Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

User:Annette Maon

The user has engaged at extensive conflict about neutral point of view policy at Talk:Elon Musk, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive334#Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting, User talk:Annette Maon, and more at their contributions. My only action is to explain about Wikipedia's etiquette, but the user is likely wasting time from other editors, engaging in conflicts for the sake of it, and has no interest in building the encyclopedia. I suspected that this is a sockpuppet by an active spaceflight editor, given their history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Conduct_of_User:Annette_Maon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User made a threat to submit a Good Article Reassessment on Elon Musk if corrections for issues that they "saw" were not made. User has persistently brought up their disagreements in existing and unrelated discussions on the Elon Musk Talk page, often at the expense of the original matters. 17:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this editor's activity on the Elon Musk page has been disruptive. They have dominated the talk page of late with a strongly one-sided POV. Stonkaments (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this and say that this user showed up at the 2021 Top 50 Report to completely rewrite the section on Musk, claiming it violates WP:BLP without describing why (rejecting my explanation that the Report is meant to be humorous and also pinging random uninvolved admins on talk). Based on what's already been said here and my personal experience, Annette Maon doesn't seem to be here to contribute to an encyclopedia. JOEBRO64 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, I absolutely agree with their revert here, and I'd like to hear from User:Stwalkerster as well. I didn't know that the Top50 was supposed to be funny, and I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also agree with the reversion. "It was a joke" is not a defense against BLP. Annette Maon pinged me because they're presumably still salty that I deleted a similar "humorous" page of theirs that had been tagged as a G10 attack page, and is now trying to make it a whole thing with me playing the part of "BLP police", I guess. Regardless, they may have made the reversion for less-than-stellar reasons, but the action in itself was the correct one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My use of the phrase "BLP Police" was in reference to a different incident which I am still trying to process. It reflected my limited WP:NEWCOMER understanding about when the Wikipedia community chooses to use "rev-del", a term I had not been aware of at the time. I would appreciate any pointers to policy and/or examples that elaborate on Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" and would allow me to learn about the process and dynamics from other people's mistakes so I can avoid blundering myself. I understand why Writ Keeper could have interpreted "BLP police" as a reference to their own actions instead of the ones I had in mind. It is important for me to clarify that I respect both Writ Keeper and Barkeep49 as people that I want to learn from and would not have used the phrase "BLP Police" to refer to them or to any of their actions. As I said in the original post which TheJoebro64 linked here "I will defer to their judgment". I made some suggestions for going forward on the talk page which reflect my own WP:NEWCOMER understanding as it continues to evolve. I hope that at least some of those suggestions are useful enough to be incorporated into the final version by someone with more experience than me. I would also appreciate comments from experienced editors on what I might still be missing. Annette Maon (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm in agreement that the text as it was is nowhere near appropriate; my edit (IMHO) vastly improved the situation but I think it's still not great and could certainly be improved further, though it's probably best to rip it out and rewrite it completely. I have neither the time, energy, or motivation to sort it out properly - my motivation with that edit was to make the problem less urgent. For the most part, what remains I think is sourced, albeit in fairly poor taste and with a clear axe to grind against the subject. stwalkerster (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Same here, stwalkerster--thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that your BLP violations and your borderline BLP violations are funny at all. Update: no, let me rephrase that--I agree with the removal of your (?) text, but not with their replacement text. Drmies, for what it's worth, I actually wasn't the one who wrote the Musk section. If it was a BLP violation, I apologize and acknowledge that I made a mistake—but I didn't write it, I merely reverted because it'd been months and was changed by someone who had no involvement with the report. JOEBRO64 21:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TheJoebro64, thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged to that top 50 discussion but did not have time to do much beyond read it. What I read clearly contained BLP violations and am glad that stwalkerster decided to excise some of it. I recently gave Annette Maon a firm warning about BLP violations and am glad she's taken that feedback on board though I have no comment about whether the way she went about doing it was correct or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to keep the discussion on Talk:Elon Musk and reach consensus there. Since it has been brought here (not by me), I would appreciate some input about having "a hard time reaching consensus that BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice". The BLP subject's twitter criticism of the quality of Wikipedia curation on his article has received wide media coverage. Those who mansplain to me that "Musk doesn't have the final say on what warrants inclusion in the article" are completely missing the point. I never said or thought that he should have any say. Regardless of what happens on the talk page or here, he will still have an army of twitter "trolls" that try to do what he says. What I am concerned about is the actual quality of Wikipedia curation on the BLP article that happened to receive the most pageviews in 2021. Looking at the state of Talk:Elon Musk since I got there, it seems that there is some room for improvement. I thought that would be a priority, but I am starting to have doubts about that. Annette Maon (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page how to discuss the issues. You have failed to do so. You originally opened up a discussion with an ultimatum which is not a discussion. Based on the agressiveness of your responses, I think I am leaning towards OP's recommendation about education on NPOV. The article does have room for improvement but the way you are currently going about it is WP:POVPUSHing.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just want to chime in that my concern is the constant attacks on the project and editors. 'Mansplainin' used above, current user page in the 'Seeking Mentor', previous not so subtle personal attack directed at me. They have an agenda and whether its WP:ADVOCACY, WP:LAB, or plain ole trolling it adds up to disruptive editing and a disrespectful attitude to fellow editors of the project as a whole.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I was coming here to add that User:Annette_Maon#Looking_for_a_mentor, by itself but especially when paired with the user's hostile attitude to other editors, is very concerning re. motivations for editing and community/project civility. I'd suggest an active civility warning, active BLP warning, and TBAN on Musk, and see where we go from there. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is their definiton of consensus Special:Diff/1071029840, which amount to my edit stays, not status quo and my personal favorite, yet another personal attack that quickly gets stricken Special:Diff/1071012272Slywriter (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The context for that last one is that I replied to their messages at the Top 50 talk, not about Musk, then I saw the Musk stuff and was going to their talkpage to leave a message about maybe not poking other editors with a big stick to get your way. Then I saw their user page and this ANI thread message and had to point it out. How they saw that I had left a comment here before replying to me at the Top 50 talk would suggest they were actually following me, but it is ironic that as soon as I say they should be civil they leave me a personal attack accusing me. You know, rather than the simple truth that if they are doing noticeable things they will get noticed. Actually, that specific Diff is about Sly. I'd quote that meme about incredibly similar things happening twice but I am not surprised. If they want to blame their attacks on their paranoia, then we have a CIR issue: too paranoid to function collaboratively. They are a ridiculously hostile editor who would rather make personal attacks and then use those to disregard others than listen to policy. Kingsif (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Previous issues

