Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Vami IV (talk | contribs)
95,928 edits
Line 1,012: Line 1,012:
:I have moved it back without a redirect. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
:I have moved it back without a redirect. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
::Shoot, is it April Fools' Day already? Can't we shut down en.wiki for April 1st? This will be my 15th one and it's gotten to be pretty damn boring. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
::Shoot, is it April Fools' Day already? Can't we shut down en.wiki for April 1st? This will be my 15th one and it's gotten to be pretty damn boring. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
::: Even on 1 April vandalism in article namespace is not allowed. I looked at their contributions, and the last several ones are indeed not good, but others seem to be ok.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:29, 1 April 2021

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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 CejeroC disruptively editing

    CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

    Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

    • March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
    • March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
    • March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

    Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T274359
    Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Help talk:Getting started deleted

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T278350
    Resolved

    Hi Admins, your urgent attention is requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (Talk moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Help_a_move_showing_database_error) to put out a dumpster fire caused by a user moving the Help talk:Getting started to user space. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Uncle G, I will update the ticket. Polyamorph (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEANS. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Restore history from 2020 and 2021

    @Anthony Appleyard: Try doing the following steps if possible:

    1. Restore the deleted edits for Help talk:Getting Started.
    2. Using Special:MergeHistory, merge all of the edits for Help talk:Getting started from 2019 and earlier to Help talk:Getting Started.
    3. Finally, using Special:MergeHistory again, merge all of the mergeable edits (i.e. January 2021 and earlier) for Help talk:Getting Started to Help talk:Getting started.

    If not, then this would again need help from a sysadmin (perhaps Martin Urbanec). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the problems caused. One small clarification-data is not corrupted/lost. The issue is, as far as I see, the same as the original one- It tries to move a page's watchers in a single transaction, rather than in a multiples smaller ones, and that is too much memory because of the number of people watching the page. As commented on the ticket- the original issue was not corrected, only manually corrected. This was (briefly) indicated here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T278350#6948370 For now, based on the task, I think Martin is working on it. Thank you for your understanding. JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SerVasi and slow edit war at Ivan Visin

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

    I was patrolling WP:3RRN and found there a report against this user. Whereas the report itself is strange, but the matter is that, as fas as I see, the last seventeen edits on this page is an edit-war between SerVasi and a few other editors, including Sadko, who recently has been topic-banned from Eastern Europe. The users remove the info that the subject is Croatian, and SerVasi restores this information, citing the croatian Encyclopedia (which their opponents call a nationalistic source). I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (the sources originating from Croatia must be treated with great care but I have no idea about this encyclopedia), but they not a single time cared to add the reference to the article, and the article remains unsourced. The user has slightly over 1K edits. I am a bit puzzled about what to do. Presenting them at AE is probably a loss of time, at any rate it should not be a loss of my time. I would have blocked, especially since last year they have been blocked five times, escalating to over a month, on the other hand, they are not at the 3RR level. Opinions welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Croatian Encyclopedia (enciklopedija.hr} is published by a scholarly institution, Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography (LZMK). I found nothing bad about it. It looks like the kind of source I would use without hesitation. Narky Blert (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided RS on a common known fact, atleast in that general geographic area. There was no counter arguments or sources, just "croatian source bad". Normally i would start a discussion on the talk page but my opposition was a couple of anonymous IPs and a dude who reported me as a neo nazi for some reason so i decided to spare my time. They are not trying to build an encyclopedia. SerVasi (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a case for WP:BOOMERANG as the reporter JamesSandy64 (talk · contribs) was recently created, and immediately started making contentious edits to some of our favorite recent WP:ARBMAC-related hotspots. Their first edit was on Višeslav of Serbia, where it seemed fine, reverting anonymous vandalism, but then they moved on to striking ancient sockpuppet text from talk page archives, then a bit later dropping a long-standing book source from an article (this was reverted by Peacemaker67), then I found more sockpuppet talk archive business, removing a WP:HRV talk page tag from an article (?!), again an edit discussing sockpuppets. This just screams long-term axe-grinding to me, but I can't recall immediately whose particular style this is to file a checkuser request at WP:SPI. Would anyone object me blocking this account for gaming the system on simple behavioral grounds? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think it is ok if you block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. If someone wants to further analyze the related edits, please feel free. In particular I haven't analyzed much of this SerVasi user. Vanjagenije I noticed you had to intervene a few times, do we have a long-term problem here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KIENGIR

    Per an overwhelming consensus of users, KIENGIR is banned by the community. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    We’re long overdue for a centralized discussion and serious action regarding this user. For those of you who don’t know him, let me introduce you. KIENGIR basically doesn’t contribute content. I’m not sure what his raison d’être is here, but it certainly isn’t writing articles, and part of that is because he, well, can’t. His English isn’t up to par, as WP:COMPETENCE suggests it should be. Here and here are two frustrated users commenting on that issue.

    By now, a lot of us are familiar with his modus operandi. What he does is to impose some unjustified change, hoping nobody notices. A lot of the time, his calculation pays off. A recent example would be here, part of his long-standing campaign to push the theory that Greater Hungary lasted until 1920, when in fact Czechoslovakia emerged in October 1918.

    Unfortunately for him, other users do sometimes raise objections. At that point, KIENGIR falls back on Plan B: revert, revert, revert and talk, talk, talk, eventually wearing his opponent into submission. Examples are legion, but behold a recent one: here, here and here, he arbitrarily changes two pairs of links. When pointed out to him that the original links reflect the source, written by a prolific scholar in the topic area, he scoffs and says he knows better.

    KIENGIR holds some rather esoteric opinions, and has a single-minded determination to impose them, regardless of whether the sources back him up. For example, I recently wanted to add four simple words to an infobox. Knowing the only sure way to prevail was to obtain consensus, I had to run a poll where my proposal prevailed, 5-1. The 1 objector, the subject of this complaint, wrote massive amounts of text, and it was a huge waste of time for all of us. Again, for 4 non-controversial words.

    Or how about this one — a concerted push to add an absurd category to a category? Again, a wide-ranging discussion ensued, concluding that he’s wrong. Another waste of time for all involved. Lately, his ideas have been becoming ever more outlandish. Here, we’ve had walls of text about why we shouldn’t be linking Poland when writing about... Poland. Here, he wants us not to link Romania when discussing “modern Romania”. Here he tried to impose the view that the Nazi Party was not fascist. Thankfully, that’s a highly visible article, and he had to give up.

    It’s fair to say KIENGIR is an inveterate revert warrior. He was warned against it back in November, but still does it with gusto: here and here are two prime fresh examples. Elsewhere, KIENGIR goes to quite great lengths to whitewash the authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán, an action that speaks for itself.

    One of KIENGIR’s time-tested tactics is to launch false accusations of personal attacks. See e.g. here and here. Meanwhile, he himself is guilty of such attacks, on numerous occasions. He was making them in January, leading to complaint by an administrator. Here, he told an editor, “You better avoid referring to policies”. And just today, when I explained a policy, he launched into a bizarre tirade.

    One of his most egregious gambits has been unfolding just recently. On March 11, another editor received an email mentioning KIENGIR, and mistakenly thought said user had sent the message. The other user quickly noticed his mistake and apologized. (By the way, his initial reply is revelatory.) That should have been the end of the story. But true to form, KIENGIR wasn’t ready to let it drop. He waited 12 days before demanding to know who’d sent the email. Four days after that, he returned to the poor user’s page, insisting he be told the email’s author. After being firmly told off, he then went to an administrator’s talk page sputtering about involving ArbCom. As I said, egregious. Whatever KIENGIR’s future here is, he should understand that, within the scope of the law, we can write whatever e-mails we well please, even if they’re about him, and that his farcical inquisition can at best end in ridicule for him.

    I’ve already given some hints of this, but let me just say outright that I’m far from being the only user who finds KIENGIR’s approach to be insufferable. For starters, see here. Here is another eloquent summation.

