Fort Towson

• Deathmolor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiTree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This request for dispute resolution drew my attention to Talk:WikiTree where there seemed to be (on a cursory examination) some significant WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP and possibly WP:COI going on all around in different ways. I responded with [2]. Another editor took the suggestion to just nominate the article for deletion. I particularly noticed the editor Deathmolor was FORUMing on Talk:WikiTree (e.g. [3][4]) and I gave them a level 1 warning (dialed back from initially level 3 because I realized they maybe just had no idea).[5]

Their response to the level 1 warning is thus:[6] Meant to be a chilling effect on contributions by those indigenous people choosing to contribute to English pages. If the discussion continues to be about the known racism in english wiki then I highly recommend just staying out of it. It will come to pass eventually when there are another set of rules, that does not require me to wade into the wiki English bureaucracy. The courts will have to be involved to simplify this process.

To be fair, their concerns about the WikiTree article may be well founded and I supported its deletion and proposed SALTing. My response to the dispute resolution request was meant for anyone at all involved in the article on any side, but Deathmolor's response here continues what I had feared about their approach to editing, and does seem to be an explicit legal threat against Wikipedia. I was actually ready to apologize for not maintaining an even and impartial tone, until I saw this.

If this grows into a wider inquiry about WikiTree's editors that's fine, but that was not my intent here. I didn't notice any other glaring problems than with this individual. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior for sure. Not sure if that's a legal threat though EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it a distinction of "Wikipedia will have to be sued if it doesn't stop" and "I will sue Wikipedia if it doesn't stop"? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You talk like people don't read what you say, you people truly live in your own little rule lawyering and deanthropomorphizeing process. I am a real person, and i do not understand your little world of alphabet soup rules. I shouldn't be required to understand this to contribute. Again this would be a chilling effect to to wiki's objective of participation and cooperation. As for legal threat, i believe an actual legal threat comes with it an actual legal objective. It is interesting that there is an actual rule that allows administration to silence someone for even mentioning the existence of courts. Deathmolor (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

[7] Ya i have noticed you are having an internal cross pollination with other talkers of alphabet soup rule language intended (intentional or otherwise) to intimidate participating editors of other cultures. Why do you feel you are being discriminated against? WikiTree, Wikipedia, other Wikipedia users, everyone seems to be discriminating against you. I was under the impression that most (all?) cultures have rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a cultural difference between the intent of Wiki and the actual execution of english wiki, based off the collective cultural example provided by indigenous cultures and then the inevitable use of rules to then chill the very culture of the wiki origins. Deathmolor (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Just another added point, I am glad the legal threat section WP:LEGAL acknowledges the chilling effect of legal threats, i believe in this very same way that using wiki rules in and bombarding way used by DIYeditor has a similar effect. Using the alphabet soup of rules on someone is chilling. The paradoxical use of rules is astounding. Deathmolor (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Deathmolor for a long history of personal attacks and showing bad faith. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• So Deathmolor's response to being indeffed by Doug Weller for "a long history of personal attack" was a long personal attack rant against Doug Weller! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I know that admins like to give blocked users some leeway to vent after being blocked, but two more personal attack comments by Deathmolor indicate that it's perhaps time for TPA to be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore has blocked, removed the PA and taken away TPA. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Article: Talk:Julian Assange, specifically Talk:Julian_Assange#Lead_-_Manning_documents Issue(s): defamation on WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPCRIMINAL in which the editor twice refers to the article subject as a thief. Article subject is not a thief. The subject has also not been in prison for a decade.

• Specifico states "he published illegally leaked, stolen documents that landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." 15:20, 2 August 2023

• I noted it was probably a BLP violation to call the article subject a thief saying "SPECIFICO, above you call the article subject a thief. I think we can stop the discussion here, this is a WP:BLP violation" 06:57, 3 August 2023

• Specifico denies it: "No, I did not. Please review this thread and address the stated issue. Assange is the one who associated himself with a criminal. Others, including the US, claim that he too is a criminal due to having published stolen information. Also please review WP:ASPERSIONS." 08:25, 3 August 2023

