Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 20 December 2019 (→Persistent removal of content - rejected at AIV, so bringing here: close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:Dilidor Disruptive / Uncivil conduct towards other editors

    Hello, I would like to request Administrators review the conduct of Dilidor toward myself and other editors. I believe Dilidor has a long history of disruptive editing and abusive behavior towards editors (including myself) and is not making an attempt to follow Wikipedia policies despite a number of warnings from other editors and administrators. The policies I believe Dilidor regularly disregards and has demonstrated towards me are WP:CIV / WP:UNCIVIL, WP:PA, WP:EP, WP:CON, WP:LISTEN and WP:DE. He also has a history of WP:EW.

    The example of their behavior towards me are:

    1. Start of discussion [1]
    2. Continuation of discussion: [2], [3], [4]

    I believe Dilidor’s statements speak for themselves, so I will not repeat them here. If desired I can expand on this.

    The times when Dilidor does engage in discussion with others, it is often confrontational or hostile and contains insults. I believe this is intentional for the purpose of driving others away from the discussion. Even if it is not intentional it has had that impact. In addition to my current situation, Oldperson is a recent example [5], [6].

    I have made a good faith through my talk page to involve others in the discussion to resolve the issue before coming here. [7]

    I think the above discussion on my talk page has valuable information from other editors and admins regarding this matter. In the course of this discussion, it has become apparent to me that other editors and administrators have had the same problems with Dilidor and they seems unwilling to stop/change even when warned by admins (such as Cúchullain [8], [9], Favonian [10], and RexxS [11], [12]). I think the content on User talk:Dilidor page such as [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and their history in WP:ANI such as [23] and [24],demonstrate this pattern of unacceptable conduct and disruptive editing.

    I've chosen to disengage from Dilidor and not discuss the other reverts he made without discussion to my edits (reverts to [25] [26] which I think are examples of his being intentionally disruptive or reverting recklessly). Because our interests overlap and Dilidor’s history I believe this will repeat if not addressed.

    Please let me know if I can provide any other information. I am relatively new, so if I have made a mistake, again please let me know. Thank you.   // Timothy::talk 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur fully with TimothyBlue's complaint over Dilidor's behaviour. My own unfortunate interaction with them occurred when they made multiple changes to an article on my watchlist, where several of those changes breached our Manual of Style.
    I reverted the changes with what I thought was a neutral edit summary, too many mistakes, run on sentences, breaches of MOS:NUMNOTES, which was promptly re-reverted by Dilidor with what I consider an aggressive edit summary you probably should learn what "run-on sentences" are before accusing someone of creating them; and what "mistakes" have I introduced? take this to the talk page---because my edits are a DISTINCT improvement. The "discuss" part of WP:BRD should have happened before any re-reverting by Dilidor.
    I explained my revert on the article talk page at Talk:Momsen lung #Problems with recent edits, where I explained that Dilidor had created a run-on sentence (a comma splice to be precise) and had breached MOS:NUMNOTES by starting a sentence with numerals and using a mixture of numerals and words when enumerating the same quantities.
    Dilidor's response was to ask me to explain which was the "run-on" sentence, and what errors they had made, completely ignoring my previous explanation, which I believe was already clear enough. I now know that this is simply part of Dilidor's style of debate, to frustrate other editors by repeatedly requesting more explanation.
    The debate continued with me attempting to explain to Dilidor what a run-on sentence is, thinking that they were not understanding. Of course, I now know that they simply "know better" and disagree with our Manual of Style, which does not accept a comma as appropriate punctuation to join together multiple independent clauses. That may be usable by James Joyce as a stream-of-consciousness device in Ulysses, but not in an encyclopedia article.
    Eventually the exchange climaxed with Dilidor writing "your spelling reveals the core of the entire problem--you're a Brit! That goes a long way in explaining both your condescension and your ignorance." Judging by the stream of complaints voiced at User talk:TimothyBlue #Advice / Guidance needed, that appears to be typical of the way Dilidor treats other editors.
    I believe that Wikipedia would be better off without Dilidor's contributions, if they cannot learn how to edit collaboratively and respect the project-wide consensus contained in our Manual of Style. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've interacted with Dilidor and he certainly has a recurring problem with incivility and edit warring, as well as ignoring consensus, eg here and here. He's been warned about this various times by various editors and admins, but he falls back on the same behaviors time and again. He certainly deserves admonishment as it's high time he shaped up - or else found another hobby.--Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dilidor persistently, and sometimes disingenuously, removed parenthetical commas per MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA at Plymouth Rock; see discussion here [27]. A few weeks later, the same thing over at American Revolution and American Revolutionary War; discussed here [28]. I expect to find myself having the same argument with Dilidor again, at some other page. I have not been very friendly with Dilidor, I suppose, but I think it's fair to say I have been patient. Regulov (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for being late here. Dealing with a broken leg yesterday p.m. and today. Been away from the Internet.

    I have found Dilidor to be immediately abusive, arrogant, disingenuous, and even outright dishonest. I have provided links to corroboration for all of this here, and made previous appeals for administrator intervention to put a stop to it both there and at TimothyBlue’s talk page.

    Being peremptorily aggressive and reflexively dismissive is his standard MO, as other users have given multiple examples of here and at TimothyBlue’s talk page. An example of his being disingenuous is his repeatedly accusing me of, for example calling him a “jerk“ at the TimothyBlue talk page discussion, when that was clearly a paraphrase used in context to characterize the consensus held by the group.

    Here is the passage at issue:

    What is the point of these good faith efforts by User:TimothyBlue if he is going to be ignored by administrators and just told by other editors, “Sure, Dilidor’s a jerk, and absolutely knows better. Just put up with it and everyone will get along.“ This is going to keep good editors at the encyclopedia? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

    An example of his outright dishonesty is at the above cited link at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, where he attempted to pretend he had not twice been previously been cited for edit warring at that page on his own talk page (here and here) by me regarding his peremptory, uncivil, and disruptive behavior there. Then tried to play the victim at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, and act as though I had all along refused his entreaties to meet in there on neutral ground. All of which is transparent nonsense, and easily exposed as such.

    Enough is enough. User Dilidor has behaved this way chronically towards both new and clearly conscientious users, and veteran users with hundreds of thousands of total edits over decades of work here in aggregate at this encyclopedia. He needs to be sorted out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've only rarely interacted with Dilidor and it was never a particularly positive experience. On one occasion [29] he simply removed my message from his talk page without saying a word because "it was not signed" (yes, I forgot to sign it, but it was by no means an anonymous message). His copy-editing work does have some merit, but that is nullified by the amount of grief and disruption that he causes to the community. Dilidor is the typical competent but difficult character that in the end is more of a hindrance than a help to the project. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree. I first interacted with him at New London Union Station, where he removed massive amounts of well-cited text from the (GA status) article. Those edits introduced multiple factual errors and non-existent infobox parameters, and his reaction to my reversion was hostile; only the intervention of an admin stopped him from edit warring. A month later, he came back and repeated several of the disputed changes - once again refusing to use the talk page when asked to. Given that the diffs given in this section indicate that his behavior has not changed, I believe that action (likely a block) is needed to stop his toxic and confrontational attitude. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it may be time to consider placing a one revert restriction considering the level and lengthiness of the problem here. In the very least he needs a direct final warning that he needs to shape up now or he's going to face restrictions.--Cúchullain t/c 00:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They agreed to such a 1RR restriction earlier in the year, in regard to the removal of wikilinks. However I don't see a content-related restriction (alone) as enough. The problem here is not just article-space edits, but their attitude to other editors in general, across the talk: spaces. They demonstrate a belief that their own edits are perfect and unquestionable, yet other editors must first and continually demonstrate the apropriateness of them, and their qualifications to be here at all. We do not work on that basis, single editors do not get to impose such expectations. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What more do we need to say here to get some action? This isn’t simply some misdirected jihad by a bunch of cranky editors. It is a well established consensus reflecting chronic and preemptory WP:Civil-violating behavior {and more) towards new editors, veteran editors with decades of experience and hundreds of thousands of total edits in aggregate, and even multiple administrators. What gives? Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    While IfindDilidor frustrating, I am positive that others find me frustrating. (I have been accused of edit warring after 1 revert none the less), I have noticed that Dilidor has made the effort to make explanatory or at least better edit summaries. However I do disagree with his reasoning behind some. He appears to be motivated by a mythological view of the history of New England, and will revert edits that are soundly and reliably sourced. edits that don't fit with his version of reality. I have just reverted one of his reverts and have asked him to take it to the talk page.here and here I am awaiting a response. I might have gone to far as to inquiring motives, but consistent behavior elicts a desire to understand motive, perhaps if there was a discussion explaining why RS were reverted, then the issue could be put to rest. Putting everything on a balance scale, Dilidors contributions do outweigh any frustrations or problems. Should someone say he same about myself. I do not see any problem here that can't be solved by open communication. In fact that could be said for most problems that arise.Oldperson (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to see Dilidor, who has been editing regularly since this report was opened, address this here. Refusing to account for his behavior or respond to the concerns within the ANI thread is itself disruptive. If he can't discuss things here, maybe he needs a block until he's ready to engage on these concerns. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Proposal: as edit warring is a common thread in the disruption caused by Dilidor's behavior, I propose that they abide by a WP:1RR restriction: only one revert per 24 hours.--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I also support a civility warning.--Cúchullain t/c 20:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User indiscriminately adding a category to musical artist articles

    MrRobot168 (talk · contribs · count)

    New user is adding Category:Singers with a three-octave vocal range to mass articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @FlightTime: Go to vandalism noticeboard, combined with previous warning this warrents a block. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 09:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted their edits. If they resume I will i will request further action. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @FlightTime: I have blocked them indefinitely. NonsensicalSystem, this is the correct forum and the issue is unrelated to vandalism, and even if it was, we're not a bureaucracy. Please do not leave comments like this on AN/I reports. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm:; ah, sorry about that, won't happen again. N0nsensical.system(err0r?)(.log) 21:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: Thank you for the block and your other comments. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack and application of arbitrary rules

    Onceinawhile (talk · contribs) stated that he had read the archives on Talk:Crusades and also witnessed my behaviour during the last few days and he saw "an excessive level of aggression and bullying". He added that I had "edit warred" my "views into this article," I had "ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating [myself] rather than working to consider all sides), and [I had] made numerous aggressive comments." To prevent me from bullying, he introduced new rules, practically aimed at excluding me from editing the article. ([30]) I think I did not bully anybody and I was not aggresive, but if Onceinawhile is right I should be sanctioned. I must admit I am not always kind, because ignorance and PoV pushing can outrage me, but I have never bullied anybody. On the other hand, if Onceinawhile is wrong, he should be sanctioned for personal attack and the introduction of arbitrary rules.

    I think the problem was that I dared to question the significance of two of his "pet themes". My understanding of the events can be read below.

    Pet issue 1:

    1. During the FAC review of the Crusades article, Onceinawhile proposed that the article should be expanded with a text about the pre-Seljuk Turks and their migrations ([31]).
    2. Onceinwhile's proposal was accepted and a text about pre-Seljuk Turks was introduced ([32]). It was not verified by a source dedicated to the crusades, but by a source about the history of the Turkic peoples.
    3. I realized that specialized scholarly works cited in the article do not mention pre-Seljuk Turks and suggested that those sentences should be deleted from this lengthy article. If specialists can explain the crusades without mentioning early migrations, we should not find our original way of the presentation of the crusades. I deleted the text with the following edit summary: "These facts are verified by a book which is not dedicated to the history of the crusades? We do not write of the Normans' role in European state formations either." ([33])
    4. My edit was reverted with the following edit summary "revert unjustified changes". ([34])
    5. I again deleted the text ([35]), adding an explanation on the article's Talk page ([36])
    6. A lengthy, boring debate followed, because I insisted on a reference to specialized literature (I mean to books dedicated to the crusades). The other editor proposed that a third opinion should be requested ([37]) and I was happy ([38]).
    7. Instead of requesting a third opinion, the other editor reverted my edit ([39]) and I requested a third opinion ([40], [41]).
    8. Although my request was improperly formatted ([42]) we received a third opinion ([43]), suggesting that pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the lengthy article. Everybody seemed to accept the third opinion ([44], [45]) and the text was deleted in accordance with the third opinion ([46]).
    9. Four day later the other editor changed his mind and again realized that the text about pre-Seljuk Turks is important ([47]). He restored the deleted text with the following edit summary "restore explanation of who Mamluks inexplicably edited out" ([48]). On the same day, Onceinawhile again appeared on the scene. He offered to provide a third opinion, claiming that the previous third opinion was misinterpreted ([49]) and provided a third opinion ([50]). Yes, Onceinawhile, who proposed that a non-highly relevant info be inserted, offered to provide a third opinion on the same issue and provided a third opinion on the same issue.
    10. I sought dispute resolution ([51]), but Oceinawhile found two crusader-specific books (one about the relationship between the crusaders and their neighbors and the most detailed monography of the crusades) that mention the pre-Seljuk Turks ([52]). Secretly I thought the pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the article, because most books cited in the article ignore them, but I did not want an edit war and accepted the restoration of the text ([53]).
    11. Onceinwhile not only restored the text, but also introduced huge explanatory footnotes with the edit summary "minor clarification" ([54]). I agreed with an other editor that the lengthy footnotes are obviously excessive and deleted them - I did not delete the restored text, but only the lengthy footnotes! ([55]).
    12. Onceinwhile reverted my edit saying "please bring this to the talk page. It was added in order to help clarify per your request, and will help others unfamiliar with it" ([56]). I reverted Onceinwhile's edit because I did not request lengthy quotes and there was an uninvolved editor who also opposed it (see point 11 above) ([57]).