    This statement has gone on at some length, but I hope I’ve presented a solid case for meaningful action. I’d like to close by pinging a few involved editors: @Boynamedsue:, @Azure94:, @Rsk6400:, @Place Clichy:, @Vanjagenije:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @CaffeinAddict:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Aza24:, @Oliszydlowski:. — Biruitorul Talk 01:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Biruitorul,
    I will need a bit of time to investigate fully this, but it seems you have a bad conscience, especially you had quite lot of bad faith moves recently, in violation of many things. Now you continue, very nice, however these were not the first time. Never mind, I have nothing to be afraid of, in WP diffs talk, and yes, I will investigate with Arbcom that emailing issue in collaboration with the administrators in which somebody with a slime move tried me to set up, but it failed in the end. Just because you made this "preventive step", will not change the outcome, could be a huge WP:BOOMERANG, possibly affecting more editors in case, but I retain my good faith as far as possible, contrary to you. Have a nice day, until then!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    As far as I’m concerned, you can “investigate the issue” with the International Criminal Court; the fact remains that we all are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and secrecy of correspondence, and there’s nothing you can do about that. What you can do is to try and account for your tendentious, hostile and unproductive behavior, but I suspect that’s a more challenging task. — Biruitorul Talk 02:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am familiar with KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazism. He single-handedly held up the description of Nazi Germany as "fascist" by bludgeoning the talk page discussion. I was forced to go to AN and advertise for a closer because he simply wouldn't agree to the obvious and overwhelming consensus on the talk page. [5]. His non-sensical and counter-factual objection was egregious enough that admin Swarm commented on ANI: "IMO KIENGIR is on the absolute border of being indeffed for this, and you can log this for the record." [6]
      KIENGIR then followed that by ignoring pleas from several editors to stop blockading an RfC discussion on the same page. [7]. KIENGIR's user talk page is full of edit-warring notices from numerous different editors.
      In the subject area I'm familiar with his editing, his contributions are mostly small ones, and they are mostly improvements, but that doesn't negate the fact that when he digs in his heels, he becomes an incredible time sink. I'm not sure exactly what kind of solution can be found for this, but I think that a solution is necessary, as I don't believe that KEINGIR will change their ways until encouraged to do so by some kind of sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      KIENGIR'S response to Biruitorul above is absolutely typical of the way they respond when challenged, with personalization of the issue and charges against the editor he's in dispute with. Saying that Biruitorul's evidence-full complaint is the result of their having a "ban conscience" and of makiong "bad faith moves" is just not acceptable, but it's what happens. Read the two threads I posted above, and you'll find a number of instances of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This largely looks like a content dispute. I also don't see anything bad with the diff where he "went to an administrator’s talk page sputtering about involving ArbCom". KIENGER was just seeking guidance there. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it is not a content dispute, it is most clearly and obviously a behavioral problem ranging over numerous articles in different subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't read your comment above before posting my comment. It looks clearer than the original report here. I agree that his contributions "are mostly improvements, but that doesn't negate the fact that when he digs in his heels, he becomes an incredible time sink. "Let's hope KEINGER will make some assurances before there is an urgent need for sanctions, given he still has the time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I was tagged because a page on my watchlist: Louis C.K. had a rather bizarre interaction about C.K.'s Mexican-Jewish heritage and an editor had asked for a semi-protected edit to add a category for people of Mexican-Jewish heritage. Our user in question here decided to remove the category, which I reverted here: [8]. He then went on some pointless tirade about C.K.'s questionable heritage of both backgrounds which is not only information that is well documented but in some of his widely publicized comedy specials. The talk page section in question is here: Talk:Louis C.K.#Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021. Sounds like there's some sort of ulterior motive here and having to do with the above comments ^ may or may not have to do with Judaism, Nazism and/or Antisemitism. Not for me to decide or to suggest, but I'm beginning to see a potential pattern here... that's my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to go on the record as saying that I don't believe that KIENGIR is antisemitic or pro-Nazi or anything like that (although I cannot speak for any biases he may have in issues connected to Hungary). After Swarm made the comment I cited above, I wrote "I've been aware of KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazis and Nazism for some time, and I don't believe I've ever seen an instance in which they attempted to whitewash or downplay its attributes." [9] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      To that point I don't have any evidence or interest in reading too much into it to suggest that, just seems particular their editing seems to follow a trend. In general it seems that the editor is more disruptive than constructive. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You raise a valid point. While I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe malicious intent, this kind of edit does raise eyebrows — splitting hairs while trying to absolve of anti-Semitism a regime that sent over 400 thousand Jews to Auschwitz. — Biruitorul Talk 03:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems like the kind of ultra-pedantic behavior KIENGIR showed in his arguments concerning why Nazi Germany wasn't a fascist country. He's got some odd viewpoints about things, and is apparently incapable of getting past them when multiple editors or consensus goes against them. What the genesis of that behavior is I don't know, and is really not our problem. Our concern is that when he gets stuck in those dead-ends he holds up everyone else by his intransigence. That's when the personalization starts.
      In one of the discussions I posted above, after about a half-dozen responses in which KIENGIR waved off someone's comment by saying that they didn't properly understand the problem or KIENGIR's position (if they had, they would obviously have agreed with him), an editor had enough and specifically asked KIENGIR to respond without commenting on the lack of perception of the editor -- and, of course, that's precisely what KIENGIR did. Whether he does this kind of thing deliberately or not is very difficult to say, but it's purely a matter of fact that he does this, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to Biruitorul, let's see what we have here:
    - "KIENGIR basically doesn’t contribute content." -> phh....INCIVILIY (d), quickly may be refuted, does not even deserve more word
    - "impose some unjustified change, hoping nobody notices" -> joke, WP is a transparent platform (my favorite phrase, nothing is hidden). Any of my change I take the responsibility, if I made a mistake I always acknowledge it, and ready to discuss content issues. This demonstration of yours is flawed, since it is a similar simplification, like you did in the Brașov article proposal ([10]), not listing all the subsequent Hungarian states between the period (First Hungarian Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Hungarian Republic (1919–1920)), and yes, Košice was transeferred in 1920, the year when Kingdom of Hungary existed, so this is the first WP:BOOMERANG of yours
    - I keep all our guidelines and policies, regarding the Bleiburg Reparations, and yes, we need to talk sometimes (even if you don't like, this is the civilized way here, per policy, anyway I am not I am the one who engage so many big talks overall), and I do correctly which anyway an Administor also support in the various articles in the current topic:([11]), BOOMERANG, if you told about Tomasevich: ([12])...
    - ah now you refer to the Brașov case I just mentioned. "Esoteric" I could call your emotional approach of some factual things nevertheless, but I don't wish to sank down that level. Not with you I discussed mainly, but an other editor with mutual satisfaction about related topics, with mutual respect. Maybe you don't like that editors may collaborate, especially the discussion was useful and important, you even blanked it ([13]), you don't like if a Hungarian and Romanian editor collaborate efficiently, instead of grievances? (poetrical question, no need to answer)
    - How about this one" -> this is your key failure, in which you commited huge bad faith moves, harming WP:CIVILITY. You approached another editor I was in debate with ([14]), in which you spuriously sates that I do a maddening example...of modus operandi" contrary to "consensus". First of all I did not know about that discussion, but what is more important, even these category changes were done without it, and even opened a talk case for the issue [[15]], which I had no response. How interesting later I reveal there have been an e-mail recruitment to that issue, including my name as a subject, that one user by mistake considered I sent the e-mail, to recruit feedbacks to a category discussion, but I was NOT notified, not by even a ping or anything, but the misterious perpertrator could notify a bunch of other users in a hidden way (and even the case in the talk I opened remained unanswered)....secondly,it is very interesting what made you to complain a novice user, with lack of expertise and competence in the area, but you even forgot to notify me about that discussion that YOU created ([16]).... this was a shameful, awful move from a very-experienced editor like you...you claim "consensus" in an unfinished discussion, but you don't notify me but an uninvolved user you fuel to revert me instead....you tried to set me up, an another editor had to notify me about that discussion...BOOMERANG...(of course when I pinpointed this in the user's talk page, it became so inconvenient that with bogus edit logs it was blanked, the truth may hurt sometimes, I know, further on this ([17]) ([18]))
    - The Poland discussion in the Romani people in Romania is a complete BOOMERANG of yours, after I sucessfully demonstrated the point, despite your initial bad faith implication manipulation ([19]), but of course as you revelaed this, you started to come up with personal attacks parochial obsessions, etc. ([20]), bad faith ironical personalizations, but you ignored my question ([21]), as well you supported the inexperienced user's spurious evasion of answering, a good case study anyway, but still a BOOMERANG
    - The "modern Romania discussion" has not any problem as well, we clarified things with a fellow editor friendly (it seems you hate if Hungarian-Romanian editors collaborating with mutual respect? Annoyed?). When you wished there peaceful Sunday ([22]), you meant both of us? (or just to me with this move?)
    "he tried to impose the view that the Nazi Party was not fascist." -> Ohh Gush, it seems you did not read the discussion, I was not saying something else, more complex. Instead of attacking my English, better learn to read and interpreting correctly, everything is there. I have to assume not every editor is a Rocket Scientist or have 150 IQ at minimum, but since then I discussed a case with an admin (I did not gave it up, and again, everything is visible and transparent here, which you have to concern, not me), who understood me and assured I did not in fact nothing wrong technically, semantically, despite he would prefer other solution ([23]). So this card is not playing.
    - The RSK400 case have been debunked more times, I followed all the policies, the user reported subsequently any editor to AN3 and ANI who did not agree with him, openly to solve the problem and clear the obstacle out of the way like @Krakkos:. Failed with it, despite we generously supported even in more detailed extant what he wanted as necessary. Quite unfriendly move from him, and totally ridicuolous to spot me from a widespread discussion involving many-many editors, maybe me and Krakkos had the best arguments? Oh, I am really dangerous :D - BOOMERANG
    - The next to diff, in fact an other editor commited mass edit warring, adding problematic content and was quickly blocked, just one step before indef ([24]), despite out of block commited huge personal attack ([25]) and again very poor performance. I just prevented the page from vandalism. Your one of greatest nadir the you openly support disruptive editors, just because they don't like me like you...BOOMERANG
    - No I did not whitewash any "authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán", I corrected to factual, and neutral information, and as any content issue, so you either present your evidence (as per other content issues) that I am not accurate or right, or better silence and apoligize (I am the one anyway who adds far more the most accurate content in the areas I care, and in this topic I proved to over times the most experts, next to sloppy mistakes by other who does not have elemental knowleged in the subject)
    - So far, regarding personals attack you better deeply silence, since you commited them, while those diffs you presented does not contain any of such, indeed I suffered more as mentioned above. I have a very good relation with Vanjagenie, an admin whom I respect and tutored me, made me learn much.
    - again the e-mail issue..."sputtering" (?)...are you nervous Biruitorul? However, I went to the administrator earlier as you present the events, so at least the causation you should not harm, if you considreed to compile a frank good report....but let's assume you are not calm..., however as going forward reading your lines, I am not really surprised...
    - on the first of the last diffs, thank you that you made open your epic bad faith move (detailed above), however, the most important parts, as I referred have been censored (also about the bad faith blanking above). Your last diff is very lame, since you promote a novice, just blocked editor after a huge disruption, who just copy-pasted the spurious claims of the aforementioned pages, considering he may be unblocked if he starts to attack me....Congratulations, the nadir or your carreer here to fuel and teamup editors who openly recruit and train other editors against me, spreading lies ([26]) and even teaching and questioning a veteran administrator proper conduct, each of around 1000/2500 mainspace edits lacking huge competence and misconduct of our policies, repeatedly. Beautiful!
    Epilogue:
    - Biruitorul once already reported to me to ANI in the early years, simply he did not really like me from the beginning, especially that I have an expertise many of the topic areas I made more neutral, factual and accurate, which he by emotional (?)/ dislike my nationality (?) reasons did not like ion some sensitive topics, but the Securitate style dossier quickly failed, as the content issues he collected not just were not demonstrative, as it had not problems, but even to attach to me a negative behavior failed, and the community quickly recognized I regard him a partner and wish to communicate and a collaborate with him, which he harshly rejected. The report failed obviously.
    - a bit later he emailed an administrator to set me up, however it was not successful either they quickly recognized my motives for accurate content and willing to learn, since then around 4 administrators supervised my career, having recurrent active communication with them and tutoring me as well, without any problem, successfully
    - Despite I always collaborated with Biruitorul, I saw also from his behalf to became more moderate and professional once, he even asked my help, and happily helped, he thanked
    - recently something again broke in him, which resulted this (hmmm...can I borrow from you the expression maddening example?) running amock, he thinks just because recently I was involved in more debates, the perfect time became to fuel and coordinate along with other editors against me, which possibly could result to move me out of way. I suffered WIKIHOUNDING, and co-ordination and teamup against me (I could search which policies have been violated with these, there may be a few but I don't waste time for that now), how to battle and tackle me, meanwhile a new dossier was again opened/compiled to move in the moment ([27]) -> 007, James Bond? ([28]) -> MAFIA XD, B-O-O-M-E-R-A-N-G, to the power of...two at least :) (and we still do not know who performed the hidden email coordination).
    What could I say...those members of the community who don't have enough time may be coined for a while, but those who investiagte thoroughly will see the truth. I gladly answer and pinpoint anything if would not be clear, and again, I am absolutely sad that instead of quality editing, some partisan editors feel the need to harass me with spurious cooperative tactics.
    Biruitorul, you should be deeply ashamed, I don't even expect from you to apologize, but with this I expressed everything. I will still forgive you, = meaning I care professionally about content issues, not your nervous manifesto here.
    Remember very good, it's never to good to play to too intelligent people. @Vanjagenije:, @Ymblanter:, @El C:, @EdJohnston:, or @Oshwah: are laser brains, as much of the administrators here. Only the time and depth of analysis matter in complex issues. I hope you will get mercy. (getting back to the lovely Sunday, Cheers!)
    P.S. I am sorry, as meanwhile many other comments cumulated, I did not read them so far and may react later (as well sorry for those who did no wait until audi et altere pars, as well for everyone baited, we lose many precious editing time with this nonsense :( (KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • I read through the rest:
    Biruitorul -> "tendentious, hostile and unproductive behavior" -> not really, quite boomerangish, the quality of my edits and my service record justifies me. Biruitorul, there has been an extensive discussion in the Hungarism article, which everyone may read, do you really think with selected, spuriously communicated diffs you have chance? Every expert knows what means Hungarism, and A-Semitism, in relation with Anti-Semitism. I am sorry for you, really.
    Beyond My Ken -> Nice to see you, I would have been happy if yout waited my detailed answer. Would spare you much of demonstrations, however I reacted to them without knowing in my previous answer. (Nazism/Fascism, etc.) However, you tried to be fair as far as possible, after all, I acknowledge. Though it is true, many did not understand me, but there are other's who did. All the best!
    Georgethedragonslayer -> Lovely
    CaffeinAddict -> amazed, you seem to create from a flea an elephant, btw. I've never met you so far, just on that page. There are no conspiration theories, just simple logical thinking.
    @Piotrus: -> I just only ping you because you are Polish (also there is a Polish issue after all), Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki...don't worry, I am just kidding, if you really think CIV/NPA is needed even without reading my response, contrary what I've got Biruitorul so far and others - even lately...objectivity means, first I review both parties claims, and the evidence, only after I should form an opinion. As a golden rule. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • I want to add my two cents about another case of User:KIENGIR's baffling and possibly biased editing. There were two kingdoms in the 19th century Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Kingdom of Hungary. The Austrian Emperor was crowned king of both of them. Nevertheless, KIENGIR is now erasing Bohemia from infoboxes, claiming it wasn't independent. Yet, at the same time he's inserting Hungary when he can, flip-flopping on his own criteria. In another case, KIENGIR continues to ignore MOS:SAINTS and WP:COMMONNAME. A consensus was reached a year ago about using the English name for the Catholic saint. KIENGIR was part of the debate too, yet here he is, a year later, still ignoring the consensus. KIENGIR is incredibly stubborn over the most minor changes, and his refusal to accept compromise even when he's heavily outvoted, leads to many exhausting talk page debates. Azure94 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some form of action per WP:CIR. I don't levy CIR accusations casually, but KIENGIR's judgment is simply not trustworthy or useful, yet he clearly wants to aggressively revert and eat up time on talk pages. I have not interacted with him very much at all - mostly in boggling at his stances at the Talk:Nazi Germany discussion, so no skin off my nose either way - but it's not good. Everybody is allowed to have some idiosyncratic stances, but KIENGIR has way too many and stands by them. Arguing over whether Nazi Germany was fascist or not (per links above)? Talking in condescending tones about his high level of "expertise" that has enabled him to solve Wikipedia or something? Claiming that we should categorize politicians from X country as a subcategory of politicians from an entirely different country if there happens to be a single overlap (the equivalent of saying Mayors of New York City should be a subcategory of Italian politicians because of Fiorello la Guardia or the like?!)? The malfunctioning Wikignome is in some ways the most dangerous kind - simply doing nothing is better than doing a mix of reasonable-ish things as well as bizarre, personal ORy ones. KIENGIR is just wrong constantly, which would be fine, except he doesn't accept feedback, he just rambles on about what he Really Meant And Why It's Actually Right and doesn't engage with what's being said. This is intensely frustrating; disagreements are fine, common on Wikipedia, but you need to show you understand the other side's arguments, not just say you're right at length. Anyway, I would tentatively recommend something like a 0RR restriction as well as a talk page comments limited to one paragraph per 24 hours, with an understanding that those can go away when and if KIENGIR shows the ability to productively work with other editors rather than just waste their time. SnowFire (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    • I would first recognise that KIENGIR makes a large number of largely positive minor edits, however, I do not feel that this makes up for the massive amount of editors' time which they consume with their intransigence as deliberate policy of WP:STONEWALLING. My experience of interaction with KIENGIR is so utterly exasperating that I have had to teach myself wiki bureacracy, something I had no interest in before. They have robbed me of hundreds of hours of effective editing by dragging an incredibly simple matter to DRN and RfC.
    I would like to add some more worrying behaviour to the list documented by Biruitorul.
    1. The deletion of sourced content as a bargaining chip to allow KIENGIR's POV (usually related to Hungarian nationalism or an extreme right POV) into the text, as a misapplication of the policy of reversion to the status quo for disputed text. My first experience of this was on Romani People in Hungary where I had added three paragraphs of carefully sourced text on the nature of anti-Roma racism in Hungary. KIENGIR wished to add two comments by a specific Roma politician which supported racist statements by various individuals. They claimed that without the comments of this individual all the rest of the text was POV and had no consensus so must be deleted. KIENGIR refused to identify specific examples of bias, despite many requests, and used a direct appeal to a reluctant admin to delete the text to a "status quo" version which excluded a massive amount of well-sourced text, when I had already offered them DRN or some other arbitration on the inclusion of their preferred sentences. The basis of this reversion by the admin was massive edit-warring, edit-warring which KIENGIR had initiated to force their POV into the article! This is not accidental, the same pattern of edit-warring, then reporting to an admin with which KIENGIR has a working relationship can be seen in their interaction with Azure94, linked above. Btw, this case is now at RfC, current vote tally is 5 to 1 against the inclusion of KIENGIR's text, as is generally the case when people have the stamina to face KIENGIR down.
    Another example of threats of deletion for no good reason: Source uses the word "regions", KIENGIR prefers "fiefdoms", threatens to delete the whole sentence if doesn't get way. This is wikilawyering to force through a preferred edit, there can be no justification for deletion of sourced text on this basis.
    2. The misuse of Hungarian language sources. Kiengir will frequently throw down Hungarian language sources without providing translation, on more than one occasion, the articles have not supported the text which he adds. 1 2
    3. Communicative competence on talk pages: KIENGIR's contributions to talk pages are frequently extremely difficult or impossible to understand. This is a combination of excessive length of comment, incomplete control of English, refusal to clarify or repeat when requested, and constant deviation from content into metacommentary on the history of the ongoing debate. KIENGIR often feels that if their comment is not understood, the problem is that the listener is not trying hard enough, and denies the problem even when it is directly stated by uninvolved users (examples here and here, 17th(!) statement by moderator). At our recent DRN, I was even forced to explain KIENGIR's position to the moderator, as they were unable to express it clearly themselves. Whether this amounts to WP:STONEWALLING or is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, I am not entirely sure.
    TLDR, Kiengir enters into discussion pages in a way that creates massive disruption to the ability to edit of many users. Their attitude causes thousands of hours which could be used to improve wikipedia to be wasted. I hope the admins can come up with some solution that stops this behaviour, but allows KIENGIR to continue the other more positive work they do, but I am at a loss to think how that would work. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have had several interactions with KIENGIR and I would say that most (if not all) have been friendly and we have discussed the issue civilly, so I cannot (nor do I wish) to say much on the subject. However, I agree that the user's way of acting can sometimes be improper. The best example I can think of is the categories issue mentioned by the OP above, KIENGIR simply was wrong on this case. I also consider that the attitude he had with Azure94 was not the most appropriate, as he did not focus on the content dispute but rather on the user themselves (not sure if I am making myself understood). Of course it must also be said that Azure94 did more questionable actions and claims than KIENGIR, but the reason I mention this is because Azure94 is a relatively inexperiencied user with few edits while KIENGIR has been here for a long time, and I consider the latter's way of dealing with Azure94 erroneous (as the content dispute was not really covered and this user ended blocked). This is just one case that I have noticed, as I have not seen KIENGIR's contributions extensively, so I would not say that this is always the case (and I am also not the best person to comment on someone's way of acting).
    I also consider that some claims regarding his interaction with Ymblanter partially true, considering that this admin protected the page where KIENGIR had a conflict with Azure94 for edit-warring despite it was only them the ones fighting; this also happened at Zakarpattia Oblast, both protections being unneccesary in my opinion. But don't get me wrong, KIENGIR is a reasonable user with whom you can agree, at least on my case, and while perhaps a sanction may be necessary (or not, I don't want to dig much into that), it would be unwise and excessive to apply a long block or a 0RR restriction. Whatever the outcome of this report is, we should make sure it is not excessively damaging for the accused and helps them improve their attitude, which is not flawless but not negative in general from my point of view. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me this seems like a content dispute between Hungarian and Romanian editors. I'm unsure if ANI is the right place to straighten out such disputes. I've had my disagreements with KIENGIR throughout the years. He is certainly an assertive editor, and his English is far from ideal. In my experience, the contributions and arguments of KIENGIR frequently contributes to the creation of better article content. I have full confidence that KIENGIR is a good-faith editor with whom we can work on building an even better encyclopedia. Krakkos (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to say that I am of ambiguous nationality and ethnicity, but whichever one of them I choose, I am neither Hungarian, Romanian nor any variety of Central/Eastern European. As far as I am aware, the only Romanian to have commented so far is Biruitorul, and I know for a fact that several users who have commented critically are not Romanian. The reason that the disagreements have largely (though not exclusively) related to Hungary and environs is that this is where KIENGIR holds strong views. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Krakkos How do the problems I've described with KIENGIR at Nazi Germany fit in with your contention that this is a "content dispute between Hungarian and Romanian editors"? Neither Hungary nor Romania figured in those incidents in any way, and the behavior I saw in those disputes is pretty much the same as the behavior described by Biruitorul.
    I have no doubt that content disputes underlie the behavioral concerns expressed here -- as Biruitorul said in their opening statement, those behaviors came out when KIENGIR is challenged -- but they are nonetheless behavioral problems that are being discussed, and not content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with what User:Beyond My Ken has stated, the content disputes are not the point, it is the behaviour they occasion. I have had many content disputes, none have been like those with KIENGIR. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s an unfortunate interpretation, Krakkos, given that I presented evidence from a variety of topic areas, interactions with a variety of users from all over the place. Yes, somewhat naturally, my own interactions with KIENGIR focus on Romania/Hungary, but that’s hardly the whole story. On the other hand, I’ve had divergences with other users in this very area — but the determination, the stubbornness, the lack of even the slightest concession to logic, the sheer tedium and exhaustion — those are all unique to KIENGIR. So no, really not a content dispute. — Biruitorul Talk 13:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expressed my concerns about this a few weeks ago [29]. I agree it's a CIR issue. The long response above is typical. Unfortunately this has been causing a lot of disruption, including real problems with what our articles say. We can't be wasting editor time debating whether Nazis are fascists and so on. Levivich harass/hound 14:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Azure94 -> there is saying, if you'd remain silent, would be wiser. While the Kingdom of Bohemia was incorporated to the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary was not (btw. you were explained in the talk of the reasons). About MOS+COMMON, you came up with this argumentation recently, conqequently I could not even know about the consensus you refer (after I at once occasion reverted, you started massively removing Hungarian names in several articles, Norden1990 challenged you already), though given your extensively problematic recent pattern it has to be investigated what is stated exactly there. There other remark is your copy-paste from other user talk pages. Better apologize for your personal attack which you did not do so far, it's always ok to say sorry.
    Snowfire -> you reiterate some issues that I had to explain more times, either you did not understand or did not want to understand, and I completely disagree my judgments would not be trustworthy (or "just wrong constantly", sorry to say but this is a ******t, excuse me being profane, after you admittedly did not investigate my contributions thoroughly), on the other hand I provided over 95%+++ the most accurate content on articles with a very minor error ratio, wich have been remedied quickly. What you still did not grasp fully, that I always showed understanding of others arguments, if there were correct of flawless. Remind mathematic or chess articles. If you say to 10 ten times that 2+2=5 in a decimal Euclidean system, I don't have to agree becasuse you repeated so many times, if it's invalid. Seems you did not review the category issue, I won't repeat myself on that.
    Boynamedsue -> this is not DRN, so you don't need to mark first statement :) The saying I quoted to Azure holds also to you, shortly:
    1. in this you reitarate issue you already failed and were disproved, not need to repeat may be read in the relevant talk pages, with a little experience and competence, you don't understand basic policies as issues, and tendentiously reject to understand them. Disruptive. The reluctant admin does not have much time to care with issues, but he quickly understood what you did not, as later you again tried to teach the veteran admin who have no problem to deal with multidimensional quantum spaces...the other example is your epic demonstration of you lack of competence, or basic editing principles. Yes, they were fiefdoms, sourced, as everyone knows in the topic area, even not being horribly experts or brain surgeons.
    2. INCIVILIY (d) = (lying, not the first time from your behalf, I just did not byte the newcomer so far, per policy), I did not misude any source, the talk page preserved what kind of spurious reasons you tried to tackle sources you don't like. So sad you forgot in WP everything preserved, with constant denial you just blame yourself.
    3. Again, yes I am not native, but sorry above 110 IQ I am understood, above 120 IQ 98%, far above immediately, even if I occasioanlly make amistake. As I told above, surely not all members of our community is a Paul Erdős, but so far sorry, you have been the one who recurrently (and not being troll) with elemental mistakes did not grasp such basics I NEVER met in this encylopedia in the near past 10 years. Bigger problem is, as much as I face with you this, you diametrically consider yourself reinforced to have right and even more intensively commit your mistakes again and more reluctantly deny the evidence for it.
    TDLR: Practically you are a recurent noticeboard communicator which may attract possible lenghty discussions, opening new talk section repetitevely, as you did on the cited page, so stealing time from editors has been not really fault in that case, on the contrary. Those thousands of hours are especially present in the Poland-Holocaust related discussions, there you dare to make such remarks better.
    Super Dromaeosaurus -> the category issue has been explained above, much earlier a user without consensus started to reorganize categories in a problematic way, I won't repeat that, may be read above. As well, with Azure we extensive discussed content issues in an other article (maybe you don't know about this, hence you consider by mistake I did not concentrate on the content, but I did), he just spread his problematic edits massively to other pages, were this discussion was not repeated so extensively. The protections were necessary, especially repeatedly making 4 reverts for sure (even earlier, if such pattern touches more pages). Nevertheless, I consider you the m ost talented Romanian editor for the future, with a great civility and ability to learn, just go on the right direction!
    Krakkos -> Quality editor, as always
    Beyond my ken -> even if try to be fair, I am disappointed you again reiterate this Nazi Germany case, as above you did with other issues (most of my edit warring notices are bogus, even explained there), you were not forced to turn to WP:AN, a openly asked you to give a time for the discussion in which after a point I've got just straw man answers, and you did serious witch-hunt against me, after all which failed, etc. For me much important, that a highly intelligent adminstrator, history teacher, heavily related (Hebrew, Israel) could understand me and justified I am not a witch (diff above, you did not read?), so you should just drop this pattern. What Krakkos wanted to refer, some Romanian editors are heavily irritated by any editor who they consider Hungarian, regardless which article they edit, they will become Nazi, Nationalist, Irredentist, Xenophobe and akin, as Azure said in his personal attack (though he seems a non-Romanian "Hungarian-lover", I would have my tip from where), just because at certain parts of history we are neutral and we know those fact and evidence which they don't like and want to hear. Also in the Romanian Wikipedia there is a death-list of Hungarian editors who should be removed from the English WP, including me (along the four other one), so we get used to this. Poor Tgeorgescu is often became a target because his expert neutrality and professionalism in those heavy issues, as I recall in his talkpage with this info I met. So, Beyond My Ken, all of us are "moving targets", but we get used to it.
    Levivich-> nice to see you, your representation there was a bit bogus, with selective diffs, but explained there. I disagree on you a "waste of time", just visit those much more lenghty discussions you participate, e.g. So if I have a long response is typical...well the content matters, not the space, maybe it's inconvenient how I pinpoint some incovenient fallacies of others. Yours!
    Birutorul-> yes,it is just partially a content issue, mainly, but your next bogus trial to eliminate those who you don't like (we agree on the freedom of speech, but you wish to suppress here despite editors, by the "secrecy of correspondence", did you also mean the EEML list from the deep past?). You still have the chance to apologize, the evidence is striking. However remember, such remarks like I would have lack of even the slightest concession to logic you even just make yourself more ridiculous, but just do it. As I told, is always the worst option to play/dance with too heavily intelligent people, because you will loose, if those too intelligent people review all the evidence, although they did not wished to dance, and incidentally could step on your foot, although they wanted to work with you to together and make the best accurate encyclopedia in the world. Good Luck, after all!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    I would just like to remind casual observers that the following sentences: "As I told above, surely not all members of our community is a Paul Erdős, but so far sorry, you have been the one who recurrently (and not being troll) with elemental mistakes did not grasp such basics I NEVER met in this encylopedia in the near past 10 years. Bigger problem is, as much as I face with you this, you diametrically consider yourself reinforced to have right and even more intensively commit your mistakes again and more reluctantly deny the evidence for it." are in response to a criticism in which I question KIENGIR's competence to clearly communicate their argument on talkpages. How is one supposed to even begin to debate with that? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’d like to highlight the fact that KIENGIR just accused me of compiling a “Securitate style dossier”, and that he stands by this charge. It’s akin to calling a German editor a Gestapo agent, or saying a Russian editor is a KGB spy. Not only is the continued intransigence apparent, but I think we can add this to the WP:NPA ledger. — Biruitorul Talk 15:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to add the question of KIENGIR's racist abuse of Biruitorul on this page for discussion. KIENGIR states: "but the Securitate style dossier quickly failed". To compare a user to a member of a bloodthirsty secret police force is deeply WP:INCIVIL, but when it is used to draw attention to the user's ethnicity (Biruitorul is Romanian, as were the Securitate) it constitutes racism. I consider it to be absolutely unacceptable, would we allow users to describe a German user as having a "gestapo dossier" or a Haitian of having a "Ton-Ton Macoute dossier"? I previously pointed out this racial animus on KIENGIR's talk page, asking him to revert, here is my post and the response. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be too obvious about it, but KIENGIR's responses here nicely illustrate many aspects of their behavioral issues: personalization of issues; intransigence; inability to see beyond their own viewpoints; near-NPA violations (or perhaps even over the line); inability to express themselves clearly, while accusing other editors of not properly understanding the issues or their argument; walls of text; bludgeoning discussions; etc. It's pretty much all there.
      I've been thinking about SnowFire's suggested sanctions above, for an 0RR restriction -- which would stop KIENGIR's predilection for edit warring -- and a throttle on their talk page commentary, to stop them from bludgeoning discussions and blockading consensus. I agree that this the direction to go in. A topic ban wouldn't do much when their behavior spreads across a number of different subject areas, and a CIR indef block seems too harsh and unnecessary at this point. Do other editors here agree with this? Should a formal proposal be made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other point: KIENGIR seems to want to have things both ways. If an editor presents voluminous evidence of their behavior, such as Biruitorul did, they're putting together a "Securitate style dossier", but if an editor only presents a few indicative diffs, as Levivich did, then their diffs are "selective", by which they presumably mean cherry-picked and unrepresentative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe everything has already been said, but since my experience is not related either to Hungary or Romania, I add it regardless: During a prolonged discussion about the lede of Germans, I was asking them their reasons for their idea that the term Germans primarily denotes an ethnic group. They refused to give their reasons, here, here, and warned me not to repeat that they didn't give their reasons here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have been happy to support my original suggestion, but unfortunately KIENGIR's response above essentially is to essentially grab the WP:ROPE and announce they'd like to get banned. As long as KIENGIR thinks that they are providing "95%+++ the most accurate content on articles with a very minor error ratio" then they're not going to improve, because they think they're already correct. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to that, let me note that of his last 500 mainspace edits, 72 or 14.4% were later reverted, while 93 or 18.6% were reverts by him. Yes, some of the latter group were legitimate, but when 1 out of 3 of your edits are either reverts or being reverted, and you’re not on an anti-vandal patrol, that ratio is somewhat of a red flag. — Biruitorul Talk 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Siteban KIENGIR

