I think it's best to sanction FriendlyFerret9854 on these topics to avoid further disruption. Thanks, WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with citing sources. I am well within my rights to ask if an author has provided a source for his claim. Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true. I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack. All you have done is stalk my edits and continue to revert my edits e.g. using a quote from a book is not original research yet you seem to think it is! You have engaged in this type of behaviour before (admin take a look at the user’s archive) so this isn’t a new thing. The disruptive behaviour is on your behalf when you were so disingenuous to think the Aryan article and the Aryan race article are referring to the same meaning of the term ‘Aryan’. Also, I have shown on the Talk:Honorary Aryan page that a lot of what is on the Honorary Aryan article doesn’t even belong on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just because something is in a book does not mean it is true - See, you're doing it again. You seem to lack the understanding of how scholarly peer review works.
• I gave my reason for asking and someone else responds with a personal attack - They were referring to Generalrelative's reply when they claimed of knowing more than the scholar himself. This is not how our guideline defines a personal attack. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You don’t need to patronise me. You don’t need to stalk me. You don’t need to be asking other people to keep articles on their watchlists. Etc, etc. It’s all just so weird. With regard to questioning Anthony’s claim in his book, see WP:TRUTH - “If it’s written in a book, it must be true!” “In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible.” “Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.” And so forth. I have every right to question Anthony’s claim when “Czechs” is not mentioned in the Grant’s book in relation to Germans mixing with other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is very clearly a content dispute, and I suggest hashing it out on the talk page (especially @FriendlyFerret9854, before a BOOMERANG hits them square in the face). MiasmaEternal☎ 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@MiasmaEternal: I see this as more of a WP:CIR issue (and failing to WP:LISTEN) than a mere content dispute, especially if you look into their shenanigans at Talk:Aryan_race#Poles,_Czechs_and_Italians. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 12:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, you're right. MiasmaEternal☎ 20:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It just doesn't stop... so for example, I checked the sources that were used to support a claim and none of them supported it so I removed it and he now has reverted it back [[60]] with the reason, "No consensus at talk page. Stop your disruptive editing until there's a result at WP:ANI." This is getting ridiculous now. I am quite capable of checking sources and removing unsourced text. Just for the sake of it I have created a section on the talk page here showing that the sources don't support the claim so the text doesn't belong in the article and should be removed. Why this user is behaving like a moderator on here is beyond me, but it's actually very odd.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And again, the stalking begins... I added text with a secondary source and he has decided to remove it on the Nazi racial theories article. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PERSON? WHY IS HE FOLLOWING ME AND UNDOING ALL OF MY EDITS? IT NEEDS TO STOP!--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not stalking when you are editing in a narrow range of overlapping articles and including basically the same challenged information across several pages.Slywriter (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Challenged? Please see Talk:Honorary_Aryan#Turks_and_Iranians_-_Part_2 - do you think that unsourced material belongs in the article? I've checked the sources and they do not support the claim because it's an erroneous claim. I don't need to wait for this to be resolved to remove unsourced material.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I said challenged and no you are not the final authority on what is correct or erroneous. If you can not arrive at a consensus, you should be using WP:3O to get a 3rd opinion or wider community input through WP:RFC.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also given sources are listed, the material is not unsourced. You seem to disagree with what the sources purport to say, which is different.Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@FriendlyFerret9854: WP:SHOUTING is unhelpful and unconstructive. Also, I have Nazi racial theories on my watchlist; when someone makes a change, I get notified. So I wasn't stalking you. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Also when you're in a dispute, FriendlyFerret9854, edit-warring with other editors without arriving at a consensus on the talk page is disruptive. I suggest that we revert back to the stable version, discuss the dispute, then make the edit. Not on the reverse order. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know best... I created three separate sections on the talk page and you didn't reply so I've created "Part 2", so you can check the sources yourself and quite clearly see that I'm in the right.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Sourced information about Greeks and Turks has nothing to do with Finns and Hungarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sparkle1

Can I please bring, yet again, User:Sparkle1 to the attention of this board?

We have their attitude on their talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080506106 ("Not even bothered reading")
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080200568 ("Not interested in the ramblings")

We also have a borderline edit war :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2021_Saudi_Arabian_Grand_Prix&oldid=1080201226

I understand they have been reported before and I wonder if we can discuss their tone, their behaviour, and their attitude problem.