    Pet issue 2:

    1. Onceinwhile practically cloned a sentence in the article, repeating its core both in the first and in one of the last sections of the article ([58]).
    2. I edited the text, because duplication of the same info can be useful in a poem, but not in an encyclopedic article ([59]).
    3. Onceinwhile realized that I am a bullying aggressive vandal.

    Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Borsoka, I would never say that you were a vandal, as your FA and bunch of GAs ably demonstrate your contributions to the project, but as someone uninvolved in the topic area who took a quick glance at the Crusades talk page (where there's a dispute between you and Norfolkbigfish), I do think your communication style could be improved. You're calling them names in a way that others might consider off-putting and aggressive. At a glance, I see the following comments from you to Norfolk that might be construed as overly personal:
    You're calling the other user manipulative, a liar, and questioning their competence. Without evidence, these are personal attacks and you should refrain from such statements in the future. Even if there are problems with the editing of other users, insulting them in your critiques does nothing to encourage collaboration. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Giants2008—it has been an unrewarding few months on Wikipedia and it is welcome to have this acknowledged. It is worth noting that Onceinawhile has always acted within the spirit of Wikipedia and has remained consistently polite. In content terms at FAC he raised a perfectly valid point that WP:WORLDVIEW should apply with wider coverage given all the ethnic and religious groups involved in the Crusades. Specifically in content terms that Mamluks, who ultimately destroyed the Crusader States should be explained in terms of who they are, where they come from and why they came significant players in Islamic politics. It is clearly wrong to conflate the Seljuks with all of the other Turkish tribes, and the Turks with the Arabs and all the other Muslims. This was raised as a dispute by the complainant but rather than wait for this to be resolved this case was raised instead. We can only imagine why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There was a content dispute about the Crusades pending at DRN. I have closed the dispute because this thread is also pending here. I am not commenting on the substance of either a content dispute or a conduct dispute at this time. If there is a content dispute after this conduct complaint is resolved, a request can be made to open a new thread at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Giants2008: I did not want to involve Norfolkbigfish in the debate, because I respect talent. His literary skills are outstanding. However, I maintain his knowledge of the crusades is limited, his communication style is manipulative and he is a PoV-pusher.
    • November 4. Norfolkbigfish actually duplicates content debates. Example 1. On 28 October he opened a new section "Vexatious tagging" listing a number of issues which were being debated (and explained) in section "Review by Borsoka" ([60]). Example 2. On 31 October he started a new debate about the survival of Christians in Palestine, although it was already being discussed in the same section ([61]) and I explicitly asked him not to open new debates on the issues already under debate ([62]). Example 3. The background of the November 4 issue is the following: he started a new debate on the deletion of a text claiming that I "was unaware of" a historiographical debate when I deleted the text, although I had already explained the reason in section "Review by Borsoka". Do you think the duplication of debates is the proper way of communication?
    • Manipulative communication (multiple remarks): he often states falsely that I wanted to achieve something or I stated something (please read the links you provided, I clearly explained). The latest example of his manipulative communication is his last message above: he refers to the contenct dispute that I summarized under "Pet issue 1" and implies that I did not want to wait for the resolution of the debate. Actually, as my above summary under "Pet issue 1" shows, it was not me who broke a consensus. I think when he writes of my raising the issue he refers to my request for comments ([63]). Is this a problem? Do you think I should have accepted Onceinawhile and Norfolkbigfish's "consensus" although an uninvolved editor had already made it clear that their "consensus" is unacceptable ([64]). The latter editor repeated his view during the RfC ([65]).
    • Limited knowledge of the crusades: if it is necessary I can prove it with multiple examples - his lack of deeper knowledge is the principal reason of our content debates. Please let me know if I have to verify my statement.
    • Telling lies: he accused me of edit warring on my Talk page several times - if he proves that I was involved in edit warring, I will apologize.
    • Giants2008 refers to my communication style, so I must raise other issues as well, that I did not want. 1. Norfolkbigfish's first message on my Talk page was the following: "Please calm down on the FAC for this article. I will work with you but you need to give me something to work with. The article does stand up against current anglophone academic opinion, I can assure you. It may not be perfect but you are close to vandalising it and breaking its hard won NPOV." Background of his accusation of vandalism is the following: I started the review of the article. My review demonstrated that the article was a large mass of original research, original synthesis, PoV-pushing and copyvio (the details can be read here [66] in sections "Review by Borsoka" and "Vexatious tagging?"). 2. On 14 October, Norfolkbigfish approached one of the other reviewers of the article and stated that I seem to "intent on reworking" the article "to match" my "middle European Catholic view of history" without pinging me ([67]). Just a side remark: I am not Catholic. 3. I realized from the beginning that the article was highly biased towards the Turks without verification - if it is necessary I can provide evidence. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly Onceinwhile stated on my Talk page that "You and Norfolk have been doing some excellent work together. The fact that you disagree on many areas is making the article better than ever, through healthy debate and iteration." ([68]) Actually, this is why I did not want to involve Norfolkbigfish in this debate and I have not taken him to AN: our cooperation has significantly improved the article, because he can fix errors derriving from my awful English and I can fix errors derriving from his limited knowledge of the crusades. Norfolkbigfish does not like central Europeans and their broken English, so I must be really bold to convince him to abandon his unverified ideas, but the article has significantly improved. I emphasize his disdain for Central Europeans is not an issue for me, because I love living in my region and I am a proud Central European. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Norfolkbigfish does not like central Europeans and their broken English, so I must be really bold to convince him to abandon his unverified ideas, but the article has significantly improved. I emphasize his disdain for Central Europeans is not an issue for me, because I love living in my region and I am a proud Central European. :). Well that is good, but as you personalise this I think it is better that that I articulate my opinion rather than have it misrepresentated. I have no animus to Central Europeans or any other social, ethnic or religious grouping, instead coming from a pluralistic and multi-cultural perspective. The comments I made were not personal, although I would accept that they were not sufficiently well phrased. We all bring a paradigm to our editing, it is unavoidable. Broken English, I can fix—although I would not claim mine to be perfect. The challenge is the clash of paradigms: yours is one I characterised as Central European. This is compounded by what I can only guess, is a position where you understand perfectly what is written in the sources, but fail to fully grasp the meaning or the intent of the authors. There are no unverified ideas in what I have written in this article—in this what you describe as my limited knowlege of the subject is in fact a strength. Everything I write comes from the sources used: Asbridge, Prawer, Tyerman, Jotischky & Findley Carter. In fact it is through editing here that other editors have suggested, and introduced me, the use of the Tyerman historiography, Jotischky and Prawer. I have an issue with Lock though—it is useful for dates, figures etc but the prose is partial and badly written and is not comparable to the higher level secondary sources. Where does that leave us? There are things that need explaining for the lay reader that currently do not have enough attention. This includes, but is not exclusive to the Turks, Mamluks, the Crusader backgrounds, the Greeks etc. I would not claim to be totally innocent but as Giants2008 points out above your behaviour has on occasions fallen below the level that makes you a positive Wikipedian. It is not helpful to raise sources to support your position without quoting clearly and appropriately what the source says and adding context to expalain why you are using it—in case that source is unavailable to whoever you are in discusion with. I think you don't consider that persons perspective and are quick to revert/edit your own opinion rather than discuss on the Talk Page or compromise. This article is difficult, a summary covering centuries and a massive geographical spread. There are also few facts & material evidence is limited. That is why the various other articles on the Crusades as a subject area are of such poor quality. History is not a Science, it is an Art. It would be more positive if you withdrew this incident and tried to bare that in mind. The alternative is a judgement that I suspect would not be to your liking. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, we are not perfect. 1. "We all bring a paradigm to our editing", maybe, but it could hardly be a Hungarian/Central European paradigm in my case. I have never read Hungarian books about the crusades, because Hungarian historians are not really interested in this theme. All my knowledge on the crusades is based on about 20 books published in English by the leading publishing houses. Therefore we can hardly speak about "clash of paradigms" between you and me, although I must admit that I also read some Spanish books about the Reconquista. 2. "...you [that is me] understand perfectly what is written in the sources, but fail to fully grasp the meaning or the intent of the authors": could you provide an example? In return I provide one example when you did not perfectly understand what was written in the sources. (Actually, I am convinced that you have not read any of the sources that you cite, but only parts of them.) I can list, without difficulties, about 20 more examples showing that you did not understand the allegedly cited source. Example: An old version of the article contained the following sentence: "The Jerusalem nobility rejected the succession of [Emperor Frederick II's] son to the kingdom's throne." Everybody who have some knowledge of the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem soon realize that this cannot be true, because it is well known that Frederick II's son, Conrad, and Conrad's son, Conradin, were acknowledged as the lawful (although absent and powerless) kings from 1229. I added a "citation needed" tag with the following reasoning: "Asbridge does not write anything similar. Furthermore, significant parts of the Jerusalemit nobility acknowledged Conrad and Conradin's right to the throne." ([69]) You did not understand the message and reverted my edit, with the following edit summary "More vexatious tagging" ([70]). You also wrote a message to me under the friendly title "Vexatious tagging" - it revealed to me that you do not have the faintest idea about the whole issue ([71]). I had to copy some text from the sources (that you had allegedly read and cited) in order to clarify this simple issue ([72]). 3. I know that you think I reject Prawer and love Lock, but this is not the case. I only want to secure that no scholarly PoVs be presented as facts. 4. "It is not helpful to raise sources to support your position without quoting clearly and appropriately what the source says": could you provide an example? In return I provide an example when you deliberately truncated a quote from a reliable source in order to "verify" a sentence that I debated. Example: The article contained the following sentence: "The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries. During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon." I was sceptical about this peaceful picture and raised the issue during the review of the article, asking whether this sentence contains OR. You stated "Again not OR, pretty much matches the source" [73]. I remained sceptical and stated that "no similarity", referring to the lack of similarity between the allegedly cited source, Findley, and the text ([74]). Norfolbigfish posted the following quote from Findley's book: "a mostly Chritian population....made the eligible to live under Muslim rule as dhimmis.....cultures and creeds coexisted...frontier zone....intermarriage was one of the most prominent themes in this environment" ([75]), adding that "looks similar to me" ([76]). However, it turned out that he copied Findley's original text, but in a truncated form, hiding the words, which proved that Findley did not refer to Jerusalem in the 7th-11th centuries, but to Anatolia in the 1070s. Was this a manipulation of the source in order to push a PoV, or was it a mistake? 5. History is a science. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy wall of text Batman! If anyone here wants any kind of action, be advised admins don't decide based on who has the highest word count. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm familiar with Borsoka from the Guild of copy Editors, and IMO they deserve a less-dismissive comment than the one above. This discussion seems to have been derailed from the original issue with Onceinawhile. Miniapolis 23:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not dismissing the complaint, but I am requesting the involved parties explain it without resorting to massive screeds that no outside editor will read. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blade of the Northern Lights:, I could summarize both editors' conduct with 2-3 words, but in this case you would accuse me of uncivility and personal attack. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then find the middle ground and take a few paragraphs to lay out your case, no one will be upset at you for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your advice. My summary is the following: Onceinawhile tried to introduce text in the article, pretending that he is a third party ([[77]], [78], [79]), and tried to introduce arbitrary sanctions against me ([80]). Norfolkbigfish's animus against Central Europeans and limited knowledge of the crusades prevent him from understanding the problems that I raise ([81], [82]; the list of about 80% of the issues I raised can be read here [83] in sections "Review by Borsoka" and "Vexatious tagging?" and about 90% of the issues proved valid). I assume but I cannot prove that they maintain communication outside wikipedia, because Norfolkbigfish changed his mind on a consensual edit, restoring a consensually deleted text ([84]) on the day when Onceinawhile who had proposed the text re-appeared on the scene ([85], [86]). Having been convinced that Norfolbigfish's bias and limited knowledge of the crusades is a serious problem, I approached him to offer a cooperation weeks ago ([87], 2nd new paragraph). However, I had to realize that strong statements are my only tools to convince him that he was wrong. Possibly, I should have taken him to AN, but I did not want to achieve a ban, because his literary skills are outstanding and our hard cooperation significantly improved the article (as it was noted by Onceinawhile as well [88]). Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not my dispute, Borsoka raised this against Onceinawhile. I was only making a comment in his defence and attempting to be conciliatory. All Onceinawhile was attempting to do was improve the article by consensus. Bosoka does not react well to disagreement and has been abusing me on WP for months (see above). He repeated this behaviour with Onceinawhile and in an attempt to unblock this situation Onceinawhile suggested proceeding by majority decision. Bosoka then raised this incident. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Norfolkbigfish, your manipulative tactics are documented above, you have not proved that I whenever was involved in an edit war against you (so your statements on my Talk page were untrue, to use your expression), I proved that your knowledge of the crusades is limited and I also proved that you have been unable to cooperate from the beginning. Your reference to my alleged religion and my "middle European" bias, and your above remarks about paradigms show that you think editors are driven by their ethnic or religious background. Would you document my abusive behaviour against Onceinawhile? By the way, Onceinawhile have not documented that I "edit warred" my views "into the article". Could you help him? Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not cooperated and will not cooperate with PoV-pushers and I will always ready to prevent ignorant editors from spreading their baseless views in WP articles. I waged no edit war and it was me who sought community support during this lengthy debate. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Norfolkbigfish:, yes, I am determined to secure WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, because they are our community's basic policies. My edits can be bold and after experiencing the lack of cooperating spirit my words can be strong, but it was not me who pushed my views in the article. I am always ready to seek external advice ([89], [90], [91]). On the other hand, after my proposals you promised to request third opinion ([92]), but preferred to revert an edit ([93]). If my understanding is correct, you cannot prove that I was involved in an edit war against you or against Onceinawhile. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Borsoka has condemned himself with his own comments. He is refusing to co-operate with more than one other editor and cannot see the irony in that he constantly pushes his own viewpoint while accusing others of the same. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with the above statement. All the same, I really enjoy your attempts to hide the fact that I have not been involved in edit war against you or Onceinawhile and I have never edit warred my views into the article. Sorry, I will not comment your comments in the future on this page. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Onceinawhile