    • Support as proposer for CIR, bludgeoning, and NPA, all of which is in my view just overwhelmingly demonstrated by the above posts, but also by the long line of diffs and complaints raised by a number of editors in this thread and before. Normally I wouldn't jump straight to this, but I don't see how any other remedy will help here. We can't TBAN someone from all history and politics articles, it's too broad to be effective. AGFing about motives, I believe Kiengir simply lacks the competence/attitude/English fluency necessary to productively contribute here, and it's costing an incredible amount of editor time. It's just not possible to fix this problem any other way. Levivich harass/hound 15:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I think it's understandable that you would go to this, as this may be the ultimate solution, but what do you think about SnowFire's suggestion of a 0RR restrictions and a talk page comment throttle? Is that worth trying before a CBAN? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question is how long do we babysit before the net negative of the editor is realized?Moxy- 16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that there should perhaps be some way to allow him to continue, 0RR, final warning and an obligation to seek a third opinion after 3 comments in cases where only two users are debating? Like I said, not a wikilawyer, the final condition might not be possible. This should be contingent on showing understanding of why the sanctions have occurred, and apology for his racist comment. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ordinarily support such lesser sanctions, but in this case restricting how many edits or reverts he can make in mainspace AND restricting how many comments he can make on the talk page AND doing this without any real self-reflection/take-on-board/work-with-us-here... seems like a lot of bespoke-ness, little hope of cooperation from the sanctioned user, and frankly I'm not seeing an overwhelming mountain of positive contributions that would make doing all that sanctioning work worth it. (To be clear, it wouldn't be worth the community's time to impose such sanctions on me, either. Few editors would be worth that level of effort, if any.) For me, the positive/negative scales are really tipped to one side here. Levivich harass/hound 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't see much probability of comprehension of what is occurring, but if genuine understanding of why we are where we are could be demonstrated, I would support it. As others have said, it will not likely work, but if it doesn't, the discussion here will be quick and painless. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Levivich and the examples KIENGIR provided in this thread of the behavior that prompted the CIR/TEND concerns in the first place. I'm convinced that KIENGIR has been enough of a drain on the community's time and goodwill. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. I simply don’t see the value of an editor whose main contributions are small, often unnecessary “fixes” that come with a heavy baggage of revert-warring, personal attacks, draining time from productive editors, demonstrated lack of competence in the English language or in proper sourcing, and so forth. And who refuses to improve — keep in mind he’s been here since 2011, and this is hardly his first warning. Would this be an excessive first step? Maybe, which is why I don’t want to completely discount the proposal by Beyond My Ken. But I suspect that if something like a 0RR were adopted, we’d be back here fairly quickly. — Biruitorul Talk 16:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unless KIENGIR can show clear understanding of their mistakes and a desire to avoid them in future, as well as an apology for their racist remark to Biruitorul. In the case of compliance with these conditions, sanctions to be agreed by community. My suggestion: final warning, 0RR, the obligation to seek and abide by DRN third opinions after 3 posts on talkpages where only two users are present.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No reflection has been shown in long response to comments, support siteban. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban. This editor is an argumentative and pedantic time waster with poor English language skills and a love for bludgeoning discussions, as amply demonstrated by their bizarre contributions here. The only good thing to come out of the time I spent researching this is that I got to read Paul Erdős. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reiterate my support after KIENGIR's response below, which lacks self-reflection or any commitment to change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The combination of frequently taking absurd positions and then WP:BLUDGEONing discussions on them wastes too much time and effort from other editors - eg. bludgeoning a discussion to argue that Nazi Germany was not fascist stretches either the presumption of competence or good faith to the breaking point. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per KIENGIR's awful reply above. All KIENGIR had to do was say "sorry, I guess I messed up, but I'm confident in my contributions and think I can convince other editors of my correctness via short talk page comments, and am willing to accept that sometimes consensus will be against me." Instead KIENGIR said "Actually, I'm right and you're all wrong" but in long meandering form. Okay, fine, let us all be wrong and you can go write a 100% correct blog elsewhere, so site ban. (If KIENGIR ever does develop any mild humility and realize the bridges he's burnt, this can be reconsidered for something more like my earlier talk page throttle + 0RR suggestion, but that isn't looking likely.) SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've come around to supporting this not simply because of the arguments presented above for why the other suggested sanction would be too complicated and not worth the energy it would take to enforce it, but also -- and mostly -- because I re-read the entire discussion, especially KIENGIR's responses, and I see there problems that are much deeper than can be dealt with by simple mechanical means. Wikipedia can support a range of different personalities and modes of operations, but I'm not sure that KIENGIR is capable of behaving in a way that Wikipedia can easily absorb. I think that as long as he continues to edit, he's going to be at times a deep time-sink over trivial or obvious disputes that wouldn't have been disputes at all if it weren't for him. So, with some reluctance, I have to conclude that he's just not cut out for en.wiki. I don't know what the culture is like on hu.wiki, where he's a "trusted user" (not sure what that means), but perhaps he can make a go of it there and report back in the future that he's changed his m.o. I would suggest that if this siteban passes, he be restricted not to appeal it until 6 months have passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CIR, bludgeoning, and NPA all demonstrated by their appalling posts in this thread. Made me look over their contribs: really there’s no value from them whatsoever - just a waste of everyone’s time. Clear net negative. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The walls of text and racist personal attacks in this very thread have convinced me of the accuracy of the multiple attestations of how much of a waste of time this editor has been. It seems clear that removal from the project would be a net benefit to helping content improvement move smoothly, and that's more important than either trying to punish or provide second chances for individual editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Once again, KIENGIR's response below speaks for itself in demonstrating precisely the problems outlined by multiple editors above. Incapable of apologizing, worse, incapable of seeing that there's anything to apologize for, KIENGIR is in many ways his own worst enemy. He is unable to see that some of the "support" !votes above come from people who haven't necessarily had bad interactions with him in the past, but are appalled by his responses here. Being blind to this, he continues to do exactly the same thing, inviting more such !votes, showing his basic cluelessness about how his words are read by other people. Such a person, unable to adjust themselves to the needs of the community, will never entirely fit in here, no matter what their IQ is, and regardless of how many small productive edits they make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Levivich and his replies. Per Cullen. Per BMK. Per David Eppstein. I will point out that KIENGIR has been blocked three times before for these same problems. They are NOTCOMPATIBLE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE to ratioanale. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - intractable CIR at best; I have previously stated my support for an indefinite block based on one incident alone, the fact that this is a pattern of behavior leaves us with no other choice. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban. The user has bludgeoned this page with walls of text, made a rather insulting insinuation of another editor, argued for some absurd things (Nazi Party isn't fascist? Really?), promotes a Hungarian nationalist POV, and doesn't seem to be here to create an encyclopedia in a collaborative fashion. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A short trip down memory lane of this user's "contributions" and subsequent edit wars and mentions on their own talk page goes to show how negative of an impact this user's contributions are. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Posted without comment - Boynamedsue posted this on KIENGIR's talk page. This was KIENGIR's response:
      Boynamedsue, please stop your harassment, you harmed so many rules of incivility, WIKIHOUNDING, recruiting other editors against me WP:HA, you should just silenty step back, because as said, WP:BOOMERANG may hit you as well, if you don't stop. Per other policies, I should not necessarily alter my already launched edits, as per the report, quite similar pattern is seen, which you even endorse by yourself "...It is worth looking at those discussion pages, for your scrapbook...". Btw. I used the same term in another ANI discussion back in the past when Biruitorul performed his first nice step, and there has been not any problem with it, I also inform you Communism has ended, and as agreed with Biruitorul, we support freedom of speech. Don't not try to censor me, and better apologize on your part and deeply learn our policies, and do not necessarily intervene on those issues wich fell outside your expertise area. You failed so many times, I hope this is your last abuse towards me, if you really wish to be sanctioned just continue. Thanks. [30]
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from KIENGIR

    I will react a few remarks, but this will possibly my last reaction:

    Boynamedsue -> Of course you may not debate with my qoute, since it is unfortunately true. About your newly invented and improper accusation of racism (which you try invent when nothing left), I have to tell what I said has nothing to do that. Hungarians were also member of the Securitate, as many other ethnics, etc. It just refferred to the method, but your ardent impartiality shows that Azure's clear racism you don't voice, but ignore. Are you not ashamed about this? Sorry, I have to laugh about the remark "can show clear understanding of their mistakes", escpecially this goes to you a long time ago, the "Poland discussion" is an illustrative example of that. As well, until you consider yourself wiser than a veteran administrator, we have nothing to discuss, and again i don't have to apologize anyone, since I did not make any racist comment, on the contrary you and other's should as demonstrated above, but as I see more editors have taken your decoy

    Biruitorul -> this was a reference to your old report, how I would not stand it if you behaved like that? Sorry, for your behavior I am not responsible, it's on you, it has nothing to with any personal attack, you did the report, not me. Sure, "adding to your ledger" is a perfect symbolism. Funny you claim personal attack, despite you committed them cited above..."And who refuses to improve" -> WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), I improved very much, as my service record shows, and it has been acknowledged. However, after what you did, I am not surprised of your behavior, it's crystal clear anyone who don't wish to be blind for some reasons

    Beyond My Ken -> you are a little bit overcomplicating the things, meanwhile you wish to look like neutral, in fact you are not really. It too bad if for you it is not obvious that Biruitorul's diffs were also selective, as I provided after the diffs he missed, which result is a complete boomerang or even worse. Levivich's diffs I explained there, what was important he by mistake (?) tried to assert I made some edits contrary the RFC, which was entirely fake, those had no connection to it, but other summary edits, resulted in agreement with the community. "trusted user" means like "extended confirmed" confirmed user there, and I have just edited there occasionally correcting some mistakes, it's not my major interest. I don't have any "m.o.", and if you think in case I would make "any appeal after six months", you are wrong, in such time many improvements would be damaged and would be a waste of time to do something twice

    Rsk400 -> you repeatedly push already refuted claims. WP:CIVILITY 2 (d)

    Moxy -> net negative? Sorry, my contributions are near flawlessly accuarate, so interesting content issues nobody could challenge seriously

    Cullen ->"bizarre contributions" (?) can you specify what do you mean? As an admin, Erdős would be very sad seeing what's going on nevertheless, would grasp the root of the problem not the way you did

    Aquillion -> I did not bludgeon anything, on the other hand your comment is very similar to those, who either did not read or did not understand what the topic was about. Since an administrator approved I did in fact nothing wrong, I am surprized some editor still play on this card. Why some editors feel compelled to form an opinion without thouroughly investigating the subject?