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 19:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would probably have been a more appropriate place for a thread like this, not that it can't be discussed here as well, but edit warring does have it's own separate board. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Additional note User:Sparkle1 was notified of this ANI (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&oldid=1080210382) and reverted it with a dismissive and uncivil edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sparkle1&direction=next&oldid=1080210382 "Not even bothered reading."

doktorb _words^deeds 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• I see no issue with Sparkle1's user talk edits or the correlated edit summaries. A user can remove messages from their own user talk page because they're not interested and can say as such in the edit summary. Nothing of substance here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equivamp (talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This report is vexatious in my opinion. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive addition of uncited content and attacks on editors by IP

86.87.191.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptively adding uncited content and insists that the content will be continuously re added to the Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present). Editors have been called "propagandists", amateurs and self-important novice editors""

• 1, 2 , 3
• Also this golden statement "Clearly there are people monitoring this article very desperate to maintain a propagandist approach and using this as a vehicle for spreading their incoherent economic ignorance. I don't expect much on Wikipedia, with all the amateurs and self-important novice editors flying around adding their little tags randomly. I tell you now though I will republish the facts on this article as much as you try to remove it"

-UtoD 05:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Warned: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Warning, Talk:2019–present_Sri_Lankan_economic_crisis#Propaganda. El_C 11:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

In light also of today's edit by different IP's, semi 10 days. El_C 12:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Upon further thought, probably excessive at this point. Sure, the Civil War ended in 2009, but this seems like a good faith edit, whose contents were at least partially retained (and notwithstanding the original reported IP's threats, which they have not carried out thus far). El_C 12:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C Nope its back and also trolling in the talk page. -UtoD 19:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:86.87.191.180#Block. El_C 19:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Julienor94

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

---

After being told at stop deleting sourced material, Julienor94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed restoring his preferred version of Ligures, still without engaging in discussion at Talk:Ligures#Problème with Toulousien-ancien. Toulousien-ancien (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Brave of you to post this here when it’s extraordinarily obvious you’re a sock of User:LambdofGod. Quack. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Bravery knows no limits when you can hide comfortably behind your screen" -- Confucius

- LouisAragon (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Long term pov-pushing IP hopper

2003:D1:CF0D:2A10:2D00:EEC0:871E:1DC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A10:F0CC:94D5:7900:161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A50:D00A:F43F:75A6:F9F6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A50:E919:BC02:A8BC:3134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:49AB:F14A:FC38:5714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:E8E9:32BA:A1BA:895A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A07:3461:4916:3F26:44FF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A36:5CE8:20E4:F112:DC80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A77:59CC:B514:C8CE:2217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A15:1DC5:6F51:F37D:A286 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:d1:cf0d:2a09:b45e:c9ba:a921:7ef4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A59:F9C3:784D:2439:A3A5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A48:6819:367F:395D:B29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A87:D05F:A2C1:F40A:1D8F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A62:F113:2287:F41F:EC92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A33:28EC:375C:A4F:5918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A82:38FC:2758:A155:E17F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A79:315E:7A9A:F32D:A51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A45:3461:4916:3F26:44FF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A42:A12D:E246:66D4:5B7E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2003:D1:CF0D:2A06:5DFA:1A2D:5187:990B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For an extended time these particular IPs from the same location has been making religious related pov pushing, often with non-WP:RS as well as WP:RS which don't even support the added information. There are probably more IPs than this, and I suspect the person behind these IPs has made user accounts as well ([61]).

Here are some diffs. Mind you, there are many, these are just some examples;

[62] - Added information filled with a mix of unverifiable "sources", non-WP:RS, and even WP:RS which don't even support the added information.

[63] - Replaced a well-sourced revision of the article with that of WP:OR and non-WP:RS which fits with his view.

[64] - Added a barrage of non-WP:RS (Youtube, https://www.al-islam.org, etc) riddled with a bunch of POV info.

[65] - Same here.

[66] - Same here.

I could go on.

Some of his comments, notice a pattern here? This is clearly the same person;

"Reverted vandalism. if you look close at the sources of which those that do not mention the Naqshbandi literally, work as a supportive source to hint on the violent conversions made. It does not matter if an Iranian tries to hide the dark sides of his history, that every nation has. Stay unbiased."

"The new article made by History of Iran is nothing else than a subjective Pan-Iranian version of an islamic scholar.

"rv, administrator please ban this unneutral, discriminative and abusive user

"Only because Iranians do not accept that, it is not right to delete this citated title all at once. That is not unbiased and neutral.