• I seek clarification: "@SPECIFICO: I read you say "landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." Apologies I thought you were saying landed the thief. Is that a quote of Assange or someone else? I am unable to find this quote in google. Did that article subject call himself a thief? Thanks!" (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Specifico doubles down confirming he is accusing the article subject of a crime and adding emphasis to that claim: "@Jtbobwaysf: Bob, I am going to AGF and respond to you this one more time before seeking outside assistance: Those are my words, italicized for emphasis after various unresponsive replies in this thread. There is no quotation, and it's hard to understand the purpose of googling a just-written WP talk page comment. So please consider the issue raised above and respond to the crux of the issue, per WP:TPNO. Thanks." SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• I reply: "It seems problematic that you are referring to the article subject as a "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis". That appears to be a BLP violation, as I would think these talk pages are also covered by that policy." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

-Specifico no longer responds at this point. It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, that the editor should refrain from editing that particular article (or be prohibited if the editor cannot control himself/herself).

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO is referring to Chelsea Manning as a thief, not Julian Assange. Manning was convicted of theft in 2013, and spent seven years in jail. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I was about to post the same comment, this appears to be a misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is being unnecessarily acerbic, but I agree they have not violated BLP here. The "thief" they are referring to is not Assange, it is Manning. That's a bit obscure here, but they haven't violated WP:BLP. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's odd that ununivolved editors see immediately that I was not referring to Assange but that several of the most active editors on that talk page shared OP's view to the contrary. And that OP, even after I tried several times to clarify the meaning to them, comes here to argue for sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's odd that you refer to Chelsea Manning as a "thief," and it betrays a lack of neutrality on that topic. Find me an RS that uses the word "thief" to describe Manning or anyone else convicted of stealing govt property. The words used by RS, and our article, are "whistleblower" and "activist," but it would be clearer if you just referred to Manning as "Manning" and not "the thief." Levivich (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There exist a very large number of RS that say Manning was convicted of theft. From Webster's: The meaning of THIEF is one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny. I don't see the problem using the term on the TP as it was used. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: From the very message you replied to: calling Chelsea Manning a "thief" instead of using her name "betrays a lack of neutrality on that topic". CityOfSilver 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Look at the point of the paragraph. Neither the article or the paragraph was about Manning. Simply replacing the word with the name would have been less clear. The point made was that the documents Assange released were stolen documents and the perpetrator received a heavy sentence. Actually, leaving her name out is less of a problem as it is the action and the sentence and how they relate to Assange's actions that matters, not the name. In any case, this is not an NPOV problem since she was convicted on much heavier charges. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: If Manning was mentioned, call her "Manning" instead of "thief" because calling her "thief" makes it look like you're speaking from a place of opinion, whether or not that's what you're actually doing. Or keep pretending it's more complicated and nuanced than that. CityOfSilver 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, and as far as your word pretending, WP:AGF. The point was that his notability derived from her, whatever you want to call it, that ended in a severe sentence. Simply replacing the word would not have put that clearly across. Oh, and I don't remember calling her a thief. That's all I have to say on the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Levivich is correct here; there are shades of misdeed, and while sensu stricto SPECIFICO did not violate BLP, they did use intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory language, which is likely to engender emotional responses from others. They were also rather circumlocutionary about the antecedent of thief, even when it was confusing to others. Clearly, they are acting in ways which any reasonable person would see as unnecessarily provocational. Tone matters, and as Levivich notes, one has many choices when referring to a person. Using a person's preferred name is always neutral. Calling them a thief (even if correct) is usually not. Make better choices, SPECIFICO. Please. --Jayron32 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I understand your point. And yes there are shades of misdeed. But it would seem "thief" is a very mild term considering she was convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years. It just seems like "thief" is simpler on a TP than "the person who stole the documents". Just saying "Manning" doesn't make the point of the post in its entirety. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, in this thread Jtbobwaysf said "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis" which I don't see as true as the entire sentence was italicized, not the word thief for emphasis. Also, they went on to say: It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, which I think is out of line. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a strong POV statement to replace their name or pronoun with the person-noun form of a crime that they committed or to define the person by an offense they committed. Signed: Chronic-speeder North8000. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasnt aware that SPECIFICO was referring to Manning, apologies for the confusion. Manning was jailed for theft, thus probably not a BLP violation if that is the case. Apologies for much ado about nothing. I was thinking SPECIFICO was referring to Assange, hence the confusion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO could have avoided this discussion accelerating by saying that by saying "thief" they were referring to Manning, rather than Assange, instead of cryptically saying, "Please review this thread." An the fact that the U.S. has accused Assange of a crime is something everyone editing the article already knows.