    Snowfire -> could you thell me what the hell you are talking about? "Awful answer"? You seem riding the horse upside down long time ago, you did not read or just ignore Biruitorul really awful conduct of the category discussion, trying to set me up? Why you are silencing about it, or you consider fair what happened? Also you consider fair of the sending of hidden e-mails of recruiting, talking about me, without me? Hmm? Where did you let your objectivity? Why do you think you should put in my mouth what to say or what to do? Especially, when I have no problem to recognize if consensus is against me? (I always did, when it really was). Such remarks like where should I go and what should I do you should have abandoned - I won't write a blog -, unfortunately your approach seems awful when you are backing hidden coordinations, instead to reveal the evidence which would led us further. Extremely disappointed with you.

    DeCausa -> Heavily disagree, NPA and CIR why didn't you mentioned of other editors who participate in these discussion and evidence is provided? There is no value? What kind of analysis you made my contributions? Sorry, the opposite is true, challenge me if you can regarding any edit's accuracy, it is disappointing how some from an opinion, without a valuable investigation

    David Eppstein -> As an administrator, how could take the decoy? Racist personal attacks Azure did, why don't you mention that? As well, you consider as a fair conduct off-wiki, on wiki coordination in violation of a bunch of rules an wikietiquette, did you read, check the entire report?

    All in all, what is striking that so far none of the opiners pointed out or even mentioned, or comdemned the OP's incivilities set-up's in the category issues, off-wiki and on wiki coordinations, recruitment and similarly other user's misconduct (however the latter is not the major issue of this report). This is annoying, however alarming, looks like a preset trial, which reminds me the showcase trial of the 50's. What's going on? So much silence about boomerang, though the diffs are clear... It's highly suspicious that just before with one of the admins we would be just one step before the investigtation involving Arbcom, the OP suddenly performs this preemptive strike even revealed how long time ago stalking my activity (for the record, ironically), but everybody is silencing. Even initially so many user's were pinged, and some puppet user's have been recurrently hounding me, even training other disruptive editor how to confront me...., it's clear the OP would have afraid of something, given the timing...so quickly this thread gets forward, before the involved admin would even log in....hmmm...these events seem as well very coordinated...

    The result of this issue will rely on a quality admin, who would take the time and appropriately investigate the evidence and any emerging background/further issue on total, since by far it is evident the OP should get a sanction per WP:BOOMERANG and the other incivilities. heavy misconducts revealed, Boynamedsue something for the repatedly harming WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), WP:HOUND, including the canvassing and training other editors to confront one. Azure a block for the clear WP:CIVILITY 1 (b) violation. Rsk400 for WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), at least a level 3 warning so far, if not more. Of course, depending what Arbcom would reveal, would make the picture full, which remains to be seen. (at least, if no other coordination happened since then, if someone would enforce to shut down this report earlier, that means some clearly wish to hide something)

    That said, I won't make any further comments here (regardless what strange accusations I would get), unless I am not pinged or an administrator does not wish me to do that (nevertheless I pinged those who tutored my career here, by any means I am curious about their opinion). Nevertheless, this sinistrous issue will be an ardent showcase, regardless of the outcome what kind of dirty set-ups and manipulations may happen contrary or guidelines or good faith conduct.

    I admire and thank all of those few editors, who were brave enough to remain fair, despite the heavy counter-influence pressure, they have a solid backbone. Respect!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

    Buried in that Wall of Text is what appears to be their principal response: that their contributions are “near flawlessly accuarate” [sic]. That seems to say it all. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KIENGIR: I've read through this whole thread, and don't see what "Azure's clear racism" refers to. Can you please provide a diff supporting your claim, or else strike that comment? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff was inside the thread...but I copy here to you ([31]), I chose this because the admin told I should only bring this up in case here. Literally: "you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian)."(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    I meant Azure's diff where the comments were made, which is linked in your comment: [32]. I don't see that comment as racist (and it certainly doesn't justify a block due to WP:CIVILITY concerns); he's accusing you of editing with a Hungarian-nationalist bias. I'm not familiar with your edits and am aware of the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe topics of this sort, so I will not comment further. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KIENGIR: It's unfortunate that you chose to post a jeremiad that can be summarized as "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong." There is a long tradition at ANI where CIR concerns provoke long posts that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified. Good to see the tradition is being upheld. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have defended the possibility of lesser sanctions, and made two posts on KIENGIR's talkpage aimed at allowing him to avoid a siteban. The response is above. I can personally say I have done everything I could to help him keep his editing rights, I think a siteban is inevitable now. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OhKayeSierra, the very unprofessional approach that if somebody post something longer would mean it's content would not be quality is just ridiculous. Too bad I have to even explain. If you fail to understand (once I already explained) that if I could prove my point with diffs, asked questions and they are totally ignored, and I describe a conspirative phenomenon and there is suspicious silence about these striking evidence, I could say the same way like you "that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified".
    Your approach would be immediately ridiculed in any scientific community, or anywhere where there is just a bit of seriosity (I tell you as an engineer). Like matemathics is an exact thing, you may prove, or not prove something. Point. Unless my evidence is ignored, but other's misleading and disproved allegations are enforced, no serious discussion possible. Just see above, a user explained to me that a clear personal attack is not that, although it is evident it meant that being Hungarian implies you are pushing biased nationalist POV.
    Just see above, like Swarm (an admin, and historian) repeated his earlier approach, however his summarization implies he did not read the discussion, the same wai ignored my other discussion with an admin (as well historian, connected Hebrew and Israel) that concluded in fact I did nothing wrong like I accused, even he would support other solution I did. Nsk92 just showed the same symptome (either not reading, or ignoring the case, or the presented diff, but dare to mention "self-awareness", oh Jesus Christ, really tragic). Like this, it's not more then a unserious witch-hunt, a conceptional trial akin the 50's, a cabaret. Boynamedsue, you don't have to defend/wash yourself, pretend the opposite, at a level for everyone is evident what you did in fact, again think outside of a box, and do not think with your planned provocations you achieve something good, what you do is not just ironic, but heavily rude concerning people with a high congnitive level, who see trough all of this. It is just a shame what you are doing, repeatedly.
    It also interesting why BMK feel the need to copy-paste already presented diffs (however, since people really do not check diffs, it may be reasonable), as well why Biruitorul feel the need to ping in more and more people (initially Caffeinaddict e.g., whom with I have one friendly discussion in my life in a little everyday issue (??), even now more people...so apparent what's going in, meanwhile he is ignoring any evidence presented regarding his bad faith activity, the same way as in content issue discussion ignored to answers, when it was inconvenient, but replied with ironic personal attacks. As long as the community are ignoring these, they don't even pay attention just even to look like this theater a bit fair. So, unless I don't get clear answers to the concerns and questions I raised, I kindly ask everbody just cut the chatter, because it is so much pitiful. Any good standing and good faith editor/admin could finally react to hat, is it fair to set up an editor and accuse of misconduct contrary a discussion, if that discussion was not presented in the talk where the editor hismelf opened one per policy, if the user was not notified, pinged by any means, and the user who opened that discussion viciously start to attack that user on a directly selected editor's talk page in a misleading way ("contrary consensus", which was a lie), meanwhile it turned out with hidden e-mails already many editors were recruited to that discussion (just surprisingly the one affected and accused was ignored :-) ). So long there is silence about this and avoided (and I could point as well to all unreacted/unapoligized boomerand points I won't repeat here), nobody should make efforts to justify themselved of anything, since excuse me, we are not in the Kindergarten or in the elementary school, among teenagers starting puberty.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    Kiengir, what are you actually trying to achieve here? Do you see some way that this type of post might convince anyone you are a useful member of the community? Telling everybody that you consider yourself more intelligent than them and that your actions are always legitimate due to your superior logic is, at this stage (at any stage?), simply saying "ban me". And I have read your interaction with user:El C, he doesn't say what you think he does, if you believe that he has given you some kind of authorisation to behave in the way you did on the Nazism talkpage. I think this farce needs bringing to close.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for close

    Per WP:CBAN:

    Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours before any sanction is implemented to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members.[1] For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours.[2] If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for.

    In the current case, the sanction proposal has been open for over 24 hours, and there has been no opposition, except for the de facto opposition of the subject, KIENGIR. On the other hand, there have been 16 18 "support" !votes, which should be sufficient to establish community approval for the suggested site ban.
    In the light of this, I request that an uninvolved admin close the discussion and levy the suggested sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bad Faith accusations by NeutralHomer

    I made a series of edits to List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group to update the list of stations owned by Sinclair. As a source I use Sinclair's most recent 10-K filing which lists every station they own or operate. User:Neutralhomer insists without a source that they operate WDSI-TV. While Sinclair did purchase the assets of that station and transfer them to another station that they do own, they did not purchase the station itself and there is no proof that they operated it at anytime. It is is not part of their 10-K filing. NeutralHomer took the extreme step of reverting my entire series of edits and accusing me of vandalism. After I warned him that his bad faith behavior was borderline harassment, he reverted a second time and has now reported me for vandalism and demanding that I be blocked. His behavior is completely out of control and unacceptable. I made a good faith edit and accusing me of vandalism is straight-up WP:HARASSMENT. Aside from the fact that he is wrong about the disputed material, he is trying to weaponize what is a content dispute by calling my edits vandalism. There is no place for this behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, can we turn down the over-dramatics? Sinclair has a history of making "shell companies". The above user took this literally and shouldn't have. For a user who edits TV station pages, they should know this. Anyway, when I warned the user, I provided the sources needed, especially for WDSI. Their claim they had no proof, is wrong and a lie. It was provided to them before their created the above ANI post. They reverted, claiming "harrassment" (which is hysterical), and I reported them to AIV. Their revert to the WDSI page hilariously included the edit summary "you failed to provide a source", when I provided it on their talk page within the warning. Something I didn't have to do. I provided the source. They have claimed my report at AIV is "bad faith".
    What we have here is a user who is wanting to operate within their own rules. 1) Do whatever they want. 2) If they get called out, complain with wild overly dramatic nonsense. Um...no? This isn't the way this works. We all follow the same set of rules. I didn't have to provide those sources (which took a two second Google search), but I did. That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    Over-dramatics????? You're the one who came to my talk page and accused me of vandalism! That's one of the most offensive things you can do here! Not only that, you reverted a whole series of edits not just over the disputed material. I made a good faith edit, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. Your two sources does not say what you think they say Source #1 does not even mention WDSI. If you read beyond the headline on source #2 it says Sinclair purchased the "purchased the programming and assets of WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV." They did not purchase the broadcast license and there's no mention of them operating the station. Why? Because they moved the Fox affiliate to their own station WTVC. It one thing to have a source, but you actually have to read the sources you're providing (and not just the headline). NeutralHomer is operating within his own rules. If he disagrees with someone's edit, he just accuses them of vandalism. No talk page discussion, nothing! More proof of NeutralHomer's ownership is in this other unpleasant interaction I just had with him. Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! Finally, that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing What has I been sanctioned for? The only sanction imposed on me was quickly rescinded by the community, so please don't make even more false allegations (you've made enough already). I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise, but your own block log is already a mile long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This just keeps getting worse, now NeutralHomer edited his post to include more "sources" [33]. Problem is that none of these mention WDSI nor prove his allegation that New Age Media (the owner of WDSI) is just a Sinclair "shell company". Zero proof has been provided that WDSI was ever owned or operated by Sinclair. They purchased the programming assets, moved the Fox affiliation to their own station, that's it. They do not own or operate WDSI, never have.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one of the most offensive things you can do here. = Over-dramatics. Trust me, after 16 years, that's the least offensive thing you can do here.
    Now, what you got sanctioned for, no idea, I just can read your talk page. :) 1, 2, 3, and 4. I never said I was an angel. :) In fact, if asked, I would readily admit that I wasn't an angel. :) You don't get to be here for 16 years without going through a few pairs of horns. But I did something right, cause I'm still here. :)
    By the way, we are verging on "content dispute" territory and "admins really aren't gonna care" and "take it to talk" territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    Every time someone brings me to ANI is not a sanction. And the actual sanction that was rescinded, I have no obligation to explain that to you, so please do not talk of things that you have no knowledge about. What is important here is that you cannot edit my comments as you did here. Please do not do it again. Yes, this would have otherwise been a content dispute, but in content disputes you don't make bad faith accusations of vandalism which is exactly what you did and why this is now at ANI. And yes it is offensive to have someone like yourself come to my talk page and accuse me of vandalism on a series of edits I made in good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You do understand that that is called an edit conflict. It happens. Usually the system catches it and throws an actual edit conflict warning up, but in this case, it actually copy/pasted my edit over yours. Calm down, wasn't intentional.
    Now, to once again, show you this and this proving that, yes, indeed, Sinclair owned or at least operated WDSI-TV and has since at least 2015. You've known this for at least 2 hours now, though I suspect much longer....but at least two hours. Stop acting like you have no idea about this. You've known for at least 2 hours.
    The bad faith is, and continues to be, entirely yours as long as you continue to act like this is totally unknown to you. You still have not addressed any of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    Redirect: A "sanction" is not someone taking you to ANI. A sanction is someone placing a punishment against you. Especially when ArbCom is involved or a TopicBan. That's not just "[being] taken to ANI", that's a punishment. You did something wrong and you got punished for it. Also in this post, the "sanction placed on you...is now removed". Now, why would someone say you had a sanction placed on you or had one removeded, if you were just "being taken to ANI". That makes no coherent sense.
    In this post, an admin, warns you (they say "you should still consider this a warning") that if you continued to "[file] vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban." So, you have a history of receiving sanctions and being warned about coming damned close to getting them. Getting TopicBans and InteractionBans. Not cool, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    First of all, don't call me dude. Second, what the hell that that have to do with anything? I am not going to waste time here explaining previous sanctions that were rescinded (and for good reason). None of this concerns you, all you need to know is I'm not under any sanctions currently. Repeatedly bringing up the topic is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and you should be blocked for it. Here is Neutralhomer's block log and you have what seem to be active sanctions, proving that your record is far worse than mine, so cut the crap.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In some Class A hilarity, Rusf10 removed the source with the edit summary removing false information, source provided does not backup claim that Sinclair operates station (or ever did), they simply purchased station's assets and moved them to their own station. No mention of master service agreement either. Just wow! Nowhere in the source does it say that. They just made that up in their heads. Without showing any evidence to back it up...except one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat since Sinclair has a history of shell companies.

    Sorry, dude (it's a non-gender conforming "beach" term to mean any human who's gender is unknown...otherwise I would use "Sir" or "Ma'am"), but you have taken out a reliable source (I can add another) because it doesn't confirm to your world view. Just cause you don't like it isn't a personal attack. Oh, and since you bring up my block log (nope, not under any active sanctions) and make accusations about me (yeah, you just did), I can do the same. That's not a personal attack, I have receipts, as the kids like to say.

    Let's talk about my block log. The one in July 2018, I earned that, I was dick. The one later that year, that was an overzealous admin and was quickly overturned, still on my record. The one in 2020, definitely earned that one and I'm proud of it. Yes, that came with a topic ban, but a very "unethical" one in my and many other's opinions. I'll leave it up to you to find those discussions. But I'm proud of the issues we raised in that conversation and hopefully, one day, that topic ban will be lifted. If not, I'm OK with it. We did good work in raising attention to a major phobia and erasure here at Wikipedia.