    The thread above speaks for itself. To add some color: both Norfolk and Borsoka care greatly about this encyclopedia, and are working hard for the benefit of the community. Norfolk has been working on the article in question for many months, interacting with many editors at the FAC with exemplary professionalism and an unusually impressive ability to work with others. Borsoka joined in, with significant knowledge and passion, but without the same ability to work well with other editors. An argument ensued, which has spiraled out of control. I have tried to intermediate, but was almost immediately alienated by attacks of the nature shown in Borsoka’s comments above. And here we are. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Onceinawhile:, would you document how I edit warred my views into the article as you stated? Would you document the attacks that alienated you? Would you explain why did not you reveal that the text suggested by yourself was the object of the debate which outraged you? How do you explain that a third editor also stated that your text was excessive? Would you explain why do you think that I have to accept the duplication of the same information in the article without any objection (which was the second cause of your rage)? Why do you think you are entitled to force your own rules to other editors? How do you explain that my "aggressive" comments only appeared during the last two weeks after weeks of cooperation with an editor with obvious bias? Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Borsoka, unfortunately I don't have time to do so. The questions you are asking can be organized into three groups (1) questions you have asked before and I have answered clearly; (2) questions for which the evidence is easily available for you to assess; and (3) new questions. The fact that you are repeating questions without acknowledging the points previously made, and you don't appear to be making the effort to figure out the answer to other questions, makes me unenthusiastic about spending time on the new ones. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onceinawhile:, please take the time, because you have not answered any of my questions above. For instance, you have not proved that I edit warred my views into the article and you have not documented a single attack against you. We can approach the question from an other direction as well. You threatened me of AN for alleged edit warring and bullying. Consequently, if your conduct was worse than mine in this respect, we can conclude you should be sanctioned. 1. I was tolerating Norfolkbigfish's uncivil remarks for weeks ([99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]), some of which also clearly demonstrats the limits of his knowledge of the crusades. Instead of taking him to AN, I offered him cooperation ([[106]]) and reminded him the consequences of edit warring in a friendly way on his Talk page ([107], [108]). What did you do? After I corrected your two unprofessional edits, one of which duplicates information in a lengthy article ([109]), the second introduces excessive information in the same article ([110]), you threatened me to take to AN and introduced arbitrary sanctions against me, practically trying to prevent me from editing the article ([111]). Please note my second edit was fully in line with a remark of an editor who was not involved in our debate ([112]). Furthermore you had implied that it was me who demanded an excessive text from you in an edit summary ([113]). 2. It was only me who sought external assistance during this lengthy discussion, requesting third opinion ([114]), dispute resolution ([115]) and comments ([116]). On the other hand, you ignored an uninvolved editor's clear remarks on the Talk page about your excessive text ([[117]]) and restored your text reverting my edit ([[118]]). On the other hand, you ignored an uninvolved editor's clear remarks on the Talk page about your excessive text ([[119]]) and accused me of edit warring and bullying when I edited fully in line with the third party's suggestion. Please also remember that you had claimed (in the edit summary) that it was me who suggested an excessive text, as I demonstrated in point 1. 3. You pretended that you are a neutral editor in a debate about a text that was proposed by yourself ([[120]], [121], [122]). If you compare my and your conduct, who is the bully, who is aggressive and who ignores other editors' views? Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka: if I was to answer you, are you willing to trust my answers to your questions in good faith, and use them to try to improve the way you interact with other editors? If not, it’s better that you listen to someone that you consider uninvolved and neutral. I note that Mediatech492 also tried to give you advice [123], which you proceeded to throw back at him with an accusation of bad faith [124].
    As an aside, the modus operandi set out at Talk:Crusades#Behavior is simply the way Wikipedia works.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onceinawhile: 1. Yes, of course. 2. Editors cannot introduce arbitrary rules in order to push their views. 3. Yes, I should have taken a PoV-pusher, ignorant, biased editor to AN, instead of trying to solve the issue alone. It was my mistake. 4. The content dispute to which Mediatech492 refers can be read here. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules are not arbitrary. They are set out at WP:CON.
    I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA – your comments about Mediatech are unhelpful. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I made no comment about Mediatech. I only referred to our content dispute. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So who is the “ PoV-pusher, ignorant, biased editor”? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance, editors who falsely quote reliable sources to "verify" their claims and editors who pretend that they are neutral in a debate about a text that had been proposed by themselves. I know two of this type. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In our previous [| discussions] you were asked multiple times to provide any source for your assertions, which you repeatedly refused to do. Ultimately you resorted to manipulating a false consensus to push your baseless POV. For you to now accuse other of doing this same thing is shameful hypocrisy. The rules are there for everyone, and you seem to think you can ignore them at your pleasure. Most editors, like myself, simply provide sources and move on. While you resort to endless arguments ad nauseum to push your unsourced POV. The evidence is there on every article you've touch. I was not wanting to get involved with you further, but since you persist in mentioning me in discussion I am obliged to make sure the truth is heard. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Nobody provided any source during the discussion. I simply applied Wikipedia:BLUE, without citing it. 2. No "false" or "real" consensus was established. 3. It was not me who first pinged you. I did not want refer to our discussion about "Soviet volunteers" without pinging you because it would have been really uncivil. 4. Could you refer to evidence for your statement "on every article you've touch" under a separate subsection in this thread? Especially, because during the debate on the Crusades' talk page it was me who quoted reliable sources (if we ignore an other editor's truncated text allegedly presenting a historian's views). 5. Could you explain this edit of yours and your edit summary, which implies a "personal attack": [125]? Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onceinawhile: you unilaterally restored your edit that I described above as unprofessional, duplicating the same information in a lengthy article ([126]). If my understanding is correct this is an application of your arbitrary rule: if you two agree, you can ignore my concerns. Why do you think this approach is fully in line with our community's rules? Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misrepresentation. You wrote that you will not oppose the reinstatement [127], I then waited three days for further comment. Plus we have WP:CONSENSUS. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it clear that the duplication of the same facts is my principal concern ([128]). I accepted that you want to present the information in the "Terminology" section as you clearly stated ([129]). You restored the duplication. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content discussion. And a misunderstanding. I will respond on the article talk page.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This is not a content discussion. I have never opposed the content of the text. I only wanted to avoid the duplication of the same information in the same article, because it is unencyclopedic. Sorry, I will not comment your remarks on this page any more. We explained our position in details. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    claims of releasing confidential PII of a BLP

    Handled. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 16:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Perhaps Deb Raycam (talk · contribs) shouldn't be editing Rosalind Chao and saying, "I work in drs office. I have seen her actual records." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've suppressed the edit. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've blocked the sock who's been trying to add this for over a year. But the real question is, are we really sourcing this to 'celebsmoney.com'? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Courtesy Vanishing

    I request a courtesy vanishing as soon as possible. Been trying to get one for a while, unsuccessfully so far. There is a period of time I have to wait because of a TBAN. I wish to have the courtesy vashing done before the end of this year, because I will be unable to log back in later. If a courtesy vanishing within the next two and a half weeks is not possible, can I arrange one in advance? Any action on my part must be done before the end of this year. Iistal (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iistal: Please follow the "how to" section at WP:VANISH. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ’’Vashing’’ apparently isn’t a word but it I’m declaring a contest here and now for the best suggestion for what it would mean if it was. EEng 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Iistal, you cannot vanish unless you are in good standing. Have you successfully appealed your TBAN? The six month period mentioned after your June appeal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Topic_Ban was simply the minimum wait before you could appeal again, not an automatic end to the topic ban. And do you understand that vanishing means that you intend to permanently leave Wikipedia? Perhaps you are thinking of WP:FRESHSTART (which still requires that your TBAN be appealed). Meters (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Yes, I'm aware that vanishing is permanent. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place to appeal the TBAN? Please remember, I will be unable to write back after the year's end, so all of the necessary efforts on my part have to be now. I would like the TBAN appealed as soon as possible. If there is a minimum length of time I must wait before it can be successfully appealed, I wish to arrange that in advance. Iistal (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot vanish because you have a topic ban. You probably won't be able to successfully appeal it in the time frame you are asking for. Just scramble your password and never log in again. There is no reason to vanish you. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What about emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org? Iistal (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You were told in June 2018 that "this topic ban should not be appealed without six months of editing activity that does not involve violating this active topic ban." You then made 8 edits over 10 months, most of which skirted or violated the topic ban. You were again told in April 2019 that "[u]sers are expected to show that they can contribute positively in spite of editing restrictions if they want them lifted." After that you blatantly violated your TBAN, were blocked, and finally unblocked in October 2019. Since then you've blanked your Talk page, asked the admin who imposed the TBAN about courtesy vanishing, and then came here to say you've been "trying to get one for a while". That's it. No meaningful editing activity as others have repeatedly asked. You're clearly NOT HERE to contribute to the encyclopedia—because you haven't been contributing and also because you're leaving soon anyways—plus you're misrepresenting your own efforts about the courtesy vanishing. So why should the community allow it? Woodroar (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is no. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iistal: What are you trying to accomplish? You cannot completely vanish since anyone familiar with an edit you made previously can find your new name with minimal effort just by looking up the new name in the article history. With that in mind, you can normally achieve the same result if you just stop editing. 2600:1003:B851:85CB:E91E:359C:ADF:BDF (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedrovariant and their IPs: NOTHERE, soapboxing, edit warring, and logged out socking

    This user, and the IPs they are using, are not here to build the encyclopedia, but instead to use it as their soapbox, such as by enforcing their language preferences, in order to advance their activism. To this end, they have engaged in edit warring, original research, and violations of WP:SOCK, specifically WP:SCRUTINY and WP:LOUTSOCK.

    Evidence

    All the same person

    • All of the IPs geolocate to Portugal, and are owned by Vodafone. 3 of the 4 IPs start with "148.6". Pedrovariant has edited Portugal and LGBT rights in Portugal, but no other countries.
    • The two most active IPs have signed talk page posts as "Pedro". [130][131]
    • Here, at 20:40 on 10 December, they said, "sorry that I forced the changes", even thought the attempt to "force" it was done by the IP. [132]
    • They all have the same interest, editing articles related to gender and sexuality, focusing on inserting their preferred terminology, and in many cases editing the exact same articles. Which brings us to...

    Logged-out socking

    • Pedrovariant was warned by Flyer22 Reborn on 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC) to not switch between an account and an IP. They edited with Pedrovariant at 20:40 that same day, so they saw the message. I myself asked them why they continued to edit under an IP on 04:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC), but never got any response. Yet, they have still edited under IPs after both warnings. [133][134][reply]
    • Several articles have been edited by more than one of these IPs/account, usually attempting to add the same phrasing. This often occurs when they engage in...

