Hosta

• Dfertileplain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I believe the earliest iteration of this blatant WP:ADMASQ was created on August 27 2020 where Dfertileplain creates the article via draft.

• On October 19, 2020 Praxidicae moves the article back to Draftspace see here.

• It was moved back to mainspace and it was nominated for deletion and it got deleted On October 31 See here.

• The latest attempt to move the article to mainspace was negated by Nomadicghumakkad on the 31st of August 2021 see here.

• Having observed this, I check to see if they are spamming elsewhere & sure enough I observe this creation on Simple English Wikipedia created by them on August 27, 2021.

Furthermore they have other dubious edits which were negated by DoubleGrazing and myself see this & this respectively.

They have denied any malfeasance in the past but their words and actions are in variance as detailed above. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first interaction with this user was from this RfC on Marilyn Manson that I closed. In the RfC, Homeostasis continuously made uncivil comments and cast aspersions on other editors, to the point where I felt it necessary to mention it in my closure. I feel their comments in that RfC alone are enough to warrant action. That is not the only disruptive behavior that I've observed from them so far though. They have also started badgering other users here, here, here, and here. I think Homeostasis should be, at the very least, Tbanned from Marliyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to have gotten engagement yet, so I'll offer my view, although my comments should obviously be read with the caveat that I'm WP:INVOLVED as one of the users Homeostasis has been badgering. Taken as a whole, I think the user's behavior paints a pretty clear picture of disruption.

I first encountered them after proposing that Manson's article include mention of the sexual abuse allegations against him. They failed to assume good faith from the start, which is certainly not model behavior, but which somewhat comes with the territory when one edits in controversial areas. Their behavior persisted and worsened over the course of the RfC, as FormalDude (the uninvolved closer) noted.

Then there was their behavior giving me this edit warring notice. I'll copy my reply:

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested.

I find it highly difficult to believe that Homeostasis, an experienced editor, was unaware of the definition of edit warring and thought that it was genuinely appropriate. Giving another editor an edit warring notice to vent your frustration at them or attempt to sully their talk page is not at all appropriate.

Our next interaction came about due to an initially unrelated happening on my talk page, a pretty standard case of (now blocked) IP makes disruptive edits containing severe BLP violations, I (and others) revert, and IP turns around and accuses me of being the article subject. The IP's edits on my talk page were revdel'd per standard procedure for attempted outings, but Homeostasis then posted this, taking up the IP's cause and insinuating that their allegation had merit. At that point, I decided to give them a more forceful reply, warning them about WP:HOUNDING and asking them directly not to interact with me further. They ignored that request, first with a reply on my talk and then (after reverting the reply) with a ping on their own talk.

Homeostasis has certainly contributed quality content to Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to others to decide precisely how this should be handled, but I agree with FormalDude that some action ought to be taken to prevent them from causing further disruption. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My involvement in this began on August 26, 2021, when I took a look at the RfC page for biographies to check whether I had done my first RfC correctly. I noticed the Manson RfC, something I hadn’t heard about before, started reading up on it, and made two edits to the body of the article: removing content not supported by the cite and adding content with RS.

Homeostasis07, an editor that—to my knowledge—I had never come across before, reverted the latter edit and accused me of edit warring in the edit summary and on the Talk page. When I asked them to assume good faith, I got high-horse lectured and or-else threatened ("before I take this further"). After I explained my reasoning, they accused me of "nasty misinterpretation of sources", a "completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence", "not paying close enough attention" to the article, the sources, and the case, and of incompetence in general, "expecially when it comes to controversial subjects." I then suggested the editor step away from the article until they had cooled off and examined their own POV.

Looking at my contribs page, I just realized that there was another interchange. Before my second edit of the main space, I voted and added a comment on the Talk page which was answered with the first edit-warring accusation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That obviously hasn’t happened. Seems to me that the closer correctly decided that a clear majority of the participants answered the RfC question (should the lead mention the allegations of sexual assault) with "yes", without a qualifier, MANDY or otherwise, and that they bent over backwards to accommodate Homeostasis07’s view. It also looks to me as though Homeostatis07 thinks they have some sort of ownership of the article. After the closer added the sentence per the outcome of the RfC, Homeostasis07 immediately added a WP:MANDY comment, claiming that there was no consensus for the closer’s version. IMO a time-out from the page would be appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have never threatened to "out" anyone, despite what's been insinuated above. As someone who was on the receiving end of one of those threats several years ago, I am keenly aware of the outing policy. I never threatened to do that, would never do such a thing, and if I ever gave anyone that impression, I humbly apologize. That being said, the now-banned IP did raise what I still believe to be one legitimate concern which, to me, can be demonstrably evidenced within Sdkb's contributions log. Sdkb was obtuse and threatening in their response. I emailed my concerns with corresponding diffs to the team at COI Noticeboard, per the template there. I'm sure we all eagerly await the results of their investigation.

Regarding the RfC, the key issue was not whether the allegations be included on the article at all – Marilyn Manson#Abuse allegations has existed since the story broke on Feb 1 – but instead how the allegations be presented in the lead. During the RfC, Sdkb argued that genuine policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE be disregarded in favor of the WP:MANDY essay, which argues against any denial being included. That an experienced editor would cite an essay in favor of genuine policies in such a serious matter is beyond my comprehension. In the RfC, six votes (including one yes vote) specifically argued against the proposal as initiated by Sdkb (to exclude denial). A maximum of 3 votes – Sdkb, Space4Time3Continuum2, and I generously include Idealigic's vote, who said "based on points provided by Sdkb." – supported. All other votes did not address at all how the allegations be presented, so how FormalDude came to his initial assessment that consensus of the RfC supported Sdkb's version of the lead is still up for debate. I was not the only user confused by how FormalDude came to their conclusion. I believe a close review is necessary at this point.

Regarding Sdkb's conduct, I would like to note that they have attempted to WP:CRYSTALBALL to include the allegations in Marilyn Manson's lead since the story broke on February 1; added an [htRtps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMandy_Rice-Davies_Applies&type=revision&diff=958666601&oldid=940798348 inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay], which they then cited in the RfC; tendentiously nominated a template for deletion just two hours after I placed it on Marilyn Manson's talk page as a means of deterring IPs and new users from adding particularly horribly-sourced and potentially libelous content (from Daily Mail, TMZ, Page Six, etc.). User has continually assumed bad faith on my part, arguing for several months at the RfC, the template for deletion discussion, and even here (above) that my status as the "top editor" of the article somehow precludes me from making constructive contributions to the subject or the entire project as a whole.

In response to Space4Time3Continuum2x, their statement above is misleading on several fronts. Their first edit to the article was a misinterpretation of the cited source. The source does indeed state that the "Mansonisabusive" Instagram page was set up in 2017, and that the accusers began contacting one another via that profile sometime later. It is an additional source (still included on the article) which confirms the September 2020 date (date always cited to that source). In their link above "explain[ing their] reasoning" (i.e., this one), Space4Time3Continuum2x said: "Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses." They proceeded to link to 5 different sources, none of which supported this highly-inflammatory and undue statement. During the RfC, this user also repeatedly claimed that Marilyn Manson did not specifically deny the allegations, which was categorically untrue.

Apologies for the long response. I've tried to be as brief as possible, but 3 users piling on in such a manner does not afford one much brevity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Here's the actual !votes from the RfC:

If you'll notice, the RfC was not about any specific phrasing–it was about whether or not to mention a section of the article in the lead. That is why my close ended the way it did. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In their RfC-initiating edit, Sdkb said the allegations "ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead". Substantial commentary during the RfC was then dedicated solely to how Sdkb introduced that content to the article; Sdkb specifically went on to cite WP:MANDY as a justification for their edits, which was directly supported by two (maybe three) users but opposed by six (see above, or the RfC). In your initial closing statement, you directly quoted Sdkb's version, which you immediately re-added to the article. But here, you're saying you reduced the entire RfC to simple yes/no numbers to re-add Sdkb's preferred version, tangibly disregarding the nuts and bolts of the RfC in the process and the lack of support Sdkb's version of the content received.

Since this is the RfC for which content added to the article will be dictated for the foreseeable future, I believe a close review is genuinely appropriate at this point, based on what FormalDude is saying here. It may not change much in the long run, considering FormalDude's subsequent edits to the talk page ([1], [2]), but there are serious questions here. That FormalDude also said in this edit summary: "I believe WP:MANDY is applicable here" is most worrying. MANDY is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not applicable anywhere on-site. Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand behind my closure of the RfC and am fine with it being reviewed. I think your suggestion of a TBan for me is ridiculous, but let's see what others think. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this RfC as an uninvolved user who has never, to my knowledge, edited the Marilyn Manson article, and did not participate or even know about this RfC until now, I support @FormalDude's closure. It is an accurate summary of the consensus there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be that Homeostasis07 was making the RFC be about more than its advertised question, which was a pure yes/no on whether to include the allegation in the lead. And their "omit it from the lead" vote was based apparently on disputes and over the wording of the body. So yes, it's hard to question the RFC close itself because on the narrow question of the lead it's almost always correct to include and summarize sections mentioned in the body. There are clearly much wider disputes than just that question though, particularly reliance on an essay which appears to contradict BLP policy, which need to be addressed separately.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – To begin with, I'd like to note that it's taken me a week to decide whether to comment on this as previously any interaction with this user has been hostile, and quite frankly I'm a little bit vary of what the reaction from him will be. That being said, I have been for a longer time concerned about this user's editing related to the Manson abuse allegations, and would like to bring this up given that this discussion gives the impression that these issues have popped up just with the RfC.

My first encounters with this person were in this February, when I edited Manson's and Evan Rachel Wood's pages related to the news on the allegations. Homeostasis was not just difficult to work with due to his aggressive and condescending manner, but more concerningly, it seemed that he was blind to his own bias while loudly accusing others of that/libel. Case in point: after the Manson allegations became public, Homeostasis added this section about Wood publicly commenting on the rape allegations against Kobe Bryant soon after his death. H's addition not only included incorrect details (Bryant was indeed charged), but left out details that should've been there to present the incident neutrally (e.g. the entire tweet) and thus presented it in a quite biased manner. The mistake about Bryant being charged was corrected by another user, but Homeostasis added it again with the comment 'Semantics', while later claiming it was a typo. He also kept adding quotes around the word 'underage' despite that not being in the source; another incidence of this; editing based on his interpretation of Wood's 'bad intentions', and left out main parts of the context to perhaps present things in a very different manner (e.g. leaving out that Wood was accusing Usich of blackmail, not just publishing unfavourable photos and that the party where the images used for the alleged blackmail were taken was Manson's; Wood is claiming the images were taken under pressure from Manson, so it's a key part of the allegations).

Please also see the discussion under the header WP:Undue on Manson's talk page, where Homeostasis talks about his views of the case, which is very much OR: "And please be aware that there's so much I'd love to spill my guts about right now, but there is god knows how many people reading this, so I can't. Maybe we could e-mail, but I doubt that would even make a difference in the long run. Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram? This is why Wikipedia BLP articles need to be as neutral as possible: things change, even from the perspective of the accuser. It's all pretty damn interesting, when you delve into it—no way in hell I'm posting links to it all, though." It's clear that Homeostasis can be an excellent editor given his contributions to music-related articles (so no, I don't think a complete ban on Manson-related articles is in order), but it does seem that he is unable to recognise his own bias around abuse allegations and is very quick to go into 'attack' mode. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: 14 day block

A pause for reflection seems appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I held off !voting on this, since I had hoped that being brought to ANI would humble Homeostasis and get them to commit to better behavior, enabling us to go with a lesser sanction. But their long reply above contains no admission whatsoever that any aspect of their behavior was inappropriate, instead doubling down on it. I think that anything less than a block like this would all but guarantee that the behavior will continue and subject other users and the encyclopedia to further disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, sit back and not address what I genuinely consider to be inappropriate actions on the part of others? I did apologize for several things above. And will again here. I apologize to everyone involved for being argumentative, and sometimes downright rude, during the course of the RfC. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a Marilyn Manson Tban. After seeing Homeostasis double down in their arguments, which are mostly strawmen, I think a break is needed. I also think that at this point their outside feelings are preventing them from editing neutrally, and propose a topic ban from all Marilyn Manson related articles. I appreciate Homeostasis's apology above, but I still believe these sanctions are necessary. ––FormalDude talk 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN, indifferent on block. It looks like Homeostasis can't step back from this, and has continued arguing the point above. Further, immediately calling for the RFC closer to be TBANed just strikes me as retaliatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the statement below, I'm willing to withdraw my support for the TBAN and just see how things go from here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it difficult to take sudden reversals of attitude when a user is on the verge of being blocked as indicative of much other than the desire to avoid being blocked. The recent comments persuade me that a TBAN may not be needed, but I think it would be a mistake to go with nothing. Homeostasis has a repeated pattern of stepping across the line and then stopping/backtracking just enough to avoid consequences (e.g. at my user talk), and if we allow that to continue, we'll be back here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Normally I'd agree, but for once the response seemed sincere. If not, this provides us with enough WP:ROPE for an indef block later. I do not see enough support for a temporary block right now, especially this long after the events in question, so that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        The level of support is something for the closer to judge. They'll need to balance the late-breaking apology with the fact that numerically, there's still more support for some sanction than for nothing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a Marilyn Manson TBAN. This user cannot drop the stick, and appears very very invested in that article, to the point of badgering other users away from contributing, harassing other users about their RfC votes, and badgering away an RfC closer because, it appears, they did not like the outcome. This is precisely the situation in which a TBAN is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, obviously, per points I raised above, as a punitive measure against one editor when the other three editors involved displayed poor editorial judgement. At its heart, this is an issue of policy against the repeated use of an unvetted essay and resultant edit warring. I could have handled some things differently, and I apologized twice above for those, but I'm afraid I can't apologize for expecting other users to adhere to policy, and worry about the precedent being set here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN. I've had the pleasure of reviewing many of Homeostasis07's articles on Marilyn Manson, some of which were done as review trades, and some just because I enjoy reading his work. Over several years, we each have infrequently let the other know if we have a new FAC that needs comments. If you look at the diffs from before he started working on the Marilyn Manson articles, there's no denying his contributions have serious merit. There's also no denying he can be hot-headed when things don't go his way. I don't think the issue here is Marilyn Manson. I think Marilyn Manson is one of a broad selection of topics he is interested in, and the underlying issue is a lack of assuming good faith, and that by default he takes any opposition personally as opposed to constructively. When one of my FACs failed several years ago, he seemed to take it more personally than I did, and left a comment voicing his annoyance on the talk page of the main person who opposed my nomination, which I did not think was a constructive way of moving forward.