It's only a few weeks since Annette Maon has had significant issues at another BLP article (well, BLP/BDP) - link. One may be an error, but two appears to be a problem (note also Barkeep49's comment about warnings). Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP statements about 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should not be made in Wikipedia voice"

Putting aside all the personal attacks and innuendo against me. The ongoing talk page discussion about whether there should be "a mainspace section dedicated to Jeffrey Epstein" was going nowhere before I created this section. If being dragged here is the price I have to pay for getting that WP:UNDUE WP:BLP problem removed and restoring some semblance of curation to the process, I am willing to pay it. If the dynamics surrounding that section was the only problem, I would not have been wondering about the need for a WP:GAR (which I did NOT ask for). Moving on to other content issues. It has been extremely difficult to reach consensus on Talk:Elon_Musk that phrases like 'unscientific stances' and 'spreading misinformation' should be quoted and attributed instead of being stated in Wikipedia voice. Other articles dealing with similar content issues (i.e. Joe Rogan) do not seem to have this curation problem in mainspace (I haven't checked Talk:Joe Rogan). I am starting to wonder if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users" (Thank you Slatersteven). Annette Maon (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are doing it again. QRep2020 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet more inappropriate language crying vandalism and BLP violations rather than discussing content - Special:Diff/1071111456.Slywriter (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed this thread when I went over to their TP to warn them about their edit-warring on the Orson Scott Card article, where they've shown a flagrant disregard of NPOV and a deep investment in promoting the article subject for the past several months, including both the removal of reliably sourced material and the addition of self-serving cruft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming here that being skeptical about COVID-19 policy is worse than genocide:

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

WP:WIKIVOICE

Musk was criticized for his public comments and conduct related to the COVID-19 pandemic.[306][307] He spread misinformation about the virus, including promoting chloroquine and assuming that death statistics were manipulated.

Elon_Musk#COVID-19

Others have made incorrect assumptions about my POV which forces me to clarify it for the record:

• I do not support Musk's views on COVID-19.
• I do not support Musk's promotion of people who are accused of "spreading misinformation".
• I got vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19 (as soon as I could).
• I actively avoid being in the same room with anyone who has not been vaccinated 3 times against COVID-19.
• I do believe that Musk has a right to be skeptical.
• I believe that Musk has a right to make mistakes.
• I believe that if Edison hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have lightbulbs.
• I believe that if Musk hadn't dared to fail so many times we would not have the Falcon 9.
• I do not support the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie
• I do support the right of Janis Ian to disagree with me about Skokie
• I do not believe my personal POV is or should be relevant to the contents of any Wikipedia Article including Elon Musk

Another consensus that seems to be forming here is that WP:UNCIVIL behavior toward me is acceptable even when it includes:

• rudeness, insults and name-calling
• personal attacks, disability-related slurs
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety
• belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts
• taunting or baiting
• lying
• quoting me out of context to give the impression I said something I didn't say

As a WP:WikiGnome in training, I could provide links to each of the bullet points above. But that would be taking the bait and feeding the trolls. So I will try again to "talk about content, not users".

This discussion may be "dominated by the loudest and most persistent editorial voices" but a quick look at Talk:Elon_Musk shows that even they have to work hard to keep up the illusion that stating "He spread misinformation" in WP:WikiVoice is "Uncontested and uncontroversial".

I am still wondering if there is any chance that the discussion will actually "talk about content, not users". Annette Maon (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You have obviously thought about this issue quite a lot, so let me ask, did Musk spread misinformation about the virus, or is that merely someone's opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that ANI is just a more public forum to talk about content, or are deflecting. In case you need to be told, this forum is for editor issues. This is where we talk about users, not content. The topic of discussion here is not the contents of the Elon Musk or Orson Scott Card articles, it is your behavior while trying to implement certain versions of them, as well as general comments. Continuing to insist that your versions are correct is doing the opposite of helping; it is rather quite demonstrative of the issues that have landed you here. Kingsif (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1071406173 & Special:Diff/1071390667- just more inability to discuss content without attacking editors and more of their special brand of consensus where the status quo can't stay.Slywriter (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/10714095750- Intentional misquoting of another editor to make a point not grounded in policy or logic.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue raised by OP is the conduct of a user. The discussion has since evolved in discussion about content. This is not the place for that. In fact, Annette Maon was told not only here, but on the Elon Musk talk page and their own talk page how to properly address a content dispute. They have failed to do so and continuing bludgeoning. I think we have done more than WP:AGF but AGF isn't a WP:PACT. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Call for close (Annette Maon)

Editors have raised issues above including incivility, disregard of NPOV, CIR, bludgeoning, and BLP problems after a warning. They have recommended remedies including a civility warning, BLP warning (there's already one in place), and a TBAN from Elon Musk. I support a civility warning, having been on the wrong end of Annette Maon's incivility. Regardless, I encourage an admin to close this section, whether it's with action taken or not, rather than let another discussion of this editor's conduct archive without closure. Firefangledfeathers 14:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Adjacent discussion about DS templates and their use. Isabelle 🔔 16:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: What was the point of posting three discretionary sanction notices on one talk page, all within the same section? What did that achieve exactly? I've not seen that anywhere on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Scope creep: I posted two notices because Annette Maon's comments on Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting (now rev-deleted) implicated two DS areas (BLP and American politics). Later, she edited a part of Elon Musk that involved his comments about COVID-19, another DS area. The alerts don't lead to formal awareness in any topic area besides the one mentioned, so one alert is insufficient for users working in multiple sensitive subjects. Positing multiple alerts in one section is common. This log includes every edit action that includes a formal DS notice, and 2 of the last 10 edits were multi-notices. I could have spread the alerts into separate sections, and if there's a good reason to do so moving forward, I'd be happy to improve my notification work. This part is speculation, but if the subtext of your comment involves the DS alert process being problematic, I agree with you, as do many others. There's an ongoing review of the whole DS system, outlined here. Firefangledfeathers 13:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Three is excessive, two is excessive. A note left on the talk page would have probably been better in this instance, in the 2nd and 3rd instances. They are the worst kind of message to use in user-interaction, certainly the worst i've seen. The worst of is they leave the editor feeling uncertain what to do or how to go forward. It break down creativity and enthusiasm, the best intention are destroyed. I don't like the DS system either. It is destructive. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Well, I'd love not to ruin your week. It's likely that I would agree with a lot of your issues with the DS system. As it stands now, no, I couldn't have posted a personalized message in lieu of the formal notices. Per WP:ACDS, "these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". Firefangledfeathers 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: I followed scope_creep to here as it is he who is guilty of "worst kind of message to use in user-interaction, certainly the worst i've seen". My jawed dropped that he could be so blind to his own imperfections while pointing out others supposed mistakes. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Problems including repeated XfD discussion interference