    Edit warring

    Using Wikipedia as a soapbox for activism

    It is clear that this person is ignoring the warnings given them on their various talk pages, and the opposition of the Wikipedia community, and is intent on engaging in the same bad behavior. I therefore propose that the admins indefinitely block Pedrovariant and block the IPs for a good while. Any attempts thereafter to return under another IP or account should likewise be blocked. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ouch, the activism is very evident—that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The Pedrovariant account was created on 8 December 2019 but the IPs were doing similar editing beforehand—for example, 148.63.244.197 on 21 July 2019. I support an indefinite block of Pedrovariant and blocks on the IPs for block evasion if similar edits continue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm using different IPs because it's different devices I use, not because I want to keep going with the edits I did in another accounts, just happens to be in different devices I used and not all in the same. I removed gendered and sexed language to keep more neutral, and be acessible for trans and intersex people, use gendered language is also take a side, so neutral is literally neutral, and I didn't use explicitly neutral language, but variants. Pedrovariant (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You were already pointed to the following and recent WP:Village pump (policy) discussion about the activism you are engaging in: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles. The community is clear, but you don't care about what the community states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And the IPs are clearly gaming the system. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is still edit warring and POV-pushing, changing wording away from its common or historical usage, adding original research, unnecessary, inaccurate, or awkward wording. Look at these edits by Pedrovariant to the Gay article that I just reverted. The situation is worse now because the editor is autoconfirmed and can edit semi-protected articles. That account needs a block now. Pinging Genericusername57, who reverted Pedrovariant at the Lesbian article, in case they are interested in weighing in here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly WP:Block evasion, whether more accounts or IPs are used. The block on the Pedrovariant account is not just about that account. It's about the person. Like Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts states, "Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block or community sanction will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions. See also WP:EVASION." Yes, more editing by this person should be reported to SPI, because of the block on the account and this editor is confirmed as those IPs, both in this ANI thread and indirectly in the aforementioned SPI. IPs, just like Best known for IP, are routinely blocked via SPIs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced controversial details by Launeaau

    Launeaau has been blocked for 24h due to edit warring. See the report at the edit warring noticeboard. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    User:Launeaau is adding controversial unsourced details in the articles of BJP leaders Tejasvi Surya, Pratap Simha, and Ram Madhav after multiple warnings issued to them. see this, this and this. His contributions outside these three subject is zero and definitely he seems to be here only for these purposes. Can someone apply WP:NOTHERE block to them?-- Harshil want to talk? 12:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why I'd be the best person to ask, and I'm not entirely sure that it's appropriate for AIV, though of course anyone is welcome to block anyone as they see fit. Since I was asked, I will weigh in with some comments. I'm not a great fan of people deciding that someone is not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. SPA is not a policy violation. Unsourced is not a policy violation. The warnings on the talk page are confusing, even to someone like me who knows all the jargon. The main subject here has been at BLPN[168], so it's not as if there's no controversy. This string of edits is not unsourced. And this type of thing is plain - how can best I put this - non-explanatory. Since I was asked, I will leave it for others, unless persuaded otherwise. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I use a list of active admins, and I know you to have good judgement. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thanks for the compliment but that's the luck of the draw I suppose. As I said, I'll leave it up to someone else. It's not I see the edits as entirely unproblematic, or pointing to a long and prolific future, but I'd want to see something more to warrant a block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Timard Gordon

    The reported edit warrior has been blocked for 31 hours by EdJohnson. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    User edit warring with bots/users to revert images to oversized, non WP:NFC compliant versions, despite repeated requests to start a discussion in the proper place if they wish to attempt to justify an exception to NFC for the images, and clear explanations on their talk page of how to do that, and warnings to stop reverting to oversized versions. No response to any of the requests or warnings except to continue reverting.

    I sympathise to a degree, and there could be a case for slightly larger versions of some of the images if procedure was followed, but just stubbornly edit-warring without any communication is disruptive. Given edits like [169] and [170] they may be a younger user, or there may be WP:CIR issues. Some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Begoon 13:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    EdJohnston, an admin, has a left note, that mentions the possibility of a block, on their talk page. Perhaps that will help. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully. I'd really not like to see them blocked, but when a user won't communicate at all and just keeps blindly reverting against policy and guidelines the options do tend to become pretty limited. -- Begoon 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Timard Gordon is continuing full speed ahead with their image warring, after their block expired. It may be time for an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed, why does their block log seem mysteriously empty...? Glitch? -- Begoon 03:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I'll take care of it now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. -- Begoon 03:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    HiLo48's incivility on Talk:Bruce_Pascoe

    I would request an admin have a word with HiLo48. He seems to be getting more and more incivil over at Talk:Bruce_Pascoe. He started off ok, in Talk:Bruce_Pascoe#status_as_Indigeneous_and_sourcing he states
    I draw your attention to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. That means we don't make nasty allegations about other editors.
    The sarcasm isn't productive. Not a sign of assuming good faith.
    However, starting in Talk:Bruce_Pascoe#Lead_paragraph he begins showing incivility pretty quickly
    Thanks for reinforcing my point IP editor, and also showing a refusal to learn how to discuss things properly on a Wikipedia Talk page. No indenting. No signature. No registration (especially important since your IP address keeps changing). Bad faith comments. I think WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED allows us to ignore any further comments from you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

    He really gets going in the Rfc on the page with

    Oh FFS, yet another non-indented comment by a random IP editor. PLEASE learn how to edit, and please register a name. It gives you greater anonymity, and helps us all follow conversations more easily. (Were you attempting to explicitly reply to someone else there, or is this just another repetitive point being hurled into the mix?) He continues in the same vein in the Rfc with Who wrote that? It's been a long time since I've participated in page of discussion with so many incompetent editors. But you did get me laughing out loud. The very first thing your link brought up was link to a Wikipedia article, List of Indigenous Australian group names, a title clearly avoiding the use of the word "tribe", and from this very encyclopaedia. Thank you for proving me right. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC) (this was a reply to one of my messages
    When I reminded him to essentially assume good faith, his response was :

    Yet another post that stuffed up the indenting, and this time from a seemingly experienced editor. Why has this discussion attracted so many incompetent editors? As for "...let's not comment on the commentators", Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, so we must ALWAYS be judging the reliability of what is presented as sourcing for content here, AND commenting on it when it fails that test.

    It seems to be he's getting entrenched by this issue and might need a quick word spoken to him by an admin, however, If I'm wrong, feel free to close this out, I'm good with that ! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Clearly several personal attacks. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs & editors who either don't know how or simply don't bother to indent there posts properly, can be quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no love for HiLo48 and have found him to be at times unacceptably abrasive, uncivil, and insufferable. But the above !diffs are rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes, and likely not actionable. I agree with GoodDay that non-indenting, and refusing to comply with requests to indent, together constitute an extremely frustrating practice that try the collective patience of experienced editors.--WaltCip (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad behavior of one person neither mandates nor even excuses the bad behavior of another. Whether or not the IP editor has done things they should not have done has no bearing on whether or not HiLo48 has also done things they should not have done. Other responses by HiLo48 to the bad behavior of others are entirely possible, and I would say, are preferred over the reactions noted above. CIR also applies to knowing how to treat people with decency, and when an editor has been around as long has they have and still don't seem to understand how to do so, perhaps there's a lack of competency there that needs to be addressed. --Jayron32 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, yet another attempt to silence me via this noticeboard. I will comment here, hopefully only once, because I know that in cases like mine where I have tackled many often wilfully ignorant, POV pushers over the years, including some Admins, it will simply become a place for those who hate me to pile on more of that hate, with massive amounts of lies and exaggerations, along with raising truckloads of hugely irrelevant material. It's what's happened in the past. This is possibly the worst place on Wikipedia for the achievement of anything like truth, fairness and justice. There is never any consequence for those who pile on with their lies and misrepresentations.
    In the case of the IP editor at Talk:Bruce Pascoe, I suspect I have probably been more kind and more polite than any other editor on Wikipedia. It is my habit, in the hope of encouraging good editing, to always welcome new editors to the project. I did so in this case, with the standard, template driven welcome on his Talk page. In addition, because I had already seen this editor struggling with many aspects of how to properly comment here, but especially with indenting, I also gave him a personal welcome in my own words, explaining how indenting works and pointing him at some extra material that should have helped on his journey here. One normally hopes for some improvement after doing something like that, but in this case, nothing. I suspect those already attacking me above are completely unaware of these actions I took to try to help this editor, but I'm not surprised. After my welcomes and advice, he continued to completely fail to indent at all for a while, then after a few more prompts from me and others, started seemingly randomly indenting all over the place, even further destroying the flow of conversation there. It's important that anyone trying to fairly judge this scenario has a look at that Talk page, not just at its current form, which is bad enough, but at earlier versions. The mess this editor and a couple of other clearly novice editors were making on that page led to some more experienced editors trying to clean it up. It has meant to that many comments, including mine, were moved, even within the flow of conversation, something I don't really feel comfortable with at all. Because that editor has a constantly changing IP address, making conversation even more difficult to follow, I also advised him of the problems with that, and advised him more than once how important it is to register on Wikipedia. Again, nothing, just more repetition of the same arguments over and over again, coming from different IP addresses, but probably close enough to indicate it was the same person. (Can't be certain though, can we?)
    It's worth pointing out for those who won't look properly that the topic on that page is one about race, always a difficult and divisive one.
    I do have limited patience. This editor is clearly incompetent, and unwilling to cooperate with our policies. He has ignored an awful lot of good and well intentioned advice from me, and continued to waste my time and that of others on that Talk page. I am not the problem there. The IP editor in question is, along with several others who continue to ignore policy and the sound, source based arguments of others. I'll stop now, and probably ignore this page for a few days. I know from past experience here there is no point arguing with haters and POV pushers. (My opinion on that front will change when I see any consequence at all for anyone who piles onto this case with irrelevant, off-topic hate comments about me.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is trying to silence you. What they are trying to do is to get you to stop being rude to others. It isn't complicated. When you speak to other people, choose words and phrases and sentences that are polite and civil, and no one will bother you. It is possible to express any idea you want without doing so in a way that belittles or abuses others. --Jayron32 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The issue here isn't the IPs. The issue here is that in your efforts to guide them in the right direction your tone noticeably shifts to one that is more hostile - which constitutes straying into personal attack territory. Also, some points:
    1. It appears you need to be more tolerant of IP editors. Not everyone wants a name associated with their edits and are fine just leaving their current IP address. You can encourage them, yes, but near the end of the tone shift it seems more like applying undue pressure than encouragement. The constantly changing IP is a different problem - you might want to look into why this is the case, since they might have a valid reason for why it is changing.
    2. While indenting is helpful when dealing with replies, and is standard practice, you're not required to do it. Wiki markup is not exactly the easiest to learn; it certainly took me a bit. Again, you seem to be putting undue pressure upon them to indent near the end of the tone shift, instead of encouragement. I understand you took steps to try and teach them, but we must remain civil throughout discussions.
    3. The editors here aren't out to get you, we're just noticing a problem that may need administrator intervention. Please assume good faith, and consider this something you may need to improve on. Doing so would help prevent discussions like this in the future, as taking constructive criticism and using it to improve will fix the issues that have been brought up
    As for the IP editor in question, as we do not know their identity we cannot make too many assumptions as to why they are neglecting to learn how to indent and other aspects. However, I am inclined to say that we should not bite them as other than this peculiarity, there seems to be no other issue (as while you said the article in question is about race. you said nothing about if their comments were constructive or not).
    Hopefully I've cleared up this discussion enough so you can make a solid defense and not have to misrepresent anything. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone should do their best to indent properly but I sometimes mess it up, even after 10 years of editing. Indenting is simply not worth getting all upset about. WMF and Wikipedia policies permit IP editing, so asking an IP editor to register an account in the midst of a disagreement is out of line and unlikely to be received well. Humans are capable of deciding not to be frustrated or irritated by trivialities beyond their control. I recommend that HiLo48 try to learn that lesson. Improved patience comes from a conscious decision to be more patient. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What Cullen said. The encyclopedia content is the important issue here, not how someone indents on talk pages. It is almost always obvious what is a reply to what. To me indentation seems obvious, and so Cullen should either have used two colons rather than three (and that made it difficult for me to decide how to indent this), or, if the reply was supposed to be to Jayron above, have put this comment immediately after that, but in the past I have had my correct indentation changed to incorrect, and have on many occasions quietly fixed bad indentation without comment. It seems that what is obvious to me, and perhaps to you, is for some reason not obvious to other editors. Part of the problem is that WP:INDENT is far too long - it should simply say, "indent your edit at one more level than the edit that you are replying to, and put it after any other reply to the same edit." Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. What I said above has been underlined by the edit conflict with Kirbanzo above. We are now even further from ideal indenting, but the discussion is still perfectly clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being contentious, might I suggest that expecting everyone who comments on an article talk page to understand obscure markup language might seem a little unnecessary in 2019? Wikipedia promotes itself as 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', and the WMF raises large sums of money on that basis. Maybe a little less sniping at newcomers and a bit more pressure on the WMF to put some of their funds towards creating an interface suitable for normal non-techie types might not go amiss. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for years I've been encouraging WMF to develop what I propose we call a "Visual Editor". It's hard to see what could go amiss. EEng 14:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Our comments are falling on deaf ears. HiLo has already said he does not plan on paying attention to this page. We need to either go to his talk page -- or frankly block him, to get his attention.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be fair, the anon-IP started the problem, and it wasn't just bad indenting. They were pushing a strong bias against the BLP subject, and weren't listening and responding to anybody's attempt to explain policy/guidelines/practices on anything. I'm not posting a link, because you really have to look at the totality of anon IP comments on the talk page. I was personally tempted to just blank some of the IPs comments, since they seemed disruptive (but I know that's a blockable offense). HiLo48 can't be criticized for not trying to help the IP get better, but rather their mistake is the opposite, they should have just ignored the IP entirely. Every attempt by HiLo48 to explain things to the IP triggered another reply, which wasn't indented or responsive, which triggered another, and so on. --Rob (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We all deal with difficult IPs from time-to-time. Being able to handle them with consistent civility and evenhandedness is itself an indicator of competence.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose block - HiLo48 is demonstrating serious WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on the talk page (in the diffs posted above, and almost every other edit Hilo48 made on the talk page). If what WaltCip says is true, that this is "rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes", and they aren't going to pay attention to anything said here, then a short block seems warranted to deter this kind of behaviour. HiLo48 needs to learn to assume good faith (including not unfairly assuming that others aren't assuming good faith) and lay off the personal attacks - HiLo48 questioned someone's talk page 6 times on that talk page alone, and it wasn't all directed to the IP editor, not that it should matter. Cjhard (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just read almost all HiLo48's comments dated 4 December 2019 and later and most of them are perfect—I don't know about the accuracy of the statements regarding the topic but the explanations of standard procedure and policies are exactly correct. See User talk:202.161.1.218 for how HiLo48 welcomed the IP on 3 December 2019 and offered a friendly and simple explanation about indenting. Those commenting above to the effect that an IP's indenting doesn't matter are mistaken—frequent posts without the correct indents are disruptive as they break the flow of a thread and make subsequent posts difficult. If someone is going to frequently contribute to a talk page, it is kinder to bluntly tell them about the problems they are causing. HiLo48 did better than that—he politely outlined what is needed which is more help than I noticed from others. The diffs of "uncivil" comments above are very weak and do not account for the totality of the talk page. It's true that a couple of the mentions of "incompetent" were excessive, although they were accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with Johnuniq. Indenting, at least to me, isn't that big of a deal, really. We can all read , yes, indenting makes it easier but it isn't needed. I could have typed this message without the indent and Johnuniq would still understand that I was responding to his message by reading the first four words.
    Also, I would like to point out HiLo48's response to the olive branch I extended to him. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is the problem. It's either not competent to learn how to indent properly or choosing not to learn spitefully. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should sentence him to a period of indented servitude. EEng 14:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think HiLo48's comments directed towards others violate CIVIL. I've had some interaction with the editor and I do think they need to understand that comments that come off as dismissive (or worse) aren't helpful. Comments that focus on the editor vs the content are a problem. I haven't read this whole discussion so I will abstain from supporting or objecting to the proposed block. This isn't behavior that should result in an immediate block but, if the editor has been warned, and this ANI is a clear warning, this is behavior that should result in a block if it continues. Springee (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (3rd nomination)

