Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.181.0.242 (talk) at 17:34, 2 April 2021 (→Back to the topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    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]

    User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 15:50, 2 April 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]

    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" [5]. 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 [6] Requesting block
    • Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this The first interaction was [7] where I was accused of vandalism. I think that qualifies as an act of aggression.
    • I have been quite polite [8]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 [9] and repeatedly restore the personal attack [10] and [11] 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 [12]. 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 [13] 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)

    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. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. 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]

    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 [19] [20] 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 [21], 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." [22]
    • 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..." [23]
    • 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!" [24] (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." [25] 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." [26]
    • 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." [27] [28]
    • 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..." [29]
    • 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." [30]
    • Mar 27 00:29: "What passes for Arbs these days, will realise, if and when they grow up..." [31]
    • 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." [32] Arb bradv removed this comment. Giano restored it, twice.
    • Mar 27 21:00, posted the same comment again [33]. 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." [34]
    • 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." [35]
    • Mar 27 21:06, posted the same "utterly vile, miserable, lacklustre cohort of inadequates and unfortunates" comment againt [36]
    • 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." [37]
    • 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." [38]
    • 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." [39]
    • 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." [40]
    • 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." [41]

    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 [42]--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]
    Beyond My Ken As for ping - like I said, I'm new here. I need time to understand all the wiki terminology.
    I would like you to read this carefully but not to misunderstand. I don't know if I'm asking a lot? Aggr. are biased claims and accusations (5 and 6 + Canv.). You have an a priori hostile attitude towards me even though I am new here. You need to look at Santana99 aggressiveness on the TP . A whole new level of aggression.
    I post the facts and when he saw that he was wrong, he started with "wiki-data disruption" →→(it was not me who noticed it but other editors)and he is trying to divert attention from his illegal activities with unfounded complaints←← (i.e. tries to make a "case" here). I have already proved that he is lying (this is the right word) when he said that he never mentioned the Bosnian Wikipedia (there are quotes above) which he tried to vandalize. And no, no one ever blocked me. I don't know what you're talking about. And as far as I can see, Santana99 blocks opponents when he has no other arguments. He acts from covert extremist positions (this is the right word). And he deals with some conspiracy theories while at the same time accusing others of it. I see that he has already had conflicts with other editors and that he even accused me (at the above-mentioned TP ) of being two or three of those editors. Hilarious. It's all easy to check. Conspiracy theories are always easier than thinking with your own head. And if aggression is →→insisting on scientifically based facts←← - wouldn't it be better for all of us to be more aggressive because those who place various conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and wider false news (like Santana99 and co.) do so very aggressively? We get tired of unimportant things and procedures while the world disappears in a sea of false news and claims. Pseudo-science, charlatans and extremists (left and right) are taking over the world.
    →→Important NOTE←←
    If I am ag., as you say, because I am →→fighting for scientifically based facts←← and I do not allow myself to be intimidated by any threats then I do not know where this world is going. Are sycophants a desirable type of person? I have never been and never will be like that. I am not able to pretend and act like Santasa99.
    The CONCLUSION would be (and you correct me if I'm wrong): is it enough for someone to understand the procedure well (and abuse it) and to be right regardless of the fact that his claims have nothing to do with the truth? Aside from the fact that he is very, very aggressive (Santasa99 and co.).
    As for you personally, if it's easier for you to block me by uncritically accepting Santana99 claims - feel free to do so. I will not be at a loss. I will save myself a lot of time that I have dedicated to editing Wikipedia.
    →→Important NOTE←←
    As for my "way of writing", I speak several languages ​​(and I use few classical ones). English is just one of them. And not the first language. Language determines the way we think and act. In my native language, things are called by their real names. I probably pass (subconsciously) those habits on to the foreign languages ​​I use. Besides, this is not malicious. I think it can be healing for everyone to understand that the world will be a much better place if people stop being hypocrites and sycophants.
    If I'm not "suitable" for you (EW), then aggressive manipulators like Santana99 (and his co.) are the right guys for EW. In that case, this is not the place for me. So I have no problem with that. Wikipedia has a problem. Santasa99 has been editing Wikipedia from covert extremist positions for several years (with the support of editors who switched from the very NOTORIOUS Croatian Wikipedia to EW and none of you /administrators/ have noticed.
    THEN, HE IS A CHAMPION. He can laugh in our faces. I can only tell him - well done master. Great Khaan (talk) 14:02 01 April 2021 (UTC)
    Users latest ping, following my attempt to communicate with other editors (I refused to communicate with them from the beginning) is to inform me that: You will not pass falsification and aggression (practice from the Croatian Wikipedia). Just one look at the →→historical sources and literature that I publish is enough for any impartial observer to see that you are wrong←←. You are acting from an extreme right-wing position., and that they are going to continue "to publish the source" on TP, which is at this point almost unusable, as being completely overwhelmed by long posts with diatribes, such as here on ANI above, and even longer lists of irrelevant links of scraped key-words and key-phrases from the Internet and Google Books, which they believe are exactly what RS are all about.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:01, 2 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[43] 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 ([44]). 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]

    My answer to question: Editor creating sock account to avoid Paid editing disclosure

    Hello, Team, First of all, thanks for your questions and great suggestions! My name is Sophia SONG. SONG is my family name. I am a newcomer here. I setup my account 7 days ago (March 26,2021). I am not a paid contribution. I am an employee of Keysight Technologies. I try to clean up broken links and redirect links due to website migration starting from March, 2021. Our goal is to improve users' experience on Wikipedia and make sure all links are valid to avoid customer dissatifaction.