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

---

• NeverTry4Me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallab Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NeverTry4Me (recently known as Arunudoy) interfering with Onel5969's XfD !vote at Special:Diff/1070810711 and Special:Diff/1070993030 and personal attack alleging their are corrupt editors (the obvious implication that including Onel5969 at Special:Diff/1070988111 especially given This COIN discussion NeverTry4Me has multiple other issues per there talk page. Suggest behavior is out of hand and needs addressing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• another baseless allegation by Djm-leighpark . Wherever I did AfD/SfD, I have tried creating Neutral sources, but both are disrupting my edits. Edit differences are evidence of it. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me I have very specifically given diffs of your removing Onel5969's !vote with a nowiki and then of putting a strikethrough through part of Onel5969's comment; and you have called allegations against that disruption baseless. You have vaguely in response said look at edit differences. I suggest you need to own the fact you have been disruptive or face sanctions or come up with specific edit differences rather than drawing in community wasted effort. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• What the hell? This is not a "baseless allegation," but an entirely correct one. You do not refactor another editor's comments at XfD (short of direct personal attacks) ever. Period. If you disagree with their observations, your sole recourse is to rebut them in your own comments.. Ravenswing 11:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @@Djm-leighpark: I have corrected all of my entries, and there is no disruptive editing now. You and User Onel5969 are placing baseless allegations against me. I, again, say the allegations are WP: FRANCKENTSTEIN. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: What made you feel you had the right to edit other people's AfD votes or talk page entries in the first place? — Czello 11:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• NeverTry4Me, please stop referring to allegations as baseless when proof has been provided (Special:Diff/1070810711 and Special:Diff/1070993030) that they are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• NeverTry4Me is also very ready to accuse other editors of vandalism, corruption or being "arrogant:" [1][2][3][4][5] Ravenswing 11:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  More than half of those diffs are from 2020 or earlier. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  They are still calling other editors "Corrupt" in 2022 though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1070989321&oldid=1070988111&title=User_talk%3ANeverTry4Me&type=revision "presumption of a few corrupt editors". However, it isn't entirely clear what the accusations of COI against NeverTry4Me are actually based on.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Well I can see that their username until recently was User:Arunodoy and they created Arunodoy Asom, whether that's part of it I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I also independently noticed that as odd. Wonder if that's a COI/autobiography of sorts. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I have created wiki pages of Police chiefs and militants also. Police and Militants are counterparts. They live in jungle, I do not. :) --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 18:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  What's your point, Stifle? It's not as if NeverTry4Me's stopped doing so. My point is that this behavior is an ongoing pattern, and no momentary lapse. Ravenswing 13:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to put this in bold so NeverTry4Me pays attention - Comment on the content, not the editors and do not refactor anyone else's comments as outlined at WP:TPO. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize. Pardon. Can we end now? --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: I suppose we may have to: albeit at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah you are still requesting " this Draft history is enough to prove that @Onel5969: made a baseless allegation against me. I appeal to Wikipedia:Administrators to come up with a fair investigation and inquire about @Onel5969:'s allegation as per Wiki policy WP:ANI. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)" and I'd also note that at 12:18, 10 February 2022 with Special:Diff/1071012824 Onel5969 had to clean up your disruption to their !vote summmary at XfD though earlier here at 11:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC) you claimed you had moved disruption. So I'd see this is as a brush-aside sloppy apology but its likely the best that's going to be got so we will need to move on ... hopefully problems will not re-occur. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: Further no issue will re-occur. Again, my unconditional apology. I shall refrain from things related all those mistakes, I have done. This discussion output helped me to learn a lot, specially a new user like me. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 06:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me:: You've just re-factored one of Hemantha'a comments at Special:Diff/1071409975 with a violation of WP:TPO. Perhaps as a defence you may been you been you are e feel you are being harassed given there are WP:COIN discussions are still active, (one barely and on the cusp of inactivity). But you are continuing to make these problems/mistakes, which is an issue after saying you were going to stop. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: I didn't know that replying in that way is a violation of the rule, as I I thought it was my reply I haven't edited his. Thanks for learning me. Again, I tender an apology for that one. Probably I should study a vast of rules before writing on discussion pages. Thank you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 21:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• You still haven't understood you inserted your reply into the middle of their comment! Which means you are going to continue doing it! Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just to put a lid on this, User:NeverTry4Me has been indefinitely blocked by User:El_C under WP:CIR. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Spam on Ashraf Ali Thanwi