    AFD is closed with a lengthy rationale left by the closing admin, which directly addresses many of these concerns. Further discussion should probably happen at WP:DRV if necessary. --Jayron32 18:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This may be the messiest AfD I've ever seen.

    The subject of the article has allegedly, based on comments at the AfD, put out a call to his followers to flood the AfD with keep !votes. The problem is that some well-meaning editors—and I do think they're acting in absolutely good faith—have deleted the !votes that they feel were solicited. (@KidAd: I do think you're doing what you think is the right thing and acting in good faith, but it's making a bad situation worse.)

    The mess is so bad that I considered ending the AfD early: I don't think we'll be able to get a meaningful consensus, and whatever the outcome of this AfD is, it's probably doomed to DRV.

    So I look for wider input. Is there another remedy available besides hitting the emergency stop button? —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • C.Fred, I just edit-conflicted with you: you were doing a good thing, by tagging one of those SPAs, but I chose the blunter tool: a NOTHERE block, given not just their SPA-ness, but also the personal attacks. (I have no qualms about just blocking and removing their comment if it's that obvious...) Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I wasn't ready to immediately block that user, but I did think about {{rpa}}'ing some of their comment. Given that they're now blocked, I think this is a case where removing the comment entirely is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting old, C.Fred, and haven't yet had dessert. I'll cut you a piece of buttermilk pie in a moment. I'm looking at the other comments, and this one clearly stood out, blockably in my opinion. CompactSpacez, for instance, is this close to a block, but at least one can claim they actually commented on content, once or twice. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm bleeping annoyed at that AFD (which I discovered through this ANI report), that A) my 'vote' keeps getting placed into a PoV (IMHO) sub-section, that taints my vote & B) that annoying subsection title keeps getting re-added. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted my vote from the AFD-in-question. To say I'm annoyed right now? is an understatement. GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    An 'explanatory note' to the sub-section title has been added. If it remains, I'll reconsider. Just peeved that somebody moved my vote around. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking the sub-section wasn't so much a sub-section, as.... You know how some discussions get so long that there's an arbitrary break added? In this case, it wasn't arbitrary. But it's more just a break in the flow rather than a true subsection. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the name of it the arbitrary break, suggests all 'votes' under it are somehow tainted. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated on my talk page, the header (which I did not create) was originally intended to divide votes cast from the point the page was nominated on December 12 from those submitted by Kulinski fans who largely came to vandalize the page (intentionally or unintentionally) after the release of this tweet. While I do think the header is useful and should remain in some form, I am more than open to tweaking the language. KidAd (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It should indeed be tweaked to a neutral name. I'm not a Kulinski fan who was contacted to try & save his bio article, which is what the current 'name' suggests. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral on the notice, but I would suggest formatting it as regular text instead of a section header so that new !votes will not appear on top of it. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close will be key here. Fortunately the canvassed !votes are all based on obviously non-policy-related arguments, so they can be dismissed out of hand and consensus assessed from the remaining legitimate comments. If this had been done at the second nomination, we wouldn't be here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why you aren't adding new comments to the bottom of the discussion. It would really make this easier to follow. I don't agree with the comment beneath the header because you're attempting to gloss over fact. A large flood of people came to the page after Kulinski tweeted about it. Some editors that were not IPs or SPAs contributed their votes, and I think proper distinctions have been made on the page. The header still provides a visual representation of the turning point in the discussion, a sort of Anno Domini. It doesn't need to be sugar-coated because you and GoodDay are offended. KidAd (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the most vocal keep !voters, CompactSpacez (talk · contribs), previously made this edit that reinstated vandalism under the guise of removing it. I thought that maybe it was a mistake, but the editor says it was actually a joke. As the user notes, that disruptive edit was made two years ago. In fact, it was their last edit (under this account anyway) prior to earlier this month. A few hours ago, CompactSpacez received a warning for making personal attacks and then issued the exact same warning (including the customized "Tone it down, please. Seriously." message) to another user only 8 minutes later! I think Wikipedia was better off without this NOTHERE editor and suggest that they be involuntarily returned to their long-term absence. They don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • After having interacted with the user in question today, I am inclined to agree. This editor is certainly WP:NOTHERE. KidAd (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lepricavark:@KidAd: This is a baseless smear. Wikipedia has disciplinary measures in place for what I did. In my case, I was given a warning. That's it. End of story. Bringing it up two years later in an effort to discredit subsequent edits is silly. I've made a number of other edits on Wikipedia, all of which have been productive. It seems, in this case, that the editors in the Kyle Kulinski discussion (namely, KidAd and Snooganssnoogans) don't have an actual refutation of the solid arguments I (and other "pro-keep" editors) have raised, so they resort to such personal attacks. It's ridiculous, frankly. All I'm seeing are accusations and personal attacks. Similar accusations and smears were leveled in the Bernie Sanders Media Bias AfD, to all editors in favor of "keeping". Little substantive discussion. These folks claiming to be defending "Wikipedia policy" evidently have not read up on WP:GF. CompactSpacez (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you disappeared for two years after that bit of joke (er, racist) vandalism, so there aren't many subsequent edits for us to discredit. Anyway, you've a fine job of discrediting yourself with your battleground behavior over the past two weeks. I notice that you provided no explanation for why you copied-and-pasted a warning for your own talk page to another editor's talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mention of the Wojcicki edit isn't to discredit, but to provide context for how you edit. Edits like this and this don't lend to your credibility either. You also display clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with edits like this: [171]. With all of your arguing and whataboutism, you refuse to accept the clear notability standards established in Wikipedia policy, and are willing to blame others for advocating for it. KidAd (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lepricavark: The reason is quite simple: I felt the content of the warning applied to said user. The user in question, Snoog, was involved in systematically leveling baseless accusations against all of the "keep" voters, not only in the Kyle Kulinski AfD, but also in the Sanders Media AfD a few weeks ago. He implied that all of the "keep" voters were somehow illegitimate. He's attempting to discredit votes by claiming that certain users hadn't posted in a certain number of years (I was never aware that you need to be editing everyday for your votes to count). In brief, I judged his behavior to be acting in bad faith. Notice that the majority of his comments on the thread rarely addressed the substance of the debate, but almost exclusively focused on attacking individual editors. CompactSpacez (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KidAd: The edits you've cited in the above comment seem reasonable. I do not see the issue with them. At worst, they are provocative. Regarding "notability standards", it is established precedent on Wikipedia that notable YouTubers may have their own Wikipedia pages. Abiding by precedent is not "whataboutism". It is only reasonable to ask that the standard you set for Kulinski is no different from the standard set for others. CompactSpacez (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it's just a coincidence that numerous people who hadn't edited in years were randomly showing up in those discussions? I don't believe that and neither do you. Many of the keep !votes are illegitimate as they were canvassed and are not based on policy. It is appropriate, and even desirable, for those editors to be identified. You had no grounds for warning Snoog and your behavior could be reasonably described as harassment. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • When or why an editor chooses to restart editing is his or her decision. Wikipedia editors are volunteers. They may edit as they please, so long as it is does in good faith. I believe that the points I (and others) have raised on the Kulinski AfD and the Sanders AfD two weeks ago were reasonable, sound and civil. A small subset of trolls were indeed present, but they were swiftly removed by KidAd. CompactSpacez (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be on the safe side, I have s-protected the discussion (which is a helpful option when a discussion is flooded with new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards). BD2412 T 03:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your precautionary protection is slightly odd, there weren't that many non-constructive IP-edits on the project page. Now the closing admin will not only have to wade through some "sorted" AFD-page with lots of December 16 comments before December 12, but also has to check the talk page for new arguments, i.e., not the 1001th repetition of 700K subscribers or Justice Democrats. –84.46.53.194 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessary. The closing admin can disregard IP comments as unlikely to be relevantly informed. BD2412 T 00:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They can do lots of things, but pulling IAR over policy while using elevated rights is an abuse of power. –84.46.53.194 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. KidAd (I'm a big fan of Kid A, but that's another matter), thank you for linking this edit by CompactSpacez, which is worth citing, at least in part: "As for your other points, note that while I am of course critical of boomers, I must say that millennials need to be held responsible for making "whataboutism" a common parlance. This is just a semantic trick used to justify hypocrisy and selective censorship. The standards need to be the same across the board; you can't have different standards for your political opponents, like Kyle." Not only do we have there a bunch of FORUM-y nonsense about boomers and whatnot; moreover, if I read this correctly it says that "Kyle" is KidAd's political opponent and because KidAd is a millennial they apply different standards in articles depending on whether they like the subject or not. That's a violation of NPA, of NPOV, of AGF, of a bunch of things. (I'm skipping over the ridiculous justification for that anti-semitic smear.) And that comes within an hour of my warning them for a personal attack, a note they reverted without commentary. I am inclined to block them indefinitely, but for now I'm blocking for a week, for the duration of the AfD I suppose, so at least that disruption will stop.