    Another reason is that Keysight was spun off from Agilent Technologies in 2014. Agilent does not offer or support any test and measurement equipments and softwares anymore, those went with Keysight when the company split. That's why we change Agilent to Keysight to avoid misleading our readers. You can see a sample page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_integrity There are a lot of PDF files here on this page should be updated and a couple of dead links need to be fixed.

    Thanks again for your time and help to reveiw my edits. I will try my best to follow all related guidelines. Sophia SONG SOPHIASONGPANDA (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • SOPHIASONGPANDA As noted on your user page, if you are making edits related to your employer, you are a paid editor and must disclose it. You don't have to be specifically paid for your edits to be a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • People will no doubt explain at length that if marketing and dealing with "customers" is your job then you very much are being paid to edit Wikipedia. I think that Fences&Windows has made the right decision with respect to both of these accounts. This account is in your own name, and you must treat it as your own. If you do things like let anyone other than yourself use it, or start doing company things that are more than fixing link-rot, you will get into hot water; and it will be publicly associated with your name for a long time. I hope that editors will help you to make an appropriate disclosure on your user page. Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to provide some closure: as this is a new editor, I have added a comprehensive note of advice on how to comply with the paid editing requirements on SOPHIASONGPANDA's talk page. CliveDunford (talk) 13:38, 1 April 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]

    @Vaticidalprophet: What do you think the best course of action is in this case? Nehme1499 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not reading talk page messages is not an excuse for continued disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 13:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) When mobile editors are blocked, do they see block reasons? If they do it might be worth blocking them to let them know to check their talk page with a link to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nehme1499: Increasingly, I suspect "indef every mobile editor on sight until the WMF starts paying attention". Vaticidalprophet 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the fact that the user very likely is unaware of their messages on their talk page (they're probably unaware of even having a talk page; to be honest on my phone I always see a red icon indicating a notification, but ok). However, as GS says, if we just turn a blind eye in the name of assuming good faith, nothing will change, and editors will keep on having to clean up after the (voluntary or not) mess. Nehme1499 20:49, 1 April 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]
    Done, thanks for showing me the CCI process. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:55, 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]

    Not following notability guidelines due to COI

    OP has dropped their complaint, stating that they "should not have brought it here". Feel free to re-report if behavioral problems continue. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to report this user Msp7com for moving some WP:TOOSOON articles back into mainspace. I am an AFC reviewer and I moved these two [45][46] into draftspace because both of these politicians clearly fails NPOL and does not have enough sigcov. They may become notable if they wins and becomes an MLA in the upcoming 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election. So I moved these two into draftspace with a hope that they may pass NPOL within a month. But it seems that this user has no idea about our notability guidelines about politicians as they moved these two back to mainspace by saying these [47] [48]. I already notified this user regarding this. But they are not replying. It is also evident that this user has COI towards Indian Union Muslim League related articles. See this [49]. They also moved this article [50] against consensus. See this [51] talk page discussion. This user has been also warned several times for disrutpive editing and was also blocked once. So I request for an immediate administrative intervention to take necessary action against them and move these two articles back into draftspace as I dont want to engage in an edit war. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 11:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the moves, Kashmorwiki, WP:DRAFTIFY says Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. I think the creator moving them back to mainspace registers as "an objection". You can nominate the articles at WP:AFD. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Schazjmd: AFC is an optional and voluntary process; every autoconfirmed user is allowed (without penalty or repercussions or even anyone complaining) to just create an article in the mainspace. I've done it many times myself. It is not disruptive to put an article you create in the main space. So, that's a non-starter. The process for finding a inappropriate article in the mainspace is to nominated it for deletion, we have three deletion processes, WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD. I am actually shocked and surprised that you, Kashmorwiki, did not know all of this already and that you are reviewing articles without even a basic knowledge of Wikipedia processes. --Jayron32 15:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, I dont know on the basis of what you are saying I dont have any knowledge about WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD. You can verify my knowlege by checking my log. (Just see my AFD log here [52] ) First of all, please try to understand what Im actually trying to convey. The thing is that, I do not want these articles to get deleted as there are high chances these subjects will become notable within a month. So why should we just delete it now instead of moving it into draftspace and incubate. This is actually one of the basic steps in new page reviewing process. Very TOOSOON articles are generally moved into draftspace. Thats what I just said here. I also request you to go through the complete edit history of this user first. I havent said this user did some disruptive editing this time. What I said was they have been warned in the past by other users (basically for copyright violation and Im sorry if I used the term disruptive) and have high amount of COI with a particular topic. This is actually what I said here. So its ok for you and others to say that I should not have brought this discussion here and I totally agree. But saying the things like I do not have any idea about CSD, PROD and AFD cannot be accepted. Most of my time here have been spent on AFD. And do you think an admin will make me a member of Wikiproject AFC without even knowing these basics? Pleaae dont tell things like this. It really hurts you know, when someone totally ignores your contributions here and says that you have no idea about what you are doing. That is just happening here and Im worried. Im sorry if I became emotional. Nothing personal against you. This is just because I'm really worried and shocked by your comment against me.Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget it. You're right and I'm wrong. What do you want me to do for you? --Jayron32 18:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, both of us has made mistakes and nobody is perfect here. First of all, I should not have brought it here. Thats the mistake I made. Anyway, I had done the necessary steps after the advice you give.Thankyou so much for spenting some your time with me. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ongoing unsourced/problematic edits by Tastypotato0932