Nevertheless, many of the Marilyn Manson articles were in extremely poor shape before he took it upon himself to improve them. I feel a topic ban does not take into account the overwhelming effort he has put in to genuine improvements in these articles, and therefore oppose such a measure. I do not oppose a temporary block on editing in general as I agree some action needs to be taken. A topic ban strikes me as nothing short of extreme for an initial punishment in this matter, especially when it remains to be seen if a temporary block may have a sobering effect on his ability to interact with others. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say that WP:MANDY, as essay I'd not previously heard of before reading the current dispute, seems to have been treated as policy rather than an essay by others, a point which seems to have been lost along the way and (rightly or wrongly) overshadowed by Homeostasis07's response to it being used as such. I think the essay is an absurd opinion and could not oppose it more wholeheartedly, though that's a discussion for somewhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced they won't react in the same disruptive manner when the next dispute doesn't go their way. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however, I don't see what there is to lose in giving him once chance before a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly concerned about this comment that they haven't retracted "Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate" which is completely retaliatory and unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose TBAN: I am in agreement with Damien Linnane. I understand that Homeostasis07 can be hot-heated and take matters too personally, but I feel a TBAN is too extreme a response for this, especially given the work he has put into these articles. He would ideally learn from this experience (and a temporary block if that does occur). I do not oppose a temporary block either as I do understand and agree that some action should be taken for this and that seems like a more appropriate response. I think it would be better to do the temporary block and then see how he grows from that.

As an aside, I have also never heard of WP:MANDY. It doesn't help that I'm an American and I honestly have no idea who Mandy Rice-Davies is. I think it is slightly odd to treat this essay like a policy. I do not agree with the essay either, but as Damien Linnane, that is a different conversation entirely so that would be best suited elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Damien and Aoba have said here has certainly given me food for thought. Without even realizing, I have been taking things too personally and been a hot-head for quite some time, causing problems for even the people I've worked with on multiple occasions. I apologize to everyone here and promise to correct this behavior immediately. I'd even agree to a permanent site-wide ban should the behavior ever occur again, which I swear now never will. Sorry for all the trouble guys. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose block or TBAN. No evidence of consistent disruption or any other history of incidents in the topic area. The only possible action that could be taken is a warning about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose TBAN or block. At heart, this just looks like a rather heated content dispute, which as far as I can tell was largely resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. At the bottom of the section [3], both Sdkb and Formaldude (reluctantly or otherwise) agreed to Homeostasis07's suggestion that Manson's rebuttals be included in the single sentence agreed to in the RFC. That should have been an end to the matter, with Sdkb and Homeostasis07 working together for the betterment of the article. So really, it looks like the more recent dispute boils down to this one episode. I don't think either Sdkb nor Homeostasis07 come out of that exchange looking good - if Homeostasis07 suspected a direct COI with one of the sources in the article then they should have filed a confidential report with paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org per the instructions at WP:COIN, to avoid outing, rather than challenging Sdkb in public like that. But on the other hand Sdkb's response is unnecessarily snarky too; gloating comments like "I gather that you remain very disappointed by the Manson RfC outcome" and accusing Homeostasis of being "picking up the amusingly inept attempt at outing" are not necessary, and a simple "no, I have no COI, you should follow the confidential procedure outlined at WP:COIN if you suspect otherwise" would have been a good response. As such, I wouldn't recommend a TBAN or block when all parties have essentially respected the outcome of the RFC and consensus on the line has been reached. But please, both of you, put your differences aside and continue with discussion rather than personal attacks on the content of the article going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amakuru for the accurate summation of events. I promise to refrain from conduct that could in any way be construed as a personal atack. The only thing I'd like to make clear is that I never threatened to "out" Sdkb. I tried disussing my concerns about CoI on their talk page, but the response I got was, as you said, sarcastic and, IMO, threatening. It was at that point I emailed those concerns to the above email address, per the template @ CoI. I realize now that's probably what I should have done in the first place. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, first, it is not correct that the problems were resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. Homeostasis's behavior began at the RfC, where the problem was not just the existence of a content dispute but the nature of their comments and their edit warring at the article, as FormalDude laid out above. It then continued with behavior at my talk page, persisting right up to when the ANI report was filed, as has also been laid out above.

Second, when someone comes to my talk page making an aggressive accusation, it's my prerogative to point out the context of my interactions with the user, as that helps any others who see the accusation understand whether it should be considered serious or frivolous. The comments you characterize as gloating were my attempt to do that. Looking back, I do think I could have found better language, so I apologize there. But no other !voter here so far (well, except Homeostasis) has attempted to draw a parallel between my slight lapse there and the behavior that landed us here.

It would be a bad outcome for Homeostasis to walk away from this concluding that it was just another content dispute and everyone gets in those from time to time. And from Homeostasis's reply to you, it's clear that that's what will happen if there are no sanctions. @HandThatFeeds, I would look at Homeostasis's reply as further indication that their apology above may not have been sincere: they have agreed with the statement that this just looks like a rather heated content dispute and have gone back to defending their actions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I said above at all. To repeatedly label a heartfelt and genuine apology "insincere", well... I don't know at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem very sincere to me either, considering you called for me to be topic banned and haven't admitted that that was wrong. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was 2 days before and made up part of the apology. It's yours and Sdkb's prerogative to feel however you want, but the apology was genuine, and included that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re trying to change the way I feel, strike your unfounded comment against me. ––FormalDude talk 22:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose, given that it's been about two weeks since this thread was opened, a temporary block would be punitive rather than to avoid actual disruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI: I've listed on WP:Closure requests. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• this is ok, for now 😗 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Esaïe Prickett: Are you supporting or opposing the proposal? Or neither? ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• neither Esaïe Prickett (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redvince1, in forgoing further discussion for several days on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism (which I left alone to give them time to respond), had their contributions reverted to the purpose of reaching a consensus. Prior to this, the fellow Wikipedian and I were given notices to prevent a WP:edit war. As a result, they have been previously reported as evident in this archived discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account. Investigating the previous report, both of our personal talk pages, and the article's talk page, we were both assisted in attempting to reach consensus. Until today as of writing (14 October 2021), the article remained status pre ante until their WP:bold contributions which forwent any recognition of consensus. Better yet, in this, I would be willing to revert them a fourth time, but then again that would be seen as an edit war to which I reached out to Editor2020, Ermenrich, and AntiCompositeNumber on my talk page for further guidance. I could be bold as well yet be at risk of punishment alongside this contributor, and I refuse to be baited into doing so. They (Redvince1) were given warning on the article's talk page to self-revert their contributions on the basis of WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I still have yet to gain response pertaining to how their additions contribute to the history of the theological precept, in addition to their previous spurious source and previous biased terminology. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No administrative assistance yet before this goes into the dust bin (archives)? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but you're going to need to provide diffs and sort of explain the problem a little better. I've looked at the discussion on the article talk page and I can't really make head or tails of it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) The following contributor (Redvince1) seems to have introduced polemic into the history section, rather than actual history; 2) They used blatantly biased terminology by using the statement "complain" in a following contribution; 3) I reverted their contributions; they then restore these contributions and claim to have made a contribution they did not (refer to the archived report listed above); 4) their contributions were reverted until a consensus could be reached by an uninvolved editor; 5) they blatantly disregarded that by restoring their contributions, and adding more as if a consensus had been reached; they also forwent any further communication with me on reaching consensus; 6) I revert their contribution on the basis of WO:NOCONSENSUS and with a lack of any action for communication; 7) here we are now. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed that this particular article Modalistic Monarchianism seems to have some editors who have a fairly strong Trinitarian bias. My new contributions to this article were merely to add relevant Scriptural passages and logical evidence from a Modalist theological point of view as well. In my opinion, a well rounded Wikipedia article on any topic should include evidence from editors with multiple perspectives. I have not deleted any previous content on the article. I am willing to continue discussion and try to figure out why the new content is so polemic to User: TheLionHasSeen. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop interjecting your responses outside of the pattern of conversation to confuse readers of this report. Next, on my talk page you admitted to being an advocate for this theological perspective. As for bias, where is it? All the article is stating is a historic documentation of the phenomenon; the only thing which you, as an open Modalist may deem biased is the statement: "By the 4th century, a consensus had developed in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, and modalism was generally considered a heresy." Note, however it says it was considered a heresy, not Wikipedia saying it is verbatim a heresy. As for Scripture and logical evidence from your viewpoint, that is also inherently biased furthermore. Wikipedia is not about multiple perspectives in the sense of polemic, rather, documentation with a WP:NPOV. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just recently, they responded in the talk page which clarifies that they are indeed using Wikipedia for advocacy, not understanding how NPOV works. They even restored a source determined spurious by another involved editor to the encyclopedia. This is ridiculous at this rate! They disregarded more experienced contributors than both of us, because they merely opted to wait for consensus, and remove faulty citations. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I am seeing here is one editor who appears open to compromise and discussion, and another, the OP, who responds in a belligerent and unreasonable manner to everything the other editor does - including the original filing of this report. I leave it to others beside myself to agree or disagree with this assessment and decide if any intervention is needed, but I think a WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both users need to be blocked for edit warring

I decided just to look at the page history and these are all the diffs of edit warring: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

This is all since October 7. I didn't look to see if 3rr was specifically violated, but I don't think it makes much of difference. Both users have more than deserved a few days block.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. If I need to be blocked, so be it; I merely opted to WP:drop it and return to editing articles pertaining to settlements (ironically, most U.S. geography places still have the 2000 census results). Especially when someone publicly declares they have an advocate perspective, when none of the information is inherently dogging out the viewpoint they saw as biased. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently closed a report at WP:ANEW filed by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) on Punding as "no violation" as it seemed somewhat vexatious. I also notice they have recently been edit-warring at WMPW. On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times. I wouldn't normally start a thread here for two isolated (albeit recent) incidents of mild edit-warring and a general battleground behaviour, but in this instance I need to ask the question - is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did the math. With about 74k edits and 24 blocks that is a block about every 3000 edits. That is a lot. I have noticed this user around over the last 14 years but did not personally notice the disruption. The block log includes blocks for personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, block evasion, sock puppetry, borderline harassment, saying an editor "should be executed", 3RR, copyright concerns, wikihounding, misuse of twinkle, severe off-wiki harassment, and battlefield behavior. If blocks were pokémon this user is well on their way to collecting them all.

On the flip side a look through their user archives shows evidence of positive contributions throughout their 14 years here.

I don't know if they are a net positive or not. I do however think when block logs get that long and complete that further blocks need to escalate in severity going from days to weeks to months to indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the quick maths - perhaps this can be "solved" by making it clear the next block, for whatever reason, will be indefinite? Asking an editor to reflect on their behaviour and appeal their block if they want to edit again can often work wonders... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only three blocks in the last nine years. Levivich 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of only 3 of the blocks being in the last 9 years is well taken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to work out what they think they were doing on Punding. Edit-warring to restore a problematic edit containing errors after the original editor ran out of reverts certainly isn't a good look. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be retaliation for this edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. That's not great. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ouch, the ownership going on there is strong and, well, yeah. I don't see a discussion about that (though it could be elsewhere) but they completely ignored DrKay's very valid points in the edit history for that article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer's condition leads to them being overprotective of various articles. They do have the best interests of the project at heart and can take into account constructive criticism but it takes repetition and patience. IMO a block would be punitive rather than preventative. As an aside this "it is a featured article and, thus, can't be altered" is becoming a real problem and probably should be added to the arguments to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across this editor, so I can't comment on their conduct and/or edits. Regarding the block log, you can't just look at the raw numbers of 24 blocks. The vast majority of those are more than a decade old, with one of the most recent ones stating "no reason to keep this user blocked over an honest mistake" in the unblock log. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with this to some extent, the block that stands out for me is the one placed in October 2012. Although nine years old, it was for "Severe off-wiki harassment" and sounds like the sort of thing we globally lock users for these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it was 9 years ago... GiantSnowman 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^^^This. I don't know how to quickly find the edits, but the indef was rescinded six days later. I assume all parties involved at the time were happy (as they could be) with the outcome, otherwise they'd still be indef'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the indef block on their talkpage. Not pleasant reading. Note this discussion, from 2020 (i.e. not nine years ago), is about both on and off wiki attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: I'm not rehashing or dwelling on something that took place 9 years ago. It's over, buried, done with.

What happened in 2020 I referenced below. That was part of a MUCH larger incident that involved FAR more users than just myself. Harrassment, rule breaking, and other issues were on both sides. There were no innocent parties in that. I, in turn, was topic blocked, blocked for 72 hours (which I rightly earned, again, no innocent parties), and on-and-off-wiki attacked (which no one deserved), though nothing was ever done to that user. But again, I referenced that below. That's why it was a debacle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that earlier this year they came to my talk page to bitch about being asked to drop an argument, then proceeded to try and drag out the argument in an ill-fated attempt to make a WP:POINT, I'd have say they're not a net-positive to the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I'm not a big fan of blocking people who are (mostly) a net positive, so I'd like to hear what they've got to say about the various issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't address everything. First, Ritchie333, no, it wasn't "relatiation" for anything. I saw something I thought was an edit war, it was. I was an uninvolved part in that discussion, inserted myself into that discussion, reverted, warned the user (manually), made changes, and the edit war continued by the user, I reverted, warned the user via a template (official), the user again reverted and I reported. That's not "retaliation", that's sticking up for another user who was being warned about other articles at the same time.

MarnetteD, "[my] condition" is called Aspergers, it was first diagnosed when I was 23 (I turned 40 this year). While I do appreciate most of your other comments (to an extent), I don't need time and patience. Featured Articles are held to a higher standard. It's in the rules. A few editors and myself worked very hard to get that article to Featured Article status. It is the only radio station article at Featured Article status, for which I am very proud. Being near the station, I have a special ability (so to speak) to gain updated information about it quite quickly. I also can access my local library in person, which has the information I need. I can copy it in person. So, you call it "protective", I call it upholding the rules of WP:FA. You can most certainly place that arguement within WP:AADP, I don't have the ability to stop you all, but that would change the fundamental foundation and rules of WP:FA, making those articles nothing more than something "special" with a star at the top and anyone could throw anything at them without consequence (just my opinion).

To the rest, it's good to see that I'm (he/his, for those using "they", apperciate that) not a net-positive. Yeah, I've had my problems in the past. Yeah, I have a block log. I've tried to make this place better in the 17 years that I've been here. I've created numerous articles, edited nearly 74,000 times, made a few offline Wiki friends (one of whom I will never forget), made 4 GA articles, 2 FA articles. I outed my own account off-Wiki (on Twitter) and worked with the Asexual Community when there was that huge Asexual Eraser debacle last year (involving Pauley Perrette's article and others), calming a firestorm that this community knew nothing about (for which I was topic banned, by the way) and in turn taught a slew of people, in real time, about Wikipedia. Yet, somehow my block log alone convinces you I'm not a net positive.