    Why not indefinitely? Good question. It's their first block, and I could be wrong. The other day I blocked someone for a short period, and Black Kite thought I was being too lenient. If that's the case here, I think CompactSpacez will either run out of rope soon, or someone else will overrule and make it indefinite. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Drmies: First, thank you for being one of the first to understand my username. Second, I think a 1-week block is a good place to start. The best thing for an editor like this is to step away and think about why they edit. If they return in a week's time (which will be right in the thick of the holiday season when many editors are spending time with their families) and continue to display WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and disregard for WP:NPOV, I think a longer block or indef will be appropriate. In part, I can relate to CompactSpacez, and was given numerous chances by admins and other editors to shape up my behavior. I hope that CompactSpacez can return as a productive editor. KidAd (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the Kulinski article ends up deleted or made into a re-direct, isn't something that'll make me loose sleep. I was just upset that another editor at that AFD was messing around with my 'vote', via relocating it against my objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: I would like to formally apologize if I did move your vote during all the excitement yesterday. It was not my intention, and I apologize if my accidental re-order of your vote gave you the impression that your vote was lessened in some way. I was only trying to weed out trolling and repeated vandalism from IPs and SPAs, and there were many more of them than editors trying to maintain the page's structure. Sorry again. KidAd (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it was @Snooganssnoogans:, who was doing it. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long-term disruption from an IP editor

    The IP in question has been blocked from editing for 2 years by Cullen328. They may appeal through the normal process. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 18:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    This IP editor is completely incapable of editing The King of Kong neutrally. For years now, this IP editor has been putting non-neutral, unsourced rants in the article. For example: February 2017, November 2017, May 2018, June 2018, April 2019, December 2019, Yesterday. I've reverted this editor several times, so I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to block this IP for long enough that this won't be a problem again for a long time. The IP is obviously static, so long block lengths are not a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    After checking the IP's contributions and talk page, I would suggest a three-year block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the stubbornly persistent IP for two years for disruptive editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated nominations of my articles for deletion

    not an administrator issue. The conflict should be worked out in other venues. --Jayron32 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BlameRuiner (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly nominating some of my artciles on women's footballers for deleteion although the sportswomen are international and currently playing in the Turkish top-level league. I had noticed him in his talk page about the status. It takes me valuable time to adress the matter. I belive he is not experienced enough and has too much time for doing nonsense. Please help.CeeGee 08:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    CeeGee (talk · contribs) seems to be having a hard time understanding the notability criteria defined in WP:NFOOTY, as well as the definition of Fully-professional league and international footballer (which in scope of FOOTY project means a player that appeared in Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level, same for managers and referees). The key word here is senior, which means not under-21 or under-anything else. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CeeGee: I see nothing here that requires administrative action. BlameRuiner has made good-faith nominations for deletion of articles that he feels do not meet the notability criteria at WP:NFOOTY. I'd suggest you either locate reliable sources that show that the Turkish women's top-level league is fully professional or generate consensus at the football WikiProject to make players in top-level women's leagues notable whether the league is fully professional or not. In either case, those are matters of content and not things that needs to be addressed to administrators. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fictitious flag added on the basis of a bad source

    OP was directed to better venues to deal with his problem; discussions have been started on the article talk page and at WP:RSN to deal with the issue. Nothing more for admins to do here. --Jayron32 16:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two users (perhaps puppets of some kind) insist on adding a fictitious flag as the ethnic map for Zazas[172][173] using a random reference (who is this James B. Minahan?) as source. Surely, it won't be difficult finding a reliable source for an ethnic flag. --Semsurî (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What was the result of the discussion you held on the article talk page regarding this issue? --Jayron32 13:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience tells me that there is no use in encouraging users to use the talkpage if they are keen on pushing for their POV. They usually just explain their move and go ahead and change the article again. --Semsurî (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't be bothered to even try to work it out on your own, why should admins need to step in to help? This is never to be the first place you go to solve a content dispute. We're here to handle behavioral issues, not decide who's version of a particular article is more correct. The first thing to do is to try to solve it among yourselves by having a friendly discussion, and if your attitude is "I don't want to talk to anyone because I don't think it would help", well, I'm not sure you're going to get much help with that attitude. --Jayron32 13:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    James Minahan seems to have a bad reputation at Talk:Stateless nation, but what you should do is raise the issue on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN. If the consensus there is that Minahan should not be cited, you'll have consensus on your side. Admins will then enforce it through blocks if necessary. If both sides edit war over this with no attempt at dispute resolution or discussion, the page will likely be fully protected (or someone will end up blocked). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a new section on the Zazas talkpage and will take a look at WP:RSN. --Semsurî (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for doing so. I earnestly hope you can work out a solution that benefits the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 15:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cathytalledo

    • I've not ever encountered the above user, but I note some serious incivility problems in their edit summaries, just on the first page of their contributions list. They repeatedly use words like "fake" and "vandalism" and "useless" to characterize things others have added, for example here where they claimed to remove vandalism, where all they did remove some information from a reference tag and here where I see no vandalism in the text they removed or changed. The use of the word "vandalism" should not be done in this manner. --Jayron32 16:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has been blocked for edit warring. I agree that their conduct falls below the level of respect and civility that is expected of users here, as well as the level of communication that's expected when a dispute occurs. I think that we should leave the user a custom message summarizing the issues and concerns and with clear expectations set. Sure, the user will likely blank their user talk page and remove it without care, but we'll at least have given them a fair warning and an opportunity to resolve these matters. Then if this user is "put through the gauntlet" (indef'd), we'll have plenty of evidence to provide that will show that we repeatedly tried other means and allocated legitimate effort and time toward trying to help the user resolve these issues, and to no avail. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎Staszek Lem and unilateral merges of Donajowsky

    Apart from Ymblanter no-one has suggested that Staszek Lem has done anything wrong, and they have now self-reverted their close anyway. There is nothing more for admins to do here, unless someone uninvolved wants to close the now re-opened merge request. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In Auguste, Staszek Lem merged twice Donajowsky to Preobrazhensky Regiment [174] [175] claiming there is no useful independent content. I reverted them both times, drawing their attention to the fact that this is not a policy-based reason, and since I objected the merge has to go through the merge request. We had some heated exchange at the talk page but no merge request has ever been opened, and, as a consequence, no other editors opined at the talk page. Today they merged the article again, [176], and, when I reverted them pointing out the absence of consensus, reverted me [177] saying that I (?) can not wait for consensus forever. I mean, I am not morally attached to this article, but I do not think anybody can just come and merge it ignoring objections. I would appreciate if the situation is reverted back and the user is advised to start a merge request if they really insist on merging the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    False and misleading complaint. After first disagreement with Ymblanter I did file merge request an explained in talk page. re: merge it ignoring objections - The merge request was posted in August. There were no arguments in favor of keeping this contentless article (99,5% of it was about different subject, namely the march in question, March of the Preobrazhensky Regiment) nor rebutting my arguments but for wikilawyering. Time for discussion was enough. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    claiming there is no useful independent content. I reverted them both times, drawing their attention to the fact that this is not a policy-based reason -- this is sooo ridiculous logic I doubt Ymblanter is fit to be an admin. If the article titled XXXX is in fact 99% about YYYY, what policy do you want? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, can I propose to delete any article, wait for four months, and then delete it against objections saying that there were no arguments? Is this your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously????? The article was MERGED, after a rsonable time waiting for real objections . If you do not see the difference, you are demonstrating unfintess and admin again. against objections - there was no objections besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure, if I do not agree with you, I am unfit to be admin. You know, you are not the first person saying this. I hope someone else will look into this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure, false accusations again. You are unfit because you appear to see no difference between deletion and merging and falsely accusing me of deleting the article. I hope someone else will look into this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right though that you created a merge request, I confused it with WP:RM where a template is required. I have striken my statement above.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify further, by the ways of wikilawyering. You may easily see that after I posted the merge request 4 months ago, I was the only person who commented on the article. Therefore there is 100% consensus in favor of merge. As admins are supposed to know, discussions are not voting.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let me clarifiy as well. You edit-warred, then you opened a talk page discussion (making a number of irrelevant statement including that I inflate my edit count). You dismissed my objections. Then you decided that since you dismissed my objections then you are the only person in favor of the merging, and there is nobody opposing the merging. Therefore the discussion is not contentious, and the provision of WP:MERGE that a neutral user must close the discussion does not apply. Then you merged the article and edit-warred when I reverted the merging. This is apparently your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    False again. You did not present any objections besides "you cannot just do it". And I didn't "just did it": I did start merge discussion, and no counter-arguments followed. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be a good idea for Ymblanter and Staszek Lem to step back from this for a few hours (or even days) and let other people discuss this. You have both stated your positions and discussion between the two of you is obviously going nowhere, and whatever point of view you might have about this it's not such an urgent issue that it needs to be resolved immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This is exactly my point - we need to revert it to the pre-dispute condition, see what other users have to say, and then have a neutral user closing the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, other users had 4 months for this. And you did not provide any article-based argument. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (not my clown car, not my circus, but following a quick look - ) Seems to me that Staszek Lem has the right of it here. They did open a merge discussion (with correct tagging etc.), and laid out their reasons for a merge, to which Ymblanter did not provide any counter-arguments aside from "you can't just do that". Well, they sure can just do that - any editor can perform a reasoned merge on their own cognisance; to object you actually have to present some applicable reasons, which I'm not seeing here. SL then waited a few months for further input, in the absence of which they performed the merge. My take is that if Ymblanter wants that not to happen, they had best make some useful arguments that way. It's something of a surprise to see an admin sitting on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I just do not find the arguments reasonable. One can merge any article into everything else citing arguments of this sort. Like New York City into the United States of America. The article has (well, used to have, before it was merged) sources, which are normally sufficient for independent notability. This is not my point though. My point is that it is not ok for a user who opened a discussion to close it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      it is not ok for a user who opened a discussion to close it. - it is perfectly OK. I've been doing this many times with no harassment. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To prevent further wasting other people's time, I am self-reverting and asking any other person to review` [[|the merge discussion and close it. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • (after edit conflicts) The fact that both Ymblanter and Staszek Lem chose to make further edits after mine just shows that this is a childish playground Russian-Polish spat, rather than a serious issue that either party is interested in being resolved by neutral editors. Just shut the fuck up, both of you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rather agree with Phil here....You both should know better. As for the opener of a discussion closing it several months later after no further participation by anyone else, I see no problem with it. If you had commented Ymblanter, it would have been different. You let that ship sail. John from Idegon (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil, I agree in spirit but please don't tell other editors to "shut the fuck up". At this point, people are now aware of the issue. Nothing should be done till more input is given. Lem, Wikipedia is not a race. You don't have to rush to merge it if there is no consensus to do so. Neither you nor Ymblanter should be deciding what that outcome is anymore. If you still haven't gotten further opinions, start a request for comment and start bringing in people who edit in the topic area. There's no reason for hostility. Slow down, everyone. 2001:4898:80E8:9:AAC3:CA77:40C2:12C (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are preaching without understanding what's going on. How can there be freaking "no consensus", if nobody was discussing the freaking article? Don't have to rush? - I was waiting for 4 freaking months! Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would have closed it as merge. Have not seen any reasonable objection at the discussion or here to say otherwise. Independant closers are only needed if the discussion is unclear or controversial in some way. Neither applies here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lem, it's probably not best to claim consensus over an un-advertised merge discussion that featured only two participants. That 'consensus' was really just you agreeing with yourself while Ymblanter refrained from commenting on the merits of a merge. The article in question was receiving roughly 2-4 page views per day prior to this ANI filing, so it's hardly surprising that nobody else weighed in at the merge discussion. Ymblanter, this would be a good time to stop commenting on the other contributor and explain why you are opposed to the merge. Lepricavark (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

    NO ACTION
    No malfunction is actually present, meaning administrator action is unnecessary. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 18:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_4Licensing_Corporation_licenses_and_productions

    This article has incorrect info. 4Kids did NOT license or produce Blue's Clues and You! or Butterbean's Cafe. They didn't produce Rocket Monkeys either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.13.4 (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t see that Cluebot has ever edited that article but aside from that, the article would benefit from some sourcing imo but that’s an editing matter rather than a administrative matter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the clear fakes; Cluebot had nothing to do with this at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spam sockpuppet

    Both indeffed (by different admins) for promotional/advertising accounts. Unless Mirror specifically wants the socking aspect considered (in which case, please undo close) it appears resolved. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Jumanji Next Level 2019 online streaming is a sockpuppet of User:Jasjasn - both creating spam user-pages to "free" download sites offering the same movie to download. I can't file an SPI case because the title is blacklisted. But this seems like an open-and-shut case per WP:DUCK. Could someone please block both? Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Long-term abuse from the socks of certain Umertan

    I looked into the contribution of the edit warrior and I think this is an IP-sock of Themanhascome, who is the sock of UkrainianSavior who is the sock of Umertan.

    I also do not understand the meaning of the actions of El_C in this article. After the anon deleted the source and made a new, dubious statement in the long-time stable article [178], El_C protected this article [179], advised me to go to RSN [180], and when I reported the facts indicating sock-puppeting [181], he just stopped responding. Or did I missed some changes in Wiki-policies?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC) You are mistaken, I am not a sock puppet of anyone. I explained myself very clearly on the talk page of Aeroflot Flight 1492. You were using a source from TASS, a state owned Russian news outlet that is known for spreading disinformation, and I rightfully deleted it. You also posted a link to the Moscow Times website, claiming it stated the name of a witness to the accident, when in fact it did not. 2601:143:4200:E070:4567:A17C:CCF1:F517 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • One of the articles the IP was warring on has already been semi-protected, and I have done the same for the other one. Either there is some meatpuppetry involved or they appear to be using two separate ranges, one IPv4 and one IPv6, so protecting may be better than rangeblocking at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    88.111.132.24

    Talk page access has been revoked. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

    After making 2 unblock requests that were declined, the IP decided to blank and mass spam the entire talk page. Please revoke talk page access. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone needs to revoke access. The IP just copied and pasted my entire userpage. I don't know what else to do. EDIT: They have now started to copy me. Please help. I can't do much beyond reverting. ☶☲Senny☶☲ (☎) 15:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrator intervention is needed here, and swiftly. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spam from Privatesecrate

    (non-admin closure) Indeffed by Canterbury Tail. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 18:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Privatesecrate has been adding https://www.dskastrology.com/ask-astrologer-ask-question/ to astrology-related articles. As far as I can tell it does not actually provide the information indicate in the edit summary, but rather promotes the services of one or more astrologers. I have reverted two of the additions but do not wish to violate the three revert rule so ask others to examine the rest.