    So, yeah, pre-2012, I wasn't an angel....I readily admit it. Post-2018, I had blocks, but with I earned them in one way or another. Since you won't even discuss yours, consider my bringing them up a "personal attack", that says more about you than me. Says you'd rather distract from the real discussion, your actions, and spin it around on me, then actually deal with the problem. I'm not it....it's you. You haven't address multiple issues. Also notice, no admin has posted on this thread.....they don't care. They are letting us deal with this ourselves...or letting us "punch ourselves out". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

    I've already explained the content dispute and why you didn't actually read your source.it doesn't confirm to your world view No, this is a simple matter of fact. Either Sinclair owns and/or operates this station (even through a shell company as you allege) or they don't. one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat Let me try to educate you. The SEC filing is highly reliable since there are legal consequences for putting false or misleading information on such filings. If you actually read it Sinclair not only lists every station it owns or operates (and doesn't own), but discloses its relationships with these other companies you are talking about (and New World, owner of WDSI is not one of them).
    It would be a waste of everyone's time to explain my previous sanction which the community rescinded because they found it to be inappropriate. It is also not related to the issue here and your repeated mention of it is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The fact that you're proud of your sanctions shows you've learned nothing and I am not going to waste my time trying to research them because quite frankly I don't care.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained to you, the fact it is not mentioned in your precious SEC filing is moot (and at this point not even worth mentioning...repeatedly), as Sinclair has shell companies. Shell companies that they operate as completely seperate entities from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI), making that SEC filing...pointless. They give two shits less about FCC consequences (seeing as they have been fined repeatedly), you think they care about the SEC?! Look at the sources, I provided proof on two of those fines. The fact you'd rather overlook that, speaks more to you than I. Also, the fact that an SEC reference is "highly reliable", but FCC sources aren't highly reliable is just hypocritcal...and funny. :)
    As for WP:SANCTIONS and WP:BLOCKs, I think you need to read up on those. You seem to have an issue on tell which is which. Yes, I am proud of that 2020 block and TopicBan. It was "unethical", it was against the rules of Wikipedia, should never have been issued, and I will wear it like a badge of honor until it is removed and the articles that were vandalized by the same users are restored. I have a fairly large and vocal community behind me on this one, so we'll keep at it. :) Oh, and your calling everything a "personal attack" is removing all meaning of what a personal attack is. Calling you out on your hypocracy is not a personal attack, it is what it is, calling you out on publically available information. You do it to me, I'll do it to you. You did, I "returned fire". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    I never said the FCC was unreliable, I just said it didn't establish notability. That's two completely different things. I don't know what your personal beef is with Sinclair (I have no feeling on the company one way or the other, I just wanted an accurate list), but making the accusation that they are falsifying an SEC filing is very serious and I suggest you retract it. 10-K filings are not only are signed off on by company executives but are also reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm (In this case Pwc). I have not personally attacked you, but you continue to do it to me. Accusing me of vandalism for a good faith edit and repeatedly bringing up unrelated (and rescinded) past sanctions are personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually your words were "They are not even close to be 'highly notable'". I have no "personal beef" and if you wanted an "accurate list" you would use the references given to you instead of using only ONE source. Multiple sources are generally expected under GNG and RS for not only an article, but any sentence. When faced with new sources, you must change the article, not ignore them. Sorry, this is Wikipedia. We include...>EVERYTHING!
    As for your harping on "personal attacks" where there aren't any, I'm beginning to feel personally attacked.
    As for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sinclair's Treasurer and Vice President Justin L. Bray, he used to work for them and in fact, still holds a senior management position with PwC. PwC isn't the most ethical company on the planet either (just this side of Deutsche Bank). So, they would definitely overlook Sinclair's shell companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    @Neutralhomer:, please strike this comment. As far as I can see, having looked at this, the SEC 10-K filed by Sinclair *does* capture stations where Sinclair operates (via an LMA) a station that is owned by a shell corporation (or a legitimate third party); those are the ones marked with "(d)" in the filing. I don't have a very high opinion of the truthfulness of executives, myself, but you've just alleged that a named, living person has engaged in a *particular* criminal action without adequate sourcing. This is a clear WP:BLP violation. There's now plenty of discussion on the article talk page that helps reconcile the apparent discrepancies in different sources about WDSI without invoking this sort of conspiracy theory. Please back it up before bad things happen. Choess (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Choess: Thank you for asking nicely. Honestly, in this mess of a discussion, I appreciate it and it's refreshing. :) I looked back on and yeah, you have a point. Never thought of the BLP aspect, so a definite point can be made there for a BLP violation (even though that person doesn't have an article), I'll admit to that. I'll take the ding for that one. So struck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    • ADMINS: Would an admin or three mind putting their 2 cents in and bring this to a final conclusion? It would be appreciated. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the wall and I'm running out of sticks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

    I am not an admin. I am not even a particularly knowledgeable or experienced Wikipedian. I do know, however, that you two richly deserve one another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dumuzid: Dear God no. I'm just trying to beat sense into an already dead horse. I'd personally rather go stand in traffic in the middle of my local interstate, but I have a strong dislike for people who just don't get it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    NeutralHomer, I am terrified to even ask this, but here we go. I understand Rusf10's logic here (not that I necessarily agree), but I am having trouble following your argument. Certainly shell companies exist, but what sources are you relying on with regard to this particular edit? Apologies if I am being dense, but let me know at your convenience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: Why be terrified? These are the examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" including New Age Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

    This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? Apart from the personal vitriol between you (which could lead to both of you being topic-banned from the area) I don't see what ANI can do here. For the purpose of resolution, I will comment on the content dispute: while I'm not sure WDSI-TV even has a website, the co-owned WFLI-TV's website http://chattanoogacw.com/ has "© 2021 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @力: The website would be part of the Master Service Agreement referenced here. As for further content dispute resolution, does the previous source and this one cover the New Age Media sources (like WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV) and these examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" further source the edits removed by Rusf10 on List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)
    This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, DRN won't take it. Both on the technicality that this thread is open, and because it appears neither of you have commented on any article talk page on this topic. Please post the sea-of-links on a talk page; if you can't prove your point in 2 links it's too complicated for ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @力:New Age Media owns both WDSI and WFLI and Sinclair operates WFLI for them, that is not in dispute. Sinclair only purchased certain assets (the Fox affiliation, the studios, etc.) of WDSI, not the station itself. Then they moved the Fox affiliation to WTVC (a station they own). They never operated or owned WDSI. NeutralHomer is now pushing a conspiracy theory where Sinclair is able to falsify their 10-K filings with the SEC by exerting control over PriceWaterhouseCooper for the purpose of hiding their ownership in WDSI.
    Understand that I wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI. That's not why this is here. This is here because NeutralHomer asserts that not only am I wrong, but I intentionally vandalized a page. He first asserted this on my talk page and then filed a false report at WP:AIV (links above). We are here because of his unacceptable behavior. I either want an apology from him for accusing me of vandalism or if he refuses, I want a block. The choice is his. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rusf10: Aha, we do have something suitable for ANI. Content disputes are not vandalism, and Neutralhomer must refrain from claiming that they are in the future. (An apology might be nice, but I wouldn't expect one while you are arguing.) I must continue to insist that the content dispute be discussed on an article talk page, I will not respond to that part of your comment here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @力: Yeah, not apologizing. I have no problem taking it to talk (expected and predicted above, also called the "content dispute"), we are going to need a mediator as nothing will get done. I make points, he ignores them and jumps up and down about how I've personally attacked him and all about this SEC filing. This precious SEC filing. We can take it to talk, no problem, but an admin mediator is going to need to be required or this will never be resolved. This was not a content dispuite, especially when the two sources were given within the warning I issued. But it devolved into one when Rusf10 brought it to ANI, spun this into something about me, ignored every source I brought up as if the SEC filing was the end all, be all. What it was and what it is were two totally different things. Talk page, fine. But I request a mediator, I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down, I request the effected pages be temporarily locked during the discussion, else we have nothing to discuss. I have been quite polite, Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this. He brought this to ANI, I issued a warning and it was left at that. He chose to continue the behavior when he reverted. Talk page, mediator, fine. He chills out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    I've started Talk:List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group#Dispute regarding WDSI. Please take your content discussions there. Admins might be the same people that mediate content disputes, but that's not part of the "admin" job for ANI purposes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @力:I understand, but you've seen how this has gone. If you think this has been a devolved nightmare, I'm fairly certain that will be just as worse. :( But, here we go. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

    Continued false allegations

    Neutralhomer continues to make false allegations about me. Let's set the facts straight.

    • I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down The first person to request a block was Neutralhomer [34] Requesting block
    • Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this The first interaction was [35] where I was accused of vandalism. I think that qualifies as an act of aggression.
    • I have been quite polite [36]Do NOT attempt another completely moronic amount of vandalism like this again. Repeat this action and I report your account for vandalism and assure it is blocked. I shouldn't have to find the sources for this FOR you. You should find this YOURSELF. DON'T let it happen again. Again, same post to my talk page , sounds real polite.

    This is why we are here, not the content dispute.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's been a little over a year since you were last blocked for this kind of behavior, @Neutralhomer:. I'd kind of assumed you'd re-learned your lesson and put it all behind you. You are really in the wrong here (behavior-wise, I have no opinion on the content). I'm not sure you understand how close you (NH) are to being blocked here. This is not just a content dispute. I know you don't like me, but I've never given you bad advice. I really advise you to stop with the battleground behavior. Doubling down on it is the wrong move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: Actually, what I don't like is admins not responding two the actual issues. "I have no opinion on the content" is what I have gotten from 力 and now you. Now, this is what happened last time and that vandal was allowed to run around roughshot for a couple weeks before he was finally shut down. Unless we are talking about 2020 and I don't think anyone wants to bring up the Asexual Erasure discussion that lit ANI/AN and many other pages aflame, leading to me and several other editors getting blocked and topic banned, while the people doing the erasing got nothing. So, have an opinion, either one of you. Cause not having an opinion isn't helpful. Pouncing on me and yelling the ever convenient "content dispute" isn't helpful. There are plenty of topics here, plenty of content, plenty of points. I urge you to have an opinion on those and not like my opinion on you cloud that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    I do have an opinion, AND I WILL EXPRESS IT AT THE TALK PAGE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @力: Actually, that was a reply to Floquenbeam, not you. Perhaps it would be best served if Floquenbeam, unassociated with the discussion, or someone who isn't so, um, hot tempered (?) takes over the moderating. I believe that would be best, because that, my friend, was unnecessary. <_<? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    • (1) Power~enwiki is not an admin, nor am I. (Floquenbeam is.) (2) This board is for dealing with behavioral problems. It does not settle content disputes, which must be settled on article talk pages or at WP:Dispute resolution. (3) When an admin tells you that you're close to being blocked for your behavior, it's probably best not to lash out at them. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to Block Neutralhomer

    Neutralhomer continues to personally attack me on an article talk page [37] and repeatedly restore the personal attack [38] and [39] after I removed the personal attacks citing WP:TPO. Other users have become involved in the content dispute discussion and it has been productive. Everyone else has been respectful except Neutralhomer. He has attacked my character, misrepresented previous ANI discussions that I have been involved in (saying I was put under sanctions even when it was the other party involved that actually was or the sanction was rescinded), and now called me incompetent. This is unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT. Based on the fact that his last block which was also for harassment occurred only about a year ago and was for 72 hours, I am proposing a one week block--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. This will give myself and other users more than enough time to settle this content dispute peacefully. As I was about to post this proposal Neutralhomer unilaterally tried to close this thread [40]. He is out of control!--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: User has previously reverted my edits for TPO violations, is engaged in an edit war over mysterious "personal attacks", because I dare mention his supposedly long expired "sanctions" (he did bring up my block log first...fair play). Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment.
    Since Rusf10 wishes to bring up that block, but Cullen328 was heavily involved in a [Talk:Pauley_Perrette#Coming_out_on_Twitter massive discussion] regarding Pauley Perrette (actress, formerly on NCIS) and whether she came out as Asexual via her Twitter account. I was blocked by Cullen328 and topic-banned from the Pauley Perrette article. ArbCom, somehow, got involved and in a stunning display of Asexual Erasure and blocking, were allowed to place sanctions and topic bans on anyone who basically argued against what they were doing. I was subject to harrassment, both here and on Twitter, and anon's from the community basically demanded to answer their questions about her sexuality. A disgusting display all around. The entire Asexuality Community came together (which I wasn't apart of, but discussed the innerworkings of Wikipedia to that day and have formed friendships with) and fought against Wikipedia.
    So, yes, I was blocked for "harrassment". Who I was "harrassing" remains unclear. I am proud of that block because I was on the right side of that block, I did my part, and we fought for what was right that day. We showed that Wikipedia isn't all Sunshines, Rainbows, Happiness, and Inclusion like they might want people to think. It's a LOT of erasure too. We might have lost that battle, but we fought, and they war against erasure sure as hell ain't over (on any platform) and I'll be there (I don't like bullies).
    So, yeah, let's talk about my 2020 block. I'm more than happy to. I'm quite open about it. In fact, I share it with everyone. What I don't do is say it's a "personal attack" and "no one's business" and "they should be blocked" for bringing it up. Bring it up....I clearly don't have anything to hide. Does Rusf10? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    Oh and Speedy Close and SALT this entire discussion (top to bottom) and BURN IT from space. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    I was not involved in that 2020 matter when I blocked you, Neutralhomer, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. I acted strictly as an administrator enforcing BLP policy rather than as an editor advocating for content. You wrote at the time But since you did give me permission and since you have now violated another rule (WP:NOPUNISH, on top of INVOLVED) by continuing this block as it has now gone into the punitive state (I am topic banned from the page and the block is for "battlefield behavior at Talk:Pauley Perrette"), I will be more than happy to add this to the complaint I will file against you when the block concludes (remember, you did give me permission). I note for the record that you never filed a complaint against me as you said you would at the time. If you were to do so, I would defend myself vigorously. Yes, I gave you permission (not that you needed it) to file a complaint against me because I was fully confident that I had acted correctly and that your complaint would fail. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarize the matter in a few words (rare at this noticeboard), your behavior regarding Pauley Perrette was way out of line, and your block and topic ban were entirely appropriate and proper. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please Cullen, we can debate all day whether or not you were involved or not (you were, you know it, you shouldn't have blocked me, you know that too), but it doesn't matter. You all won. You got to erase everything from all those articles. Ned got to have his fun, everyone else got to have their fun.|
    Yeah, I could have filed a complaint against you. Would it have done any good? No. Would it have gone anywhere? No. Would I have gotten immediate flack from a couple 3 dozen admin? Yes! But I had bigger fish to fry...microscopic fish.
    Look at the timestamps. One year ago just about. What happened a couple weeks after that? Yeah, the world fell apart. I was getting over Bronchitis (and a wicked case of the Flu...we think) and trying to do my job and keep kids and teachers safe (I'm a custodian for a public school). I didn't have time to play pretend world with you and everyone else. I had a job to do and to do something extremely important. Keep everyone safe. That complaint was the last thing on my mind. At that time, we had rising Flu A and Flu B cases and I was trying to keep that entire school clean. We were doing a good job. You didn't factor in. Wikipedia didn't factor in. Personally, I didn't think about any of this for a couple weeks. My edits basically fell off for a month. What do you think I was doing? So, I didn't really care.
    But you were involved and that was a year ago. This all has nothing to do with what is going on right now. Rusf10 is trying to deflect from his current behavior. So, focus on me...fine...or focus on the real issue....him. This time, have an opinion, you didn't before either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    TL;DR? Malarkey! You were. Rusf10 is deflecting. Let's focus on the actual issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    • Neutralhomer does not get to continue to lie about me and attack me! He is the worst type of editor, he created this problem by attacking me and now he wants to be the victim. It doesn't work that way! #1 mysterious "personal attacks" no they're not mysterious, its all right here What we have here is a user, who is borderline CIR, and who has, been, repeatedly, sanctioned or topic/interaction banned (though he will call it a "personal attack" for me to even mention it and ask I be blocked, yet again pushing the rules. #2he did bring up my block log first...fair playNot true at all, its right here on this page. I already quoted it once, let's do it again [41] That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. Bringing up years old sanctions that were quickly rescinded to attack my character and try to get his way in a content dispute.#3Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page No, I've been participating there and the others have mostly agreed with me that Sinclair does not own or operate the station with User:Sammi Brie doing an exceptional job with research and I thank her. #4and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment. He closed the thread himself, he can't do that! (see WP:NACINV) Finally if Neutralhomer wants to re-litigate his dispute with user:Cullen328, he can do it elsewhere. Whether that past block was right or wrong, Neutralhomer still deserves a new block based solely on his unacceptable behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You brought the block up. You are re-litigating it by bringing it up. If you didn't want it brought up, you shouldn't have brought it up. Dude, project much?!
    Actually, no one has agreed with you and Sammi has agreed with neither of us. We were both wrong. New Age Media owns it (you were right) and Sinclair has some programming on the station and has some operating control (probably master control), I was right. No one was 100% correct. We were both wrong. I willing and perfectly able to admit that I am wrong. Yeah, I was wrong. But so were you.
    You took all of this way too far. You had the sources in front of you, you were given them within the warning, you were given them in the ANI thread, and yet you turned this into a 2 day WP:ICANTHEARYOU-athon. Yes, it has become borderline CIR when someone is constantly telling you something over and over and over and over and over again ad naseum and you don't seem to get it in a spectacular display I'm not listening and I'm right, you're wrong!
    Now, the two main points (the WDSI-TV article and the List of Sinclair stations) have been taken care of by the amazing Sammi Brie....who I owe a big thanks. I think that should end this entire thing and with that we shouldn't have to EVER speak to each other again. Now, I'm going to go over to this other side of the internet. If you want to continue this, that's up to you.
    The ball is officially in your court. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)
    Just an uninvolved observer here to say- this is one of the most ridiculous, and yet entertaining threads I've seen in a day or two. You both look silly. My recomendation- walk away for 24-48 hours, then go to the article talk page and have an actual good faith discussion instead of this childish hissy fit. But what do I know.... Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extreme AIV Backlog