I see @TheAafi: is using his/ her self written articles/ books as reference on various wikipedia articles, especially on Ashraf Ali Thanwi, see this and this . It is clear violation of Wikipedia:Spam. Administrator are requested to take necessary action in this regard. Thank you 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I was watching this IP from last few moments and didn't go here and there reverting their edits when they clearly mentioned wrong guideline, WP:ELNO when they removed the reference. I believe the usage of the reference is permitted per WP:SELFCITE and this bad-faith report should be dismissed. I'd try to look for some available sources to improve the article, thus lessening the usage of this particular source, although it isn't used all over. The time I used it, it was in replacement of unreliable/blog sources. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The site haqislam.org is a blog. Why are you adding it in articles? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: You are not allowed to promote yourself on wikipedia. It is clearly against Wikipedia's policies. Go somewhere else to promote yourself, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Looks like you missed something. The haqislam blog was removed and I added a published source from TheChenabTimes.com (a news portal). I don't think this is self promotion? The IP-user is clearly acting in bad-faith. The source I used is inline with WP:SELFCITE imho. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, good to remove the blog. Without me going and digging through your diffs, how many times have you cited yourself in the last 30 days? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Nowhere! ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you are confusing me, or maybe I'm confusing you. You said you posted a cite that was inline with WP:SELFCITE, so I'm asking, how many times in the last 30 days have you done so. I ask this as I'm going through your two accounts. It isn't a matter or trust, it's a matter of verification for myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I edited the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article over a month ago, and replaced a blog with an article that I've myself written and is published on a news portal. Is the confusion over? I've nowhere else cited myself not just in the last 30 days but in last two years. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that is all I was asking. When someone makes a report, I'm going to look at the claims and see if they are accurate. You coming here and simply saying "it is false" isn't enough. Everyone says that. So there isn't a need to be defensive. What we need are facts. Saying you added one cite in the last year or two under SELFCITE, and me verifying (as best I can), this is establishing facts. Obviously using your own cite every now and then where it applies is ok, I was trying to see if there was a pattern that was excessive, and I don't know until I look and ask (and by virtue of the report, I'm obligated to look and ask). So in the end, I don't see a problem with the editing and the IP is overreacting to something that is generally allowed, in moderation, if it is in line with WP:SELFCITE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. In such a case, shouldn't their overreacting edits on the Ashraf Ali Thanwi article be reverted? I also see that you left the IP a note on talk page, thanks for that. Looks like you missed adding a heading and used more than four tilde in that note. Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in any sort of war with the IP and would leave all the good work related to this to you. I'm only here to improve and develop the encyclopedia and ofcourse to learn new things. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, This was not the first instance when the editor used his/her self written article but, he/ she had previously spammed Mufti Faizul Waheed with his/ her articles. Please check this. Not only this he/ she had inserted article written by him/ her from the blog link named Baseerat online, please check this. I suspect more self promotion by the same user in past which need to be dig out. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

One is a geniune citation over eight months ago, and the other is an EL (not citation). I might have forgotten to state this, but does that make sense? You're free to remove the EL, and leave the citation as is. Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is the earliest article where I remember using a source in line with WP:SELFCITE. I don't think I've done some excess. Nonetheless, I'd have a relook on all my contributions and be back with facts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown; As a matter of fact, I'm leaving this as a proof that there's no excess. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown This edit is clearly a Spam or self promotion and @TheAafi:, Baseerat online is a blog, along with the article, which you have cited, was written by you, it clearly indicates self promotion. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you normally edit as a registered account? This entire report is very, very strange. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Just see their edits on Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi and Mufti Faizul Waheed; and you'll see they're on a long game. Possibly! That too, when this ANI thread is open. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop, User:TheAafi , to deviate the spam on different side to save yourself, anyways, I have tried my best to stop spam on Wikipedia, I am leaving this case for administrators to deal with it. Thank you. 37.111.219.12 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the way a run of the mill IP editor behaves. This looks entirely like a vexatious report. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Leave if you want, but I had already left a note on your talk page. Yanking sources without better justification can get you blocked. As far as SELFCITE, we are always leery of it's use (I've used it myself, many years ago), so I would just note you have to be careful reverting your own work back as cites. Some talk page discussion is always good. So is a disclaimer on your user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• And CFJ, I agree, and the IP is deleting references and bordering on their own block. But since I didn't see a disclaimer on Aafi's page, I still make the notes. Even I have a disclaimer for my work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • One last note: it is one thing to link your own work as a reference, but doing so as an external link is just not a good idea in almost all circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I'd make a disclaimer note, but how to? Could you please give me an example? Thanks. I'm always trying my best to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  and I definitely agree with the usage of the external link and I really feel bad for it. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  See my user page under Accountability. I just state I own a company (Solacure) and link to it, and state I won't edit in a way that financially benefits me. This provides the reader the ability to compare my edits to my company to see if there really is a conflict of interesting in my edits. I would suggest also adding a note "I work for this source; adding it under WP:SELFCITE" to the summary, so that not only are you complying, but you are inviting others to review, and keeping it all in the wide open. Full disclosure is less likely to come back on you. If it does, you can say "I disclose on my user page, I disclose in my edit summary" so there isn't a way to really question your honesty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Thanks for that. I've a COI page for this stuff. I added the three articles where I have added citations under SELFCITE during last three years. I'd surely add the note, if ever I added a self-cite to any article at the time of need. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I didn't see it, but I would make sure my user page had a conspicuous link to that COI page, or just transclude the page onto the user page. Same reason I put mine under "Accountability", which is pretty conspicuous. Really, these steps are more for you than for others. It also lets you search easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  At the top of my userpage, I've stated, " If you ever assume that I've a conflict of interest, please see my COI declarations...", in line with the COI disclosure guidelines. I hope someday I'll get time to design my userpage like yours! Thanks for all the notes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown; I just fixed the stuff at Mufti Faizul Waheed article, and while searching for more sources, I got a 2019 academic thesis on one of his books, and it was quite helpful. However, the IP's removal of sources from Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi is troublesome, where they call a news-portal (which has editors) as a blog and spam. The IP also tagged the article for notability. I'd just leave this to uninvolved editors to have a look at the IP's behavior; who comes all of a sudden with only one motive, that's to open an ANI thread against me, and accuse me of self-promotion, which I've never done. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: and @Catfish Jim and the soapdish:; The IP doesn't stop from removing sources. They've once again removed a source from Mufti Faizul Waheed. If I'm right, this would be someone from the Authordom sockfarm. I looked around and found some interested stuff with some similar IPS. I had a look at an AfD on which a similar-IP "37.111.218.17" commented strong-delete, (the nominator of that AfD Sabeelul hidaya was blocked as a sockpuppet by Bbb23 recently). A yet another identical IP, 37.111.219.54 was involved at Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi, and another identical IP, 37.111.217.63, seeks copyediting-help from Miniapolis at Talk:Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi. The IP had included a statement that sounds anti-Deobandi in nature in the Fazl-e-Haq article, and ant-Deobandism is the history of Authordom sockfarm, and I've been attacked only perhaps because I've come across them in past, and rescued several articles in deletion, that were tagged as such. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No deletions have happened since this thread started. Lets see what happens before we start swinging the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is still about as 37.111.218.70 (talk · contribs) and generally filibustering. All I'm going to say is that whether 'x' is a good source depends entirely on what it is citing, and in what context. After all, we have a consensus to cite The Sun in at least one BLP, despite my general view that you should avoid it like the plague. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Long running original research in Dervish-related content

User @Heesxiisolehh: has repeatedly added original research for most, if not all of their time on Wikipedia. Despite letting him know multiple times as well as informing him of removals of content, in line with my special editing restrictions (see [6], [7], [8], [9], ). A peaceful resolution has not been reached as Heesxiisolehh refuses to cooperate (even reporting me for "breaching 3RR" despite not being the case [10], while also leaving me a "notice" on my talk page (link) a mere minute before leaving me a notice of that report (link)).