    I reverted Cancer (astrology) and Gemini (astrology).

    That leaves Aries (astrology) and Taurus (astrology).

    Jc3s5h (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jc3s5h, WP:3RR only applies to reverts within the same article and doesn't prevent removing multiple instances of spam across different articles. Also, I see at that link that it's the site of "Astrologer Deepanshu Singh Kushwaha", and User:Privatesecrat identifies himself on his talk page as "deepanshu singh kushwaha", so there's an obvious COI/PAID violation here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After being warned about the edits and this discussion, the editor has continued to add the spam. The most recent edit makes no attempt to fit into the article; it amounts to graffiti. I believe, at this point, more than just deleting edits is called for. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty well cooked their goose then  :) For info, Jc3s5h blatant spamming can be reported to WP:AIV, which sometimes gets a faster response (some admins avoid this board like the plague...perhaps understandably!). ——SN54129 18:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just indeffed them, looking at the edits and their past vandalism, they're clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 18:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Partial appeal

    I was recently T-banned for articles relating to the Knights of Columbus. While I disagree, I respect the consensus of the community and intend to abide by it. As I don't typically engage in these types of conversations, I am not entirely sure what is appropriate and what isn't. (I'm not even certain this is the right place to make the following request.)

    However, I would like to appeal the block of the talk pages so that I might make suggestions, similar to a WP:PP. If my idea has merit, a non-banned editor can make the change. If it doesn't, they won't. For example, the Knights was founded to provide insurance for members and has grown into a Fortune 1000 company. However, there is almost no mention of it after the entire section, after being largely trimmed, was deleted. It seems odd to me that a major insurance company wouldn't talk at all about its insurance operation and would like to be able to suggest another editor add content related to it. I don't want to violate my ban, just make a few good faith suggestions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#TBAN_for_Slugger_O%27Toole
    You were T-banned three days ago. I think it's entirely inappropriate for you to be asking this three days after being banned. Prove that you can work in other areas first. 2001:4898:80E8:F:B6E4:2EDB:363E:5BD9 (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slugger O'Toole, a good part of the rationale for the TBAN was your stonewalling on Talk. I suggest you sit back at least until the article has stabilised with the current cleanup. Guy (help!) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slugger O'Toole, I'm sorry about your ban. Since it's only been a few days this is premature and unlikely to pass, but if you are willing to continue editing in other unrelated areas for some time I would support scaling back the ban in a little while. Michepman (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slugger O'Toole, I reccomend you edit elsewhere, and come back after (at least) 6 months of good behavior. I know topic bans don't feel good, but they'll do you good in the long run. If you show that you can abide by the community's wishes, you should have the ban lifted without too much fuss. However, if you break it, even accidentally, beware that the community might never lift it. I reccomend you stay as far away as possible from your topic ban until this storm blows over. But I do wish you the best, and smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per all of the above, 3 days is not enough time to demonstrate that you've learned to work with others better. I would recommend as well that the spirit of WP:SO is followed, and you wait at least 6 months before asking for a modification to your ban. --Jayron32 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jayron, Captain Eek, and Michepman. Even after more than 10 years of editing, this is largely unfamiliar terrain for me. I was unaware there was a WP:SO. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slugger O'Toole I'd also caution you not to push the same kind of self-sourced and related references to add UNDUE or misleading content to Harvard Extension School. That kind of conduct is going to be scrutinized in the future if you ever appeal the TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jkg1997 is STILL doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work

    Jkg1997 blocked indef by User:Johnuniq; due to refusal and/or inability to justify and discuss these disruptive edits after multiple attempts. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#Jkg1997 is doing Filedelinkerbot/CommonsDelinker's work

    Jkg1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    After the thread was archived, Jkg1997 just continued! @EdJohnston and Phil Bridger: clearly nothing got through. Thanks Vycl1994 for notifying me about this. - Alexis Jazz 22:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done per discussion, Some uploading copyvio files on Commons that linked to Wikipedia directly, because of plagiarism Why? because of suspected users severely of uploading copyrighted files on Commons, does not followed the instructions on Commons:Licensing policy. Therefore, on this statement in the Description file page says “Own work” by suspected user. It means the files taken or stolen from social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. The user successfully uploading copyvio files, it is possible to get plagiarized. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 02:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't decide what does and doesn't get done. Struck. Please block Jkg1997, I'll request a global lock after that because this user clearly doesn't understand anything. See also Special:Diff/931466102. - Alexis Jazz 02:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jkg1997: Repeat of my unanswered questions at archived ANI report linked above. Why are you doing Filedelinkerbot's work? Has there been a discussion somewhere (here or at Commons) suggesting that Filedelinkerbot needs help?
    Given Jkg1997's use of English, there may be no explanation and an indefinite block would be needed to avoid future disruption. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that Jkg1997 does not understand what people are saying here, and is determined to continue this disruption. Given that this editor appears to do nothing else on English Wikipedia a block would seem to be the easiest solution here. I would add that the "en-4" template on the user page, which I previously took at face value, appears to be a pretty big exaggeration. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked Jkg1997 indefinitely. That is needed due to the combination of making disruptive edits and being unable to explain them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note that on their userpage, where I'd expect care to be taken in things one wishes to say, the opening statement says "I have busy for my work due to past anytime, but if needed some update the articles." That's surely automated translation, the "en-4" userbox is blatantly false, and this is someone who does not possess the language competence to work on the English Wikipedia at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The cats have taken over. ——SN54129 10:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image copyright/licensing issues are often complex/confusing for editors. The last thing needed is an editor who doesn't properly understand them making swathes of less than competent edits which they are obviously unable to explain if necessary. It's fair to say I have above average experience in this area, but there is no way I would contemplate making this kind of edit in such a wholesale manner on a project where I was not fluent in the language and customs - that would be madness, and if I attempted that I'd expect to be quickly blocked there on a CIR basis if nothing else. It's a shame that a block was necessary, but sometimes it really is the only sensible option - thanks to Johnuniq for taking the necessary action. -- Begoon 11:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor has been blocked, so can someone who knows how please close this? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent removal of content - rejected at AIV, so bringing here

    OP has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Vandalism after final warning. Destructively removing archive details from references/links despite requests to stop/explain - ignores all warnings/requests to communicate. Aside from a couple of other unhelpful edits the account has basically done nothing except dozens of these destructive removals, so pretty much a vandalism only account, by any definition. Rejected by ToBeFree as not obvious vandalism... I'm not sure what vandalism is if persistent destructive removal of large, useful parts of our referencing content, refusal to discuss in any way, and ignoring all warnings isn't it. -- Begoon 11:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      For context about the rejection, see the "Bayfone" entry at Special:PermanentLink/931526647. For context about the "habit" alleged there, see Special:Diff/927151671, the only other occurrence I am aware of. Thanks for bringing this to ANI instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No, thank you... I simply love being forced to waste my time repeating my posts to get action taken against an obviously damaging editor who refuses to discuss why they are causing damage, and whose destructive edits I have spent substantial time defending against, with effort invested to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain the seemingly inexplicable (most people wouldn't bother with that).

      From the AIV discussion you link you have clearly misunderstood the bulk of their edits - they are, in almost all cases, removing useful archive information destructively, particularly, it seems, archive.org, for some unexplained reason - not "replacing a link with another link" or whatever other nonsense you put forward there - See Help:Using the Wayback Machine and WP:DEADLINK and do try to examine the facts, please... Removing useful archive links can never be a "good idea" - how could it ever be a good idea to reduce the readers' options for verification of a link which may one day become inaccessible? Common sense surely makes that "idea" nonsense.

      Every time you try to reject a valid report like that it does make me a little warmer inside, but I'm just worried I might overheat, so if you could see your way clear not to "help" me like that in future I'd appreciate it. -- Begoon 13:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      This isn't helpful as it destroys what was the specific ref source to a general category. Removing the dead URLs with the archive links hurts because it essentially makes the text unsourced. That seems to be the bulk of their editing. That combined with not talking to anyone about it isn't good for the encyclopedia. spryde | talk 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. That's obvious, as, I would hope, is what I said above. ToBeFree, I guess, doesn't like me because I alleged someone was a sockpuppet and they disagreed. I may have been wrong and I may have been right - I think I was right, but so what - they made some unjustified deletions to my talkpage at the time, and I didn't object because I didn't want to upset them, and the SPI was done. If they want to pursue this grudge further, though - it'll be hard for me to be so understanding about what seems like abuse of admin rights any more.

      If I'm honest, though - all that can wait - we should just block the editor deleting useful content - or am I being too simplistic? -- Begoon 14:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Begoon, before you wrote "smh again", I did not have the RFPP decline in mind. Before your comment here made me have a look at your talk page archive, I also did not remember Special:Diff/891833374. It may seem strange to you, but I was honestly unaware of our previous interactions each time I declined one of your reports. Now that you have mentioned your talk page, though, I can finally understand where your suspicion comes from. It is incorrect, even now; there is no reason for me not to like you. To prevent this understandable impression of hounding, I will do my best not to respond to further noticeboard reports made by you, unless they are about an incident I was involved in. Please do remind me if I forget this; I'm serious about this offer. I definitely do not intend to upset you.
      The full diff is Special:Diff/917558513/931471648, which replaces a redirect to the home page by at least a specific category. The only copies available of the page in the Internet Archive, dating back to 2012-03-08, are redirects to the home page. It is really only the refusal of discussion that worries me here, not the good-faith attempts at fixing references. I do not object to a block, but please don't use "Vandalism" as the block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry. I don't believe you. You're a poor admin, you hold evident grudges, and I wish I'd opposed you at RFA. -- Begoon 14:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Please, Begoon. There can never be evidence for a non-existent grudge. You're a fine editor, your report does have merit, and you're welcome to ask for a recall at User:ToBeFree/recall if my behavior during the first year is unacceptable to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't condescend. Others can judge. I'm not advocating removal of your admin tools right now. I might, after I think about all this, but it won't be in the unconsidered, evidence-free mode that you thought you could deal with me when I do. Think on. Have you blocked the obvious vandal yet? -- Begoon 14:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Begoon, you’re being a complete asshole in this conversation. Please take the olive branch. – Levivich 15:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the interpretation that the user is trying to fix references. The removal of archive links isn't helpful, but all instances I saw where they did that were when the original link was incorrectly labeled as dead (probably it was dead at some point in the past). I agree that this isn't vandalism (in the sense of deliberately trying to make things worse). However, the user is making some things worse, and they need to stop that. I suggest to block after (a) somebdoy explained to them why what they were doing was wrong and (b) they then do that again. (They received a link to Wikipedia:Vandalism, which does not explain at all why their edit was wrong, so it is no wonder they are continuing). From Wikipedia:Vandalism: "For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia". —Kusma (t·c) 15:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no way the edits improve the encyclopedia. A description of vandalism is perfectly justified. -- Begoon 15:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually not so much. The only time you should call edits vandalism is where the user's intent is clearly to harm Wikipedia. As noted above, there is the possibility that the user thinks they are being helpful. So long as a user thinks they are being useful, you should never call their edits vandalism. That doesn't mean the person should be allowed to continue, just that unless it is obvious to everyone that they are trying to be harmful, you should seek other forms of redress. --Jayron32 16:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You may describe it as vandalism, but it is not vandalism. —Kusma (t·c) 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Begoon, ok, you actually described the problem to the user in plaintext a week ago, so I see your point better now. My apologies. As the user has stopped for the day, I chose to give another semi-handcrafted final warning (using DE, not vandalism as reason), but I am happy to block them on the next edit. —Kusma (t·c) 16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You receive a special bonus for eventually, actually reading the evidence. You seem to be unique here in that respect. Yes, I'd taken the time to explain the issue to the user in detail - that's really the whole point here - that they continued regardless is the vandalism. I'm extremely pissed off by this whole incident, and the wagon-circling to play down a very poor, plainly grudge driven, "admin" action at AIV, but your apology is, at least, appreciated. Thank you. -- Begoon 00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all disruptive editing is vandalism; This might warrant a block for refusing to communicate, but even then... I' not convinced. This seems very much like a user who just doesn't understand how to use their Talk page - that's pretty common, and honestly a failing on our part as a community more than theirs as a new user trying to contribute. Begoon - I can't say your tone here reflects well on you, at all. Your report does have merit, but the information kidna gets lost in the noise of you flinging shit at ToBeFree. Calm down, approach this from what's best for the encylopaedia rather than the idea that some admin holds a grudge against you. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 15:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh? -- Begoon 15:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me try to explain it, Begoon. Vandalism is not a word that should be used to describe every type of disruptive editing. It is reserved for ONLY that type of editing which only has, as its purpose, to damage Wikipedia, things like inserting gibberish or random swear words in Wikipedia articles. Reports at AIV may be regularly declined if, in the opinion of the admin who happens to respond, that the editing does not appear to them to be obvious vandalism. That doesn't mean it is good editing, just that the venue of WP:AIV is not particularly well suited towards dealing with forms of disruption that are not really obvious vandalism like that. The rule of thumb you should follow is that any time that the editing needs any kind of lengthy explanation of what is wrong with it, AIV is probably not the locale to handle it. That does NOT MEAN that the person causing the disruption shouldn't be blocked, it just means that you should try somewhere else like here to deal with it instead. Also, since there are hundreds of admins, not every admin will deal with everything exactly the same way. Some admins will see something as obvious, and another may not. This is also not a huge issue here at ANI, where we can discuss things, but at AIV, where discussion really doesn't happen, if a report gets declined, it doesn't mean anything about you. It just means that ANI may be a better venue to handle blocking the person in question. I hope that explanation makes sense to you, since you found Alfie's explanation above confusing. --Jayron32 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really. It's clearly vandalism because it's clearly persistent damage to content, deliberate, and malicious. I'm extremely pissed off about this whole incident, and "circling the wagons" doesn't help. As a result I'm reconsidering my participation here as a whole. When my genuine efforts to protect this encyclopedia are rebuffed by an "admin" with an obvious grudge, and the reactions are similar to this, then it doesn't make me inclined to continue to donate any more time or effort. There have been other recent posts here about the futility of criticising admin actions at ANI because of this "wagon circling" tendency, and I strongly sympathise with that sentiment. -- Begoon 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree removing the archive.org links is disruptive but not vandalism. If the editor continues to remove the links, a block may be necessary to prevent the disruption until they engage on their talk page. Hard to swallow that TBF is holding a grudge by properly declining a bad AIV report, or by agreeing to avoid Begoon's reports in the future, the latter of which certainly doesn't seem very grudge-like. I'm glad Begoon brought attention to this disruption, but next time I'd thank him to employ fewer personal attacks. – Levivich 01:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, "you’re being a complete asshole in this conversation". That's not unexpected, I've seen you in action. Please keep your nonsensical views on who has made "personal attacks" to yourself (if keeping anything to yourself in a conversation of no concern to you is a concept you can grasp - which I rather doubt). -- Begoon 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, that's better, but I'd ask future posts to have even fewer personal attacks than that. But good start! – Levivich 01:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Concerning Wikipedia lb sysop named “Les Meloures”