    I know other users would appreciate this as well, but there is an extreme backlog at WP:AIV. Currently 30+ deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:16 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

    thefallenpower

    The fallen power has made unsourced edits on winx club I reverted the users edits cause I red the edit source and on the end date it says yes then present almost like the user is treating this like it's a fan page when you can see winx clubs final episode was on September 17, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs)

    Months ago I was reverting edits from thefallenpower physically the end date whitch she kept changing to present and on the source it said yes present but another user reverted his or her edit and now I came back today and It still says present and on the edit source it says yes present almost like the user is treating this like it's a fan page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Starting to think a WP:CIR block may be required until this editor matures a bit. They are screaming vandalism over content disputes (Special:Diff/1014681112), give indications that they will resume their edit war as soon as block ends (Special:Diff/1014615868), and generally disruptive (Special:Diff/1014682250). Plus user page claims editing since 2017 (and above comment references earlier edits though account is 6 days old), which would imply they should know better. Slywriter (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also they left their comment unsigned, at the top of this page (despite the note), and failed to notify TFP of the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TheFallenPower hasn't changed the date there since October. The most recent change [42] was by 109.160.111.223; the source did not verify it according to the comment [43] by TheFallenPower on the talk page. So there is a possibly disruptive edit by 109.160.111.223 but it was undone; it's only one edit and not bad enough for any action to be taken. The edit and comment by Theshavia29912 are similar to earlier edits [44][45][46] by Kingkobra775; the username is similar to others in the same sockpuppet category (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zjholder). Peter James (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an Admin/CU review this without a formal SPI? I've noticed at least one linguistic similarity in the use of "dude" when referring to other editors (Special:Diff/983085708). Otherwise I'll submit one this evening. Slywriter (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder. I haven't made it a CheckUser request as I don't think it's necessary. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism to Rupert Read article by IP editor

    Resolved by semi-protection of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yesterday, an IP editor added a screed railing against Rupert Read to the article: see [47]. Not encyclopaedic, no citations, breaches WP:BLP. This was reverted by Oshwah, who also put a warning at User_talk:82.26.229.45. The IP editor put it back, Wysprgr2005 reverted and left another warning. The IP editor put it back, and I reverted and left another warning. A different IP address, presumably the same person, put it back. I reverted, and they put it back, and I reverted again. Just take a look at the history for Rupert Read. Could someone take action? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Marveldc111

    Marveldc111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user created their account on March 21, 2021. They vandalized the articles Anthony Mackie (diff) and Lil Pump (diff), changing the latter's nationality (American) for a gender (Transgender) which the subject doesn't use to identify himself. The editor later admitted to doing because he is a garbage person who wears women clothes and nails so I called him a tranny (diff), constituting a WP:BLP violation. In this same comment they told me to fuck you (diff) and referred to me and other editors as robots who do not think for yourselves (diff), constituting personal attacks. Their only mainspace edit that isn't clear vandalism is this one, the rest of their edits are either vandalism or poorly argued discussion at File talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier logo.png and Talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It seems clear to me that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and collaborate with others. —El Millo (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Facu-el Millo, as of about ten minutes ago, the editor has been blocked. -- /Alex/21 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed. Thank you Alex 21 and Deepfriedokra for taking action. —El Millo (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indonesia IP range vandalism

    I am moving the following report to here from AIV, since it seems more complex than what is usually handled there:

    The anime-article vandalism is the main subject of my report, and consists of removing the Japanese companies/staff and falsely adding "DreamWorks Animation", "Universal Pictures", and Western animators. This has been going on persistently since 28 November 2020. There is also a high rate of reverts associated with TV station articles, but I'm not familiar with the subject area and I don't see anything outwardly wrong with many of them (not sure if they are reverts of subtle vandalism, or just normal reverts).

    There is enough vandalism here to necessitate some kind of block, but it seems tricky because the vandalism is mixed with good-faith edits from the /16. I think we need to go in with a scalpel and block several /20 or /24 blocks (I tried to do this, but couldn't get something satisfactory). — Goszei (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption is spread pretty widely, but most of it can be gotten by a couple smaller range blocks. I'll try that before doing something wider. I think some of the other edits on that IP range are from a sock puppeteer, but I don't really feel like spending an hour to tell what's going on. There's going to be a trickle of vandalism that gets through, but if it gets to be too much I can do wider range blocks. I don't see any logged-in vandalism to anime articles, so maybe an anon-only range block would be something to try later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Zumwalt "numerology" spam

    Scott Zumwalt (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA that has been spamming nonsense about numerology on some pages tonight, including Talk:Numerology, Talk:The Undertaker and ItsKesha's talk page.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]LM2000 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Does anyone here more familiar than me with Brad Watson, Miami think there's a connection (if so, a CU should take a look), or is this just another random crank? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits look very different to me, but perhaps the disordered thinking has changed in nine years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More eyes on CEFC scandal

    Per series of edits by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk · contribs). It's usually a red flag when a new WP:SPA user adds the same 'scandal' section to the top of multiple articles, with the headers all in caps. More eyes, please. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please google CEFC and you will see it is a true scandal. Their story has been reported by many reputable news outlets including Bloomberg, WSJ, NYTimes, CNN, etc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Looks like you moved the sections down. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Cullen - I didn't include Hunter Biden in my edit although (Redacted). I will spend more time on the new part I added later this week. This story is about a USD bond fraud committed by CEFC and CITIC CLSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QUARTERBILLIONP$G (talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass removal

    blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) --Jayron32 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The IP 37.186.98.35 is mass deleting same information from several articles despite 4 warnings to stop. (These are the diffs so far, he keeps on going with these, so you can check his contrubutions page as well: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Brendanod105

    INDEFINITELY BLOCKED
    Brendanod105 has been indefinitely blocked by Black Kite. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Among the 103 edits made by Brendanod105 so far, 72 of them have been reverted as unconstructive. Brendanod105 has been blocked twice this month, once for 31 hours on 16 March for vandalism, and a second time for 1 week on 21 March for persistent addition of unsourced content.

    Since Brendanod105 was released from their second block on 28 March, they have made 6 edits, 3 of which have been reverted as unconstructive:

    1. 04:23, 28 March 2021: Changed "far-right" to "conservative" in One America News Network, contrary to cited sources and prior RfC result, with no edit summary
    2. 04:25, 28 March 2021: Removed "conservative[1][2][3][4]" from lead section of Fox News, with no edit summary
    3. 04:14, 29 March 2021: Almost identical to #1

    References

    1. ^ DellaVigna, Stefano; Kaplan, Ethan (August 1, 2007). "The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 122 (3): 1187–1234. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.537.1980. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187. ISSN 0033-5533. S2CID 16610755.
    2. ^ Nie, Norman H.; Miller, Darwin W., III; Golde, Saar; Butler, Daniel M.; Winneg, Kenneth (2010). "The World Wide Web and the U.S. Political News Market". American Journal of Political Science. 54 (2): 428–439. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00439.x. ISSN 1540-5907.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    3. ^ Meyers, Christopher (July 2, 2020). "Partisan News, the Myth of Objectivity, and the Standards of Responsible Journalism". Journal of Media Ethics. 35 (3): 180–194. doi:10.1080/23736992.2020.1780131. ISSN 2373-6992. S2CID 221538960.
    4. ^ Shor, Eran (2019). "Political Leaning and Coverage Sentiment: Are Conservative Newspapers More Negative Toward Women?". Social Science Quarterly. 100 (1): 307–319. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12563. ISSN 1540-6237.

    Considering that ~70% of Brendanod105's edits have been reverted as unconstructive, and that Brendanod105 has never engaged in any form of discussion about their edits despite repeated warnings and blocks, I propose that Brendanod105 be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP warning for vandalism

    187.189.135.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a vandalism warning to an editor for editing their own TP, and then to me for cleaning up the same TP. MB 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem to have stopped now. I've left them a note explaining WP:OWNTALK. Mz7 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they seem to have tempered their behavior right after this thread was started and/or MarnetteD removed the warning from my TP. MB 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Antenna TV Programs Dispute

    Can 173.166.139.137 be blocked for making Disruptive/Unconstructive Edits to List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV? LooneyTraceYT 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Various IPs and LooneyTraceYT have spent the last few days reverting to their preferred version of the article, but I do not see any attempt at discussion, either at User talk:173.166.139.137 or at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV. I would suggest both parties read WP:Consensus and WP:3RR. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    109.78.199.4

    This IP editor sends a message and expects it to be a private matter between two editors only, but they are somehow knowledgeable enough to be able to search for users' old nicknames. They tried to attack me by stating that I use a "fake name". They can be a banned user or a sock. Unfortunately, I do not think that the disturbing attitude will end with a warning. ภץאคгöร 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat blocked by edit filter. See Special:AbuseLog/29475873. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is clearly angry, but I do not any anything that constitutes a legal threat in that edit filter log. That being said, I've closed the SPI report and blocked this user as a suspected sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally perceived terms like SLANDEREROUS and CROSED THE LINE as having a same chilling effect that WP:NLT is intended to prevent. That being said, any further discussion is moot due the sock puppetry block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Slanderous" and "crossed the line" are absolutely not legal threats. There has to be a specific threat to take legal action for it to apply. The chilling effect is knowing that there is going to a lawsuit hanging over you. That's not the case here.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Siamese fighting fish

    This might be the silliest thing to sockpuppet over, but admin attention might be required at Talk:Siamese_fighting_fish#Requested_move_26_March_2021. I count five votes by likely sockpuppets. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. Thank you -- Calidum 22:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New users going straight to the article's talk page to support a move? Yeah, that's worth looking into. This may be a case of meatpuppetry, but this is concerning nonetheless... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed multiple sock puppet account creations. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony Willianson; the nominator created numerous sock puppets to self-vote the discussion to an actionable close. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell you how much joy it gives me to learn that people are so passionate about the taxonomic name of Siamese fighting fish that they would create handfuls of socks for a move discussion. Just when I thought life was getting irreparably serious. People truly will get passionate about anything eh. Keep up the good work, and thanks for this little pocket of surreal happiness. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who follows source material on fish content, I can report that there are some weird things in the Far East about certain kinds of freshwater aquarium fish where there are extremely high-priced varietals of the fish species, that attract various kinds of money-motivated interests, sort of like the historical tulip mania in Europe. Just in case people were (understandably!) wondering why there would be such activity over such a seemingly obscure topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be a candidate for WP:Lamest edit wars. Fences&Windows 23:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    174.105.177.231‎

    User keeps adding irrelevant content to Thoroughly Modern Millie despite warnings. User's talk page shows that they had received numerous such warnings in the past and have been blocked in the past (apparently for too brief a time). - kosboot (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP user for 72 hours for the repeated addition of unsourced content. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Intimidation and Threats of Blocks by Floquenbeam

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Floquenbeam has adequately addressed these concerns, and I am feeling too mellow to indefinitely block NH for the third time in my career. People, be nice to each other during these hard times. Jehochman Talk 02:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too: Jehochman, mellow is good. I just want to add this: Neutralhomer, I'm sorry, you know I've been on your side a time or two, but you are in the wrong here and you are walking a very fine line. Please do NOT go around throwing down threads like this, because you're wasting everyone's time. Your opponent's behavior, that's another matter--but this, on this board, come on. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Floquenbeam responded to the ANI thread regarding me above (I did respond with no response back). His response wasn't a very "calming" one, but the conversation had already moved to to here and has concluded. This is not about that (this the backstory).

    We proceeded into conversing on his talk page. As you can see, I am attempting to get Floquenbeam to back off the threats, but that's basically all he will say. In so many words "I'm going to block you". Won't talk about why, what his problem with me is, why he holds me to such a high standard (threatens me with a "2 week block", but Rusf10 would probably not get blocked...even though he engaged in the same behavior. Hypocrisy anyone? I thought Admins were supposed to be neutral?

    My point here, Floquenbeam is not being neutral. In fact, he in intimidating, openly threatening with blocks, allowing other users to break his own set of rules he sets for other users (Wikipedia rules be damned), then threatens the users who points this out or even attempts to politely try and discuss this. I think an admin with "Meh" on top of his talk page might need a break.

    I don't want any sanctions or blocks, but a break. This year hasn't been easy on any of us (I. Know.) and maybe Floquenbeam just needs to get out of the house (genuine concern). But he can't act this way here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:15 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)

    @Neutralhomer: Floquenbeam didn't say Rusf10 won't be blocked for the same behaviour. They said from what they've seen you are looking like you need to be blocked but Rusf10 doesn't, but they will need to look more carefully at Rusf10's behaviour. From what I saw in the above thread or the talk page discussion, it's not clear to me anyone shares your view that Rusf10 was as bad as you, which doesn't mean their behaviour was perfect. Frankly, your comments on Floquenbeam's talk page and this follow up also seems to provide some additional albeit limited support the view that your behaviour may be worse. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Actually what Floquenbeam said was I also need to review your comments to see if a block there is necessary as well. From what I've seen, it isn't, but I haven't reviewed it all. I should double check. "From what I've seen, it isn't..." He hasn't reviewed it all, but has already made a determination. That tells me what I need to know, and what you should know, right there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:31 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)
    Is this anything but needless Wikidrama? If Flo blocks you for wrong reasons, that would likely be rather easily resolved (I was blocked for 6 months for wrong reasons, so don't worry, it's not that bad)... Otherwise, as someone entirely not in the know of this particular dispute, the best course of action I could suggest would be to take a moment of self-reflection and see if there's indeed anything uncollegial in your actions, and if you can avoid it in the future: an appropriate mea culpa is likely to help in avoiding further drama. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: I was blocked in 2020 for wrong reasons and topic banned and it wasn't OK, but I wear those like a badge of honor. But I understand your point.
    As for walking away from the previous ANI, I have done that twice now. I'm ready to be done with it. Have been. That is over. This...needs to be addressed. I'm more than willing to talk it out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)
    • You (NH; there have been 1000 edit conflicts here, but this was originally a response to him) are repetitively accusing another editor of vandalism, and requested they be blocked at AIV (!). You say they are a liar, using the word "lie", on the article talk page. Then, you say they are acting poorly when they ask you be blocked for personal attacks, and label them the aggressor. Including being shocked that they consider your AIV report bad faith. This is gaslighting. You continually insult them in the ANI thread above that was started about your behavior. You continually denigrate the judgement of anyone who tells you you're in the wrong. You insist on keeping the insults you made on the talk page of the article when they are removed. You're being hypocritical. You say on my talk page that you're "just trying to understand", but you do it in a way calculated to cause offense. I cannot imagine how all this can be considered collaborative behavior; it is battleground behavior. You have a long history of it. That is a really, really long block log. But most of it is from 10 years ago, with an exception last year, and I really thought that had changed. But you keep doubling down, and then tripling down.
      Let me ask you, did you think at the time that you were being disruptive 10 years ago? I doubt it. But now you say you realize you were being disruptive then. And yet, you mock the very idea that today, there is the slightest possibility that you are being disruptive again. If I were you, I would ask an experienced editor whose judgement you trust to look at your behavior the last few days and give you their honest feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm Autistic, I know what "gaslighting" is and that isn't it. Second, the "insults" (they called them "personal attacks") were me bringing up past sanctions that were readily available on their talk page (right now) after they had already brought up my block log.
    Third, ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends, this is the behavior I am talking about. I am threatened for "battleground" behavior. Holy crap! Battleground anyone? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:52 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Neutralhomer, why did you have to start this thread? Floquenbeam is considering blocking you because you (unapologetically) accused Rusf10 of vandalism in a content dispute (and reported him at AIV), edit-warred [60] [61] to intermingle personal attacks in a content dispute, and ignored site etiquette (editing others' comments, trying to close an ANI thread about you). I was hoping things would calm down and blow over, but now you're saying Floquenbeam is at fault for being concerned by your editing? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
    I think if you look up, you'll find out why I started this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)
    • Everyone concerned with this conflict please just take a break. Disengage for a bit and let me know if anyone starts needling you. If there's an article in dispute, don't touch it. Leave it just as it is and go work on something else. Jehochman Talk 02:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly, as I said, needless Wikidrama. WP:TROUT for everyone seems required. And it's April fools in 3 days time! Perfect for a well timed break. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, not trout for everyone. It is not wikidrama, nor is it trout-worthy, to respond when an ANI report is filed about you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Amazingly, the discussion at Talk:WDSI-TV seems to have resolved the content dispute. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, another user took care of that. I think we can consider that discussion closed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54 on March 30, 2021 (UTC)
    • "Threats and intimidation" generally implies that an involved user is inappropriately using threats and intimidation to tilt a content dispute. Floquenbeam states that they have no opinion on the content dispute, and is instead observing that you are on the verge of being blocked again for the same behavior that has led to at least one previous block. Yes, that is "threatening" and "intimidating", of course, but it's not the willful, malicious tactic of using "threats and intimidation" to manipulate a result to suit one's biased POV. There is no such concept that an admin cannot remark that a user's behavior is inappropriate and may result in a block, because such a statement would be "threats and intimidation". I'm sure you know this by now. I'm more inclined to see this thread as a form of harassment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Giano