This is trolling: using incendiary comments designed to create discord and disrupt improvement of the article.

TFD (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is me, or is AN/I becoming even less polite than its reputation? This thread was a misunderstanding. There is no BLP vio. Seems like time for a close, and sorry for any part I took in extending it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the second thread that User:Jtbobwaysf has created to complain about other users making negative edits to the Julian Assange article/talkpage. Might be worth looking into his edits to see if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, per WP:RGW. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not either party's first time at this noticeboard (indeed, in May SPECIFICO was given a thirty-day topic ban from American politics) or even the parties' first time at this noticeboard specifically regarding arguments on the Julian Assange article. That time, and this time, I have tried to go to the article's talk page and figure out what the dispute was, and been completely unable to determine what the argument was about, what each side of the argument believed was true or not true, or what changes they wanted to be made to the article (or what the reason for these changes was supposed to be). My honest recommendation -- this is not a joke -- is that all users be given word limits on the Julian Assange talk page, and limited to, say, 100 words per day. jp×g 22:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32, TheFourDeuces, and North8000: On the article page, I made this edit. It was reverted, so I started this talk page thread. The three editors I've pinged have made comments about the word "thief" lead me to wonder whether you have read the entire thread that is the locus of this complaint. If you have not done so, I request, given the conclusory observations you have both made, you read the entire thread at this time. The sentence in which I used the word "thief" arose only for emphasis after a rather inexplicable failure of OP to understand several explanations of the straightorward article edit I was proposing and after I had repeatedly referred to Ms. Manning by name and had repeatedly explained that the central issue of Assange's current situation -- this is his bio page -- is whether Assange will personally be prosecuted and convicted as if he inherits culpability for Manning's crimes or whether, on the other hand, Assange will be afforded the protections of a journalist who reported but did not himself appropriate the information. I presume everyone's now aware that Manning was convicted of theft, just to put that concern to rest. Any of the 3 pinged, if you choose to review the entire Assange talkl page thread, I'd appreciate knowing whether you affirm or revise the views you've shared above. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing someone as a thief when that person is admired by some segments, including some Wikipedia editors, is provocative and likely to upset them. It distracts from attempts to improve the page as we get into off-topic discussions about whether that description is fair or accurate. I'll make no comment on whether it is or is not, but point out that having thst discussion on the talk page does nothing to improve the article and makes it difficult for editors to read through discussions.

You make your political beliefs loud and clear. But this isn't the place to promote them. Again, I make no comment on whether or not I agree with them. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify your proposal? Are you saying that we cannot talk about someone being a thief (and far more serious crimes) who has been convicted and imprisoned for theft to make a point about notability involving the source of stolen property distributed by another person on their article talk page because it will upset some editors who admire the person convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Manning is being described as a "thief" not because it's true but because that's a word with extremely negative connotations that has no practical use in this context but to cast aspersions against an ideological opponent. This is a violation of NPOV. And before you link me to AGF again, consider that you just fired off a 65-word sentence that ostensibly restates another person's message but in reality completely, entirely misrepresents it. As you know, nobody has said or even implied that Manning didn't steal anything. CityOfSilver 02:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't call Nelson Mandela "the ex-convict" even though he was convicted and served time in prison. Nor would we call MLK "the serial offender" even though he was arrested nearly 30 times. We wouldn't call Martha Stewart "the liar" even though she was convicted of lying to investigators. None of those are neutral terms, or even truly accurate, despite being technically correct. So let's try this out again: referring to Manning as "the thief"? Not cool. Levivich (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It was necessary in the context because it was specifically about the fact that the material was stolen; not a general characterization of the person. And the paragraph wasn't even about her. It was about the distributor of the stolen information. Basically, the paragraph was stating that Assange was not the thief, presumably as a mitigation. Your analogies are way off base. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. And what "ideological opponent"? WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

On your comment:You make your political beliefs loud and clear. But this isn't the place to promote them, considering thet she is a Democrat, trans, and her sentence commuted by Obama; I guess you are saying SPECIFICO's politics are right-wing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The user Future Perfect at Sunrise should NOT have administrative privileges. If you look through his edits it's clear he has a pro-Turkish agenda and distinctly edits articles related to Turkey, or former Ottoman territories in order to glorify Turkey or give a pro- Ottoman bias. This completely goes against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. At the least he should be barred from editing Ottoman/Byzantine related articles. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What specific diffs can you provide? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:Not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't this the same sort of problem that saw this same user indef'd less than years ago? i wasn't even aware that they had been allowed to return, or - in a Bizarro-World tweest - was an admin again. Strange days, mama. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)