    Tastypotato0932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Despite a plethora of warnings on their talk page for repeated unsourced edits, Tastypotato0932 completely ignores them and continues unabated as can be seen in their latest range of edits. I've rarely come across a talk page where so many warnings have been issued and though they have had a single 24 hour block, they totally ignore these warnings. As such, I have not bothered to issue one for these latest edits. This editor desperately needs a severe reminder that ignoring warnings, lack of communication and continuing with their highly disruptive edits come with consequences. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thanks. Robvanvee 09:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated warnings, a 24 hour block, and absolutely no effort at communicating with anyone... yeah, that's grounds for an indefinite block. Any unblock would be contingent on showing understanding of how to properly source material, maybe this will finally get the user's attention. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blade. Robvanvee 14:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Äggpizza

    Äggpizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user rapidly reverting edits, without explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

    accusatory, slanderous edit summary?

    I'm not sure which guideline or policy is relevant here, but is this sort of edit summary by Honey-badger24 (talk · contribs) beyond the pale? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Their edit is fine - the previous description of someone on the lam for child pornography as a "wayward Floridian" is itself obnoxious, but I've revdel'd the edit summary and left a note asking them to keep edit summaries to the point. Acroterion (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, it's the edit summary about which I was concerned, not the changing of my obnoxious contribution. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you should not use ridiculously flippant words when describing pedophiles? How did you even think it was a good thing to say???? "Slanderous" LOL. Grow up. Amazing how you care about words used when they refer to yourself, not when it's words you yourself used that were inappropriate. Cope harder. Honey-badger24 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    [57] Blocked for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Serols

    Currently generating more heat than light. IP editor, if your joke edit was reverted, please don't put it back. Serols, please don't call it "vandalism" when someone asks a good-faith question on your talk page. Let's all go do something else now. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 20:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I didn't want to have to come here in order to get what should be a simple and straightforward answer, but it seems I have to. Anyway, I made a small number of WP:APRILFOOLS edits today - all of them were properly tagged and, to the best of my knowledge, followed all of the guidelines. However, Serols reverted three of them (the only three that were still standing live at the time) with a generic edit summary, and then gave me three vandalism warnings on my talk page [58] [59] [60]. Since I believe that all of my Fools edits were within guidelines, I removed these warnings [61]. I then proceeded to leave a message on Serols' talk page, asking why they had given me vandalism warnings for clearly-marked April Fools edits [62], which they subsequently reverted using the same or a very similar generic nondescript edit summary [63]. I restored my question, since I expect an answer [64], which they reverted again [65] and then proceeded to give me a "final warning" for vandalism [66]. To avoid edit warring, I am now bringing this matter here for further review/attention.