Heesxiisolehh has repeatedly used this Caroselli source to label all Dervish forts "Dhulbahante garesas" or "Dhulbahante forts" ([11], [12], [13]), which is not supported by the cited source or by any other source and is clearly original research. The consensus reached by the Italian editors he keeps using as justification (link) is also irrelevant since they discussed the translation of the source and the word garesa only, and the consensus does not back up Heesxiisolehh's claims.

Many articles Heesxiisolehh has either created or significantly contributed to have been found to be violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFY, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and having no WP:SIGCOV, among others (see Diiriye Guure (probably the most ambitious given all the articles that used to link to it [14]), Shire Umbaal,Nur Hedik,Adam Maleh, Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal as well as Kaaha Tafadhiig. He has been approached and been advised to read up on OR and SYNTH by me as well as by another user (link) however the user has clearly demonstrated that they will not stop.

In addition, after the deletion of the Diiriye Guure article he went on to remake most of the deleted article in the Las Anod article ([15], [16]) and link it to articles where links to Diiriye Guure were removed ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] including in Portal:Somalia link for that), which is another clear indication that Heesxiisolehh will not stop adding OR and SYNTH.

Heesxiisolehh has also in addition to that added unsourced original research to the main article, Dervish movement, misusing many sources which have been mentioned before. There are too many edits to mention but this is the main one, where despite me letting him know almost everything is original research, he goes ahead and re-adds the content, which violates WP:NOCONSENSUS. He also then proceeds to add even more new original research (What is a chieftainship-sultanate-emirate? That's a new word.). Heesxiisolehh has in addition added original research to the Somalia article ([27]), the Outline of Somalia article ([28]), the Geography of Somalia article ([29]), Portal:Somalia (link for that) and Dul Madoba ([30] while also using this as justification despite the fact that, ignoring the obvious synth and original research, the content he added isn't relevant). In Dul Madoba's case, he even moved the page ([31]), going against a long standing name per majority of reliable sources ([32]). Most of Heesxiisolehh's edits are also inconcise and very confusing (what is the intra-46th meridian east territories and why does it link to a burial site? [33]).

Heesxiisolehh has also created multiple categories based on the original research the editor has added, including Category:Border crossings of the Darawiish (the Dervishes were never a full state, which either way doesn't matter since historic entities shouldn't be having "border crossings" categories). Heesxiisolehh has added his original research to non-Somali articles, including Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900−present), List of states with limited recognition, Scramble for Africa, List of national border changes from 1815 to 1914, and Hewett Treaty.

To conclude, I have tried my best to assume good faith per WP:AGF even in the face of clear original research, and now I honestly doubt Heesxiisolehh is fit to edit Wikipedia as he is essentially on a mission to rewrite Dervish history to his own liking. Heesxiisolehh has breached more than half a dozen Wikipedia guidelines and has demonstrated multiple times that he is uncooperative. This reminds me of the user Shit233333334, an editor who also seems to have added a lot of original research to Horn of Africa-related articles and misused sources, in addition to sockpuppeteering ([34]). I should have submitted this report much earlier but I kept assuming good faith. Overall, I don't think Heesxiisolehh is here to build an encyclopedia. Gebagebo (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the filing of this report Heesxiisolehh has once again readded their original research to the Dul Madoba article [35] despite it not being supported by both cited sources, another indication that the editor intends to continue adding original research and synth. Gebagebo (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at both sources in the above diff and agree that it was entirely original research/analysis. The first source is available here, by clicking "View/Open" at the bottom". That author has included many primary sources, mostly a series of angry letters, and it's one of these primary sources that Heesxiisolehh is analyzing. So it's not the author's claim that there was a Dervish-Dhulbahante government, but an ambiguous claim in a letter. The second source is available here, by zooming in about two-thirds down the third column. Not only is this an unattributed war dispatch from 1903 in the Cardiff Evening Express, a terrible source for claims like these, but the source doesn't even support what Heesxiisolehh is using it for. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: As outlined above Heesxiisolehh has a history of adding original research and analysis, with almost a dozen of Heesxiisolehh's articles being deleted due to breaking WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and more. Heesxiisolehh has also been advised by @TimothyBlue: see here and @Kzl55: see here to refrain from such as well. Gebagebo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If you look at page 76 of Raphael Njoku (link provided) published by ABC-Clio, you see the "government" phrase included, suggesting a) tertiary usage of letter, and b) that academics consider the letter (particularly the "government" passage) notable. As for the 1903 source, that is further buttressed by this source (link & passage provided), published by H.M. Stationary Office. Further strengthening the 1903 source is a 1976 issue by scholar with 105 peer reviews on Google scholar (link provided) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, we don't analyze primary sources. That's original research. If reliable, secondary sources say—in their own voice—that there was a "Dervish-Dhulbahante government", then we can cite that. As for the additional Deria Gure sources, they still don't support the claim that Guure was "head of Dhulbahante clan". The original (poor quality) source only said that he was "corresponding to [a] commanding Royal Engineer". The new sources only say that he should surrender. They're also primary sources. Look, WP:NOR makes it clear that we need to leave any primary source analysis to secondary sources, the actual experts. And WP:V says that claims need to be directly and unambiguously supported by reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: What about the quote "These men are the heads of their respective tribes", in the 1903 Evening Express source. Doesn't that quote unambiguously suggest Gure is the "head of Dhulbahante clan"? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim you added was Diiriye Guure being head of Dhulbahante clan. That source says he is one of "four principal leaders" and clarifies later that he was somewhat like a Royal Engineer. So no, it doesn't support the claim you added to the article. Besides, as I mentioned early, it's an awful source, as British sources about British colonies/"protectorates" often were. (As an example, see WP:RAJ.) There's also no author by-line, it credits another source that we don't have, and the page is filled with all kinds of gossipy "news", like something you'd see at the Daily Mail. For claims like this, we need reputable scholarly sources—preferably modern ones—that can analyze primary documents scientifically. Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In the 25 year existence of the Nugaal revolution, 1903 was arguably the closest to a free press in the Nugaal, per (Press freedom in Nugaal link), nonetheless I guess I could take to heart eschewing to my innate fret of treading between meticulous-to-detail versus WP:Paraphrasing. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: None of the sources suggest the original research you have been adding. The first source mentions no "Dervish-Dhulbahante government" nor a king being superior to the Mullah. Pure original research.