Who exactly are you referring to? Who was indef'd less than years ago? Future Perfect at Sunrise was accidently indef'd about 9 years ago by mistake and was unblocked within 60 seconds of being blocked, as it was a mistake. Do you have diffs for whatever you're referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernResidentOrca: This looks like a content dispute limited to a few edits over a couple of days on a specific page, and it doesn't look like you've tried to discuss the dispute with Future Perfect at Sunrise in any way, either on their user talk page or at Talk:Byzantine Empire. I would suggest using the article's talk page to try to get a consensus for your proposed changes, and using dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:DRN if the talk page discussion stalls, but this doesn't seem to be an issue that warrants WP:ANI or the duplicate AN discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• I looked at the edits at Byzantine Empire and have to agree with FPaS that the OP's edit were "mostly not an improvement". I'm not sure how trying to make the articles read as well as possible translates to a "pro-Turkish agenda", but I'm sure the OP will enlighten us. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ditto; I've reverted. --JBL (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  If Future Perfect at Sunrise was pushing a pro-Turkey point of view, that should be obvious from the 471 edits that they have made to Greece, where they are the most active editor. Evidence free accusations accomplish nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Which, ironically, is just one single edit more than all the mainspace edits the OP has managed in over a decade [8], a factoid that somehow doesn't surprise me. Ravenswing 03:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• @SouthernResidentOrca: You have failed to notify Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) of either this or the WP:AN report. Both of these noticeboards have a warning on the top of the page clearly requiring you to do so (although the WP:AN one was removed later). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• @SouthernResidentOrca: Accusations without evidence are personal attacks. Please either provide evidence (preferably in the form of diffs, with explanation of what policies were violated if non-obvious) or retract these claims, at your earliest convenience. Note also that this falls into the Eastern Europe & Balkans topic area, and as such is considered a contentious topic; I will leave a note on your talk page elaborating on what this means. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

In a continuation of the situation from this thread, Nassimohr has been disruptively editing by attempting to overturn the concensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria at the 2022 World Athletics Championships. They were aware of the correct way to request a deletion review, but chose to instead ignore that suggestion. Nassimohr has previously been blocked for edit warring over the above concerns after three escalating warnings, has made personal attacks and their talk page shows a distinct sign of a mentality of content ownership. Even though they were blocked, they proceeded to once again revert these articles back to their pre-AfD form, once again ignoring concensus. I think it is clear that Nassimohr will not listen and is not here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks. I did consider indeffing them as they are clearly not interested in following consensus, but the last block was only 24h so I have given them one more chance. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Aimilios92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

During a discussion at Talk:Suella Braverman, this user responded to a fairly reasonable comment with a personal attack on User:Jonathan A Jones and outing their apparent social media.[9] From what I can see Jonathan doesn't list their social media anywhere on their profile, so this was done without their consent. I removed the comment and warned the user, which they removed with the edit summary "thanks, buster".

Next they violated 3RR by edit warring on the page of this article. After User:ProcrastinatingReader explained why their edits were unacceptable, they reverted with the edit summary "No worries xo", which is pretty dismissive. Instead of taking them to WP:EWN I noticed they hadn't been warned, so I placed a notice on their talk page (which they deleted).

They then resumed bringing up Jonathan's social media and dismissed his comments on the talk page based on this ("Your assertion of 'never mind as true' seems to stem from the content and patterns observed on your social media usage. It gives the impression of a certain detachment from the UK political scene due to the incorporation of some rather unconventional and quite fringe views.") I once again asked them to assume good faith.

Despite this, they once again attacked Jonathan and brought up his social media, (" So far, it appears that both you and another user, a well-known TERF/climate change denier account from Twitter") despite the fact I've asked them several times to comment on content, not contributors.