    I'm going to take the bold step of closing this thread before things start to get out of hand. Giano has been unblocked; I have had a word with Levivich on his talk page. For now, that will suffice. If anyone really feels this is a burning issue, I won't object to this close being reverted and discussion continuing, though I would urge people to just take a deep breath before doing so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Giano, arbcom, and incivility, again. For background, in November 2019, Giano was blocked for disruptive editing and harassment (comments about arbcom/arbs, and edit warring at arb pages with clerks). It was appealed and endorsed. (There are previous blocks/unblocks in 2014-2015, but I don't know about them.) In the past 12 months, Giano has made about 300 edits, about half in the past three months [62], including many uncivil comments, directed towards arbcom but also towards a number of other editors, such as:

    • Nov 25: "Oh the joy of it all! Everything else in the world is cancelled, but the Arbcom elections continue. A group of second-hand mediocrities and has-beens will parade their limited talents for our approbation. There is indeed a God." [63]
    • Mar 1: "...I was going to make a statement in your defence, but the opining Arbs all seem to be beyond my ken. Where on earth have they all come from? I suppose it’s connected with the schools all being currently closed. It’s a pity because I have vast experience of trumped up incivility cases. Anyhow, I can only point you in the direction of this: coping with idiots. It’s very old, but I think you’ll find the types of Wikipedians still prevail..." [64]
    • Mar 5: "Disgraceful, weak, cowardly behaviour by a group of children who need to return to their neglected education and stop interfering with adults, who in this case do know better!" [65] (edit summary)
    • Mar 7: "”hopefully” Hog Farm, you will be finding the cites then, or are you just done dull little drive-by, glory seeking editor, who knows zilch, but thinks you can sound clever by turning up and pointing out what you imagine are faults? “Hopefully,” I’m wrong about you." [66] followed by "Well, I’m not editing any content until RexS receives a full apology from the so called Arbcom for their total disrespect. So you had better start reading up on the Veneto." [67]
    • Mar 14: "User:Jimfbleak, I think this is really highlighting one of Wikipedia’s most serious problems. From looking at the history of this page, there are probably just two people on Wikipedia who properly understand this building, [[User:Firebrace|Firebrace] and myself, and even we two haven’t always completely agreed...So it’s either Firebrace jumps to your tune or the page is overwritten by those with insufficient knowledge. bearing in mind, this is one of the projects most important and viewed pages, I suggest you go quietly in your way and come back in a couple of years." [68] [69]
    • Mar 22: "How very droll to see the wasted hot air being ejaculated on that page, by the cringing, little mediocrities who pass as Arbs these days..." [70]
    • Mar 23: "I expect the motion (why does that word always sound so medical?) was necessary, as most of the Arbs aren’t actually following the case, but just marching out to vote as their cohorts are telling them elsewhere." [71]
    • Mar 27 00:29: "What passes for Arbs these days, will realise, if and when they grow up..." [72]
    • Mar 27 20:50: "What is so terribly sad is that there is quite clearly not a single atom of regret or shame amongst this utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre cohort of inadequates and unfortunates." [73] Arb bradv removed this comment. Giano restored it, twice.
    • Mar 27 21:00, posted the same comment again [74]. Arbitrator Primefac blocked Giano for 31 hours, log entry "Personal attacks or harassment".
    • Mar 27 21:02: arbitrator CaptainEek removed the post with edit summary "Remove. Add it again and get your talk page revoked too." [75]
    • Mar 27 21:05: "Wikipedia hasn’t really changed since 2004 when it was openly run by bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons. The only difference is the “BUMs” have become less open in their behaviour. Never mind." [76]
    • Mar 27 21:06, posted the same "utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre cohort of inadequates and unfortunates" comment againt [77]
    • Mar 27 21:11 CaptainEek revoked TPA, log entry "Personal attacks or harassment, removing TPA after being warned"
    • Mar 28: Admin JBW reinstated TPA, log entry "Reverting improper removal of talk page in violation of WP:INVOLVED", and wrote, "...That being so, I shall restore talk page access. I have also seriously considered reverting the WP:INVOLVED-violating block. I have also seriously considered blocking both the offending administrators." [78]
    • Mar 29 15:47: "No doubt those supporting this block are fans of the Chinese, Russian and Banana Republics’ Goverments. That is something which Wikipedians should find deeply troubling." [79]
    • Mar 29 18:25: "Have you thought about joining the Chinese Wikipedia? I’m sure they’d love to have you with your views concerning the criticism I’d Government." [80]
    • Mar 29 20:14: "This whole affair concerning Rexx’s desysopping, and all the stench-filled hyperbole and self-righteous posturing, excuses/lack of excuses and orchestrated silencing of opposition from members of the Arbcom and their sycophants is reminding me of a bag of fish guts left on the harbour wall for an August afternoon." [81]
    • Mar 29 22:03: "I know, the Arbs are beyond contemptible, it can only be deliberate. I had though better of One or two of them, clearly I was mistaken." [82]

    Everyone has the right to criticize arbcom, but Giano isn't criticizing arbcom, he's harassing them, and being uncivil to several others to boot. At the point at which we have admin undoing arb actions and threatening to block them, it's clear that Giano's commentary about arbcom is hurting far more than it's helping. Giano returned to this behavior after TPA was restored and the block expired. The community should step in here and regulate. So:

    • Propose Giano indefinitely TBANed from Arbcom, broadly construed. Meaning, Giano would not be able to comment about Arbcom on any page. Levivich harass/hound 03:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • sweet baby jesus why would you do this now. As if this here and now has any possibility of lowering the temperature. nableezy - 03:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The colorful imagery of hot air ejaculating notwithstanding, what we're seeing here is largely criticism levied against a body, not individuals. Penalizing critics of the system is something one would expect to find in Russia or several of its former "-stan" satellite states, not the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JBW's reversion of TPA revocation was INVOLVED, as JBW had endorsed the personal attacks. This is concerning. Still waiting on a response from JBW regarding this, but it's so blatant that it potentially rises to the level of an Arb case in and of itself. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The world is a big place and Wikipedia needs to accommodate different people. There would have been no problem if people had left Giano's original complaint alone (it wasn't over-the-top or nasty), and there would be no further problems now if those of us in the peanut gallery were to leave it be. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever your view across the spectrum on this issue (both the specifics and the more general policy-based viewpoints), one thing most people will agree on is that this kind of noticeboard conversation isn't going to achieve anything positive, for anyone. We all have better things to do, than this. Especially right now. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JBW must retract his threat made on Giano's talk page to block Primefac and CaptainEek diff It is unacceptable for an administrator to make threats to block members of the arbitration committee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose temporary topic ban of everyone who cares way too much about this mess from Internet connections, broadly construed. Vaticidalprophet 03:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose an easier task than resolving this conflict. The Kobayashi Maru is drifting in the Neutral Zone and needs our help. Let's all go and rescue the crew and then (if we're still alive) we can come back and deal with this situation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. Giano was not acting as a gadfly, or a loose cannon. The Arbs ran for election to make the tough decisions; they knew when they ran that they would get brick-bats hurled at them over some if not most of those decisions; and if we are not allowed to hold them to account, including criticising them honestly and strenuously, they will indeed become a Govcom that we dare not criticise for fear of being punished for lèse-majesté. I have had cause to excoriate Arbcom in the past (and Giano commiserated with me on one occasion), and now I feel I must rise in defence of Giano for exercising this right, even though in this instance he is on the opposite side from me. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - alot of people were upset regarding the recently closed case and some venting is understandable. Right now, my sense was that folks were taking a breather and reflecting. There is alot of context behind alot of the feelings expressed recently and just listening and not jumping to sanctions I think is prudent. I won't opine on this conclusively as am an arb...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WOW! What a blast from the past! Almost makes me feel nostalgic. What's next? Complaints about Betacommand, Eric Corbett or Captain Occam? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive POV editing

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) HornerAfrican15 indefinitely blocked by Ymblanter for WP:NOTHERE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user @HornerAfrican15: has been repeatedly edit warring in Horn of Africa and vandalizing the page, constantly removing Somaliland without any plausible explanation and pushing a nationalistic POV. Both @Jacob300: and I tried warning him as shown here. I have also tried to contact him and engage him on the talk page as shown here however so far my attempts and the attempts of other users have been futile.

    Here are the diffs of his disruptive edits:

    1. Here is where it all began. 2. 3. 4.

    In these four revisions you can see that this person is removing Somaliland for no reason and is pushing a nationalist point of view. After the fourth revision he/she suddenly changes their attitude and starts actively including Oromia region in Ethiopia, which even though it has a separatist militia still has not declared itself independent nor is it a de facto independent state. His/her argument is baseless since he/she is comparing apples to oranges.

    5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

    This, along with the fact that this person has referred to editors as "hypocrites" and "biased", accused me and other fellow editors of "corrupting pages", "pushing a tribal agenda" and corrupting "international facts" along with this person's passionate activism in the edit summaries should clearly display that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. This person has also constantly violated WP:3RR multiple times.

    Dabaqabad (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy edit summaries, Batman. Woodroar (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I indefblocked per WP:NOTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocked IP is back as Great Khaan

    Last time I made a report I was reprimanded for writing it too long, so I will try to put together report as short as possible. Few days ago I reported IP for extreme language and tone on the article Talk page, which resulted in blocking the IP. However, editor behind the IP immediately returned with the username Great Khaan, and resumed with more of the same - walls of ill-formatted text, full of statements like these, with lots of it in all caps:

    First post today:

    • What you are doing is pointless and will not pass. This is a Wikipedia editing, not a kindergarten.
    • and you continue again. you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)
    • The only place on the planet where that term does not exist (more precisely - the term has been ignored) is extreme-right historiography in Croatia.
    • And isn't it inappropriate for you to behave like a child whose toy has been taken away?
    • You mention the Bosnian Wikipedia non-stop, and when someone else mentions that YOU ARE ACCUSED OF VANDALISM THERE (also you are trying to implement it here, on the same article), then it is inappropriate. AGAIN DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONTRADCTIONS. (Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia)
    • Since you started talking about religious affiliation (again without the necessary knowledge) I will list several Orthodox churches and monasteries that Kosače built (Completely misconstrued, off topic, nationalistic)

    Second post today:

    • I warn you once again - this is not a courtroom. There is no place for lawyer manipulations here.
    • (I)n the articles you edited on Wikipedia, you referred to Flavius ​​Biondo (on the article Red Croatia). Despite the fact that he presented the information he copied from Dandolo (and Dandolo copied it from the Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin), you took it as relevant information. However, when the same Flavio Biondo mentions DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE, you ignore it, however, I have never put a comma at that article, nor referred to it in any way - things like these are norm every time editor attributes something to me!
    • once again confirms that you do not know what you are talking about.

    This is just a fraction from today.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI
     – The following boxed content was deleted in this revision and has been restored per WP:TPO guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, editor used a new IP: 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Santasa speaks untruths and half-truths. He took a sharp and intolerant attitude towards anyone who did not want to obey his biased editing. He has been accused of VANDALISM on the Bosnian Wikipedia and is now trying to divert attention from it. Since he made a series of claims based on personal views (which can be seen in the TP discussion "The Duchy of St. Sava"), he tried in this way, by manipulation, to achieve some result. Whoever sees this should first look at the talk pages and see what it is about. Now he is trying to make a trial here and divert attention from his activities and biases. I proved on TP Duchy of Saint Sava that he does not know the topic he wants to write about well enough. And he perceives every correction as enmity despite the fact that they are supported by historical sources of the first and second order, as well as scientific papers. He is not interested in the truth AND approaches editing Wikipedia too personally.

    As for the article "Red Croatia", the editors who edit the article Duchy of Saint Sava also edit Red Croatia. I saw the same names on both articles. I explained the whole problem around that article on TP Duchy of Saint Sava pointing out the inadmissible practice of DOUBLE STANDARDS. My desire is to improve Wikipedia as much as possible. With double standards, that is very difficult. BTW What I said can be seen in the article"s editing history. Few of them argue from the same positions on the article Duchy of Saint Sava. I can't always know who I'm talking to. It's like talking to the same person.

    What I have noticed is that the same editors always appear on problematic articles. in this regard this stand my remarks on DOUBLE STANDARDS. All this needs to be examined.

    If necessary, next time I will quote his inappropriate behavior more thoroughly. It will take more time to prepare it all. It would also be good to observe the TP discussion. Santana will not accept the arguments. The discussion always returns to the starting point trying to make it meaningless which can easily be seen from the very course of the TP discussion. No need to retell it here. Whoever is interested can look there. They are not interested in arguments at all. Even the books they refer to "speak" against their claims. Also, Santasa99 resents me when I quote quotes from Google books (although he does the same) and then he is bothered by photos of paper books.

    P.S. One example of not telling the truth. Santasa says: "Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia"

    I am quoting his accusation addressed to me (which is incorrect as can be verified by comparing IP addresses). Santasa wrote (14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)):

    "You are probably AnToni, which, if true, means that you are an admin of one of the WMF's project, namely Wikipedia in Bosnian language. That would put you in a position where you should know better how to keep decorum and personal conduct at tolerable minimum."

    "since your first sudden appearance in English lang. wikipedia few days ago (after dispute at Bosnian language wikipedia)" (15:09, 29 March 2021 )


    On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to his inappropriate tone and belittling of respected scientists. - Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić - they analyzing old cartography in "THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE UNA REGION FROM THE 17th TO THE 20th CENTURY ACCORDING TO ORIGINAL CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL"

    He quotes books (cheripicking) that he has not read and when those books confirm my claims then he gets angry. And then it starts discrediting writers and scientists. When he receives a warning about his contradictory behavior he pretends that nothing happened.

    This is only a small part.

    Great Khaan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I really hope that someone is going to put an end to this (latest) kind of abuse of Talk page, aspersions and targeted wp:harassment, (U)ntil I started corresponding with you, I had no idea that people with prejudices could degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, so much. I am glad to contribute to solving this problem., commenting on my report with Is that your tactic? Choking discussion with procedural issues, attempting to intimidate by reporting to the administrator?, by a sock 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs)-Great Khaan (talk · contribs), who has not put a one letter or comma into article space except four initial reverts without explanations as IP. After article got protected on my request same IP continued on TP, but as soon as IP range got blocked on my request (ANI linked above), they appeared as Great Khaan. No editor shouldn’t be put through the ordeal, and I haven't even respond let alone provoked them in any way - I asked once for more consideration with enormous ill-formatted posts, however, of 66 edits on TP as Great Khaan and 19 as IP in last fourteen days almost all came behind my reply-posts to other editors, completely choking my discussions with walls of text containing diatribes that are one step from insults. Actually, some are personal insults (you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Santasa99 stifles the debate. He is unable to accept evidence to refute his claims. I am asking for the supervision of that article (more precisely, article and TP discussion) to assess the situation.

    He cannot answer me with arguments and tries to make this TP discussion a problematic "case". What he is doing there is an insult to the logic. There is no source, scientific study (not even the ones he quoted and probably didn't even read) that will convince him that he is wrong.

    I said in my previous post that he brought out a series of untruths and half-truths. He blames me for no reason for everything (btw he is,also, accused of vandalizing this article in other languages). Administrators must ask themselves why he is behaving this way. This is not about editing Wikipedia. This is obviously not about science, but about personal prejudices that he publishes on Wikipedia. He selectively quotes literature (cherry-picking) and when I prove to him by argument that he is mistaken, he gets angry. I suppose, he expects you to solve a problem he made himself.

    He provokes with his ignoring all the facts that speak against his claim. He belittles all dissenters. He is bothered by quoting Google books, he is bothered by photos of ordinary books. This situation must be clarified. I post relevant historical sources and literature. He provoked a slightly sharper discussion by belittling highly esteemed names in the world of science. The reason - their scientific work does not agree with his view of the world.

    And now he’s complaining trying to blame me for everything. If you pay attention, he has had conflicts with others before. He presents some conspiracy theories: tells me I'm an editor from another Wikipedia. He mentions various names of these editors, etc. If it’s not an insult and a malicious accusation I don’t know what is?