"If a person specialized in Iranian history from Rasht, does not know him, he should minimally stay neutral."

Again, I could find more diffs, all these IPs speak/edit like each other. They even target more or less the same articles, especially Hazrat Ishaan (title), which was created by a user now banned for sockpuppetry (most likely him) [67] [68] [69] [70].

Based on this, I really think a huge rangeblock should be made, as this person is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is really persistent.

EDIT: Found one of his user socks [71] that tried to reinstate the IPs edits [72]. Moreover, this user just fixed the comment of another user whose edits and comments are very similar [73], another sock? Or maybe a meatpuppet? They both edit in the same article, in the same section [74] [75]. Created a SPI [76]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Whoever operates these sock accounts and sock IPs, they certainly managed to violate about every guideline there is. Clearly not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This look a lot like User:DedicatedFollower13, a sock of User:Sayyid Mir Israfil, per all the summaries ending "Thank you..." on the same /56 range. e.g. [77], [78], [79] LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month (/56). El_C 11:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit wars on Dyson (company)

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: )

I'm here to report a lot of edit wars on Dyson (company). I reverted a edit on that page considering it was just a single vandalism, but then I found that there were terrible edit wars on it. Could any sysop take a look at the edit history of that page?Pavlov2 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Dyson (company) for two weeks. Let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot. By the way, the IPv6 vandal even tried to make a false report against you on 3rr noticeboard. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the Gary0987 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is another sock based on this[80] — Czello 22:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

More disruptive behaviour[81] — Czello 22:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit wars at Dyson? Sucks to be them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Turkic Perfect

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

1. Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safavid order page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[82]
2. Tried to blanket remove WP:RS sources from the Safi-ad-din Ardabili page, and tried to swap "Kurdish" with "Turkish". No edit summary/explanation.[83]
3. Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Turkish" at the Abbas the Great article. No edit summary/explanation.[84]
4. Tried to swap "Iranian" with "Azerbaijan" at the Afsharid dynasty article. No edit summary/explanation.[85]
5. Tried to swap "Safavid Iran" with "Safavid Azerbaijan" at the History of Azerbaijan article. No edit summary/explanation.[86]
6. Warned on several occassions.[87]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this "user" is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Turkic_Perfect#Indefinite_block. El_C 11:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspected Block Evasion by 107.218.228.92 via 96.74.200.230

I suspect that 96.74.200.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is actually 107.218.228.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – an anonymous user who is a long-term vandal that is currently blocked for two years for persistent vandalism. Both editors seem to edit National Football League and World Wrestling Entertainment-related articles, often adding a false information that is spelled incorrectly or not formatted appropriately. For example:

• 107.218.228.92's edit on Eddie Kennison from 11/25/2020
• 96.74.200.230's edit on Warren Moon from 3/11/2022

In both examples, the city name is misspelled and formatted in all-lowercase.

Both IPs are also based in the Chicago area. 96.74.200.230 presently does not have enough warning to merit a report to WP:AIV. I apologize if this should be filed under a sock puppet investigation, but it seems more like block evasion to me. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A MAC address user posts an inappropriate discussion on an article's talk page

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

---

A MAC address user (2601:204:202:4860:794B:14D2:B601:86A5) twice added an inappropriate discussion (which I already reverted) on the talk page of Haruka Tomatsu. Centcom08 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a MAC address (and Wikipedia would absolutely never have those user-visible), that's an IPv6 address. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

To be fair, although it wasn't mentioned in the report, an admin was needed in order to revdel something.  Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Protecting Users Globally on the Ukraine-Russia Pages

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

---

The Russian government has possibly send users from their region to remove sourced information which they believed it fake news. (even if its EEP) They have arrested a user recently. Can the admins and Wikipedia policy enforcement expert help create security plan to help protect working Wikipedia users on all regions of Wikipedia.? This unacceptable. Arresting someone for editing a Wikipedia.