On top of this, they have brought up User:DeFacto's block record in an attempt to discredit their edits several times.[10][11]

In short, I find this is a user who can't collaborate with others, and despite multiple warnings feels the need to continually comment on others rather than their content when they encounter opposing views. — Czello ^(music) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this editor has made collaboration difficult. My sole substative recent contribution to the talk page was to suggest that some material should only be added with attribution, and the response was outing (since deleted) and personal attacks. I'm not particularly concerned about the outing as I make no secret about my real life identity either here or on Twitter, but the behaviour is still inappropriate as I have not made any connection explicit. Multiple warnings have been issued, but the personal attacks on me and DeFacto continue. I'm grateful to Czello for raising the matter here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I echo Jonathan A Jones's remarks, particularly his gratitude to Czello. After more than 17 years editing here, and with much of it dedicated to the often perilous task of trying to improve Wiki policy compliance in subject areas that generate a lot of passion and polarisation, I consider myself pretty thick-skinned. However, one thing that I do consider is totally unacceptable is the use of inflammatory language and false accusations in talkpage discussions as in this editor's contribution in their first paragraph in this edit, and particularly when they refuse to correct it (which I had to then do later) after being politely asked to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have blocked them for 31 hours for "Edit warring, Personal attacks including WP:OUTING and general WP:INCIVILITY" though I have no issue if any admin wants to adjust the block as appropriate. I'm hopeful that a shorter block like this will resolve these issues, but if it does not then the subsequent block may not have an expiration, as these behaviors are unacceptable in a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Caught User:Ojadi Emeka unilaterally renaming Simon Ekpa to a frivolous name. Apparently has some prior issues regarding Biafran/Nigerian topics involving bias/conflict of interest. See: User talk:Ojadi Emeka and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Ekpa&diff=prev&oldid=1169166392 Borgenland (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this account is linked to User:Emekaanyaora that was just blocked for legal threats. User just came off a block for disruption as well, reblocking for 1 month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think user is here to contribute to Wiki, citing the introduction of their talk page:

"Philknight blocked my account I want to ask is he working against the Indigenous people of Biafra that he will allow some people to edit the history with lies What did he wants to gain from allowing that to mislead the public with fake information That Simon ekpa needs to be removed he is not a member of IPOB And he is not related to what IPOB is doing If you need the documentation or news link I will send it to you here Also IPOB's website is Ipob.org not that one those criminals are putting there You need to stop this to maintain good history so not to mislead others"

Borgenland (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also made direct references to User: Philknight Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They look very similar. Secretlondon (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Aside from edit-warring with no intention of initiating TP discussions to come up with a consensus, I'd like to report BFDI2010 for the following edit summary 1:

If you hate this map, then 🖕🏿 This map shows where Albanian is majority and minority. The other map is nonsense...

I am pretty certain such edit summaries come under some sort of violation of Wiki policy, particularly the middle finger emoji. It's uncivil and unproductive, and it indicates that the user in question has no desire to come to a consensus or compromise. Disruptive edits from such users are always an inconvenience. Botushali (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

While looking at the contributions for BFDI2010 (talk · contribs) I see they posted at User talk:Flyer22 Frozen in July 2023 (repeated) and just now. Regardless of how one views the target user, those comments are indistinguishable from trolling. I'm inclined to indef and have BFDI2010 explain why they should be unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead, John. Bishonen | tålk 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC).

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Exceptionally creepy edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

BFDI attracts a crowd that is exceptionally... well, I'll put it in less blunt terms than someone affiliated with the show put it to me once in a private setting, and just say a bit euphemistically, a crowd that is exceptionally ill-suited to edit a wiki-based encyclopedia. I doubt this user meant harm—at a minimum, Flyer's page genuinely is the first suggestion for "User:" on Vector '22—they're just not someone cut out to edit, not now, maybe not ever. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ladyoftrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account is blocked (thanks @PhilKnight and all who caught them quickly) and I went through and mass deleted the attack redirects, but her contributions could use some eyes in case there was more subtle vandalism. Thanks in advance for anyone who has bandwidth. Star Mississippi 15:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

CU indicates it is not a (recently) compromised account, for what that’s worth in deciding how far back to verify contributions. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This search is ones that she created and was the last editor on. None look harmful but they don't appear particularly necessary either.