    Please note that I am not seeking sanctions against Serols, other than maybe an admonishment for misuse of the term "vandalism". I am however seeking a response to my question about why they warned me for clearly-marked Fools edits. If by some chance any of my Fools edits were in violation of guidelines, I'm willing to accept that and I don't plan on doing any more, though I believe they were all within guidelines. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just curious but did you read WP:FOOLR? Making jokes at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention isn't going to be seen as funny. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, and I don't see where on that page it says that UAA is off limits. In fact, the user who reverted that one indicated in their edit summary that they were reverting purely to avoid clogging up the admin page, and that edit even got logged in the yearly log. I interpreted that to mean that at least someone found it worthwhile enough to preserve in the log. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, the people editing the yearly log are the people making the April Fool's jokes, not the ones cleaning up after them. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where on that page it says that UAA is off limits It specifically says that only the Main Page is exempt from rules No 1. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will propose an addition to the rules then that specifically prohibits people from making jokes on admin pages. They already have enough to deal with as it is and won't find this stuff funny on pages they monitor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we get rid of this silly tradition which is more hassle than it's worth? M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I am all for editors having fun once a year if it can be done the right way. Most editors have abided by the rules and just make or comment on joke deletion pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton:, which proves what exactly? Rule 1 states: All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the "article", "help", "talk", and "help talk" namespaces. Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace, will be treated as vandalism. Depending on the nature, you risk having your account possibly blocked from editing. which says nothing about UAA Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor's silly jokes disrupt the project and administrative processes, then they're disruptive regardless of the day they are made. Humour is allowed, within reason, but common sense is required.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have also been reported to AIV. I guess you will have your answer when an admin takes that on. The whole point of vandalism warnings is to initiate a conversation so that the editor has a chance to turn productive. So, I find myself agreeing with you that you deserved an answer. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like an admin removed the AIV report. Regarding rule 1 that was mentioned above, project space is specifically not listed as a prohibited namespace. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying but.... if you want your joke to be noticed and appreciated then try making comments on joke AfDs. The only people who are going to notice "jokes" on redirect or admin pages are going to be unamused editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an unwritten expectation that April Fool's jokes in project space will be made by established, registered editors from their registered account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: I'm sorry but telling an IP that its a "unwritten expectation" seems to mean its not a rule, which is not written down and therefore they had no way of knowing and therefore seems like quite a weak argument. Arguing that something was bad because it didn't abide by a non existent rule, only a unwritten expectation, seems quite unfair agains the IP. Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think WP:MOLEHILL applies (by the way, I *knew* User:Jehochman wrote that as soon as I read it. All the hallmarks.). Serols, don't call things vandalism when they aren't vandalism. 192.196.218.215, when you play the April Fools game, you're going to run into people with no sense of humor, particularly if you're making their lives more difficult. Please don't come running here when you run into a grump. FWIW, the {{COI}} template on WP:WPWP was funny (YMMV). Most of the rest, like the use of actual {{db}} tags on the sandbox, and the minor clogging of WP:UAA, not so much, as people had to actually clean up after it. In general, you want to avoid disrupting workflow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Floq, don't you get tired of making sense all the time? :D Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's awful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't come here because I ran into a grump. I came here because Serols refused (twice) to answer my question, and just reverted my question like it was vandalism. Even if the answer was as simple as "I didn't find them funny", my response would have been "just please don't revert edits as vandalism" or something similar. It is the deliberate refusal to even provide an answer that brings me here. Also, unwritten expectations are bad. If the expectation is that only registered users can do Fools edits, that needs to be documented in the rules. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe you could stop being a Wikipedia:Dick. A) Serols is not obliged to respond. B) Serols is not going to be reprimanded. C) If you want policy changed or clarified WP:VPP is thataway. MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Serols is obligated to respond, unless I'm misinterpreting that guideline. 192.196.218.215 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we just all walk away from this one? OP made some April Fool's jokes, not all appreciate it, no one wants to talk about it. This isn't worth any more of anyone's time, we aren't going to make Serols to issue an apology or whatever is desired here, and ultimately this isn't an intractable behavioural problem. It's just like every year at this time. I say everyone just go on about their day and regular editing, no sanctions, no warnings, no compelling anyone to do anything, just forget it and get back to encyclopaedic editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hear, hear. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Recreation of 2017 AfD?

    Going on holiday right now so don't have time to look into it, but Small country syndrome appears pretty much the same as what was deleted in 2017. Schwede66 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, so I deleted it. If anything, it's a slightly inferior copy of the original. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    Hello. User:FrontRoadGirls posted a prod on Comedian (artwork) with the message "In order to delete it, you need to buy it for $150,000". Obviously spam, I reverted. The editor then came to my talk page and called me a "B*TCH" for reverting their "April Fools joke." This editor is clearly not here for building an encyclopedia or working in conjunction with others. --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude, I tried to participate in the april fools day thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontRoadGirls (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    April Fool's Day jokes are supposed to be funny. This wasn't. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now a bad faith AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedian (artwork). MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about me editing Comedian, not something i am sincerly sorry for doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrontRoadGirls (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked indef, to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, that's funny. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New user leaving vulgar welcome messages

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

    Example - Note the text before the timestamp in their sig. That's the worst of the bunch. Most of them just say "fartcunt." Also, they're signing their talk page posts as "Muffturd." Squeakachu (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The offending User has been blocked indefinitely. Dolphin (t) 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Acousmana uncivil, rude, and not WP:AGF

    Acousmana (talk · contribs)

    Hi there. The user in question has used uncivil language when talking with others. They have also been accused of personal attacks and I believe they have been rude to others. Here is evidence:

    On the user's talk page:

    • Actual quote - "stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of consulting citations you have been provided with. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually".
    • Under User talk:Acousmana#May 2020, they reply with the somewhat rude comment You do know the English speaking world is not just America, right? to the good faith MrX.
    • Under User talk:Acousmana#January 2021, they reply with the uncivil comment using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something? to the good faith Walrus Ji.
    • Actual quote -"bombarding folk with notices like this rather than using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something?" Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Elsewhere:

    • [68] here, they use the terms plain stupid and Dumb. Uncivil language that doesn't help a discussion.
    • At Talk:PragerU, the user was questioned by a number of users for their response to a good faith statement from Hipal. The user said don't be so dramatic, a comment which they later put a line through.
    • Later at this talk page, under Talk:PragerU#Uneccisary Credits, they made the comments laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. and so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes.. While not uncivil or rude towards a particular editor, these comments aren't appropriate for a talk page and don't help the discussion in the slightest. EytanMelech then replies with Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them.