If that's all it takes, cool. Do what you wish. All I ask is you allow me 6 hours to get my affairs in order. I do want to have a trusted editor to watch that Featured Article of mine. Once that's done, you are free to do whatever you like. If my actual work can't convince the community I'm a net-positive, then I won't bother trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're work is a net-positive; it's your soft skills that sink you. then I won't bother trying is part of the problem. Take a break, reflect, come back. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that any action is needed at this point. I do however think that future blocks for future issues should carry an escalating duration. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that incident where Neutralhomer dug up a Wikipedian's employer, then called the employer to complain about what the person was doing on Wikipedia is appalling. So is the fact that even that block, after a long and storied block log, was lifted in a few days based on a sorry and an oddly narrow assurance that he wouldn't call anyone's employer again. If anything, how about an assurance about not exporting feuds off-wiki, not personalizing disputes, etc.? Of course, if that happened today and went to arbcom or trust + safety rather than ANI, I have to think it would receive a ban. Maybe we've grown enough, or at least the zeitgeist has changed enough, that ANI would be able to handle it, too. I don't know. But we're not going to relitigate something that happened almost a decade ago. It got some attention, and was resolved, for better or worse. Same goes for most of the other blocks in the log. There are [only?] three blocks since then, including one for "clumsiness". I dare we'd need one of those big, lots-o-diffs showing a pattern style of ANI threads that doesn't rely on old stuff for anything to happen. If this section has a take-away, it should be a warning about personalizing disputes. After blocks for hounding, off-wiki harassment, calling someone's employer, etc., there should be zero tolerance for that moving forward, but it's unclear what there is to do right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I will mention the MFD discussion two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP. There were two problems. Neutralhomer was breaking attribution, in a way that appeared to be trying to claim too much credit. Second, when cautioned by SmokeyJoe, Neutralhomer was uncivil. They have been warned that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I am just mentioning this for those who were not at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See related section below: #Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wherein Neutralhomer objects to the singular they and calls another editor "buckwheat". Levivich 06:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quickly repeating something I explained below Neutralhomer's response to the buckwheat IMO epitomises one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing here. They could have simply read the sources provided, learnt from them and undertaken never to use the term buckwheat again at least in Wikipedia and hopefully in the rest of their life. Preferably this would have come in the form of recognition here of their mistake, but I'd personally be fine with no reply if we could be confident it wouldn't be repeated. But frankly I wouldn't be, and I'm even less confident from the way Neutralhomer has responded. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them, unfortunately Neutralhomer seems to have great difficult doing so and hence has a tendency to create unnecessary problems and waste the time of other editors. While they can do great work when they're not wrong, although we all know even an editor in the right can cause lots of problems if they handle it poorly, the risk is their tendencies are pushing the balance of their contributions too far into the negative. As I mentioned in another reply, I'm even more concerned about they way it sounds like they're putting their desire to win an argument ahead of harm to our readers from their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the thread below: I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. I think that speaks for itself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welp:

1. I don't like these WP:RFC/U-style ANI threads. is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? is a question that can only be answered by reading all or most of Neutralhomer's 74,000+ edits, which no one will do. The question is better stated as: Is there a chronic problem, and what should we do about it?
2. I also don't like judging people by their block log, as block logs rarely tell the whole story. Ritchie wrote above:

   On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times.

   Two and a half years ago, Ritchie wrote at AN:

   Unless the problems that led to the blocks are reoccurring, somebody's block log should be irrelevant, and certainly not an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. In the case of Neutralhomer, the blocks from 2018 are for 3RR (generally a one-off, and obvious if it re-occurs) and "clumsiness" which AFAIK isn't part of the blocking policy (and, indeed, was overturned shortly afterwards).

   Neutralhomer has been blocked once since then (before today's block), in 2020. That's not good, but it's not particularly bad, either.
3. I also don't like judging people for how they respond to ANI threads. One person drags another to ANI, the other person flips out and next thing you know they're calling someone "buckwheat", and it's like "Ah ha! See, told you they were disruptive!" An ANI report is provocative for the person being reported, and I don't want to judge editors based on how they react to provocations. However, there have definitely been some gems, such as "buckwheat," "thick skulls," "the real world" and the one I just got pinged to: "Oh, I'm "bludgeoning" people, but personal attacks are A-OK ... Do you all even have jobs?" But that's still after the ANI thread, so I took a look at some stuff from this year, before the ANI thread:
4. First, on the issue that precipitated this report: |publisher=Cambridge |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts should jump out as an obvious mistake to any editor with ~75k edits, just as much as |publisher=Oxford |location=Oxford, Massachusetts. And that's just one of the problems with that edit. To edit war to reinstate such errors, and take it to ANEW, is disruptive. It's not only inserting error into the encyclopedia but also wasting other editors time. Worse, he continues arguing about it, even up to today.
5. In the 2019 AN thread quoted above, basically no one agreed with Neutralhomer, and this exchange shows some strong WP:IDHT:
   • An editor says to Neutralhomer: Remember when you wrote "I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along." in your complaint? Because your responses here do not reflect your words above.
   • Neutralhomer's response: Well, shouldn't I? You all went straight into "it's your fault" and "I'm going to block you for harrassment" without taking a serious look at what I wrote. No one really mentioned anything and when you did you spun it back on me. So, yeah, I am going to take it a little personal.
6. Some user talk page threads from this year are concerning:
   1. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#DO NOT edit other editor's talk page comments
   2. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Thanks - "I'm easy to get along with. It's people who just can't listen that drive me MAD!"
   3. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Question
      • Neutralhomer: "Because, under FA rules, it must show "format=PDF"... I intend to follow the rules to the letter to which they were written"
      • Editor: "Can you point me to those rules"
      • Neutralhomer: "You can find them within the links at WP:FACR"
   4. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WRND (disambiguation)
      • Editor: "You removed the PROD tag without explanation. I'll be taking it to AfD, but I'm curious as to why you removed it, as it seems an open and shut WP:2DABS case"
      • Neutralhomer: "Actually, it's the way we currently do things around here per NMEDIA."
      • Actually, it wasn't, and the AFD closed a unanimous delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRND (disambiguation). Except Neutralhomer's "Keep" !vote which he struck a few days later, thankfully.
   5. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Disruptive Editing - leading to an ANI in July
   6. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Draft:WMFH-LP - about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP, an MFD Neutralhomer started that he withdrew
   7. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WMPW - "Just for the record, the edit summary wasn't even close to "defensive", that was an explanation and a request. Even this isn't defensive. Snarky maybe, but not defensive. You don't want to see defensive. :)"
   8. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Files listed for discussion - all the files were deleted
   9. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#"Buckwheat"
7. Vandalism warnings/reporting
   1. This warning issued in August was uw-vandalism1 for this edit, which should have been uw-unsourced1 (or better yet, no template at all, and just an explanation in an edit summary or a non-template talk page message). Normally I wouldn't nitpick over use of the wrong level 1 warning template, but:
   2. This warning issued in September was uw-vandalism4im for this edit, which might have been incorrect or even disruptive but doesn't look like vandalism to me. Special:Contribs/75.109.70.8 looks like an editor attempting to edit in good faith, and
   3. ANI in April about bad vandalism reporting
8. I noticed also that Neutralhomer can be very nice when asking admins for help if he gets the help: 1, 2, 3, but less nice when he doesn't get the help: 4, 5, which are reminiscent of the 2019 AN thread linked above.

So yeah, I think there is a chronic problem here. Levivich 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past year I've watched the ANI, I've seen enough of these threads to feel someone needs to say this- Are there users somewhere between [b]Useful upstanding Wikians [/b] and [b]"Not a Net positive- get rid of them [/b]? The answer is, obviously, yes. And Neutralhomer is a perfect example. YEARS of editing and GA and FA contributions should not be ignored, neither should YEARS of problems and significant ones at that. There has to be a better answer than "Sorry, you're no longer worth our time- get out." Surely there is a way to apply restrictions and/or moderation/mediation to keep these type of users contributing without returning time after time to the ANI. I realize that the current system is not working either- that we warn, block, unblock, ignore, repeat until exhausted and then indef. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think we owe it to the project to at least try to find a better way. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until Neutralhomer's 48-block expires & allow him to defend himself, in this report. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but this discussion gives a bad impression coming from the user with whom Neutralhomer had an aerated, but civil a day or two ago.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. But I don't fully understand what you're posting about. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't helping. Neutralhomer has dug his heels in very thoroughly both in this thread and the one below. He has insisted on finding fault with seemingly everyone but himself. There are significant behavioral concerns that he needs to address. If your intention is to divert the focus away from Neutralhomer by making vague implications about unspecified bad impressions, then I'm going to tell you right now that it won't work. The best thing is to give Neutralhomer time to reassess the situation and respond here once his blocked is lifted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jjfun3695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user has been advised and warned repeatedly about providing a source when they add controversial opinions on living persons, and about the use of honorifics in article content, but the multiple warnings have not improved their editing. I have just now reviewed about the past week's worth of their contributions and made numerous reverts, such as:

1. Special:Diff/1050059201: an observation about Elizabeth II being seen with a cane, added without a source.
2. Special:Diff/1049990708: a "some people" opinion about the International Olympic Committee and its dealings around the upcoming Beijing games
3. Special:Diff/1049207918: on a Catholic fraternal order's article, changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life", and removed the link to the relevant article
4. This series of edits adding a number of controversial opinions on Amy Coney-Barrett's supreme court appointment, along with a plain statement that anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States originates with "atheists, secularists and satanists", all of it added with no sourcing at all.
5. Another series of edits about anti-Catholic sentiment this time in the UK, blaming an alleged rise in secularism (unsourced) on "atheists and secularists", and trying to editorially invalidate protests against a former pope's visit because Catholics also died in the Holocaust.
6. A series of edit-wars where they persist in re-adding religious honorifics, such as on James Massa, Edmund Ignatius Rice, and Fordham University.

More of their edits need to be reviewed for the same problems, but I've seen enough. I was going to propose a topic ban from BLPs, Catholicism, and American politics, but after taking a closer look at the rambling nonsense they added to the two anti-Catholicism articles about Black Lives Matter and the non sequitur linking of Catholicism with Hitler, I'm instead just going to propose they be site banned per WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban as proposer. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked the account for 24 hours given the continued addition (even today) of unsourced content despite a final warning. I am not entirely certain a community ban is in order, given the lack of blocks to this point. I think they wish to constructively edit here, but their unwillingness to follow our policies and guidelines despite warnings is problematic. I've informed the editor that if they wish to contribute to this discussion while they are blocked they may post their comments on their talk page and I or someone else will copy them here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, too early for site ban. The diffs are unsourced, but not blatant enough to go straight to a ban. Escalating blocks resulting in an indeff, or going straight to an indeff, are more in line, IM(non-adm.)O. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone interested in evaluating the conduct of this editor should read the conversation at User talk:FyzixFighter#Edits involving Catholic Churches or figures where Jjfun3695 makes it very clear that they do not understand the core content policy Neutral point of view and have no intention of following the Manual of Style. I recommend extending the 24 hour block to indefinite, with the block to be lifted if and only if the editor recognizes that they have been on the wrong path and fully commit to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion linked by Cullen is indeed telling, as are the diffs in the squirrel's original post. Note that all the diffs show unsourced text added to articles, not talkpages. For example from diff 4: "In the 21st century, that vast amount of anti-catholicism in the United States has come from atheists, secularists and satanists" and "the Church has always taught that evangelization is to be done in a loving and peaceful way". I support an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 06:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  I would weakly support an indefinite block. Often new users are confused by differences between WP style guidelines and policies, especially when it disagrees with their personal preferences and biases. We all have biases, but we strive to check them and to participate in discussions towards reaching consensus. In the end, though, participation in this project requires editors to follow the agreed upon community norms. If someone can't do that, then maybe this project isn't for them. This issue isn't unique to Catholic or even religious groups in general, so this is not an anti-Catholic or anti-religion issue. However, I would like to give the user a chance to respond to this discussion before an indef block is imposed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:BMB notes, editors "are site-banned ... only as a last resort". This editor's actions haven't been in line with our highest ideals in many cases. That doesn't make them a bad actor that deserves banning. Yes, they've been given a number of final warnings and a block (by me). That doesn't add up to a site ban in my opinion. This is a newish-to-Wikipedia editor who is making mistakes, not an editor out to destroy the project as best they can. I am monitoring their edits. Since their block expired, they have made four edits none of which appear to be significantly problematic. That said, I really, really, really (we're looking at you @Jjfun3695:) the editor would contribute to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for unsourced material on pages. In many cases when the unsourced material has been removed I go back and source the material. Regarding honorific titles, I believe there should be a serious discussion about using honorifics when referring to clergy, whether it be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, etc. Honorific titles are usually used in the secular setting when referring to clergy, at least in the USA. I believe this should be looked into. I thank you for your patience. Jjfun3695 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put; you were warned many times about problematic behaviors and kept at it anyway. This is precisely what this board is for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ppdallo (talk · contribs)

Ppdallo has caused a lot of disruption in the West Africa topic area. For this report, I don't want anyone to think about content disputes (which is so massively complicated) but instead let's focus on the conduct.

I am not the first user to notice Ppdallo's conduct issues. Chaheel Riens filed this report which ultimately led to Riens abandoning the topic area out of frustrating with Ppdallo. Specially, Chaheel Riens quoted Ppdallo as exactly saying [The Hausa language is] the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages on five different occasions. Ppdallo simply responded, i clearly did not claim that 'the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken'.The word 'popular' is absent there Okay, so that was the old dispute.

Fast forward to 6 September 2021, now Ppdallo is in a dispute with Oramfe over whether or not something or other counts as Yoruba. Here Ppdallo accuses Oramfe of irredentism and says they will be responsible for future conflict among Nigerians. Selected quote:

Your contiguous map of "indigenous Yoruba presence in Nigeria, Benin & Togo" reeks of wanton expansionism and can sow seeds of conflicts in future generations.Please take it down. WEST AFRICA SUFFERS FROM ENOUGH CONFLICTS, ALREADY.

Later in the month, more people come into the dispute as things escalate. Amid some in progress discussions, we see this quote from Ppdallo:

When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture. (bold in original)

After the many hours I spent reviewing this, all I know is that something needs to change here. For brevity, I have only included some of the more serious conduct violations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (uninvolved users)

• I find words such as “haters” and comments such as “You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.” to be incendiary as it pertains to Nigeria where ethnic tensions are at its all-time worst. See this and this & the country is currently on the verge of another civil war and collapse. So in essence, they are inadvertently doing what they are accusing another editor of. In any case, if this isn’t the first time they are being told to be more mindful of their conduct and choice of words then I think a strong warning should be issued to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We have too much battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. The most recently concluded ArbCom case notes the destructive character of nationalistic disputes. West Africa is not currently an area of discretionary sanctions. Maybe this editor needs to be put under an individual sanction similar to Horn of Africa or Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (involved users)

In addition to above report, he seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view as attested to by the original complaint. Check out one such remark:[27]. line 740

He also disputes editor contributions based on personal hunch (of what he thinks/want to be right or wrong, rather than referenced facts) which majority of the time turns out to be wrong. Check out my reply to him on one such edits where he accused me of putting up a map based on Dubious assumption .[28] He further claims there was never an ethnicity called Yoruba or groups/languages classified as being 'Yoruboid' in history.. Furthermore, he went ahead and accused my person of ethnic irredentism based on a proper map citing peer-reviewed sources on Yoruba presence in southeastern West Africa.[29] which he picked another one of his personal issues with, and then went into an edit-war back and forth.