The second source only lists a number of highranking Dervish members (including Sultan Nur, Haji Sudi and the Mullah himself) who have no guarantees should they surrender. The Jaamac source similarly is nothing but a Somali translation. The other highranking Dervish members are in that Jaamac source as well in line with the British colonial source ([36] see here). Heesxiisolehh seems to have intentionally left out that part of the passage.

The entire passage including a translation reads:

"Iyadoo aan loo malaynayn marnaba in Wadaadku isdhiibo, hadana isaga iyo kuwa raacsan oo kala ah: Axmed Warsame oo loo yaqaan (Xaaji Suudi): Diiriye Carraale iyo Diiriye Guure waxa qur ah oo laga oggolaan karaa isdhiibid aan shuruud lahayn; wax sugan oo ballanqaad ah oo noloshooda dambe laga siin karaa ma jirto"

Translated it means:

"Since it is very unlikely that the Mullah will ever surrender, him and his followers who are: Ahmed Warsame known as Haji Sudi, Deria Arale and Deria Gure can solely be permitted to capitulate and give themselves up, without any conditions. We do not attach any agreements or safeguards hereafter."

Per Official History of the Operations in Somaliland. 1901–1904, Vol. I p. 54:

"In the unlikely event of the: Mullah offering to surrender, in his case and that of the Following: Haji Sudi, Deria Arale, Deria Gure Only an unconditional surrender should be accepted no guarantee of any kind to future treatment been given. Sultan Nur the , sultan of the Habr Yunis, may be guaranteed his life"

This is a clear attempt by Heesxiisolehh to misuse sources to make it seem like his original research is supported by reliable sources. Gebagebo (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

More addition of original research (some since the filing of the report), this time in the Dervish movement (Somali) article ([37], [38], [39]). Heesxiisolehh is showcasing again and again that he does not intend to stop. Gebagebo (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And now he just moved the Dervish page in line with his OR. @Woodroar: I doubt this will end to be honest. Gebagebo (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything here. I can only ask that an admin gets involved with a trouting, page ban, or block of Heesxiisolehh. I'm no expert on this subject, granted, but every single reliable source I've seen has associated the Dervish movement with Somalia, yet Heesxiisolehh unilaterally moved the page to Dervish movement (Nugaal). Then he changed most instances of "Dervish" to "Darawiish", despite "Dervish" being the common name in reliable sources (that I've seen) and the English language in general. That last link also includes several instances of analysis of primary sources, which I'd specifically told Heesxiisolehh is not acceptable above. Woodroar (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For anyone interested in government sanctioned Dervish maps, here you go (they don't align with all of Somalia) Heesxiisolehh (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC):

Ibraahim Muxamed map

Ministero delle colonie (Ministry of the Colonies (Italy)) map

Boocame District, Taleh District, Xudun District, Las Anod District, Bookh district (of Ethiopia) and Nugaaleed-Bari

See, this is the issue. It's not "according to independent, reliable sources" or even "scholar X says Y", it's primary documents from ~100 years ago which Heesxiisolehh is interpreting to make broad, sweeping changes to the article. It doesn't matter that a WP:COMMONNAME search for "dervish movement" "somalia" -wikipedia returns 15,200 results while "dervish movement" "nugaal" -wikipedia returns only 1,230 results. Woodroar (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Woodroar: You hit the nail on the head. Heesxiisolehh is exactly interpreting primary sources on his own, which is wrong by itself, but the fact those interpretations also contradict reliable sources makes the matter even worse. Dervish is the common name indeed, with Daraawiish being the Somali term. I hope an admin gets involved since he has demonstrated that he will continue on this path of disruption, which would have a serious effect on Somali-related articles, who are already rife with original research, POV edits and edit wars. Gebagebo (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Could you take a look at this please before this gets archived? There seems to be a consensus from what I can see. Gebagebo (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: are you going agree to stop your original research and disruptive editing? If not then you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 19:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: OK good, thank you. @Gebagebo: if you notice any further issues please let me know. GiantSnowman 19:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thank you very much! I'm removing the original research/analysis in question. I won't hesitate to let you know should Heesxiisolehh repeat this. Gebagebo (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Moderna Page

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

---

Hello

I struggle with an abusive user called Zefr, who takes issue with any and all information that sheds a bad light on Moderna. The disputed information is located under criticism.