• 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Russo-Ukrainian War

Patent2022 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There's not much Wikipedia can do about the Russian government arresting people for editing Wikipedia, I don't think, as Wikipedia lacks a private army or security force to protect editors. The courts in Russia clearly are in the pocket of the government, so legal action probably wouldn't help. If Russian government agents or even just pro-Russia civilians are clearly removing content against policy they will be dealt with just as any other editor. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Think these group of users from Russia are making so called "non disruptive changes but also parts of their changes are removing so called fake news information" Try to sneak in the changes...making harder to catch them even if you review the history Patent2022 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will note that Russia falls into WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe's topic area. Subtle POV-pushing is amongst the things that can draw discretionary sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I share grave concerns about this arrest but we should all try our best to be accurate. We have an article about this, Detention of Mark Bernstein, and it is clear that Mark Bernstein was arrested in Belarus, not Russia. Some might argue that Belarus is Russia's closest ally, and that is also true. But at this time, they are two separate nation states. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Billh07882

• Billh07882 (talk · contribs)

This user has made the same unhelpful edit to Pork roll eleven times in the past couple weeks and has been reverted by five users. The latest was after I gave a uw-vandalism4 on User talk:Billh07882. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• On the contrary, clearly here to make an article better, albeit ineptly. Why not write the sentence better to avoid this problem? It reads as if somehow there's permission granted to do this, especially as it immediately follows a discussion of legal requirements. If you want to say that even though it's actually named pork roll, is not a ham, and is not necessarily a Taylor product, people still call it "Taylor's Ham", then there must be a way of saying this that doesn't get people wanting to add-in the missing counterpoint. Yes, this is bad writing and slow-motion (less than 1 edit per day on average) edit warring by Billh07882, but it's being triggered by existing writing that could be better too. ISBN 9780811746274 and ISBN 9781467139267 (Arcadia Publishing again) seem to be places to start on this. Bryson and Haynie even make the "I'm looking at [the wrapper] right now." argument. ISBN 9781614237273 (yet more Arcadia) talks about genericization. So it's not that this is some personal observation by Billh07882. It's actually a genuine point to be made, better than the article is making it; and the editor is actually trying to address a failing in the article, and simply doing so not very well. Fix the article with good writing to explain, and I predict that the problem with Billh07882's bad writing will go away of its own accord.

  The north calls it “Taylor ham” and eats it with mustard; the south calls it “pork roll” and eats it with ketchup.

  — Bryson and Haynie, op cit., p. 109

  Uncle G (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a routine content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:Pork roll which has been silent for nearly a year. The goal of that discussion should be to build consensus. Any editor who edit wars against consensus is, of course, at a very high risk of a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • And since I made this post, Billh07882 made the edit again, which was reverted, and Drmies made a reasonable edit rewording that section. Billh07882 for a thirteenth time made his change, this time saying it's "also wrong" to eat it with mustard, here inputting a personal observation. This has been appropriately reverted, and I will again say that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, even without a talk page discussion that obviously inappropriate and disruptive wording is inappropriate. Being reverted by now six users (and warned on his own talk page by three) is an implicit consensus and it's not our onus to bring his inept editing to the talk page. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, perhaps you know what to do here. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

      Perhaps a page block to force communication on the talk page, hopefully get them experienced in consensus building and develop them into a good editor? They'll end up proving, one way or another, if they're WP:HERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

      I thought about this a bit more, and there's a pork roll SPA, which I find amazing. It really takes all kinds, eh? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

IP user 152.32.85.105

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095 § Question

• 152.32.85.105 (talk · contribs)

Hello. I just want to report this user because of his violation on WP:SOAPBOX, as seen in the user's contributions. I don't know if this user and User:Jaymark 220 are connected to each other since the two users have putted the words "vote" and "re-elect" in Philippine local election pages here.

Oh, the said IP user is doing the same thing again. I think that the user has a problem why he is putting promotional edits here. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Negativity created against me again by IP user 2409:4063:2309:89E2:1554:4974:27D8:1185

2409:4063:2309:89E2:1554:4974:27D8:1185 (talk · contribs) is blocked User Princepratap1234 who brutually stalked and harassed me in past. After I reported him he got blocked. Since then he's trying to create Negativity against me by using my real name everywhere about which he came to know about by sensing e-mail after which I blocked his 4 mail ids also. Few days back I removed a contribution by PriyaMishra0121 on Anupamaa because it was unconstructive and lacking source also. I also mentioned the reason for reverting the edit. But after that Princepratap1234 through his new IP created negativity against me on her talk page. Yesterday I removed that negativity part against me as it'll create negative image of me in wikipedia editors eyes. But he reverted it again. I request administrators to permanently block his IP on wikipedia and please remove that discussion from Priya's talk page. I'm providing links to it. [88]Pri2000 (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 2409:4063:2000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs) blocked by Primefac. El_C 11:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan crisis