On the other hand, he was unable to prove the map dubious like he initially claimed or even show that there was any fault with it. After several replies in the article talk page, he eventually referred me to the Yoruboid languages article and implored me to use the map there (an altogether different map). An article on the same ethnolinguistic group he claimed 'never existed'. The ethnic agenda and inconsistencies of this user is glaring. User:Talisman-white can also corroborate incendiary statements by said user which I might not be privy to share. Oramfe (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oramfe I am not here to (...to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask you, how then do you compare your statement in one of my discussions with you that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.") [30] Now who is claiming superiority over the other?

On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per yours here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[31]
Ppdallo (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oramfe, MJL, taking a closer look it appears Bbb23 handed them a two day block for conduct related issues, EW to be precise. Imho all this put together if either of you initiate a proposal asking for a T-BAN it wouldn’t be a stretch, I think this is sheer TE at its worst. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 Please consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[32] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[33]Ppdallo (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 Here is Oluwatalisman telling his Oramfe buddy the reason why he created the multiple accounts! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[34]Dont you think that I really should sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take him serious anymore??? He just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ppdallo I responded to this below. That message was not to Oramfe. That message was to Abal126 and split into 4 sections on the page [35]. In it, I am actually explaining that I was wrong. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I class as involved or uninvolved - so taking the safe option due to previous interaction - I'll say I'm involved. I believe that Ppdallo in their own mind is editing to improve the project, but they're doing so to the exclusion of anybody else's opinion and Wiki policy in a WP:GREATWRONG kind of way, itself a subset of tendentious editing. Even further, anybody who disagrees with their actions is guilty of vandalism and disruptive editing. As I said in my last interaction, I removed any page that may have connection with Ppdallo so I cannot comment on any editing since, but in all honesty based on my last experience I'm not surprised this has happened and their behaviour has been questioned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens I never had any issue with you. You requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[36] and i provided it[37] yet you continued with your edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[38] and went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit[39] and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[40] while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [41] Ppdallo (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I want to bring up is his indiscriminate removal of other user edits while reverting any detail he has issue with. He has done so here, here, and recently here, damaging the ethnic infobox borders in the first two, and removing all the new param cleanup edits by Afernand74 in the latest. In this way, he takes the page hostage to his discretion. I know he is not unaware he can manually revert because [42]. The general attitude I find with this user is one of "my dispute is more important than any other changes others have to make and any other challenges others have to bring" so he continually makes demands like You keep out of the map discussion since Oramfe and myself have already reached consensus before you forced yourself in.[43] -- a consensus that Oramfe has continually denied (here and here) but he has no problem recycling the same assertions as with Chaheel Riens, and he keeps regarding several versions of a section that now contains a-whole-nother paragraph as essentially the same as 3 years ago, suggesting we could just as well revert to that version [44] in The Etymology section reverts to its original state (as it had essentially been for three years) to before your drastic edit and then we start over from there.

This seems to be where he is coming from on the topic of the Etymology section of Yoruba people: He is of the belief that THEREFORE WITHOUT THAT HAUSA WORD THERE WOULD NEVER BE A YORUBA TRIBE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. THEREFORE THANK HAUSA PEOPLE FOR THAT [45] and it seems he will settle for little less than sections of this article being reflections of that belief. This is also correctly incendiary considering all the things that Celestina007 has pointed out in their presentation of the current affairs of Nigeria today above. His belief seems to be that entire credit for the existence of the Yoruba people should entirely go to Hausa people, for so far uncited reasons, and he seems pretty unabashed about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for that expression. As you might also see in that section [46], 2 years ago, Largoplazo noticed something wrong with that and it seems, 2 years later, I am here confounded. Besides his statement to Oramfe that there was never a tribe called Yoruba or Yoruboid groups in History. It was Hausa history. [47], he seems to have now also declared that, contrary to an Encyclopedia Britannica entry [48], There is no monolithic tribe called Yoruba..., somewhere in here, though he makes edits to the page. He has claimed that talking drums which are used by many a group in West Africa (as shown in the linked article) serve as evidence that Yorubas are indebted to Hausas since Yorubas, he believes for some reason, could not have made them, and implied that clothing elements which are worn through West Africa serve as particular evidence that Yorubas are indebted to association with Hausas in statements like The "talking drum" is called Kalangu in Hausa and they are the only people using it in the entire Sahel region, except the forest Yoruba, Do Yoruba have a history of leather tanning? How could they make the talking drum?, and Yoruba adopted Hausa clothing 100%. Yoruba have never interfaced with any Gur group in their entire history. All individual tribes comprising Gur groups are very small in population and they each neighbor Hausa people and their culture is heavily influenced by the larger Hausa. Name one Gur tribe using the Kalangu or the so called "talking drum" and what they call it in their language. implying other ethnic groups close to the Yorubas could not have influenced them, but it must all be the Hausas. All somewhere in here. So, when he makes statements like "...i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen."[49], he is making some kind of manifesto which holds that, to him, Yorubas only existed as elements in Hausa history, until they "stole" their independent identity, or elements thereof, from Hausa, or something. The only problem is that he has absolutely no sources for any of these claims -- zero shared so far!

He has recently taken to directly liberally doling out accusations of breaches to WP:ONUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV at the same times in place of other approaches to conversation toward myself and more recently in part toward Oramfe all in [50] and [51] and you can read to see if they were justified, nevertheless as one of the many things I could call him out for, he recently stated the following, ...it seems, you had no qualms violating Wikipedia's (WP:ONUS) to replace a content that had stood for three years and gradually been improved over that space of time, with a new content that is heavily biased and synthesized out of published materials to imply new conclusions. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's two of three core content policies(WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) and for your information Wikipedia says these policies are non-negotiable, and the principles upon which they are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus . In spite of all that you were given a chance to explain your edit, but instead you repeatedly went into abusive and even hate statements against certain tribe and religion other than your own, in clear violation of all relevant Wikipedia rules and policies guiding discussions between editors and editor neutrality. At this juncture, i am not sure if you still deserve the benefit of doubt that Snow Rise suggested in your favor, implying that the benefit of the doubt I had received as a newer user should be rescinded to give way to the actualization of his clearly stated goals in the Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs... section he had drawn user/admin attention to at the bottom of my talk page, while I, in fact, did painstakingly explain my edits to him which were met with ... I cant believe this is coming from you and You are not serious with these images, are you??? and general dismissal under section titled "Collection of your responses are as follows:".

There is a lot I could add. I could add to this in stages but probably the best way to get an idea is to do what MJL seems to have done going through the bulk of the discussions on the talk page, and recently under Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs on Yoruba article talkpage on my talk page. Not that I have been perfect myself but the conduct itself is best displayed. Anyway so far, I think in addition to the edit warring already pointed to above, I think I have included at least one instance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in reverting changes he does not disagree with while trying to have his points on another part of the article he does dispute thereby removing the previous contributions of others unless they return to review the page and by themselves notice that their changes are gone, and I don't know what the previous paragraph counts as but I think I read that Wikipedia policies should not be leveraged against others especially when it is clear that the user is advocating for the strictest interpretations toward clear ends. Thanks for the time. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwatalisman This is where you were coming from as well, ("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[52] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[53] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[54] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[55] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[56] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[57], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[58]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[59] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.
I would also refer admins/commenters to my discussions with you as in the link [60]concerning suggested way forward for the impasse. Ppdallo (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [61][62][63] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also would suggest that the conduct of involved users, notably Oramfe and Talisman-white be taken into consideration. Pls find below some of Talisma_whites' below as well as Oramfe and my issue with Chaheel Riens:

("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[64] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[65] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[66] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[67] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[68] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[69], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[70]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[71] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.

As for Oramfe, I am not here to (seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask him, how then would he compare his statement in one of my discussions with him that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.")[72] At this point, i don't know who is claiming superiority over the other,
On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per his statement here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[73]

As for Chaheel Riens, I never had any issue with him. he requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[74] and i provided it[75] yet he continued with his edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[76] and he went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [77]
Finally I would like admins/commenters to realise that MJL quote is out of context and this is the full text (As an aside, i am not " a repeat offender on Nigerian/West African ethnicity articles here on Wikipedia" as you claim. You only find me hopping in and out of Hausa and Yoruba people related articles and that's because i see a lot of misinformation there.(When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.)[78] and it was just an aside, nothing more to it. That many kind of statements can be seen as in my quote of Oramfe as well as Talisman-white above. Please also consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[79] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[80] Ppdallo (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ppdallo, you edit-warred to keep your preferred version in place while discussion was ongoing, that was the reason for my response. I still maintain that your source did not uphold your claim of Hausa being the second most prolific, it only gave the number of speakers - which is not the same thing. However as the source was behind a paywall it was difficult to get that across to others. What pushed me over the edge was your ridiculous evasion by claiming that the difference between "second most widely spoken language" and "second most popular afroasiatic language spoken" being "widely" and "popular" - a discussion that can be seen in your link, so thanks for posting it. Once you did provide an adequate link that upheld your view you still insisted on inserting the original link, when it was not only unnecessary, but also still contested for reasons I explained above. That was the reason for the "What the hell are you up to?" comment. It seemed at that point that you were indulging in WP:POINT type editing, and as such I had no desire to carry it on, as it clearly wouldn't go anywhere, yet at the same time your behaviour would bring you to others' attention - as it has done now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, This was the correct diff of the source[81] i provided and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[82] and then you reported me here[83] Ppdallo (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure those are the correct links? They show that you inserted the acceptable Babbel link, then re-inserted the original ethnologue link, which as a wayback link does not support the claim of it being 2nd most widely spoken - as I said all along. The genuine link (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hau here) is a paysite, so cannot be easily verified.

I reported you for edit warring as much as anything else. You started talk page discussion,[84] but ignored the fact that I had already done so[85] - and pinged you that I had done so as well as informing you in a previous edit summary. As you used exactly the same terminology to reply, you must have been aware - you just chose to ignore it and make out you were the one being accomodating. That's pretty telling in itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [86][87][88] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. And in regard to the 6th quotation, the discussion you have linked with Aabal126 as evidence that I tried to misrepresent you is not in regard to the Yoruba people article at all. All of that discussion can be seen at the view history of another article [89], the Yoruba language article. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ppdallo And in regard to the multiple accounts, no I was not blocked at the same time as you. More correctly, I was blocked back in July here as a much newer frequent user by Ponyo who has permanently dissuaded me from doing that again in the future. That was my first time warning and punishment all in one action and I quickly learned it was not the best way to go about disputing behavior on Wikipedia. This is the edit [90], all of which's changes I meant to repersist to the page. Much later, note that MJL did some reviewing on my account and dropped a kind suggestion as to how to go about conducting myself on Wikipedia [91]. So far, no one has seen repeated behavior on my part on Wikipedia. I found it vicious, however, that you asked that the benefit of the doubt I had received on Wikipedia be rescinded in attempts to leverage the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia policy against me all to the end of attaining your goals, as pointed out within the 3rd paragraph of my first response above. Thank you -Oluwatalisman (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwatalisman Nope. This was you telling your Oramfe buddy the reason why you created that account! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[92] I really need to sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take you serious anymore??? You just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ppdallo What exactly are you saying Nope to? That was not my conversation with my buddy Oramfe, that was my response to Abal126 as part of this discussion talk spanning 4 sections. And that shows how new I was to operating Wikipedia as I actually thought I needed to create a brand new section for each response and did not know how to tag users, which is one of my reasons for not responding to your discussions earlier. I think you can see how cluttered my page was at the time. Abal126, who is also much newer, 's statement earlier was I will need you to stop reediting the Yoruba people webpage or I will have Ppdallo and Oramfe to revoke your editing privileges from you and you won’t get to edit webpages anymore, understand? to which I responded with your quote above, assuming he made his statement in connection with seeing the previous temporary revoking of editing privileges on my page. In case you didn't realize, I am stylishly admitting my wrong. Now I do believe this section was brought up about you for repeated behavior. Can you please speak to repeated behavior? And by the way, I do expect you to take me serisously. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, Celestina007 I would like to bring to your notice Oramfe's continued edit warring[93] on the same Etymology section content[94] under dispute, even though i have earlier reported[95] it to User:MJL (MJL, I have provided the necessary diffs and would also like to call your attention to Oramfe's newest edit[96] of the section under dispute also in violation of (WP:ONUS).) Ppdallo (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, what you call an edit warning to me does not apply because I wasn't adding disputed content. You can't hold an article hostage because you are involved in a disagreement with a third editor, wikipedia is an open resource where editors are free to contribute verifiable content.
• Again, you have the habit of dishing out irrelevant warnings and tags, and accusing editors of false wikipedia breaches. You accused me of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV on my newest edit simply because you didn't like it, which was quite funny and ridiculous to say the least because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your personal agenda. You went on to revert my edit. I took no issues with that and simply created an entirely different subsection unrelated to your ongoing resolution with User:Talisman-white here[97] so I don't know why you are bringing that up as some sort of proof that you warned me for breaching wiki policy. It is totally moot.

• As for my map, I don't need to remind everyone here for the umpteenth time that I never reached an agreement with you. This were my replies to you; (I am not engaging in this discussion with you to win. I am addressing your vandalism and why it wouldn't stand. It isn't your place to accept that the Mokoles are Yorubas, neither is it your place to accept a map that clearly depicts what it is labelled to be... and does a good job at that. In conclusion, I don't see the issue here.' If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org.[98] So yes, I tentatively said I might consider detailing the map further by incorporating information from Ethnologue, but THAT Ethnologue wasn't an adequate resource because it doesn't depict the same thing mine does. Summarily, I never reached an agreement with you. You can't simply pick up issues with verified works you don't like and try to force an agreement with/on an editor to suit your own unsubstantiated POV.

• Also (and In case you aren't aware), I was the one who reported you for edit warring. Before that, I issued warnings to you on at least two different occasions on the Yoruba people edit page as mandated by wikipedia policy, first here at 14:26h[99] and then again here at 14:39h[100] but of course, you ignored those warnings are carried on. I left you to your devices and then proceeded to report your unproductive editing activities, after which I dropped a user notification on your page - again as mandated by wikipedia policy. That notice can be seen here:[101]. Then User: SuperSkaterDude45 came from the notice board section to the article and reverted your last edit here[102]. On my part however, I didn't even realize I had gone over and violated the WP:3RR and when I was issued the block, I appealed it here[103] and the admins responded here[104]

• In summary, you initiated an edit war (In your usual fashion) and of course I abetted your violations too, and got the flack for it by being blocked for 2 days along with you (as should be)- but the blame laid largely on you. The mere fact that you are being testified against by multiple users from different time periods is a testament to the point that you have an unruly and bulldozer editing mentality on wikipedia articles. On your very own page you put it boldly there that you are on wikipedia for an agenda, and your mission statement was to revert what you described as; (When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen".
• This clearly shows that you seem to think that you have a monopoly on what is/should be right, and intend to enforce that opinion. That is clearly battleground editing: WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is one thing Wikipedia is NOT.