    I hope this is sufficient evidence for you to see a pattern of behaviour. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse a warning here: With the caveat that some of the content here is fairly stale, there is a pattern here that needs addressing. Acousmana, at a minimum these recurrent denigrating allusions to your rhetorical opposition feeling aroused need to stop absolutely immediately, as this sort of thing is easily taken to fall under the umbrella of harassment--and just plain weird and uncomfortable, to be frank. There are other additional notes of less than collaborative or respectful tone in the diffs as well. You seem to engage of largely contentious areas here, and if you are going to do so, I think you are going to run into problems if you can't moderate the heat-to-light ratio of some of your input. I wouldn't support a sanction at this juncture, but I think you're likely to end up back here if you can't augment your adoption of the considerations of WP:CIV a bit. Snow let's rap 02:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something should be done. A warning is probably sufficient but I wouldn't object to a tban. That said, I am involved in a number of topics where Acousmana has become active and we typically do not agree on content questions. Willbb234 noted an attack against me at one of those. "the extent of your willingness to delude yourself knows no bounds," Perhaps such a comment was said in frustration but on their talk page they denied it was a personal attack [[69]]. Perhaps Acousmana's view was changed when another editor called it a clear NPA violation. Such incivility makes constructive edits on challenging topics that much more difficult. Springee (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough, an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. But I find it odd that this editor has clearly gone out of their way to string together out of context material, and actually misquote and misrepresent in the process, this is in itself not AGF. The motivation here is to my mind questionable. But, if the community sees it fit place ban, so be it. Acousmana (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never misquoted you. As for misrepresentation, it would be inappropriate to copy and paste a whole comment or discussion onto ANI and the links to the discussions will suffice. This isn't misrepresentation. As for why I reported you here: I don't like seeing editors being uncivil and I will investigate even when it isn't directed at me and so I decided to gather some evidence. I don't see why this should be a problem. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. No, I have a real issue with the language you are using not just a problem with your tone. I also wouldn't like you to "dial it down"; I'd like you to stop altogether with being rude and uncivil. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User: WikiEditorial101

    WikiEditorial101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    In this edit and this edit, WikiEditorial101 removed "anti-Semitic" from the description of Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies, citing some rigamarole about Luther being "anti-Judaic and not antisemitic" because he was OK if Jews converted to Christianity.

    In this edit on my talk page, they said, about me:

    "But I do, however, have an opinion concerning you. I remember you. You're a Freemason who regularly polices various kinds of articles in service to your brotherhood."

    Normally, I would simply ask for a sanction for their violation of WP:NPA, but I think it's obvious -- in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS, if not the letter -- that this editor is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be indeffed before they can do more damage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. FWIW, I'm not a Freemason. I don't even own an apron. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to go into the content context. Our article said: "In modern terminology, therefore, Luther expresses an anti-Judaic rather than a racist antisemitic view", however, what the source said was "[...] one must be clear as to what [Luther] was recommending and why. His position was entirely religious and in no respect racial." So the source distinguishes between antipathy towards Jews based on religion, and antipathy towards Jews based on race, but it does not set up a dichotomy calling one "anti-Semitic" and the other not. They are both, in fact, forms of anti-Semitism.
    I have altered the text of our article to read "In modern terminology, therefore, Luther expresses an anti-Judaic antisemitic rather than a racist antisemitic viewpoint", which more accurately reflects the source.
    There is still, of course, the matter of WikiEditorial101 calling me -- for no good reason -- a Freemason, reflecting their obvious belief that being a Freemason is a bad thing that causes being to do bad things "in service to their brotherhood". We wouldn't tolerate someone saying that about Jews, or Catholics, or Black people or transgendered people, and there's no reason we should tolerate them saying it about Freemasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there may be a specific LTA with this pattern? Vaticidalprophet 09:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Logged out editing by User:Oguzkaan76?

    So as one of the very few that patrol the "mw-removed-redirect" tag in Recent changes, I came across some redirect overwrites by IPs on pages created by Oguzkaan76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) within minutes of creation. This pattern is confusing me and makes me curious as to why this user would do this since August 2020. I have sent them messages on their Talk page regarding this, but they've seem to have gone unnoticed. I do not expect any administrative action as this appears to be done in good-faith, but why overwrite your own redirects while logged out and expose your IP address like this? Jalen Folf (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like they're using the account to lay the ground for an article using a redirect then otherwise editing as an IP user. It cannot see why anyone would do this, but perhaps they don't like accounts but are forced to use one to avoid going via AfC. WP:LOGGEDOUT and WP:IPSOCK seem to permit this. Fences&Windows 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem editor