Note there's an unformatted unblock request. I don't see any way to "apologize" for these creations. Star Mississippi 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi They seem to have been going through the List of nicknames used by Donald Trump and making redirects for all the nicknames in it. It was a really bad idea as without context these would be attack pages, but this seems more a case of "really poorly thought out" than "deliberate vandalism". 192.76.8.66 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Michael21107 (talk · contribs) was blocked last week for a host of disruptive editing including blanking content without an adequate reason. After being unblocked, he's just gone back to the same behaviour - see the history of football in Slovakia. I'm obviously involved in the content dispute (I found it through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovak football league system) but I think the unblock needs to be reconsidered. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i gave adequete reasons for all my changes Michael H (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pings @ferret and Z1720. Initial impression is very unimpressed with Michael and leaning toward reblock, but, just to get the easy bit of this out of the way, will give filelakeshoe the obligatory reminder of WP:NOTVANDALISM (in re this ES). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin can u please clarify what offense did i commit? Michael H (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

and obvisouly i shouldnt've used outdated as an reason for removal but there was other valid reason too Michael H (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just not sure this is the project you should be editing. You wrote in an edit summary, The current article (that is obviously written in the past) is just taken stuff (obviously written in the past) from other articles (or that shouldve been in other articles at some point)). Now, I've spent a lot of my life around people whose first language was not English, and I'm still struggling to figure out what you mean by this. Looking at the AfD and your comments here, I think I get it from context, but then that's nonsensical. You removed content because it was outdated (not a thing we do), so that it could be merged to articles it was already summarizing? After being told that the solution to outdated content is to update it at a related AfD yesterday. If you want to continue editing here, you need to majorly slow down. You still haven't gotten the hang of the way we do things, and you're stumbling around and breaking things based on that misunderstanding. That can be fixed in time, of course—my own first edit was a horrible AfD—but again, you need to slow down. I would suggest gaining some more experience on your native-language wiki before editing here, but I see you're serving a one-week block there for repeated nonconstructive edits, so... Sounds like this is a moment for you to stop and reconsider how you're approaching collaborative editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i removed the content (even tho i gave other incorrect eplanation in the summary) cuz its in other articles already Michael H (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. That is not a reason to remove content from an article. No competent editor could ever think that it is. We have an entire guideline about summarizing articles in broader-scope articles. We even sometimes directly mirror content from one article on another article. You need to accept that you do not understand how this site works, and seek to learn rather than wasting others' time by rushing into things based on misunderstandings of policy. There is a point where bold edits cross into recklessness. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i understand now, gonna read Wikipedia:Summary style first thing in the morning Michael H (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i understand what u saying, but whats the reason why i should be blocked? Michael H (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin Not really surprised at this. I do not get in the way of most unblocks of this nature, if someone wants to take the time as Z1720 did. Reblock at your discretion, in my opinion. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Michael21107: My personal advice: stop editing articles that you think should be deleted, or removing content. This includes posting at WP:AfD and removing content from any page (even if you think that the content should be removed or on a different article). You do not know Wikipedia's deletion policies and guidelines well enough to participate in this area of the site and are causing a disruption. Instead, add information to articles that you think can be improved. If your edits continue to cause disruption on the site, I would support a re-block, and it will take a long time for an unblock appeal to be successful. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i understand now, gonna keep your advices in mind Michael H (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Michael21107: As I was going through Michael21107's edit just now, I noticed that he added a CSD tag on Los Angeles California diff. This is five days after I unblocked the user (as seen in this edit) with a restriction against using any speedy deletion tags. The user said that they agreed to the restriction in this edit. I think there is either a WP:CIR concern, and/or the user is pushing boundaries. Can other admins and editors give their thoughts on the matter, and determine if this action goes against the restriction placed on the editor in the unblock? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Well, after his above comments I'm willing to give him a chance to prove he gets it", but wait, this was after that? No. Last straw. I have reblocked.

Thanks for pointing this out, Z1720. I know from experience it's never pleasant to go out on a limb for someone with an unblock and have them immediately return to past mistakes, so, thank you for giving this user the chance to prove themself, even if they then squandered that chance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks for your words. I would rather give a chance, in the hope that they remain productive on Wikipedia for years. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small disturbance to the site. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: they are now claiming they were never tbanned from adding speedy deletion tags despite it being on of the unblock conditions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking that part as it was their misunderstanding of the conditions being referred to as a topic ban not them denying the conditions. Although they are claiming that as it was once an indef block is not appropriate. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the update. I will leave this for the reviewing admin to consider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this person is here to build the same encyclopedia as the rest of us:

• Dude.pls.verify.pls (talk · contribs)
• Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General followed by:
  • Mustafa Merko
    • edit summary: "I reuploaded this page beacuse the other page was a dumb version that i created this is a true one"

Subsequent AfDs underway now:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Merko
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot the great Battle of Gjinoqarit, now deleted.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)