• Right from your entrance on wikipedia, you have been problematic. As far back as 2018 you were issued edit warnings on the Hausa people article for vandalism[105] by administrator Thomas.W and again here[106] by admin User:Largoplazo for violating the Yoruba article. These amongst others, and that has been your trend till present with no sign of maturation nor development. Oramfe (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to lie, Ppdallo. I saw your diffs, and I reviewed them. Things weren't as what you purported them to be. That is part of the reason I took to looking into this further. Once I had a more complete understanding of this topic area (which was kind of difficult for me as an outsider), I resolved to write this report. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning and hasn't updated since 2021/10/7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen Guangming (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chen Guangming: many bots that have obsolete code broke that day, the only one that can fix that is User talk:Andrewpullin, please follow up there. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewpullin hasn't been active since July and has made only 7 edits this year. It's doubtful there will be a timely response, if there is a response. This is one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia; bots run by editors who might disappear. Some of these bots have rather critical functions. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, which is easier said than done, is, first, to rank bots by the criticality of their tasks, and, second, to identify people to back up the critical bots. The first part should be easier than the second. This sounds like a matter for Village Pump Idea Lab. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, Andrew is working on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen Guangming (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This named account and IP appear to be the same user tag teaming to continue restoring a contested edit. Both have been pointed to WP:BRD and asked to discuss the edit. I have started a discussion, but neither has responded. The named user has been warned about edit warring and making edits while logged out.

• Named account made edit at 23:29 [107]
• Named account restored part of edit at 23:54 [108] (I no longer object this part of the edit), followed minutes later by IP making a similar change [109] and then restoring the rest of the original edit [110]
• Named account restored this part again a few minutes later [111]
• IP restored it again a minutes after that [112]
• Named user returned to the article a few minutes later [113]

The disputed content should be discussed on the talk page so that a consensus compromise can be worked out, but what we have now appears to be editing while logged out to game the the system, while refusing to discuss the issue, Meters (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has made no other edits to en.Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pointing out that Special:Contributions/Theponderinggiant is a litany of POV-pushing, which apparently continued unabated despite Meters' warnings. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, can we get a revdel of Special:Diff/1050151188, which is one of the more egregious edit summaries I've seen? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theponderinggiant has continued to push his interpretation with this variant [114], and then back to his original version again with [115] and [116]. Meters (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of that edit summary justifies revdel, exactly? Mlb96 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week (partial), though I did seriously considered going with a sitewide one, instead. I guess we'll see if my instruction to them to better moderate their tone gains traction. El_C 11:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what's with the ponderings?

AleatoryPonderings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (joined June 2020)

Theponderinggiant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (joined Oct 2021)

Whatever the reason, it's weird and I don't like it. El_C 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was, thinking I was special. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness is overrated. El_C 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more pondering by Wikipedia editors would be welcome, but I'm not sure whether it should be aleatory or performed by giants. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it depend on whether aleatory involves polyhedral dice, or on the species of giant? Narky Blert (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been immediately {{Uw-uhblock}}ed as an attack username (current right-wing political meme), but a sockblock I suppose works. --MuZemike 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ El_C our friend 103.210.146.65 from my report a few weeks ago is back with what looks like a clear IP block circumvention as 1.38.220.39. I say this because I see 1.38.220.39 had made the same edit to add US flags to Big Four accounting firms with the same bad sources as last time.

1. Can we block this IP as well?
2. Or at this point, given he's willing to invest in getting very different IP ranges... what else can we do?
3. Throwing it out there as I'm not sure this is sufficient mischief to warrant taking this step, but curious to know at what point we would consider WP:SEMI... both for the page's sake, and also for my own understanding.

Courtesy pinging these other users that were involved/had line of sight into cleaning up this offender's last edits on the Big Four page. Kashmiri Mark83

Thank you! CDB-Man (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. For reference, I've manual reverted this entry: Special:Diff/1047902170 CDB-Man (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

49.145.38.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) always adding fake info about AT&T's WarnerMedia and Comcast merger... But, in reality WarnerMedia would be split from AT&T and woulf be merger with Discovery, Inc. to form Warner Bros. Discovery and scheduled to close the merger in mid-2022. So, please doing global block and global lock for 49.145.38.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)... Thanks.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdhiOK (talk • contribs)

• IP blocked by Materialscientist. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyin Bucknor Arigbede (talk · contribs)

I've been trying to help this user for the last month, but it seems like they're a case of WP:CIR.

The first issue was on Fox (African TV channel), a network that closed last month and had a completely unsourced programming list, along with other unsourced cruft that needed removal, which I did. However, OBA continued to insist that the last show ever aired on the network (a random rerun) and the entire programming list needed to stay on instead of sourcing either beyond the network's website. After again removing the programming list, they then proceeded to spin it off into its own article without adding sources, which I then put up for a successful AfD. OBA then again put the programming list in again despite the AfD which I have had to remove several times, along with a now non-applicable channel guide and the network's website, despite letting them know several times a channel guide was useless to a viewer now that the channel was defunct.

Within the last week, a couple more issues also sprung up. The editor uploaded the image File:Disney Junior 2019.svg to Commons, which was sourced to Logopedia/Fandom and is yellow-toned, and just will never appear well on the default white skins. I removed it from articles, including versions of the network which have been defunct for several years and never used that logo variation.

But the reason for this report is a list on List of programs broadcast by TV Tokyo. An out-of-control IP basically ran roughshod on the article over the summer, and without any kind of source, tried to assert that TV Tokyo has run every television show which premiered in the United States on every broadcast, cable and premium network since 1990, no matter its content. Keep in mind that TV Tokyo is a Japanese broadcast network mainly carrying domestic content, and it's very unlikely they'd not only carry Oz or Gilmore Girls, but all the films the Hallmark Channel has made. I removed it and asked for protection...only to see this morning that OBA, without questioning it at all, had restored the entire list (including a large amount of FAIRUSE violations), which the IP had now thrown on the TV Tokyo article.

I have warned them well beyond the ANI reporting limit. Outside a bunch of move requests which moved article talk pages, they have no talk page history in user or article space, and only communicate through editing summaries, so I'm asking for some kind of action to be taken now. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Africa was reverted again by OBA, this time with the addition of even more unsourced and unneeded info (channel replacement by an unrelated network on a pay-TV system; we generally do not add this). Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, and not wishing to derail discussion about this editor, but... these list of program(mes) broadcast by [X channel] sections are unnecessary, unencyclopædic, almost always unsourced, impossible to verify, wrong both accidentally and deliberately, and a pain in the neck when reading an article on a mobile phone. It's time they were just removed from every [X channel] article. If the showing of a particular series or show is that notable and important, it can easily be mentioned in prose and sourced. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 13:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for one week for edit warring as prior block was 72 hours. No issue with this being shortened should there be communication that they understand the issue(s). Star Mississippi 01:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone have a look urgently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.222.24.68 ? This user seems to be making several edits per minute with edit summaries of "rb - not clear this revert", usually making changes that are difficult to diagnose as vandalism or real (changing titles of things, changing dates by one year, etc.). I think they may be leaving a trail of disaster behind them that will be difficult to clear up. Elemimele (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be in response to Tobi999tomas's reverts, which may well be justified as the reversion of block evasion. Perhaps Tobi999tomas can provide details. The IP address is blocked for two weeks to prevent further edit warring for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this situation, it already happened before with this IP address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.96.87.18 It seems to me that the user is using multiple IP adresses to edit the pages. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be perfectly fine unless there is a block they're evading, and unless there was an edit war. Dynamic IP address assignment is common; you have probably used hundreds of IP addresses for your Wikipedia contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war already happened. Even though it was already discussed in an discussion post, he's too persistent and he continued with the disruptive editing. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of personal attacks and incivility when given talk page warnings, usually for making unsourced changes to heights at association football biographies. See 1, 2, 3, 4. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed him for disruption and personal attacks. This last edit he made wasn't "unsourced". He changed the height and left the source that contradicted his change.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that I was about to do the same thing until Bbb23 got there first. As such it's an endorse for a block from me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Olrac625 several times, through his/her talk page to add references and edit summaries to the articles, he/she edited. I didn't get a single response, and he/she keeps continuing to edit articles without adding references/edit summaries. Is there something that can be done to this?TheHotwiki (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to me. Mobile web editor, no edits to user talk pages. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She/He must have gotten notifications even on mobile mode. Here's a recent edit from the user.[117]. After being notified, to this noticeboard. The user is still making unreferenced edits, and doesn't even bother to discuss the situation here.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism. Unresponsive on talk page. Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced contents. Removal of maintenance templates. Disruptive editing. These issues mentioned are all on this user's talk page. This user should be blocked. Jourdanescense (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the section above this one, looks like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Mobile web editor, no meaningful edits to user talk space. While certainly disruptive, I haven't seen any obvious vandalism. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My name is Carlos and I live in Mexico so English isn't my mother tongue and I apologize beforehand if this isn't the appropriate place to post the following issue: I recently registered in Wikipedia with the purpose of being able to better help improve the articles I can as many articles, for example, usually sport citations composed just of a last name and a year or very little information and sometimes with no citations at all. With that in mind, I set out to improve the sources and in-text citations of every article I read, I achieved this mostly by filling the most relevant parameters availalbe for each bibliographic source in the articles such as the editors, archive URLs, publishers, full dates, and others.

However, lately, a user named DrKay started to undo all my improvements in all the articles I edited, claiming it was wrong somehow (instead of offering a correction) and when I asked for a justifications he just copied and pasted some generic notice and links to citation manuals, after I insisted he threatened me with banning me or something and the last time I asked him in his talk page to please explain to me his reasons he erased the section I created and claimed in the log that it was "abuse" and melodramatically claiming that I was an editor "pursuing personal vendettas".

I just want to know why the parameters are even made available by the platform in the first place if the editors will not be allowed to use them in a clear way.

Thank you very much in advance, I hope I can get from whoever reads this the help, respect and attention I feel I was specifically denied (perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people).

Thanks again for your time and have a great day, Carlos.

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct) to the Punding article (and apparently others), to which DrKay edit-warred to remove. Ritchie333, an admin, asked DrKay for a response and got the same one-line "go to this board" response (which was apparently enough for Ritchie333, see above). So, perhaps, it wasn't I who was "wrong" and "retaliat[ing]", but maybe, just maybe, an admin was in the wrong here. It does happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Exterminating Angel. The brightly colored warning at the top of this page and the big brightly colored box on the page for editing informs you that you must notify DrKay of your complaint. Since you have not done so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look into your complaint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, just to note, while I do agree about the note on the talk page, I did immediately ping DrKay immediately after seeing this post and with my reply. So, he was "technically" notified. Just sayin' and stickin' up for TEA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay's latest edit summary to that article says undo obvious faults like claiming that Cambridge University is in Massachusetts and not England, or that a country that hasn't existed since 1801 is extant, adding irrelevant details that no-one interested in and removing journal names that are required by the cite journal parameter. "Irrelevant details" is a matter of opinion, but the factual assertions appear to be correct. What precisely is DrKay's misconduct here? Neutralhomer, it is well established that a ping is not sufficient notice, because editors have the ability to disable receiving pings. I don't but some do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the request for help from Carlos The Exterminating Angel. Thousands of Wiki editors over the years have developed regular accepted policies regarding journal citations. These are based on the Chicago Manual of Style which is used by most academic authors, editors and publishers. You should familiarize yourself with the usual policies and you should not change good citations into bad ones. What happened it that you added lots of extraneous and often wrong information that will mislead the many thousands of students who use our footnotes every week. If they start copying you they will get lower grades. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: I'm not sure where you get your information, but elementary/middle/high schools and colleges/universities here in the US are highly recommend that their students not use Wikipedia for any sources. If they use Wikipedia, it's only for quick lookups, not for sourcing anything. Even I wasn't allowed to use Wikipedia when I was in school....and that was a long time ago. So, Carlos/TEA isn't responsible for any "lower grades" and furthermore, that's not anywhere close to the subject at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

students in fact use wikipedia a lot according to surveys. the teachers usually approve using footnotes so they can study published scholarly sources. Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Surveys". Not really a damning arguement. From what I've seen, they perfer the students actually use the actual sources (ie: the documents themselves) and not the Wikipedia articles. Meaning skipping Wikipedia altogether. Meaning, students are using Google, looking for actual sources, going to them, and taking them down from the actual source. Not lazily going to Wikipedia where the answers may lay there...if that page is up-to-date, hasn't been vandalized, etc. It's easier for teachers to teach students to look for the answers from the actual source, then from a source that may be up-to-date. Most of the time, it isn't.

Now Rjensen, I get you did a Wikimania talk in 2012 and you have your own article and you are an editor (that's a big deal), but you don't have to preach the Wikipedia gospel to me. I ain't buyin'. But we are still way off topic. This has nothing to do with students, teachers, or anything like that. It has to do with DrKay and his behavioral issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: I agree this students thing is a read herring. Whether students are using Wikipedia to find sources or finding the sources directly themselves, none of it excuses you damaging Wikipedia by destroying references making it hard for readers, be they students or anyone else, to find our cited sources because you add nonsense like claiming Cambridge University is located in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: You do understand what a "red herring" is, right? There aren't any "students". There is just DrKay's behavior. We can deflect to this non-existant "students", to my block log or something I did 9 years ago, or because TEA brought up race (is he wrong?), but you all are still (intentionally, I strongly believe) overlooking the real reason for this discussion. DrKay's behavior.

Maybe the "Cambridge University" and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was noticed and was left in as a red herring of my own, just to see if DrKay would mass-revert all of those editors/authors once again. I did. See, your non-existant "students" aren't stupid and neither am I. I left that in to see what DrKay would do. He mass-reverted once again based on two things. Instead of removing those two things, doing actual work, he hit the revert button. He engaged in an edit-war over two red herrings. He is the one with the "personal vendetta" and now crying "victim". He violated 3RR, misused the revert button, misused the vandalism templates, misused his admin tools, threatened blocks he couldn't give out. Because he refused to remove two red herrings.