    Just a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Earlier in the day (my time at least) a new editor, BestDJofAllTime (talk · contribs), started a genre war on an article by adding unsourced genres to an album article: This Is Not the End (Manafest album). After explaining that Wikipedia requires sources, and they need to be explicitly listed in prose, the editor continued to add the genres and using a review that did not directly claim the genres. He then began claiming he was a music journalist and knew better than reliable sources and he refused to use them. I requested support from the albums project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Genre sourcing. An admin and another experienced editor tried to explain the issues to the editor (see the editor's talk page) and the editor continued to edit war and argue that we were all idiots and were wrong to rely on reliable sources (multiple comments left on the subject's talk page). I am reporting the editor now not for the WP:3RR issues, or the WP:INCIVILITY, but for the WP:NOTHERE statements in this edit: "They don't know what they're talking about, but we do! That's why with their communist regime, I will NEVER go by what they say". To me, the editor is showing 1) a narrow self-interest (attempting to prove that he knows more than music media), and certainly 2) shows no interest in working collaboratively. There are likely other problems, but I am growing more concerned with the editor's increasingly extremist comments and disruptive behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Walter" has no idea what he's talking about! He's a mentally insane Nazi communist who refuses to change Wikipedia for the better! Do NOT take what he says seriously! Kick that communist Nazi whackjob off of Wikipedia forever! He's getting butthurt over the truth and the most logical ideas that are here to HELP Wikipedia for the long run, not harm it! Of course, Mr. Delusional refuses to accept it! He was also given plenty of reliable sources that actually DID claim the genres that he claims were never included, but as somebody who knows who wrote the review, I'd know that those sources were there better than anyone! Mr. Gorlitz is having a mental breakdown, and needs to be institutionalized- most likely for life, or at the very least until all his communist Nazi mindset views are wiped clean from his memory! As a psychiatrist, I am EXTREMELY concerned for Mr. Gorlitz's well-being, and I would STRONGLY recommend that someone get him some help immediately! At this point, Mr. Gorlitz is a raving lunatic, and even I can no longer do anything for him! I leave it in the hands of the authorities to deal with this madman! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "He's a mentally insane Nazi communist...whackjob...raving lunatic..." Banhammer, I hear you calling! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit is a clear WP:NOTHERE statement. Should be an instant indef block. — Czello 07:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in the day, the worst we ever got called was "Commie faggot junkie". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked indef for making personal attacks. Not sure if this was a genuine attack or some sort of April Fool joke, and happy for another admin to unblock if we get a credible assurance of future good behaviour. ϢereSpielChequers 08:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm NOT a novice, dumbass! I've been around the block more times than you'll ever know! I've been on Wikipedia for years- longer than you've ever been!" by an account created 04:12, 1 April 2021. An unjustified boast or an admission? Narky Blert (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be either, or could be that up to now they've just edited as an IP. If their unblock request starts "please AGF and treat this account as a newbie entitled to all four levels of warnings" then I get to complete a whole row of buzzword Bingo just from this one account. ϢereSpielChequers 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Gamerguy94 (talk · contribs). I've blocked a few more socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User disallowing others' edits performed during their vacation

    User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

    For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leitmotiv

    I'm a little concerned here by behavior I've seen from this user concerning edits to the page Northwest Post-Grunge. The article was deleted via afd and then recreated at very nearly the same level less than four days later with no attempt to address any of the raised issues in any meaningful capacity, which has forced the community into a fifth deletion discussion for the article but the editor appears to insinuate in posts on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_21 that they will recreate the article again and again until the community gives up and lets it stay. Moreover, the editor appears to be engaging in a campaign of personal attacks against anyone who appears to threaten the article's existence. As the article has been relisted for the 5th time at afd, I'm posting this here to see if the community feels the editor's failure to abide by CONSENSUS and the personal attacks justify an admin intervention at the user level. Notifying editors who have participated in the AFD and DRV leading up to this post: @Doomsdayer520, TimothyBlue, Lennart97, S Marshall, Jclemens, Robert McClenon, Lard Almighty, Hobit, and SportingFlyer: If you have something to add, now is the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mandatory notification delivered. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The issue here is mostly WP:CONSENSUS. As seen at the multiple AfDs and contested deletion nominations for Northwest Post-Grunge, and at that article's talk page, User:Leitmotiv appears functionally unable to accept community consensus and probably does not understand how it works. Leitmotiv accuses others of offenses like "red herring" and "inquisition" but clearly does not understand what those terms mean. I have voted in the AfDs and would like to point out the bizarre semi-argument that Leitmotiv started with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge, with Leitmotiv obsessing over one half-sentence of colorful background prose, ignoring the policy discussion in the other 95% of my vote, and concluding that the vote was invalid. I don't consider that a personal attack, but it is definitely a sign of someone unable to debate and lacking knowledge of how Wikipedia works. A personal conflict of interest with that album might be worth investigating too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI user in question is creating articles on the more-obscure bands in the compilation, link. May need review. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend reviewing those bands on their own merits during a separate process. Some may have achieved some notability outside of their appearance on that non-notable compilation album that is the focus of this dispute (for now, at least). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a problem yes, but it's a relatively minor problem from an overzealous editor. I don't think any intervention is necessary, just, perhaps, a warning, and a reminder that if an article gets deleted, the problems can be sorted out through draftspace instead of warring over whether a deleted article belongs in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theshavia29912 and User:FlutterDash344