There is an constitutional crisis is going in Pakistan, between Government and Opposition parties and there is no clear status of Parliament and national assembly, I request to wikipedia admistators please protect & not allowed any edits at Parliament of Pakistan and National Assembly of Pakistan pages until situation clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.74 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks (both), after which the page will be automatically unprotected. No-confidence motion against Imran Khan -related. El_C 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Test edit of Rjyok

Rjyok (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) test edited a lot by changing pictures in articles of mainspace, what should we do? Pavlov2 (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing for now. For the time being, it looks like they stopped after the last warning. El_C 11:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, test again and a block is given to it. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Them, not it. They are a person, not an object. El_C 18:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, I don't know why we usually use they instead of it. Thanks for mention that. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. To answer your question: because it in this context refers to an object (it is a bad car / good cat). See It (pronoun). They is about a person (see singular they) or persons. HTH. El_C 18:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the 2010s and 2020s-present section

Every user who has committed each and every ban evasion has kept asking me to restore the 2010s and 2020s-present section of the Horror film page. They have been doing this to me time and again, every chance they got. So could you please do something about this before another ban-evading user starts bothering me again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You may need to report this to WP:SPI Pavlov2 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please file a report containing all these socks to there, which may be helpful.By the way, you can try to request a protect for your user talk page. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is about Jinnifer (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer). Jinnifer commonly uses sock puppets to harass on user talk pages both here and on other Wikimedia projects. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I also found his socks on wikiquote, seemingly he is cross-wiki vandalizing. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A rangeblock on 166.205.141.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would be helpful, Jinnifer has been editing from there the last few days. See for example their trademark deuteragonist nonsense. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See CrakerLaers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a real time example. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Assume bad faith of commonedits

Commonedits (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) assume bad faith again Special:diff/1080304347 after the final warning is given to himSpecial:diff/1079940196, I'm here to request some help from sysop after two days of consideration. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion Needed.

Hello, I have a concern over here, Which I as a part of the community thinks that I should know.

I am an editor over here with interest in Pop culture, Indie Music etc and since I am from India I do edit on India based Artists pages more specifically. My concern is about a few of the pages which have been repeatedly created, although they have sources available but still they get deleted just because some sort of sock farm or COI related accounts have been involved into it, I am curious about knowing a thing what if the available sources somehow do passes gng yet due to some of the senior editor who abruptly are ignorant about the fact that the sources which are available are there because they DO have possibly grabbed the media attention due to their notable work.

for example

• Emiway Bantai
• Vivek Verma
• Pav Dharia

Like I am pretty sure if searched more properly there will be many other names too which hasn't been allowed to be created just because someone possibly or intentionally spoiled the record of these pages on WP, and the biggest problem which occurs over here is this that if someone with good faith even tries to work on these pages, such editors are unnecessarily seen as someone who be editing them in return of money etc, but the fact is sometimes editors like me edits on such pages with good faith, for example I have recently tried creating a draft on Vivek Verma then an editor started calling me a sock of someone who had tried creating the same page earlier read this for example, but the fact was I found the artist on spotify and later I liked his song and searched for him on google and found sources which are equivalent to many other Indian Artists having WP on wiki and just because they don't have been repeatedly recreated they pass GNG and pages like Amiway and Verma doesn't. Although it probably been done as a good faith for WP but it fails to justify that Why doesn't anyone is allowed to create such pages.

for instance see in the case of verma read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma and over here per Wikipedia:THREE there are certainly enough sources available, Infact This NDTV source has been published few hours ago.

there is similar situation for Bantai and other one as well. Needs suggestion on the same issue. Thanks Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• To the extent that this is yet another discussion about Vivek Verma, I endorse the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma, its deletion review, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (2nd nomination). I also endorse the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Verma (musician) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vivek Verma. I also endorse RHaworth's G4 and salting of Vivek Verma singer and his G8 of Vvek Verma. I also endorse the blocking of User:Vivek.k.Verma and his 20-ish sockpuppets, and I respectfully invite Suryabeej to write something else.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment but that doesn't satisfy the question of why someone who has refs like this, this, this, this or lets say This, this, this and this aren't considered as passing gng? Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Before I answer that, I have two questions for you. First: what's your connection with Vivek Verma? Second: Has anyone offered you any money or other incentive to get a Wikipedia article about Vivek Verma published?—S Marshall T/C 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I found his music on spotify Randomly, and searched for him and found that he has the potential coverage along with his weak but satisfactory contribution in Bollywood which makes him satisfy GNG and WP:MusicBio that is why I took the attempt to create the draft of him, Secondly I am clearly aware with the WP policies and COI, No, No one has offered me nothing to make Verma's page on WP, It was my own decision, which made me curious after I found Draft:Emiway bantai this which is being made by some editor who is trying to change the letter into small and create a draft which again is wrong but I found that these fellas do pass WP:THREE and I felt like asking the question about it over here, Rest I edit mostly music related stuff over here on WP. Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 03:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks

User: 604editor making religious and personal attacks on a talk page [89] and disruptive edits on Sikhs where he removed sourced content without any explanation [90]. Granted the IP was definitely disruptive as well and deserves to be reprimanded but it doesn't allow a user to make bigoted statements like that. IIBxtrerII (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

what about this is a threat? i told him stop making disruptive edits or he'll be reported, he already has several warnings on his talk page, this is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary was a personal attack. However, no warning had been given to 604editor before this report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User has been warned about personal attacks.[91] —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred, glad this could be resolved immediately. Hope to see less disruptive editing and bigoted statements on wikipedia. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That was definitely unacceptable and justified a warning. If there is any repetition I would support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There definitely won't be repetition so no need for a block, but let's focus on the fact that you IIBxtrerII reverted my edits on the Page Sikhs, talking about "sourced content removed without any explanation" except everything I removed was already unsourced, Guru Nanak was born into a Buddhist not Hindu family(there's a BIG difference), this is well recorded in multiple sources. Furthermore, you reverted my edits and even reported my efforts against vandalism as "attacks" which yes some were(only on his talk page), within MINUTES, yet you let the Hindu extremist disruptive edits stay unchecked on the page Sikhs since the 31st of March, that is FOUR days, hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 604editor (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend that you move this comment and discussion on the talk page of Sikhs, this page isn't really appropriate for content disputes. I would be happy to engage with you there. IIBxtrerII (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You're really pushing your luck here, adopting a belligerent battleground attitude in a thread where you've already been warned about personal attacks really isn't helping your cause. At this point I'd strongly suggest you find another unrelated topic to quietly work on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP returns on century articles

2601:146:4100:AC60:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) was blocked for three months in May 2021 for persistent MOS:CENTURY violations, including things like The term is often used to refer to the 1800s, the century between January 1, 1800, and December 31, 1899. They also evaded that block as 2601:147:300:EDE0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log).

Now they have returned as 2601:14D:4581:4370:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 2601:14D:4581:6710:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) adding the same The term is often used to refer to “the 1800s”, the century between 1 January 1800 and 31 December 1899 nonsense as before. FDW777 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Seattle hoaxer, BLP violations from blocked HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo

• User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo
• 2601:0603:4b00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• User:BellaYesCaylieNo

User:HappyTreeFriendsYesCuriousGeorgeNo in Seattle has been using a range of IP6 addresses for hoaxing, date vandalism and violating BLP since September 2020.[92] (Before that, they were using the IP Special:Contributions/71.212.194.148 from July 2019.) One persistent hoax theme they keep adding is the word "Amadeus" or "Amadaeus", for instance in the false film The Bella & Amadaeus Movie[93] or the false TV show The Adventures of Amadaeus.[94] They often add the surname "Gammons".[95][96]

Perhaps a long-term rangeblock would help to keep them away from frequently visited articles. I listed the /40 but maybe it could be tightened for less collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding User:BellaYesCaylieNo as an obvious sock, repeating the vandalism of blocked IP Special:Contributions/168.212.100.64. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Eyetie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I are involved in a content dispute on Taron Egerton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) involving praise for Egerton's performance in a play. Eyetie proposed adding a review from Londonist's Franco Milazzo, which I found unsuitable. I then saw that they added a separate review by Milazzo in another article. A quick Google search I did on Milazzo to learn whether their (and Londonist's) reviews merit attention presented something interesting. I'm not going to state my findings per WP:OUTING, but I believe this needs administrator action. KyleJoan^talk 04:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Guntapaki

Guntapaki has been Changing match times in various Wrestling Matches in a lot of Pay per views from WWE and WCW like Crown Jewel (2021), Survivor Series (2021), WWE Day 1, Royal Rumble (2022), Elimination Chamber (2022), Mayhem (1999), Halloween Havoc (1999), Survivor Series (2021), Armageddon (1999) and WrestleMania 38. This is has been going on since September 2021 and i think that Guntapaki is WP:NotHere. This is the only thing that this user does.

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]
5. [101]
6. [102]
7. [103]
8. [104]
9. [105]

Chip3004 (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)