I'm not as dumb as you all think I am, neither are your non-existant "students", but DrKay's behavior and this group of editors and admins defense of this behavior is. He got caught, it's time he faces some consequences. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should really disengage from this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're admitting to violating WP:POINT? As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I concur with JBL -- this argument is not positive for you (or anyone else, for that matter). eviolite (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: You call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, you all are still trying to deflect from the actual issue, DrKay's behavior. I know that you want me to stop saying DrKay's behavior, cause it will make it easier to archive this entire thing, bury me or TEA, and make it all go away, but DrKay's behavior is why we are here. So, let's discuss DrKay's behavior. Not me, not non-existant students, but DrKay's behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It's very hard to find fault with the fact that DrKay reverted those edits given that you have admitted that they introduced patently false information, any editor who saw the introduction of blatantly untrue material into an article would likely do the same. Are we really meant to chastise users for reverting what is essentially vandalism? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: Two small pieces of misinformation, which was intentionally left in to see if DrKay would remove just that information and leave in the actually correct editor/author information he intentionally removed repeatedly or blindly revert the entire thing...repeatedly. Yes, you are meant to chastise an admin for not going the extra mile and actually doing their job. Doing what they are supposed to do, the actual work, what an admin is supposed to do, instead of misusing their tools. Yes, you are meant to find consequence in an admin falling for two red herrings and mass reverting correct information...repeatedly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more onus on an admin than on any other editor to sift through a vandalistic edit to find what's right and what's wrong. If you can see at a glance that it introduces incorrect information, admin or not, it is entirely reasonable to revert it. We absolutely should not be condoning in any way the idea of falsifying information to "test" other editors, that's just wrong conduct no matter who you think you're baiting with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it. I removed some of the issues on the Punding page, the initial issue, changed some things around. I knew he was still going to try and revert, but he could mass revert 4 edits from me. But he could just remove that two red herrings. Instead he removed that and the editor/author information. The editor/author information was correct. If anyone of you would actually look, all of those names are actually in the links to the documents themselves. He edit-warred them repeatedly, didn't bother to look and see, he was wrong. Just as everyone here isn't. I did that to prove he was just going to revert the edits regardless. It was an experiment and it worked. He didn't care about the edits, all he cared about was making an editor (or in this case two) go away. Now you are trying to make that go away too instead of focusing on that behavior. You just don't like how I got to it. I got one over on DrKay and you all. Too bad. Focus on the big picture and not me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% getting it. You added "red herrings" (ie deliberately false information--vandalism, basically) to try to bait another editor. Now you want that editor chastened because they didn't sift through those edits to separate wheat from chaff. Well if you don't want someone to revert your edits, don't mix vandalism with constructive editing. If I've got three punchbowls and I see you take a turd in two of them, I'm not checking the third one, I'm throwing them all out, that's an entirely reasonable response. If this was about purely constructive editing being reverted en masse that would be a wholly different matter but it's not, you've set up a situation where any reasonable editor would have reverted those edits. I would have done so immediately if I saw them on my watchlist. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X: No, you are 100% not. The editor is an admin, which are intentionally overlooking. That admin is held to a higher standard than I am. That admin must look before they leap. That admin must check for that "turn in the punchbowl" (as you so elegantly put it) and not throw all three of them out the window blindly with the revert button. But that's what he did. He removed perfectly legit information, didn't readd it, hasn't readded it even though it's been said multiple times, because they feel they are right. To hell with the rules. To hell with the fact that the actual medical papers list those names. The admin thought he was right and refused to admin he was wrong, edit-warred, warned a user, WikiStalked, and threatened a user with a block. When he could have easily removed two pieces of information. You might not like how I did it, you might want to overlook the fact that completely correct information remains off the page, that an admin broke the rules, and not "a reasonable editor", but that's what happened.

A situation was, indeed, setup. But had DrKay taken the time to look at it, he would have seen the situation at hand. But he flies by the seat of his pants, is rude, threatens, warns, and doesn't care. Focus on that, not on me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay being an admin has no bearing on this. No admin tools were used. Their edits are being judged by the same standard as any other editor because that's what an admin is in this case. Having sysop tools doesn't mean you have to hand-hold a vandal any more than any other editor would be expected to. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an admin here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has already been raised and the reason for the reverts explained multiple times on talk pages,[118][119]][120] by edit summary[121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128] and at other noticeboards[129] by multiple editors. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay:: Not even close, dude. Not even close. When you explain, with directing people to a noticeboard, why you removed authors of papers, from references and did it repeatedly to the point you violated 3RR. Also why your snide remarks to just about every talk page post from "abuse" to "personal vendettas" and just rudeness with no reason. Then we can consider it "explained". Cause when you were asked anything, you just erased it and actually issued repeated vandalism warnings against The Exterminating Angel, an editor you were highly WP:INVOLVED with. I don't think you should have been throwing any sort of warnings out. This edit, perfectly fine] you removed portions of it and then issued a Warn4IM warning. The hell dude?! These are authors and editors on the papers. They are allowed to be used as citations and attributions within the reference. Do you know anything about referencing an article?

There are other examples of this, but I think this is enough. This is a prime example of extreme admin overreach, WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates (I know that one), misuse of admin tools. You should be TROUTed and thrown to ArbCom and you owe Carlos an apology. The hell dude?! You know better! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:, maybe you should be a part of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several things happening here that I want to separate out, as it may explain the issue more clearly:

• Most of what DrKay removed were things that were factually incorrect. I have no problem with these, nor should anyone else.
• The exceptions were, as Cullen328 suggests, whether to include editor names in a citation. AManWithNoPlan gave a reasonable justification with this comment "Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used. For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time. Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author." Personally, I can't get excited about the formatting of citation templates and think we have more important work to do around here.
• Help:Citation Style 1 says "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." I would suggest that if the formatting of citations is not to your liking, you raise a discussion about it - Talk:Punding would be a suitable place to start.
• In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive. (After all, it tends to leads to ANI threads like this one!) In this instance, a good response would be a polite follow-up question to DrKay along the lines of "Sorry, I don't understand the salient point in the conversation you linked to, can you clarify what you mean"? How to ask smart questions may be useful reading. That does not mean I'm excusing DrKay's conduct - admins should strive to communicate as helpfully and thoroughly as they possibly can, but telling someone to do their own homework is not really a sanctionable offence.
• Neutralhomer appears to be inflaming the situation. I advise them to step back and reflect on what their actual goal is here, because despite their protestations, it still seems to be centred round wanting to "stick it" to DrKay and hold it up as an example of "admin abuse". No good will come of this; in particular you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia.
• Do not, even in vague suggestion, accuse editors of racial bias, particularly when the dispute in question has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: First, it's not "they", it's "he". I'd thank you to get the pronouns correct. Second, I left examples above of how, yes, he is "significantly harming the encyclopedia". Third, nowhere have I said I was going to "stick it" to DrKay. I don't like to see admins going after users for no real apparent reason. Fourth, I don't like admins sticking up for admins, especially when they know they are wrong and threatening those who go after their friends (ie: "No good will come of this"). Fifth, if you can't operate with a clear mind (ie: "you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia"), then maybe you should have an uninvolved admin step in. Because you are "excusing DrKay's conduct". That is what you are doing. You did it at 3RRV then you turned it on me, you are doing it now against TEA, you aren't able to operate with a clear mind. Maybe it's time for you to step away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you don't want to listen to my advice, then I'll duck out of the conversation. However, I will just add that a) "In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive." is hardly "admins sticking up for admins" and b) if you carry on like this, you run the risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: Here's some feedback from a non-admin: interjecting your commentary here isn't helping you or TEA, and is actually helping DrKay.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbaJoe123456: How? Everyone has been coming to his rescue from the beginning. He didn't need my "help". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: No, I want you to actually do something more than tell TEA that he needs to form his responses to DrKay's rudeness in a better manner. Look at the evidence of his WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates, misuse of admin tools, his threatening a user with a block, and actually do something that doesn't involve threatening the other user. Do something to the offending user. Because when you "duck out", you are sticking up for admins. You can block me, I don't care. I fully expect it. DrKay will continue to bully other editors, you will continue to stick up for him. Nothing will change. Be the change, block me, or be a coward. You have three choices. Make one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A) Who's Carlos? & B) This is a content dispute, which should be settled at the artice-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos is the name TEA gave both at the beginning and end of their post. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to request a one-way interaction ban on Neutralhomer with regard to me. I consider the posts in this thread, which are not supported by facts, as prima facie evidence of a personal vendetta, which arose over me making two edits to WZFC (AM) which were so wholly trivial that they did not even noticeably effect the appearance of the page. However, on the basis of those single edits, he has pursued me relentless from talk page, to AN3, to ANI and clearly has no intention of stopping. His complete over-reaction to such trivial edits is concerning, as is his previous history of off-wiki harassment. I feel fortunate that I edit anonymously. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop trying to force yourself into the role of a victim and agree to engage here what you refused to do with me even when I pled with you and which of course to hold a civil and rational discussion, please? No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations, let's just talk this over. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations": you mean like calling someone whose skin color, home life, life story, and nationality are a complete mystery to you, a racist? DrKay (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never once mentioned race but yes, I belong to a racial minority (I'm Hispanic and that can be easily surmised since I actively participate on the Spanish Wikipedia) but I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it; is it? I truly hope not for the sake of Wikipedia.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never once mentioned race—You literally said perhaps because of race-related reasons in your first post in this thread. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not? Where did I say that? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay Dude, you are not a victim here, so stop acting like one. You are an editor who refuses to communicate with editors in anyway but rudeness, snark, and one line directions to a noticeboard. Then, when you are actually confronted with your behavior, you play the victim card, say you are being "abuse[d]" and the person confronting you has a "personal vendetta". When your edits are open to the public and it's quite evident who the real bully is. You can bring my block log up all you want. I can bring up your actual behavior, your WikiStalking of TEA, your same one-line directions to another admin when he was asking you, basically, what your problem was. Now you want a "one-way interaction ban", meaning you can still bully me, but I can't do anything about. No. Interaction bans don't work that way, buckwheat. If any I-Ban happens (that's a BIG if), it will be two-way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Buckwheat", Neutralhomer? Really? Please explain your use of that term. What, precisely, does it refer to? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Have you ever heard of The Little Rascals? I'm not that old, but they used to play in reruns with The Three Stooges on TBS in the mornings. Also, I'm from the South (Virginia to be exact), "Buckwheat" is something you call another person. Yeah, it's an old term, but since my parents come from Preston County, West Virginia, which is home to the Buckwheat Festival, it's still used. It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. It has a place in two very distinct areas. The Little Rascals and The South/West Virginia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was what you meant. You are admitting that you used a racist slur. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to epitomise one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing, their refusal to accept when they are wrong which leads to an inability to admit being wrong and more importantly learn from their mistakes. While I admit I'm a bit like that as well albeit mostly on the refusal to accept being wrong, IMO Neutralhomer tends to take it way too far. Especially considering they don't back down or disengage. (At least when I make this mistake I tend to post one or two long posts, and promptly ignore the discussion forever or at least days or weeks.)

I suspect most of us are fine accepting Neutralhomer was unaware of or didn't understand the racial connotations of the term and didn't mean it that way. However per the source provided by Cullen328 and even more by Schazjmd (which to be fair, I'm not sure if Neutralhomer saw even if it was before the above comment), it's a term that is considered racist. This takes into account the history including way it's been used.

Using such a term isn't a good thing, still the simple way forward is for Neutralhomer to recogise what the sources are telling them and accept that it's a racist term and therefore not use it anymore on Wikipedia. Ideally this would come forth in something like "Wow, I wasn't aware of the history of the term and didn't mean it that way. I apologise for using it and won't ever do so again.". Or at least some acknowledgement "Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that.".

Instead we get this. As I said the thing that matters most is that they learn from this and so even with this reply or no reply, it wouldn't be that bad if we could be confident Neutralhomer wouldn't go around using the term buckwheat again. But the reply combined with my admittedly very limited experience makes me think we can't have confidence this is what will happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBC, ABC, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and AP News all characterize it as a racist term (as did the Colorado legislature which reprimanded the member who used it). Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, if you think "Interaction bans don't work that way", you should read WP:IBAN, and learn about one-way IBANs. It most certainly CAN work that way.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbaJoe123456: Like I said, if (and that's a BIG if) any I-Ban happens, it will be two way. I won't have a known bully of an admin being allowed to bully me and I not have recourse. It will be a two-way interaction ban, again if one actually happens. At this point, I don't think that will take place, not the way this discussion is going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no bulling from me. I've not once posted to your talk page; neither of us edits in the topic area of the other. This would all go away if you left me alone. This has all happened because you approached me, followed me and are determined to push a false narrative in relation to me. Just walk away and you're very unlikely to ever come across me again. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Hello everyone,

I've decided to add a more complete explanation so you'll have the full context: My name is Carlos and I'm Mexican; Wikipedia is, to put it simply, my passion, (not a pastime, a passion; I feel true well being and satisfaction when I help improve an article. With this in mind, I created an account and never had a problem with anyone (other the occasional spelling mistake, as Spanish is, naturally, my mother tongue). I focused my efforts on adding new bibliographic sources (I won't use those which are more than 15 years old, unless they're considered classic) and trying to fill all the parameters that Wikipedia made available to me and everyone and which I suppose aren't there just for show; anyway (like the names of the editors, publishers, places of publication, full date when available instead of a year, among many others), because I believe that MORE INFORMATION IS GOOD instead of les information.

DrKay caught wind of this and undid my editions, when I complained he just put copied and pasted a text redirecting me to Wikipedia's manuals, then he tracked down all the articles I've ever made and undid those too, which to me, speaks of malice; when I complained again on his user talk page he erased my plea to just have a normal civil discussion about the issue and he arrogantly and disdainfully mentioned in the history log that he erased my posts because I was an editor "with a personal vendetta"; a smear. So I had no choice but seek other alternatives and I chose to complain here.

Now, he mentions race which I thought was not a factor in this issue, and even if he didn't know me is easy to see my contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia and my username which is the title of a popular Mexican-made movie. So, indeed, I belong to a racial minority.

For the sake of Wikipedia (which I would be embarrassed to see involved in a scandal), I hope DrKay has no ulterior racist motives of any kind, but he's the one that brought it up. Regardless of that, like I said, he just undid my edits even if it meant turning the article into a stub like with Punding; his mentioned motives? My sources I think because he refused to explain more and even threatened with having me banned from editing. And he remains rude and defiant as you can see. That's what happened, in a nutshell, and I hope I will find here the help and resolution I seek; and if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place? (Furthermore, when added a source with relevant parameters nobody complained and did the same for all the other sources so they would look the same).

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You're proceeding from a misunderstanding about sources and templates. Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable. That's a question of norms and common practice. The related issue is that you apparently don't understand the distinction between the editor of a book with multiple chapters by different authors, and the editor of a journal. I explained all this to Neutralhomer in this thread. That's the main reason why you were reverted, and DrKay explained that in the revert.
• Regarding your claim of racism, please post a diff. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Maybe I can chime in as someone who spends some time fixing {{sfn}} no-target errors, which often involves tweaking {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} parameters (and also has relevant IRL experience). Attempting to fill in all the parameters of the templates is detrimental to the reader experience and unnecessary inflates the length of citations; as a result it is pretty disruptive. In addition, and as with any work that consist mindlessly copying stuff, it also introduces a significant number of errors and imprecisions. And looking at just a single edit, the number of errors is pretty astounding:

• confusing the British Cambridge with the Boston-suburb Cambridge (as has already been mentioned);
• spelling out the UK the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" without mentioning Northern Ireland,
• Listing the Mayo Clinic as a publisher of "Drug-Induced Compulsive Behaviors: Exceptions to the Rule–Reply–I", which does not seem to be the case
• Using the current editorial board to fill in the {{cite journal|editor}} parameters of a 12 year-old publication
• Using the {{cite book|chapter}} parameter for a single-author book, whereas the docs at {{cite book}} indicates that it should be used in relation to books written by multiple authors (as is the practice in regular scientific writing).