    With at least 2 ANI discussions and an SPI currently pending this editor is back to their revert war with less than friendly edit summaries such as Special:Diff/1015549733 Slywriter (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been blocked from editing the main page, so has turned attention to the episodes page instead, perhaps a siteban would be suitable, not to mention WP:CIVIL violations such as [70]. Tommi1986 let's talk! 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh yeah I didn't do anything he's saying as told by ginger ran from 2000-2016 whitch it didn't it ran from 2000-2006 then it was cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked both edit warriors for 2 weeks. Edit warring on a page while a partial block, for edit warring on a related page is still active shows a severe lack of clue. Hopefully this is a wake up call to both that edit warring will not be tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (moved from an improperly located second thread, kept here for reference) This user is making misleading edits on wikipedia and stating as told by ginger is a Show that ran from 2000-2016 whitch no it did not run for 16 years the show only had a 6 year run and 3 seasons whitch there were 4 unaired episodes that aired for a day in 2016 but the show had already ended 10 years before that and saying that the show ended from 2000-2016 can really mislead people

    Also the cramp twins he's putting the end date for the cramp twins as 2004 whitch I've checked every site looking for that and I couldn't find any site that says the cramp twins ended in 2004 and

    Also teen titans he's reverting my edit and calling it unsourced but how could it be unsourced if I didn't even edit I just removed a a part of the page the talked about reruns cause it could never be confirmed nor will it be confirmed nobody knows when the show stoped airing reruns

    I could keep going — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs)

    @Floquenbeam: This should probably be noted (as Slywriter had initially mentioned)... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder. Magitroopa (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse while deleting other editor's posts at talk pages.

    Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted a post that I gave made to Talk:Zinc-air battery regarding the magnitude of units required to express a particular characteristic of these small size batteries (dif1, dif2, dif3), they were reverted claiming that the talk page is not a forum. If one is not allowed to discuss a change to an article, what are they for then? I note that this user's block log reveals a history of deleting other users posts.

    Having posted a note to the user's talk page (dif4), the note was summarily deleted with an abusive edit summary describing me as an 'anonymous coward' (dif5) along with a claim that discussing changes is somehow against WP policy.

    For the record, there is another (completely unrelated) post to their talk page that was similarly dismissed with exactly the same edit summary (dif6).

    It should not ne necessary to point out that: editors from IP address are far less anonymous than account name users who hide behind a completely made up account name. 86.181.0.242 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it doesn't help things when you make xenophobic comments about Americans who can't spell - [71]. Insults like that won't make people take you seriously.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interpreting mWh/gramme (or mWh/gram if you are one of those Americans who can't spell) as a "xenophobic comment" when good-natured ribbing about EngVar on Wikipedia is hardly uncommon seems uncharitable. If the objection was to that portion of the comment, perhaps Wtshymanski could've been a little clearer that that was the specific objection, so the IP could've left the comment again without the spelling aside—the general comment on units certainly seems appropriate for a talk page. "Anonymous coward" was absolutely out of line. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ISP is the same as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive; geolocate from contributions page puts IP addresses in the same county. Behaviour is similar. Peter James (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside to discuss Nigel Ish's characterizations

    As apparently insulting people for their nationality is "good-natured ribbing" I will strike my comment - does criticising people for their ethnicity or gender also count as "good-natured" ribbing?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pretty huge and obvious difference between making a joke about American spelling variance, and "criticising people for their ethnicity or gender", and I think you know that. I am not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you think the IP is genuinely saying that Americans' usage of the spelling "gram" rather than "gramme" is due to a collective inability to spell. This does not strike me as a good faith question, and your edit summary describing my comment as "admin approval of nationalistic attacks" is completely unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (taking the opportunity to agree w/ GW on ANI...) Teasing about spelling differences is something that goes on all the time. Calling it "insults" or "xenophobic" - or equating it to "criticising [sic] people for their ethnicity or gender" is a rather severe over-reaction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigel Ish, lots of factors have to be considered when evaluating whether or not something is likely to be offensive to anyone, but I agree with GW that a bit of engvar humour (or humor, if you prefer) is not at all offensive; I have done it myself, and have often encountered it coming back the other way, but I've never heard of anyone being offended by it. If someone told me they were upset by it, I would be prepared to apologise (apologize?), strike what I'd written and never use it towards them again - but it hasn't happened yet, I think it would be a fairly rare occurrence. GirthSummit (blether) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I would hope that it is clear, I do find this behaviour and the toleration of it offensive, but it is clear that my opinions are not considered valid at ANI and that everybody is happy to accuse me of bad faith and attack me. This is just another example of the toxic culture on Wikipedia when admins encourage this behaviour and then express surprise when the abuse spreads and grows.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigel Ish, I haven't accused you of anything. I will make a mental note that you don't appreciate humour of that type, and ensure that I don't use it around you, but I assure you that lots of American (and English!) colleagues use it with me in good faith, to our mutual amusement, there's nothing toxic about genuinely friendly banter. GirthSummit (blether) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare has however accused me of bad faith and said that my expression of my opinion is completely unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I stand by it. It's one thing to not appreciate jokes over variations in American and British English spelling; that is your opinion and you are more than entitled to it. It is another thing entirely to say that a person making such jokes is making "xenophobic comments", that an admin who has explained that jokes about spelling are commonplace and generally taken to be in good faith is "approving of nationalistic attacks", or to imply that said admin must also approve of "criticising people for their ethnicity or gender". Those things are what I have described as bad faith and unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Spelling is a choice, but gender really isn't. Please don't equate the two. As someone who's trans, I've never had to go through healthcare to ensure I use a z instead of an s... --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to the topic