    It is very important to make an assessment of the conversation on the talk page as well as the arguments. In this way (With these complaints to administrators) he is trying to prevent me from giving my contribution because I have started to expose double standards.

    He despises all the highly regarded scientists I quote. Only for one reason because they do not support his delusions.This guy talks about things and events that he doesn't know enough about. on the other hand, He is probably trying to play the card - that he is very experienced on Wikipedia and will try to stop me from contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia with procedural issues. Since there are no arguments, he has no choice but to try this. I find it very bad to constantly complain about everything.

    I think the misuse of these reports should be prevented.

    Great Khaan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clear the air, I am not the only editor there who object their persistent abuse of the process and complete disregard for policies. These persistent misconstrue of words or actions is norm in their discussion.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Whoever looks at the debate there will understand what is happening. I'm posting arguments you're insulting scientists. As for the others you mention, the 2-3 editors from the controversial Croatian Wikipedia are participating there. I have pointed out double standards and a selective approach to editing articles. I have posted an abundance of unbiased sources and scientific studies from around the world, I have even quoted the scientific papers you have cited. And after that you started complaint. It is obvious what is happening here. It's your way of trying to censor the truth. I will continue to publish historical sources from all over Europe as well as scientific papers from all over the world.

    https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/

    Great Khaan (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point Great Khaan trying to solicit support for this ANI on the article Talk page [83]--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption on Wikidata by Santasa 99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duchy_of_St_Sava#Disruption_on_Wikidata Great Khaan (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken It's not. Didn't I get a message from you to discuss with you on your page? I don't get it. Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)
    That was part of the DS Alert. I did not write it, it's part of the text of the alert. And, for that matter, you didn't discuss the alert or what Discretionary Sanctions means for you, you just pointed me to the dispute with Santasa99, which is not relevant to why you received the alert. I gave you the alert simply because you have edited in the DS subject area of the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken It would be good to warn the user Santasa99 not to abuse the possibility of appeal. In case there are no arguments, he complains (as far as I have noticed, this is a common case here). In this way he tries to enforce censorship. Doesn't anyone see that? I did not know that there was a possibility of appeal, nor was I interested in that possibility. It's hilarious. But Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand.
    P.S. I deal with facts, not complaints. ::Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)
    OK, here are some facts:
    • (1) Anyone can place a DS Alert on an editor's talk page, not just an admin.
    • (2) I am not an admin, never have been, never will be.
    • (3) I am not interested in becoming involved in your dispute with Santasa99, so I will not be warning them about anything, even if such a warning was justified, which I'm not sure it is.
    • (4) However, that being said, I see no "abuse" of the "possibility of appeal" by Santas99.
    • (5) On the other hand, your edits on this page have been very aggressive, which is odd for a brand-new editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
    • (6) That leads me to think that it's possible that Santasa99's complaint about you being a previously blocked IP might have validity.
    • (7) I see no "censorship"; please read WP:FREESPEECH, which basically says that you have no right of free speech on Wikipedia, which is a private website.
    • (8) Your expressed philosophy "Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand" looks to be to be in violation of our WP:Civility policy, and if not, is certainly contradictory to the Wikipedia philosophy.
    • (9) I am asking you not to ping me again. I am aware of this discussion and will come to it when I wish to, not at your beck and call.
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Geez Mindhack

    Geez Mindhack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was registered today at 17:30 (UTC) and immediately began editing in opposition to Huldra across a range of articles, with all of the users edits so far being reversions of Huldra or edits immediately following hers or challenges to her on talk pages. Several of them include personal attacks in the edit summaries (eg here and here) All of the users article edits are also violations of the 50/300 rule for ARBPIA, but as this seems pretty clearly to be a case of an account created for the sole purpose of hounding another user I think it would be useful to skip the part of figuring out what the past account is and blocking per WP:NOTHERE. nableezy - 18:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the account, it was obviously created to pester Huldra while avoiding scrutiny (or avoiding a block, not sure which) in the ARBPIA topic area. Their talk page comments can be reversed if they're disruptive, but be careful before reverting article edits; in several cases they did fix the grammar caused by Huldra's edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have taken said care. nableezy - 20:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, User:Floquenbeam, and User:Nableezy; Umm, yeah, I'll try to be a bit more careful in the future, eg not leaving "1948" in the sentence when I change to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Must say I'm pretty flattered have such fans though, going through my every edit, ;) Huldra (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring and Canvassing on Black panther

    Alright,

    1. User:Ddum5347 has been edit-warring on numerous pages about Animals. He has been ignoring consensus, and as a result, has received six blocks. Today, there was an edit war going on at Black panther. It took multiple reverts, but he finally started a discussion on the talk page.

    2. User:BhagyaMani has also been edit-warring on the Black panther page. As soon as the discussion was opened up, they sent me a message on my talk page telling me to not accept any pending changes by Ddum5347, or basically goading me into abusing my power as a pending changes reviewer in a content dispute.

    This is my first report at ANI, so please tell me if this is a bad report or not a violation of policy.

    Noah 💬 19:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: #2. I can't see how a message trying to acquaint you with an ongoing situation is canvassing. Unfortunately Ddum has a history of edit warring over poor edits and ignoring advice to seek consensus. It's frustrating because Ddum also makes many good edits that benefit Wikepedia. There have been many discussions along these lines. I want Ddum to continue as an editor, but the phrase being one's worst enemy comes to mind. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your patience is commendable, Donald Albury!! I've been working on and added most of the content with refs to the black panther page since 2013, see here. A black leopard has never been recorded in *Europe, European Russia, Eurasia*, which I also stated in my edit summaries when reverting links to *..* added to this page by Ddum5347. S/he has been notified multiple times on other pages about either leopard main- or subpages that adding links to any of the 3 *..* regions is erroneous, and s/he never provided a reliable source that would justify such links. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually read the post that I linked on the talk page, you would understand why I made the edit. But you have continuously ignored my justification, even though we have discussed this matter before and I linked sources. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ddum5347: Are you saying in the above post that if your points are not accepted on the talk page and are, in your eyes, ignored that justifies then going ahead with reverting an edit? DeCausa (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ddum5347 has had problematic editing for a while. They were at ANI a month ago, same issues. (The account is less than a year old.) BRD doesn’t come naturally and seems to often be dubious about the benefits of discussion, hence asides like this and this. If you look at their contribs the editing is at speed and i think a major part of the problem is not enough time is spent thinking about what they’re doing, which ends up as hitting the revert button. If they undertook to have minimum time gaps (30 mins say) between edits I wonder if a lot of problems would be solved. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have much to add, but I have gotten involved in this ongoing saga a time or two (or a dozen). Ddum is mostly good when they're focusing on grammar, not so good on much else, and they edit very, very fast. I sometimes find my watchlist flooded with changes by them and I only watch the cats articles.
    The repeated edit-warring on several different topics is troubling, however. I have had hopes for some time now that Ddum would adjust to Wikipedia and get better, but I also doubt, unfortunately.
    Moreover, I would like to state that everyone needs to remain calm and polite in this conversation; while the repeated incidents have sorely tried everyone's temper, heated words will not help. And please use proper grammar and spelling, it is more clear and respectful that way. Good editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Ddum indefinitely; if an admin reviews an unblock request and can come up with a reasonable way to ensure this will stop, they can unblock without talking to me first. If that can't be worked out, then Ddum is a timesink for other, non-edit-warring editors. This stopped being a don't bite the newbies issue about 4 blocks ago. I'll look at whether any other actions for someone else are needed in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @BhagyaMani:, you broke 3RR too. I'm not issuing a block, mostly because a look at your talk page history doesn't show a history of doing this, and I don't want to mess up a clean 13 year block log for what looks like a one-off mistake, but the same goes for you: there is no right to exceed 3RR because you think you're right. Keep it in mind please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ddum537 is now editing while logged out at 36.77.93.225. Should probably block. Noah 💬 23:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the activity on 36.77.93.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have nothing to do with Ddum, like current events, which the IP was doing prior to and after DDum's block and the edits to the Black Panther article. Not convinced it's them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ModernMan99

    ModernMan99 (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs - plenty of warnings on their talk page from a number of editors, and I blocked them for it a few days ago. They returned today making more unsourced edits. The difference here is the misleading edit summary, which implies that a source is present - but when you actually read the website mentioned in the edit summary, it doesn't mention the information at all. Bringing it here for wider consideration. GiantSnowman 20:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them for a week and tried to explain what they are doing wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks! GiantSnowman 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Michigan–Michigan State men's basketball rivalry

    More eyes on this, please. A long-running feud between multiple accounts; add content, revert content, call out the other editor, repeat. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned two accounts and locked the page for a week. Please open a discussion on the talk page. Fences&Windows 23:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Fences and windows. It was brought to the talk page, a compromise seemed to have been reached, and it was broken by the registered account. Hence the continuation. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-transgender editing and edit summaries

    Fiatearther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: might be worth removing TPA as he is leaving defamatory comments on there! Tommi1986 let's talk! 02:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zot2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it highly amusing that they're trying to thank Crossroads for "fighting against these trans activists" when they're just removing socked edits. Does WP:NONAZIS cover transphobes and homophobes? Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 10:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COI on Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia

    I have twice reverted User_talk:Shutehaven who is keen to make reference to their published theories on the Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia page. I have welcomed them and also tried to alert them to the concept of COI. Their account appears to exist for only for writing on this topic. I must stress that the writer’s opinions have been published in two short articles in serious journals. I have added reference to these to the Dieppe Maps page but I am concerned the writer’s enthusiasm for self promotion and unwillingness to engage with the concept of COI will end up creating undue weight in the Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia, despite the fact they seem well intended. Could some unconnected admin have a look and perhaps explain policy to User_talk:Shutehaven? Nickm57 (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He's disclosed his COI and it's not part of a dispute or a financial COI, so we don't need a nuclear option. WP:SELFCITE allows self-citing if it's reliable and relevant, which this seems to be, and he's discussing on the talk page. I think you can work with him to include this material in some form. Fences&Windows 22:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SauravKumeriya

    SauravKumeriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a promo-only account who has reverted[84] my blanking of his promotional userpage.

    Please can some admin take appropriate WP:NOTHERE action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @BrownHairedGirl: I've undone your edit and tagged the page with CSD G11. Don't blank pages, just hit them with a CSD next time. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Xprincessarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting copyrighted lyrics multiple times (yust some examples, contributions list contains more) despite being told muliple times to stop. IMO a block is in order, so they can familarisize themselves with copyright rules. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Had been already reported and now blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That account also tried editing your user and talk pages ([85]). The abuse log for that also has some copyright-infringing material, despite the edit not actually going through. (Sorry if that's not important; I was just poking around and saw that. Not sure if it gets deleted automatically or not.) 2600:8803:9A00:D02:ADD9:7ECF:9C56:139 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like those edits went through. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 10:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is Special:AbuseLog/29496561 is still public, has the full text of a news article, and is linked on that user's logs. I don't know if that stays public forever by default. 2600:8803:9A00:D02:ADD9:7ECF:9C56:139 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdel doesn't work, but oversight does; since I'm an oversighter I just did that, copyright violations are oversightable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All Saints Church, Gainsborough

    Sorry just a small request for help, could someone take a look at and fix the broken infobox on the article please. I can't seem to fix it. CheersRailwayJG (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, there was a single missing square bracket hiding in there! ~ mazca talk 13:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RailwayJG: This tip is more WP:TEAHOUSE than ANI, but anyway. Comment out the innards of the infobox using <!-- -->, then move those markers down or up a little at a time, previewing as you go. When the infobox breaks again, you've located the error. Narky Blert (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor creating sock account to avoid Paid editing disclosure

    I was not sure which noticeboard to post this as it falls between two stools (Undisclosed paid editing and abusing multiple accounts). If this is the wrong place, then I can only apologise and learn from the mistake. But here goes anyway.

    Accounts:

    Hooising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    SOPHIASONGPANDA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hooising started editing on the 7th Feb 2021. All of their edits fall into one of three types.

    1. Changing any reference to the old company name of Agilent technologies to the new company, Keysight technologies.
    2. Adding spam links for (what I suspect is) their company, Keysight technologies. Often in the form of an in-line URL within an article but nearly always for a particular product rather than any specific claim.
    3. Changing an existing reference to one that points to Keysight's advertising website (often removing any actual support to the claim(s) made).

    No edit that does not involve Keysight has been made.

    Suspecting paid advocacy and as the editor is relatively new, I added a comprehensive note to Hooising's talk page about undisclosed paid editing with reasonably comprehensive advice on how to comply with the Ts&Cs. That note can read here.

    No declaration or response has been made. However, following my post, a new account, SOPHIASONGPANDA was created and has carried on making direct edits on behalf of Keysight technologies that fall into the three types outlined above.

    The suspicion is all the more obvious because of the reference to 'sing' and 'song' in the account names.

    Both accounts have been notified of this referral (or they will be once this is posted) CliveDunford (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I indef blocked Hooising, they were spamming the Keysight website. User:SOPHIASONGPANDA might be the same user, but I'm not sure. The edits are to change the name from Agilent to Keysight, so this is possibly another person but given a similar task. I've left a notice about paid editing. Fences&Windows 22:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure it's meat, both UPE (can't disclose on-wiki how I know). They're a big company, so presumably they have a large marketting department. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    By the looks of it, both accounts have the task of updating external hyperlinks to point to the right portion of the company's WWW site. Hooising lacked competence and mucked things up, some of which I have just cleaned up or reverted. SOPHIASONGPANDA seems to be someone else brought in who actually knows how to edit a wiki, and doesn't, at least after a quick review, seem to be doing more than adjusting external hyperlinks that are already there but wrong, as ironically discussed by another editor entirely at Special:Diff/834103883. Edit summaries like Special:Diff/1015010159 are quite clear, so I don't think that we can complain that the competent editor is not being up-front about what is being done. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP prolifically adding inapropriate categories

    109.255.38.231 (talk · contribs) is busy adding articles to inappropriate categories, and has not responded to warnings on their talkpage from me and from @Number 57 and from Binksternet.

    Please can some admin intervene? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for some time, and it is not the only IP they had edited from; they have previously used 86.42.31.72 (talk · contribs). Number 57 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them for a week, they didn't listen to many warnings. Some of their categories are verifiable, but often not verified in the article and they're sometimes plain wrong. Fences&Windows 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And 86.42.31.72, clearly the same user. They've been going since December on at least these two IPs, that's some trail they've left. Fences&Windows 22:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant live editing by User:Sami baladi

    This has been going on since October 2020: they continue to do one of two things: updating footballers' statistics without updating the date, or updating the statistics while the game is going on (violating WP:LIVESCORES). Multiple people have tried telling them to stop, to no avail. Whether they are purposely going against the messages on their talk page, or just choose not to read them, something should be done. Nehme1499 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP edit warrior has returned

    This IP edit warrior is right back at it at not only 2019 World Figure Skating Championships but also Mariah Bell, almost immediately after expiration of the previous rangeblock on this range. Requesting a re-block and/or page semiprotection (minimum 1-2 weeks).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shravan Gupta

    Persistent back-and-forth between those who want to give undue coverage to legal troubles, and those wishing to whitewash the article. I've issued a final warning to an account engaged in the latter. Needs more attention and perhaps page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agastya11 (talk · contribs) has been here since 24 July 2020 and have over 2,000 edits. During this period, they have been warned dozens of times, made aware of discretionary sanctions in the IPA area, and despite all of this still continue to regularly violate a range of policies and guidelines.

    Diffs of issues for which they were warned, in the last month alone.

    One of the most concerning and overlooked aspect of their pattern of editing is however that they don't seem to be understand copyright. From their additions to articles within the last few days that I checked, I could find two major instances of copyright violations on N. V. Ramana and Arvind Sawant respectively. There is likely to be many more copyright issues going by the pattern of their other violations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, blocking indefinitely. This has gone on for far too long. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are either of you able to file a case request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? I can, if you'd like or are unable to. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and removal of sources by User:82.16.238.5

    This anonymous user appears to be very persistent in edit warring on the Edge article which includes unexplained removal of a valid source. The IP does not discuss when contested. I cannot identify any possible block evasion by an already blocked user, so looks to be purely anonymous. Both the IPv4 and the IPv6 range appear to be run by the same person, based on behavior and Geolocation. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you'll need to paste this section (less this post) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Page move

    SteveBrownIreland (talk · contribs) has moved the page Violent Thing to Worst Song Ever, in what I can only assume is an attempt at humour or poss April Fool's joke. The humourless git that I am, I tried to roll back the move but couldn't, and didn't want to move the article again in case that creates more problems than it solves, not without checking here first at least. Any advice? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved it back without a redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shoot, is it April Fools' Day already? Can't we shut down en.wiki for April 1st? This will be my 15th one and it's gotten to be pretty damn boring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even on 1 April vandalism in article namespace is not allowed. I looked at their contributions, and the last several ones are indeed not good, but others seem to be ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1015398268"