I could go on, but I will stop. I think The Exterminating Angel's current editing habits are disruptive; they should stop filling out unnecessary parameters, and absolutely double-check or triple-check the validity of any information they are adding in those templates. JBchrch talk 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: TEA made mistakes on article-in-question. DrKay corrected those mistakes. Well then, what's the problem? What's this report about? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: DrKay engaged in a revert war, instead of actually "correcting" mistakes (which would have required removing a small amount of text), he removed all of TEA's text. He then WikiStalked TEA to other pages, issued warnings, continued to revert war, broken 3RR repeatedly, refused to discuss anything in a constructive way (even with an admin), and threatened to block an editor who he engaged in that revert war. DrKay did not simple "correct mistakes", he blindly reverted.

If JBchrch thinks these parameters are "unnecessary", then perhaps those fields should be removed from the infobox templates completely. TEA added all available information to the infobox template. Instead of working with the editor, we have yet again warned over and over and over again, insulted, and diminished another new editor to that of a child who knows no better. We have yet again had admin after admin circle the wagons around another abusive admin who is given carte blanche to do whatever he wants without consequence and the reporting editor(s) are the ones threatened and punished. When will it end?

Maybe TEA did make mistakes, but he is a new editor and English is, admittedly, not his native language. But we are holding that against him. We are excusing the behavior of DrKay, all the insults and rudeness, because, essentially TEA made a mistake. He wasn't "disruptive", he didn't "damage the encyclopedia", it's still standing, it's still running, no one was sued. We can stop being overly dramatic. He made a freakin' mistake. Maybe we should help the new editor instead of insulting and punishing him, just like we always do. Then hold DrKay responsible for his actions, actions even Ritchie333 "counter-productive" and "not polite and helpful".

Do I expect this? No. Do I expect you lot to actually do the right thing? Hell no! Will DrKay see even one sanction? Absolutely not. Will we lose yet another new editor to abusive editors and admins? Yes! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: I think the parameters were unnecessary in context, not in general. Hope it clarifies. JBchrch talk 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch: So the editor/authors listed on the front page of the documents in question are "unnecessary". I doubt they will be happy to know that "in context" or that will "clarif[y]" anything, but I'm not telling them squat. It's not like anyone who it's on a medical paper gives two shits what people on Wikipedia think anyway. They got published in a medical journal, they are far and above us no-name cretins (myself included). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: Are you deliberately interpreting uncharitably what I write? Honest question. JBchrch talk 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch: No, I'm not. What was removed was the editor/author names, which are listed on the actual medical papers. You said those fields (ie: names) were "unnecessary". I took that to mean you think those names are "unnecessary". 1+2=3.

If people would actually look at the history of the actual (ie: Punding) and what was removed, instead of focusing on me or TEA, maybe this would move a little bit better. Maybe I come off a little "rough", but when people focus on anything but the subject at hand, I tend to get a little bit cranky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May we have a list of the article or articles being disputed over? Sources are either correctly shown or they're not. It can't be both ways. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I can only speak for myself (pinging The Exterminating Angel), but Punding would by my example. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, in that case it's simple. TEA's version, which you reverted to, isn't correct (I'm looking at [130]). There has never been any such country as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"; there is no context in which that would be the correct way to refer to the United Kingdom. Not now, and not before 1801. Jon Stoessl, though quite distinguished, became editor-in-chief of Movement Disorders in 2020 (see [131], page 8), and was not editor-in-chief in 2006 when "Punding and dyskinesias" was published. Even if he had, the editor of a journal is not considered a co-author of a paper published in that journal. The same goes for Julio Licinio, who was editor-in-chief of Molecular Psychiatry when "Insights into pathophysiology of punding reveal possible treatment strategies" was published in that journal but is his name is not "on the paper" nor does he list that paper in his extensive CV. Confusing Cambridge with Cambridge, Massachusetts is a problem inasmuch as both have major--but different--academic institutions based there.

For those unfamiliar with how academic publications work, there are important distinctions between the editor of a book with multiple chapters submitted by different authors and the editor of a journal. In the former case, the editor is really another author, who has probably helped organize the book and more than likely will contribute a chapter themselves. They may have organized a conference panel or two which led to the book. In the latter case, they are overseeing the publication of the journal, organizing submissions, assigning reviewers, and such. It's a much more permanent role; lasting years. The key distinction is that they're the editor of the journal, not of the articles published in the journal, whereas in the former case the credited editors are the editor of the book (as opposed to the editor(s) who work at the publishing house that published the book).

To take this back to the original issue, citation templates have many parameters to help Wikipedia editors capture the many nuances of the publishing world. Not all are necessary or even appropriate in all cases, and using them incorrectly, no matter how well-intentioned, can convey inaccurate information to the reader, as in this case. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Mackensen. Outside the academic arena, it is neither necessary nor useful, and actually counter-productive when citing an article in the New York Times for example, to add to the reference that Punch Sulzberger was the editor, and that the newspaper is published in New York City, the state of New York, and in the United States of America. The senior editor of a major newspaper is not involved with fact checking or copy editing routine articles, and the repetition of "New York" enters into blue sky territory. If the name of the city is part of the newspaper's name, then there is no need to repeat it elsewhere in the reference. And if you do add a location, be sure to get it right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: So, what you are saying is, because TEA used the wrong template, since he is a new user, English isn't his first language, and didn't understand the "nuances of the publishing world", that made it OK for DrKay to insult/warn him repeatedly and threaten him with an indef block. Is that what you are saying? Instead of DrKay being helpful and polite to the new user, he was rude and engaged in an edit war. What DrKay, an admin could have done was explain what TEA had done wrong, help him to better understand those "nuances", better use those templates. Is that not what admins are for?

Now, I have readily admitted that after I moved somethings around to help TEA out, I left the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Cambridge University" in as red herrings for DrKay (with no intention of leaving them in permanently, I'm not a complete jerk). The editor/authors were admittedly OK. I personally didn't see the Infobox book use as a problem. If the use of Infobox journal was a problem, DrKay could have certainly explained that too, again politely. He did not. But the use of the red herrings were to see if he would remove them or just revert all. He reverted all. That was a problem.

TEA was not helped, nothing was explained, and even I didn't see the Infobox journal issue until now. I think Infobox book was fine. Had DrKay explained that, I would have learned something new. I may have been here for 17 years, but I haven't learned everything. That was something new. But DrKay could have explained everything to TEA in a polite way and not just revert with rudeness. That's not helpful to anyone. It helps no one. It leads to issues like this. We all need to be better editors. That's what we are here to do, edit an encyclopedia. I think we have forgotten that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Actually Cullen328, when they are listed on the front page or top of the document (and it's an academic document, a medical article, not the New York Times), you do add the editors and authors. DrKay removed many editors and authors....repeatedly. Which I have said....repeatedly. This wasn't the Times, but medical articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, in your first contribution to this conversation at 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC), you wrote °the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct). Right? Now, a little more than 24 hours later, you are talking about two pieces of false information that you call "red herrings" that you deliberately restored, in an attempt to somehow trip up DrKay. You told incompatible stories. There is a word for that behavior and it is reprehensible. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Please study it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: No, I actually didn't, if you would stop putting your own spin and interpretation on what I write. Read the words as they are and go from there. You and I said the same thing. You just spun it. With the exception of the red herrings, which show DrKay not doing his due diligence, TEA did everything right. DrKay didn't help a new editor as an admin should. No one wants to see that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, are you still trying to argue, 25 hours into this farrago that you created, that it is a good thing to add a list of the names of the entire editorial board of an academic journal to a reference to an individual article published in that journal? Where on earth is that considered good practice? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't start this discussion, TEA did. Second, yes, I am prepared to continue to argue DrKay's behavior until it gets through your thick skulls. I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. Third, it is always good practice to stand up for what's right, never back down to bullies, and always tell people when they are wrong. I will always die on that hill. Maybe I'll die alone this time, but I'm fine with that. Fourth, the hell is a farrago? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, Farrago is a Latin word, meaning "mixed cattle fodder", used to refer to a confused variety of miscellaneous things, and several online dictionaries agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Several online dictionaries agree that you could just say "bullshit". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I make my own vocabulary choices, and anyone curious about a word I use can look it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Never said you couldn't. It is funny, though, that you get defensive about me using a thesaurus on farrago and coming up with "bullshit". "Mixed cattle fodder" is a polite way of explaining that, but a thesaurus does come up with the comparison just the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any reading of my comment that allows that interpretation. I do think it would help this discussion if you gave concrete examples (with diffs) of the things you're talking about. From what you're saying above it's my impression that you're still confused about the author/editor distinction in academic publishing, but I could be mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Real quick, what part of my three paragraphs "allow[ed] [for] that interpretation"? From Punding and from Mexican Spanish. I would advise everyone to actually look at the individual links, click on them, and look at the documents. Remember that TEA is a new editor and that DrKay is an experienced editor and an admin before passing judgement. The "nuances" and what template to use and how to use it is confusing to a new user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Mexican Spanish, yes, TEA's edit is wrong, and wrong for the reasons DrKay gave. John M. Lipski is the sole author of Tracing Mexican Spanish /s/:: A Cross-Section of History. Crediting the editors of Language Problems and Language Planning is incorrect and would give a false impression of authorship. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with academics and publishing. María Rosario Montaño-Harmon is the sole author of "Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric and Its Implications"; Karen L. Smith appears to have been the editor for the Applied Linguistics section of Hispania at that time; compare doi:10.2307/344576. It would not be appropriate to credit Smith. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: OK, Now look at this. First edit removed. He leaves some of the editors. If the editors aren't necessary, then why remove some, but not all? He also removes ISSN numbers. Why?

Also, he also removes is the publisher. Those are required, even in books and newspapers. Look at any article. Those are required. Not adding the publisher, etc. could get use sued. It almost did with the Nielsen Arbitron debacle (see WP:TVS). We didn't have the right publisher information and Wikipedia got slapped with a DCMA notice. So, yeah, it's required. Explain that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of academic journals were removed. The editors of books and conference proceedings were retained. This has been explained already. The issns were replaced with journal names, which were otherwise missing causing a CS1 maintenance error. 'journal' is a required parameter. 'issn' is not required. Publishers of academic journals were removed. Publishers of books were retained. Again, this has been explained already. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, if you truly believe that listing the name of the publisher is required for newspaper, magazine and academic journal references, then it should be easy for you to provide a link to a policy or guideline spelling out this requirement. Please do so when you wake up. My own practice is to provide the publisher for references to books, but I contend that my practice of providing the name of the periodical is sufficient for references to newspapers, magazines and academic journals. Let's see your evidence for this requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You lot are giving me a migraine and I have to be up at 8a for the real world. I know the vast majority of you don't live there, but some of us do. So, final punches.....and go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and that's time ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends. I look forward to more deflection later today. Let's try for after 3p EDT, shall we? Good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is TEA's report. Let him comment from here onward. Don't make yourself the focus/topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: you most definitely do not get to decide whether a one way ban is happening. Nor does DrKay. While your can feel it's unfair, and you can explain why you think it's unfair, it's our decision as a community of editors (generally for many of these discussions with a majority being non-admins) that ultimately matters. Although I don't personally think an iban, one way or two way is merited you continuing insisting it isn't going to happen isn't helping anything, in fact it's increasing the chances it might happen albeit only very very minorly. (Your other behaviour here is however likely having a bigger effect on the chances a one way iban might happen.) Frankly your apparent disdain for our readers, be they students or anyone else, which seems to be reflected in your comments here makes me think a better solution might simply be a site ban or indefinite block of you. (Redacted) What anyone editing here should care about is our readers not their ego. If an action makes the experience worse for them for no good reason, that is something we should all care about. If an editor keeps insisting on preserving or changing something despite the harm to our readers for no apparent reason other than a desire to win an argument, that's an editor who likely doesn't belong here per WP:Vandalism and WP:POINT. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since DrKay mentioned my race out of the blue (by the way and for the record, DrKay mentioned race first, not me) and because of how antagonistic he has been to me, I became paranoid about racism which I had never experienced in Wikipedia with the possible exception of this instance, and it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal). So I hope we can deal with this issue in-house, on our own, with my question being: If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay mentioned race first, not me—Would it be possible for you to provide a diff of this? Without seeing where this happened all we have to go on is that you first mentioned race when you started this ANI heading, and if anything has happened previous to this it hasn't been linked to here yet. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Exterminating Angel: No, for the record, he did not. In your very first post to ANI you said perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people (in which you not only mention your race, but also an assumption on DrKay's race based on nothing), and I haven't found anything about race in any of DrKay's prior edit summaries or talk page posts. Also, could you clarify what you meant by the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes? Votes in what?

In regards to citation parameters: please read the content guideline on what information to include on a source -- it conveniently presents what to present for each type of citation, notably excluding editors for everything except individually authored chapters in books (which these were not). Of course, you should not add blatantly false information either (Cambridge etc).