    Perhaps as the originator of the subject remarks, I may be permitted to jump in. If I had any idea that a simple humorous remark was going to cause so much discussion, I would not have made it. Of course Americans, like every one else, can spell. They just spell differently because that is the way they are taught in school, just as they are taught different rules of grammar.

    My comment was no more xenophobic than the often touted axiom of "America and Britain - two peoples divided by a common language". Believe me, professionally, I have to communicate with people from the US (and Canada, Australia and India) on a regular basis, and it is often very difficult working out what we are saying to each other - and many a policy was implemented other than as intended as a result.

    Now can we get back to the central issue of the deletion of posts with the actually offensive comments of being described as an "anonymous coward" which no one has addressed and are hard to pass of as 'humour'? 86.181.0.242 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed; I split this subsection out to try to avoid derailing your initial complaint. I did comment on the "anonymous coward" comment above the fold, btw. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk pages for articles are for discussions related to improvement of the article. Random musings, unsupported by any citations of reliable references, on what the poster thinks should be are not directed at improving the article. The inability to deal with national spelling differences is the poster's POV, and does not address improving the article. The posting was superfluous to the talk page and should have been removed entirely, as it is not appropriate to edit other's comments on a talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you objected to the joke, you could've asked them to strike or remove it. But I don't see why the gist of the comment ("For the size of batteries typically encountered, mWh/gramme would be the more appropriate unit.") ought to have been removed–if a source was needed you also could've asked. It certainly wasn't a WP:NOTFORUM comment on an article that was about batteries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is almost certainly I B Wright, as Peter James observed, and WP:DENY should apply; recommend closing this, blocking the IP, and moving on. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same ISP as someone else? Who would have thought it? It is a stretch to believe that Britain's largest telecommunication operator and ISP only has one customer? It would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

    Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia

    There is a discussion in Talk:Malassezia that's going on right now. I made a bunch of separate proposals in a series of WP:RfCs to try to move things forward in an apparent stalemate at Talk:Malassezia#WIP (per WP:DR#RfCs). Before everything gets out of hand too quickly I'm asking to detach an administrator to supervise matters and enforce WP:NPA / WP:FOC.

    These are kind of replies that are left out there right now:

    --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Davronov, I haven't read the whole conversation, but I don't see anything wrong with the comments in those diffs. What do you believe is the problem that requires administrative action? GirthSummit (blether) 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I'm asking only for supervision as I think some parties involved won't comment on content, but on me. SMcCandlish was called by WhatamIdoing in the Revision as of 21:28, April 1, 2021 and immediately started to discuss RfC proceedings unrelated to proposals and other stuff. The latter are already discussed at Requests_for_comment#Volume_problems. Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander Davronov, the editors you are engaging with there are all very experienced, I think you should consider listening to what they are telling you. GirthSummit (blether) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I expect that all incoming parties focus on respective topics, not on the matters discussed elsewhere. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexander Davronov: You seem to be overlooking the main issue here: opening 4 RfCs in one sitting. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton: This doesn't prevent anyone from following basic rules and discussing related matters elsewhere.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton, I think you might see the main issue too narrowly. The main issue might be someone pushing very hard, across multiple pages, to get a specific primary source cited somewhere in Wikipedia. Starting four RFCs on the same talk page in the same edit could merely be a symptom of the larger problem.
    This editor has asked us "to detach an administrator to supervise matters". I think that is not a bad idea, especially if the admin feels free to issue topic bans and partial blocks.
    In the meantime, there is a discussion at WT:RFC about formally writing down a rule that says a single editor should not be running a large number of concurrent RFCs. We have been discussing this problem at that page for a couple of years; if memory serves, the record is 11 concurrent RFCs on the same topic (by an editor now TBANned from that topic). If you have ideas about where and how to help editors get the help they need, without any one person dominating the RFC system, please join that conversation over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: Feel free to fill a separate ANI/I complaint. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1015646494"