    We have no control over other Wikis and other Wikis have no control over us, You'd need to resolve this on luxembourg Wiki, NAC. –Davey2010Talk 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please wikipedia admins, help the luxembourgish community to deactivate the sysop status on lb:Wiki of Les Meloures, because his objections are neither friendly nor helpful, his language is rude, his arguments are unfounded and his contribution is not constructive. Thank You for helping Wikipedia lb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C983:7700:749C:2685:4671:4423 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins here have no authority over the Luxembourgish Wikipedia. If the issue can't be resolved there then you will need to ask for help from a steward at Meta. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problematic user adding unsourced info

    REPORTED USER BLOCKED
    Spin_Boy_11 has been indefinitely blocked by Jayron32. They may appeal through the normal proccess. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    This user, despite numerous pleas from myself and other editors on their talk page, continues to add unsourced info to articles. This and this made after 2 recent final warnings. They have been warned many times by several users and to date have yet to respond in any constructive or collaborative way on their talk page to these concerns. Please could an admin remind this user about the importance of WP:V as warnings don't seem to be working. Robvanvee 15:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That user has never, not once, engaged in a conversation over their edits ever, and has had numerous opportunities to do so. I have blocked the user pending their response. Once they have agreed to discuss the problems, I will unblock them. Any other admin can also unblock them once they agree to discuss their editing and stop adding unsourced information. The greatest issue is the refusal to communicate; if they were actively discussing this, I would not have blocked. --Jayron32 16:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jayron32, I too hope for a positive outcome from this situation. Robvanvee 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I, as well. --Jayron32 16:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but looking at the young gentleman's Talk Page; it seems as though not one experienced WP editor ever pinged the user to alert him to the page even. In deciphering his username and user page, he seems very young: 11? I would hope that assumptions were not at play here by "experienced" WP editors who think that everyone knows how it works around here. Looking at his edits, they are far from vandalism, and seemed to be worthy of inclusion: a young editor who wishes to contribute but doesn't know how? Certainly not one who is capable of taking on the editors who are experienced enough to block in a discussion. Also, the user's Talk Page is far from discussion entering for him. They are nearly all statements, notifications, scolding, action taken in retrospect; none of which require any back-and-forth from the user. The November 2019 was far from helpful, as the internal link didn't even show what source was in question: just a blatant block message on his page. I also see that no discussion was brought up on the Talk Pages about the unsourced edits; and even the summary did not engage conversation. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would have been nice to see more "pings" on that Talk Page; even from the one who blocked him and placed the November 2019. I'm trying to find exactly where these "numerous opportunities to do so" can be found? BTW: I do not, as an editor, find this at all helpful to the situation: "You seem to think WP:V doesn't apply to you. Let's see if admin at WP:ANI agree with you." Not very noble; especially if he is only 11 years old. The young man only joined in July 2019. Just my opinion on the matter. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a user under 13 allowed to create a username? Thought US Law required parental permission.
    Slywriter (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guide for Young Editors at WP Maineartists (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    His account is 14 years old. So he'd only be 11 if he started editing as a negative 3 year old. If, instead, we presume he was editing at the precious age of 4, he'd still be old enough to be considered an adult under U.S. law. So no, he's not 11. He's an adult. --Jayron32 18:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not 11 years old – his earliest edits are from 2005. (I'm trying to work out why you thought he joined in July 2019 – maybe you were looking at his 500 most recent contributions without noticing that there are older contributions than that? That has happened to me before...) --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    11 years old? Wow that's quite an assumption. So was he 11 when he created the account 5 years ago and therefore 16 now? or was he 6 when he created the account and therefore 11 now (if my maths is correct)? Are you saying with the extensive 5 year experience and 10k plus edits he hasn't figured out how to use his talk page yet? Are you saying that with over 350 messages to his talk page he hasn't once had a red notification at the top of his page? I'll admit my remark on his talk page was a low point but ffs this has been going on for so long with repeated explanatory reversion edit summaries. If you can't be bothered when does one say enough is enough. I think this user has been given a very fair block. Jayron32 has given them the opportunity to show that they can work collaboratively as well as reliably source their edits at which point the block will be lifted. Robvanvee 18:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, am I looking at the right user? The user linked from the first post has been an editor since 2005, for more than 14 years! If he were 11 years old then (which, as you say, we have no real reason to assume), he'd be 25 now. And he has posted to his talk page once, this dismissive comment in 2006. (And also blanked a bunch of warnings and other posts from it.) I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me here, but fwiw I agree with the block. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I obviously was missing something. I'm not experienced as y'all. I didn't know how to manage past a certain date like bonadea. I only saw the existing Talk Page and contributions that displayed when I clicked 500. My assumption was incorrect. My apologies. Always trying to look for the good in people. Maineartists (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)So are we. Blocking them doesn't mean we don't think they are a good person. Just that the account the person is running is doing something that needs to be stopped for the time being. Also, the good person can get their account unblocked simply by starting a discussion on their user talk page and assuring us they understand the nature of the problem and that they intend to fix the problems they have been causing. --Jayron32 18:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible Sockpuppetry by TheSource2.7

    There's nothing to do here. First, the block of the bot username was a soft block, meaning a new account without bot in the username is permissible. Second, assuming that the second account is owned by the same person, there haven't even been any edits yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the account creation log, I noticed a user called TheSourceBot2.7, who is now blocked for a username violation. I believe this same person has come back under the very similar username TheSource2.7. What can I do about this? ☶☲Senny☶☲ (☎) 19:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:COMPETENCE discussion about User:Weelandlka

    I would like to start a WP:COMPETENCE discussion about User:Weelandlka. This discussion is prompted not by a single incident, but rather a consistent pattern of making edits with poor English, and suppressing contributions that conflict with his/her political views. I have not personally had an extended discussion with Weelandlka about this behavior, but many other editors have over the course of several months. I'm unclear on what the bar is for determining WP:COMPETENCE, but I would appreciate it if you could review Weelandlka's behavior and determine if any action would be appropriate.

    Discussion follows:

    Frequently inserts incomprehensible text into articles

    Weelandlka is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, his additions are frequently in broken English which is hard to read, and sometimes completely unintelligible.

    Here are a few samples from this week alone:

    A debate erupted over conservative leader Andrew Scheer's handling of LGBT rights after the 2019 election, former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose is supported chorus of Conservatives members that wanted the party needs to take a clearer stand on LGBTQ. Source
    Benoit Charette, the Quebec environmental minister describes people no longer have children as "too alarmists". Source
    Jessie Brown from Canadaland noted that it could have given the Conservative party to cut CBC budget. Source

    Weelandlka has contributed much worse before; these are just the examples I could find from his/her last few edits.

    Weelandlka has been called out on this multiple times, by multiple editors: Link 1, Link 2. The comment in the second link is pretty representative:

    I got several "thank yous" and even a written "thank you" on my talk page for reverting your additions. Other editors cannot understand what you are writing and, by their comments, are struggling to either fix or remove your additions.

    Note also Weelandlka's comment that English is his/her native language, but (s)he just can't be bothered to make more coherent edits. Weelandlka has not substantively improved the quality of his/her edits since, which forces other editors to clean up afterwards (or just allow the quality of the affected articles to degrade).

    Exhibits WP:OWNER behavior, violates WP:NPOV, and engages in edit wars

    Weelandlka assumed ownership of the People's Party of Canada article, and took it upon him/herself to unilaterally remove any statements about the party that (s)he disagreed with, including ones supported by references from reputable news outlets including Reuters and the New York Times: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3.

    Weelandlka has been warned multiple times for edit warring, both formally and informally: 3RR report 1, 3RR report 2, informal warning.

    Other issues

    Weelandlka has been repeatedly warned for inserting copyrighted material: Link 1, Link 2.

    Weelandlka has also been warned for incorrectly marking edits as minor: Link.

    Edit: Stephen Hui (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is something amusing about an editor citing competence when they forget to sign their post. 2001:4898:80E8:B:4292:A23B:3173:1596 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Touché. :-) Stephen Hui (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC) (<-- original poster)[reply]
    The original poster forgetting to sign is an unfortunate mistake of the type that nearly everybody (apart from me of course) makes, but, if Weelandlka is really a native speaker of English, edits betray a lack of competence in writing in any language. Even the first sentence on User:Weelandlka is not written in correct English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy moly. Looking at their contribs and their talk page certainly does not instill a lot of confidence. WMSR (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially not the way they have often summarised additions of several hundred bytes as WP:MINOR. Narky Blert (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Page stalker here. This user's contributions merit some extra eyes. I picked a random block add [[183]] and despite some subsequent copy editing, the text is still awkward. See current incarnation David Frum#Immigration TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Throwing JUSTDONTLIKEIT accusation without sufficient evidence

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

    This editor has accused me of "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior" when I raised the concern that saying in Turkey#History, the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide" which is based on a comment by single U.S random politician [184] is UNDUE. This is an unacceptable accusation and I have discussed this with him and asked him again and he said he still stands with this accusation. If the unfounded accusations continued then I predict a block. Just like calling an edit vandalism without sufficient evidence is a personal attack calling them JUSTDONTLIKEIT without sufficient evidence is a personal attack, they both assume bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This user has already harrassed me and other users in the past and now they come here with this baseless report. I was not able to find any mention of personal attack here. Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case in my humble opinion. Merry Christmas to everyone.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I also want to add that this user keeps accusing other editors with JUSTDONTLIKEIT and in all cases there are no sufficient evidence(see also here). I really think this user should stop and learn how to assmue good faith because it is uncivil to accuse editors with these unfounded accusations. This should be the threshold to this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute. You have other editors joining in to make compromises. Go back to the talk page and work it out. 2001:4898:80E8:8:EA25:1123:3AE0:C63B (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User is consistently removing CSD tags on articles created by the user

    Hello admins. User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib has consistently deleted CSD tags placed on articles that were created by the user and this has occurred on multiple occasions. Dr42 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=931623887"