And when multiple experienced editors, all active for over a decade (I count at least 4: not just DrKay, but also Rjensen, AManWithNoPlan (here), and Philip Cross (here)), tell you that something should not be done, you should listen to them, not get into multiple simultaneous edit wars. That is not productive at all. Regards, eviolite (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will listen to what I'm told, however I must add, science is not a consensus. Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Exterminating Angel: I realized I should clarify something you might have misunderstood -- if you were worried about this "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mexican Spanish" -- Mexican Spanish is referring to the article you edited (as you can see by the link). These are standard warning templates people use when editors seem not to cooperate. No racial insinuation at all. eviolite (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Exterminating Angel: But you don't appear to be listening to what you've been told. The reason for not filling in all the parameters has been explained several times, including at least twice on this page by User:Mackensen at timestamps 02:13, 18 October 2021 and 02:44, 19 October 2021, e.g. "Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable." Extra details like the full name of the country "United States of America" are unnecessary in almost all cases (since the city and state will suffice) and distracts from the key information. Similarly, as was explained earlier in this thread (and elsewhere), listing the editorial board of an academic journal is unnecessary and extraneous, and gives excessive weight to people who have had no academic input into the work cited. It is also often wrong since editorial boards change frequently and indeed examples of where they were wrong are given above in this thread. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked Neutralhomer for 48 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the discussion. The comment above gives me no confidence that he can simply walk away from a debate when he is being disagreed with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He mightn't see it that way. But, it's for his own good. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the condescension is necessary; it's for the good of WP to stop the disruption. I think the requested interaction ban (forbidding NH from interacting with DrKay) is also a good idea, for the same reason. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) An interaction ban makes sense but given the admission of introducing false content to "entrap" DrKay I would suggest a tban worded in such a way as to prohibit the knowing introduction of untrue material into articles for any reason (I can't believe we'd actually have to write such a thing out, but here we are) as it seems that this behaviour could conceivably continue otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be necessary. NH said he hadn't read WP:POINT, so in theory he didn't know he couldn't do that. Now he knows and has been warned not to do so under any circumstance. Were he to do that again after unambiguously knowing he shouldn't, a block would be warranted. —El Millo (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an editor who's been here since 2007 with 66k edits to their name should need a specific guideline to understand why damaging Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. (While technically it doesn't matter, the fact that it's IMO a very dumb point doesn't help matters to me.) The point I was trying but maybe failed to explain above is when Neutralhomer gets into these disputes, to me it looks like they get so focused on defending themselves and their edits and trying to prove they are right that they forget why they are here namely to create an encyclopaedia to serve our readers. To some extent many editors fall into this trap at times including me, but it seems to me Neutralhomer falls into it too easily and too hard. It's fine to think your preference is better for the encyclopaedia and our readers and defend and support it. However you also have to be able to accept when the community disagrees with you, including the level of discussion that may be reasonable to establish this depending a lot on how much it matters. And most importantly, you should never lose sight what matters is what's best for the encyclopaedia and our readers. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but their comments above where they didn't seem to understand the point being made by me and others that we are here to serve our readers is a major red flag to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems to matter a big deal to NeutralHomer I should clarify I meant live edits. I restricted it to live edits since these seem to be the best indicator of experience. I apologise for any confusion or offence causesd by my failure to make it clear I meant live edits above. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironic. By bludgeoning the report (which wasn't begun by him), the lad made it about him, when he wanted it to be about another. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the word for a boomerang that seeks out vexatious bystanders? EEng 03:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Contempterang? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd call it a vex-byst-erang. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, good block, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @The Exterminating Angel: despite the derailing of the discussion by another editor, you must have learned from it that your edits have been too error-prone to expect other editors to leave them stand, or to check each fact one-by-one. For instance, at both George V and Punding you introduced the misconception that Cambridge University Press is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, rather than Cambridge, United Kingdom. I can see how you'd make this mistake, but if you had a more thorough double-checking process when making these reference changes, you could have caught that before submitting your edit. Obviously you've now learned this particular publisher's location for future, but how else will you be changing your behaviour in future to increase your accuracy? — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University are the same institutions and that is obvious; and so is the fact that Cambrige University Press is an autonomous institution derived from Cambridge University, as the name says, I was just trying to be thorough and complete in the info about sources but no reasonable person would consider both to be the same; I agree it's wrong because someone might assume CUP belongs to CU and while this is financially true, functionally is a complete different institution. Either way, that would not warrant reverting an entire edit, just a correction and telling the editor to please not do it again (talking to the editor which is DrKay never did with me, and saying it politely, which DrKay has never been either).The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clear things up: the issue is not with Cambridge University at all. The issue is with the locations you placed. Cambridge University Press is not in Cambridge, Massachusetts as you wrote. It is in Cambridge, United Kingdom, a completely different city. eviolite (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simple mistake and very natural confusion if you don't live in either country and it can be corrected, still no need to revert the whole thing.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, the press does happen to be part of Cambridge University (which is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom), but I'm rather confused as to what The Exterminating Angel is saying because I never mentioned the university. Cambridge University Press is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Simple as that.

Re-reading this discussion, I see a comment by DrKay that somewhat escaped me showing that, I believe, the primary concern with your edits is more a matter of excessive detail in sourcing (for which "the parameters in the template exist" is not a compelling argument). DrKay's diffs show a pattern of other editors raising issues with your edits. In this case, it seems to me like this needs an RFC or discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere, as ANI is not the place to decide content disputes (only conduct disputes). — Bilorv (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's ETA??? It's rather frustrating, seeing Neutralhomer going to bat for him & he's been absent from a report he began. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP

Folks. I was initially sympathetic toward The Exterminating Angel. I thought, a newbie misled by the WMF's instructional videos into thinking citation templates must be used ("the more complete a bibliographic source, the better; ESPECIALLY, in articles where the sources are just a title and a year"; several references in Mexican Spanish are {{sfn}} references referring to listings in the bibliography; a new editor is unlikely to be aware of WP:CITEVAR and the separation of notes and bibiography in many of our more sophisticatedly developed articles because, after all, the video just says to use citation templates) and jumping to the conclusion that the existence of a parameter means it should be filled out: "those parameters are available by this platform for a reason". See also his first post above. But now I'm getting a whiff of under a bridge.

• On his talk page, in edit summaries, and here, several editors have attempted to explain the misapprehension about parameters, many in response to the initial query. The first attempt, by rjensen, precedes DrKay templating him. He rejects the information and accuses DrKay specifically of rudeness and vindictiveness.
• Some of his additions to the citation templates were also erroneous. Several editors have pointed this out, but his response here was to sidestep the issue with an assertion that Cambridge University Press is independent of Cambridge University.
• I have not seen rudeness from DrKay in his dealings with this editor. It is possible that the editor misinterpreted Template:uw-disruptive2 and Template:uw-disruptive3 as attacks, but a statement of terror seems overblown, and there is open hyperbole in the claim that DrKay reduced Punding to a stub. That makes me ill disposed to take the accusations of rudeness and vindictiveness at face value. Looking at Dr Kay's removal of TEA's last post at User talk:DrKay, I find "I already explained, multiple times, as have other editors, multiple times" quite a mild edit summary, especially in response to "Honestly, give me a legitimate and valid reason why should I heed that rule".
• From his first post here, this editor has suggested racial animus against him; added in the second edit: "perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people". After asserting repeatedly that "DrKay mentioned race first, not me", "I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it", he has now changed to: "I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM."
• Veiled threats to stir up a mob against Wikipedia on Twitter, or just to get us downvoted on Reddit or something: "it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal)"
• I see the username, which nobody but me appears to have had any suspicions about, is attributed to a Mexican film, but by this point I'm done assuming and need evidence of good faith. What is this editor here to exterminate?

I think we are being played. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might have mis-linked to the Mexican film. This is what we say about The Exterminating Angel. The “comic horror” of a “slow descent from normality into anarchy” in ”a never-ending feast”. Hmmm… DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cametzler, a single-purpose account creating and editing only articles related to Chris Metzler, has been logging out to repeatedly remove the db-spam tag from the blatantly promotional San Francisco IndieFest (director of programming: Chris Metzler). Multiple warnings on their user talk page have been ignored. 2A01:4C8:58:C7F5:D847:7BA5:279F:46FE (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a few days ago and have now deleted the article. Deb (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 2A01:4C8:58:C7F5:D847:7BA5:279F:46FE (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: same editor has re-created the article at San Francisco Independent Film Festival, and removed the db-spam tag and templates: [132]. 2A01:4C8:58:C7F5:D847:7BA5:279F:46FE (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article to draft pending improvement and blocked Mr Metzler indefinitely. I see from his Talk page that he's had multiple warnings, every one of which he's ignored. Deb (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry Hughes8 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Date-changing vandal in the Chicago area
• 174.253.66.81 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.253.67.7 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.253.82.184 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.107.48.1 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.107.48.2 (talk ·  · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Fourteen months ago, The Anome blocked some IPs from the Chicago area that were vandalizing articles by changing dates and worse. Today, Henry Hughes8 registered the username and immediately began to make the same edits as blocked IPs. For instance, a long series of IPs have been edit-warring a maintenance template into a video game article, now joined by Henry Hughes8.[133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141]

A few minutes ago, Henry Hughes8 was blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter. Two months ago, Ohnoitsjamie put a much-needed rangeblock on Special:Contributions/172.58.136.0/21. Can we get further rangeblocks on the recently involved IPs, if there isn't too much collateral damage? This person is terribly persistent. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave lengthy blocks to Special:Contributions/64.107.48.0/30 + Special:Contributions/174.253.64.0/19 which cover all the IPs above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that will do it. The /30 block appears very focused on our date-changing friend, but the /21 range is going to frustrate some good-faith editors. The tradeoff in peace and quiet is worth it, though. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also used IPv6: 2601:240:2:CF74:C1C0:B115:17C:C0AD (talk · contribs), which geolocates to Pittsburgh. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be editing again from here as well 2600:1700:8641:2FA0:513B:BF64:6CDC:AEC8 (talk · contribs) Wieldthespade (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waylan Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Received more than enough warnings from multiple editors, but completely ignores, refuses to communicate and continues to introduce and reintroduce unsourced material with almost every single edit. I also opened an SPI but the backlog there makes it close to useless. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor User:Mikolaj2008.11 has awfully suspicious edits that make me think they might be an LTA or someone with competence issues. Some issues include:

• Rewriting of Molang to the point where it may need to be rewritten altogether
• Constant use of this person's own name as their edit summaries

They also use the IP addresses 81.219.238.175 and 94.246.179.17

What should I do in this situation? Or am I just being overly suspicious? wizzito | say hello! 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief. I suspect the only way of rescuing that article is to nuke it from orbit and start again. And surely all of that description, characters, episode summaries etc. are simple copyvios? Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: Computer says "Yes, definitely". [142] --Jack Frost (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, both! What else should be done, is a block or a warn needed? wizzito | say hello! 09:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Black Kite and Jack Frost, I've warned the user on their talk page. What else is needed here? A CCI report? A block? wizzito | say hello! 10:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. Besides Molang, these articles should also be checked as they've been heavily edited by this user: List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV, Tree Fu Tom, Polsat Seriale - Also might want to check their contributions on Polish Wikipedia for anything weird: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wkład/Mikolaj2008.11 wizzito | say hello! 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of LTA accounts that roughly match this, among them ItsLassieTime, Bambifan01, and Caidin-Johnson, to name a few. Perhaps a follow up is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B15B:FB4C:9422:304C:FA0:1C5 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1011:B15B:FB4C:9422:304C:FA0:1C5, I'm very familiar with Lassie, Bambifan, and Caidin, and none of them edit like this user. I'm pretty sure this user is in Poland and named Mikolaj, which none of these users are. wizzito | say hello! 14:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by their username, they seem to be only 12 years old, so they are probably not an LTA as children will probably want to edit kids TV articles. dudhhr_Contribs 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shel1983 a new user, added two of their photographs to Porzhensky Pogost, which previously had no photographs. However, one of them is of really low quality, and there are much better photographs available on Commons. I therefore replaces one of their photos [143]. They started edit-warring and also went to my talk page saying that their photo is new and I am trying to add the new one and thus "deceive" users. None of the photos is mine, I have actually never been to the place. Could somebody please have a look. Whereas this is a content dispute, the user does not seem to listen to any arguments and just continues edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction of the user here (I am not sure they speak English, at least they always answer in Russian), translation: "And you will be punished for uploading old photos which do not correspond to reality"--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring to others to deal with the edit warring and "punished" business, but I just added a 3O to the article talk page about the photos. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also commented on the talk page. FWIW, while the editor is unquestionably responding aggressively this may just reflect a combination of new editor confusion and a lack of English language skills. Do we have any uninvolved administrators with good enough Russian to provide a warning with the right mix of severity and friendliness? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the poster here, User:Ymblanter, is a native speaker of Russian and an administrator here (but no longer uninvolved, although he was when this all started). I am not an administrator, but know enough Russian to be able to confirm that the above translation is accurate. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in March, and since then has periodically returned with an assortment of IPs. The user is active again using the 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, which had previously been under a three-month block earlier this year. Topic areas and editing patterns are still identical; another block on this range would be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just posted the sixth warning to this editor regarding addition of unsourced content [144]. The first was almost three years ago [145], and they have never communicated on a talkpage as near as I can tell. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP User is refusing to compromise or talk about a compromise in regards to a Rolling Stone article posted about MeidasTouch and how they supposedly had no impact on the 2020 election. I decided to remove this mention of the article for 2 reasons. 1. It was a opinion article and was heavily biased. 2. It was in the "Timeline" subcategory in which the operations and actions of the company were discussed and did not fit with the other information there. Although I did revert edits twice (which I now regret) I gave my reasoning for the reverts, but the user strawmanned my arguments and didn't listen to them. I then took my concerns to the took page saying "@2600:8805:C980:9400:B519:21BC:C1D0:9F0F: If you want to add the Rolling Stone article to the page, create a "Criticism" category and collect some articles criticizing Medias Touch. The article does not belong in the Timeline category." He responded ignoring my points saying "Please provide sources that disprove the article thanks2600:8805:C980:9400:B519:21BC:C1D0:9F0F". I never claimed the article was misinformation, I only claimed it was bias and opinionated, therefore there is nothing to "disprove". My latest talk post is left unanswered. Eliegot (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting, that you've just changed your username to Perfecnot, during this report. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, ever-changing IP continues to edit-war at article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected MeidasTouch for a week. The discussion on article talk should follow WP:DR with consideration of WP:DUE etc. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is no longer working anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujianyang (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § General query: I imagine this has been caused by the removal of some deprecated API parameters for obtaining tokens (see phab:T280806). There's nothing really we can do, the bot code will need updating. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See a similar query on this page from 15 October, the bot operator is working on it. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May an admin interested in range blocks take a look at Special:Diff/1049981274/1049982671? Kleinpecan (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock is requested to cover the following

1. 103.211.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 103.211.13.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 103.211.13.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For disruptive edits to Talk:Tiny Banker Trojan. The three IP addresses are obviously the same user making the same 1,040 byte addition to the talk page reverted multiple times by Dawnseeker2000 and myself. This talk page has a history of disruption from users adding WP:FORUM and WP:PROMO type edits and this is the case with the edits from this range. It has been previously been protected twice due to this disruption. I have previously warned the .216 IP address and after the 4th level warning they switched to the .160 today. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the /24 range from editing that talk page for a week. There've been some useful edits to other pages from other IPs in the range, so let's try this before blocking it sitewide. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Unfortunately, whoever it is came back with a completely different IP, so page protection may end up being necessary after all. clpo13_(talk) 21:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting this IP user repeatedly adding unsourced info on these articles: Balitang A2Z Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 and Honeycomb toffee. Need an action. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was only restoring what Ctrlwiki has been removing. What with restoring uncontroversial additions by other users? These were cast members and segment titles that are easily verifiable. Which can easily be added a reference. The user is obsessively removing content without explanation--unsourced is not an explanation. Aren't we supposed to be building an encyclopedia? The guy is single-minded about providing a source. He could have verified the content added or provided the citation himself, instead it's no source, delete for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.40.241 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@119.93.40.241: Wikipedia says, it's your responsibility to provide a source, so don't push me to provide a source for the information that I didn't add. I explain and warn you at your talk page. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, he's removing names in the starring section of the tv show infobox because starring and main cast are different, really? I know English proficiency is not required but there's no getting through to him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let him to add a content without providing a reliable source, those excuses he makes will destroy the rules of Wikipedia. Please warn this user! He forces me to add references to those information he added. That user previously blocked here in Wikipedia for disruptive editings. If you don't block or warn this user, he will continue to add unsourced content and continue to disrupt any articles, the rules of Citation are mentioned in these pages: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Help:Referencing for beginners, and don't let him to break these policies in Wikipedia. Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]