The argument was supposed to be settled on the Moderna talk page, but Zefr has taken to removing my replies, threatening me on my talk page, and calling any and all negative information "an opinion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Surge of Reason I suggest that you withdraw this complaint and use dispute resolution to resolve this matter. It could be said that you are here to embarrass Moderna by suggesting it is controversial for them to engage in tax avoidance and giving it undue weight. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

AFAICT the only reply of yours which was removed is [40]. That reply seems clearly inappropriate for an article talk page as it does not help resolve the dispute. You seem to be Wikipedia:Casting aspersions about the motivations of another editor with no evidence. And per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you cannot demand an editor fix other articles if they want fix one article. And your earlier reply does seem to be mostly soapboxing [41], the evils of tax avoidance and how many other companies are involved in it do not seem to be particularly germane to the article on Moderna. If you want to resolve the dispute you need to put aside whatever personal disagreements you have with other editors and general issues surrounding tax avoidance and instead focus on the specifics about the allegations concerning Moderna, such as the available sources that relate to Moderna and what they say about Moderna, how it should be covered if at all etc; and as 331dot said, seek help with some sort of dispute resolution as needed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Many companies are incorporated in Delaware to take advantage of a favorable tax environment. That’s not “tax avoidance”, and your attempts to portray it that way are clearly undue. Not publishing to protect intellectual property is similarly being abused by you as inappropriate shading of normal business practice to push a negative POV. 03:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Acroterion (talk)

Um, yes it certainly is tax avoidance (which is perfectly legal and distinct from tax evasion). (I'm not taking a position on the instant dispute, just correcting the record.) EEng 05:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much anything anyone does to reduce taxes could be labeled “tax avoidance.” It is usually reserved for novel or extreme efforts, not for simply being a Delaware corporation. That kind of coloration appears to be heavily influencing SOR's edits. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, anything one does to reduce taxes is tax avoidance, and no, it's not reserved for novel or extreme efforts [42]; incorporating in Delaware is absolutely a form of tax avoidance. Like I said, I'm not in any way commenting on the content dispute or how someone's characterizing what someone else is doing. EEng 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose that the information presented conveys important information about what kind of company Moderna is. I believe that to be the ultimate point of a page on a company. Statements like: Moderna avoids taxes by registering patents in Delaware or by routing money through a Swiss subsidiary are neutral facts. Information based on testimonies from multiple employees is in my opinion not giving undue weight, nor do their testimonies necessarily become outdated. At the very least they continue to meaningfully describe the period before 2016. The testimonies of veterans of the industry that describe Moderna's secretive nature as dangerous should not be ignored either. Moreover, it is commonplace for Wikipedia articles on major corporations to include important criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Surge of Reason There is no user behavior that warrants action here- except perhaps yours if you continue to seem as if you are here merely to post negative information about Moderna or any company with undue weight. It is not illegal or even just wrong in a society with free movement like the US for any company(or you personally) to register patents in Delaware or any tax haven. You must collaborate with other editors on the article talk page. This is only a content dispute, which are not handled here. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Over half of all companies listed on the NYSE are incorporated in Delaware. If you think of an American company off of the top of your head right now, there's a good chance it's incorporated in Delaware. I struggle to think of any scenario in which it would be WP:DUE to mention this fact on a company's article. Mlb96 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI is not a first stop in dispute resolution except in cases of user misconduct, which has not been credibly found in this case. The proper dispute resolution processes such as listed on WP:DR should have been followed instead. Also, to echo opinions on Talk:Moderna, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, and regardless of your opinions on the thoughts of tax avoidance (not evasion), Wikipedia is not the place for such opinion, unless such has also been echoed in reputable sources. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This bit of WP:SYNTH[43] in which the editor characterized several unrelated accidents (for the majority of them, the company was not found at fault) as "a bizarre string", suggests the editor is here to Right Great Wrongs rather than to build a neutral encyclopedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue and tax avoidance isn't tax evasion. Pious Brother (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still quite convinced that this is discrimination in favor of Moderna. There's nothing I added that wouldn't fit perfectly on a big tech criticism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Hong Kong editor

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

---

76.30.143.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will not leave "Hong Kong" alone as common name and repeatedly changes it to Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China. Also adds unsourced material, doesn't follow MOS on capitalization, and keeps making the same changes after being reverted. Many TP warnings and one 72-hour block already. Often, changes break wikilinks but they don't seem to notice the redlinks they are causing. MB 04:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account of User:GeezGod

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

---

• GeezGod (talk · contribs)

The user just jumped into Wiki today and started disruptive edits/AfD on dead(long before) Indian Police Service Officers and People Wiki pages. Their initial attempt was to go against my edits but now they are vandalizing my edits as per mention. This should be brought before WP:ANI. —  --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) 10:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please give an example of when I used disruptive editing? Why are you so easily irritated? This is a platform that is founded on the participation of the community. Everyone will express their viewpoint. GeezGod (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• GeezGod (talk · contribs) you are not into discussion but into harass and personael attack. I am not going to reply as of now. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• you are not into discussion but into harass and personael attack. ...say what? This is your response when pressed for evidence? That makes no sense; how can GeezGod simultaneously not be under discussion and the subject of this very ANI report? It's very troubling that, when asked for diffs, that you backed out of it this way. I can't see this report going anywhere, and may likely end in a WP:BOOMERANG as stated below. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Then again, it turns out GeezGod was a sock. Still doesn't quite allay all the concerns I and everyone else on this thread have, however. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the comment of the complaint's subject, it would be appreciated if you provided diffs of the alleged disruptive edits. As far as I can see, there's nothing in his edits that can be classed as disruptive. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: please don't file bogus reports or cast aspersions. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. El_C 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, this is the second time in a week that NeverTry4Me and their conduct are at a noticeboard. It can't always be everyone else. I'm watching a page that GeezGod has contributed to and find no issue with their edits either. Star Mississippi 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• also possibly relevant Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib_Baruah where NeverTry4Me refuses to plausibly address COI/UPE questions. Star Mississippi 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I, for one, have given up on NeverTry4Me. At least one of the articles that editor has created is being discussed at WP:AFD and I am in general agreement that it should be kept, but it's impossible to discuss the article subject dispassionately because of their continual interventions introducing irrelevant points. GeezGod may be wrong, but that simply means that one has to reply rather than start spurious discussions here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I've tried to stay away from the numerous battleground discussions begun by the now named NeverTry4Me, but at this point it beginning to look like they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• GeezGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a sockpuppet; details can be found here. I had originally just closed this section, but as NeverTry4Me's conduct beyond reporting GeezGod is under discussion, I guess I'll leave it open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree: I wouldn't be so sure that's KSM. I'm not seeing his obvious tells, for example the thing mentioned in the comment on line 2 of the filter. If I've missed something obvious, can you email me? If not maybe check with a CU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 14 February 2022‎ (UTC)

  Checkuser needed – see also deleted contributions: One of the first things the user did was importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like NinjaRobotPirate already ran a check and noted his conclusion here. In light of that, I'll go ahead and deactivate the {{checkuser needed}} template. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Suffusion of Yellow, NinjaRobotPirate and Mz7. I find jumping into deletion discussions and importing Twinkle from vi.wikipedia while hitting a low-false-positive LTA filter, hm, "unusual" for a new account. I have also overestimated my ability to detect sockpuppetry this way, after Simpson001 was CU-confirmed. GeezGod is now unblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Twinkle from vi-wiki might be User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile. It is a new script from a vi-wiki user that makes it possible to use Twinkle from mobiles. It works very well and is being considered for inclusion in the gadget. Hemantha (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• NeverTry4Me has been blocked (see the next discussion) so this can be closed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 3

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

---

Special:Contributions/42.2.188.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 9 October in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not aware nor do I have any knowledge about this. I can't help you. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 11:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one year. @NeverTry4Me: what are you doing? El_C 11:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I don't know what it was and why it was in my Talk page. It looks spam and I have reported. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 02:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: this is the same problem I've warned you against in your report directly above. You do not provide evidence (there, you even aggressively resist doing so). The pertinent documentation is located at WP:DIFF. So I need diffs to explain: 1. what was "in [your] talk page"? 2. what is your connection to this report? 3. where have your "reported" this account or accounts? Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 10:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I am also surprised why that user left a message on my talk page. As per rules, instead of deleting my TP entry, I have simply reported here for Admin attention and investigation. Pardon me if I have spoken beyond rules. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me: I need for your next response to have the pertinent diffs attached. If you cannot do so, please explain why. Thanks again. El_C 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @El C: I just used Archive Bot in my talk page yesterday. Today some entries vanished and I am even unable to find the earlier entries on my talk page as the Archive Box is not appearing yet. Probably I shall wait for a few hours more so that I can provide the "diff" here. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• @NeverTry4Me:, again, please review the documentation at WP:DIFF. Unless revision deleted or suppressed, everything can be accessed in your talk page's revision history (link). El_C 10:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and accusations by TheWikiholic at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We have an unproductive and lengthy discussion going on at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists. As the main editor of the list, I felt this matter is important enough to bring up here even though the disruptions and the accusations by TheWikiholic are taking place at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists.

The discussion was prompted over whether or not lower records sales claim of Whitney Houston should be removed or not. TheWikiholic's behavior became noticeably disruptive each time he/she was provided with an explanation that covered the questions he raised. First, he/she accused me of stating numbers I never said in the discussion. After I clarified what was actually said by me, he/she then went on accusing me of WP:Ownership. Later I noticed that he/she was also accusing me of being biased against black artists, and biased towards white artists, 1, 2. Towards the end of the thread TheWikiholc claims "the discussion is getting long because you are not ready to accept the point of view of other editors and you see the editor with prejudice. You give too much time to attacking other editors, instead of concentrating on the topic".

Note that in the past, we've had long discussions 1, 2, also involving TheWikiholic and his/her usual supporters User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl. In all three lengthy discussions, similar disruptive behavior can be seen by TheWikiholic dragging discussions to unnecessary lengths, all the time refusing to get the point, regardless of how many detailed explanations were provided.

It's also worth noting TruthGuardians' edit here "I defended this article one time before and I was being called a racist and a sympathizer of sorts".

I just felt it's important that I brought the issue here as I feel these three editors TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl abuse the talk page of the list each time they're involved in a dispute, meanwhile also offending the main editor with constant accusations. In fact, I've have worked hard on the List of best-selling music artists for over ten years now, and with the help of other productive editors, we've managed to build a great list.--Harout72 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this matter up. I feel like Harout ignores genuine concerns. I know that he’s not accusing me of disruptive editing, but abuse is a false accusation. I’ve only utilize the talk page in the matter to which it should be used, just like the other editors have. You do not address the concerns of the other editors and then feel attacked when you’re not agreed with. My only objective has only ever been to make this article better. As a friendly reminder, this article is the product of Wikipedia, not any individual editor, or group of editors. It’s all apart of reaching consensus, there are more editors that disagree with you than those that agree with you. That’s part of reaching a consensus as we have done before in the past. It wasn’t disruptive editing then, and it’s not now. It’s simply editing. We could take it to a next level if consensus is not reached, but as I stated on the talk page, this matter is being brought to the admin board for no reason. They certainly have better use of their time than to address an editors POV about what disruptive editing is. TruthGuardians (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's probably something to discuss here. I can't quite wrap my head around accusations of racism or racial bias in something as concrete as an encyclopedia replicating already documented sales data. If that's somehow being done, it needs to be addressed, or alternatively, if it's bogus, editors need to stop casting ridiculous aspersions otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I can agree to this. FYI, no one has ever accused the editor of intentionally putting white artists ahead of black ones. However, there was a prominent influencer on a social media platform who did bring up this article and stated that the page’s own rules do not apply to some of the white artists on this page as they do for everyone else, and I think subsequently that is what was mentioned, at least on my behalf, I defended the article, but didn’t fully realize that, in fact, different rules do apply to different artists. Now I don’t know if those influencers are Wikipedia editors, doubt it, but that’s what I saw. Also, it’s a little more to it then just documenting already noted sales figures for older artists. The page uses a particular formula to calculate claimed sales for each artist. It’s the claimed sales that are being disputed. It’s being pointed out that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

TheWikiholic in this edit states "See these types of uniformity give me a serious feeling that this page has some kind of [[Racial bias on Wikipedia|racial] bias knowingly or unknowingly." He keeps comparing black artists vs white artists, in that edit Mariah Carey with Taylor Swift and Eminem. He gets those digital figures straight from the RIAA, notice that how he could compare Mariah Carey with Rihanna, the digital certified sales of the latter are 151 million, when used the same style subtraction, the total certified sales of Rihanna would drop to 170 million. That is not accidental, TheWikiholic is actually accusing me of discriminating against black artists.--Harout72 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I personally don’t think he’s accusing you of purposefully making the edits. Rihanna wasn’t mentioned probably because she’s not the issue here. I do understand his point of view, and agree that there’s a lack of continuity, but I don’t think it is a malice racial bias.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In that the same edit, he also compares Whitney Houston to Madonna. He's constantly using the racial bias to push his point of view forward.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I won’t speak for him, but objectively, I don’t believe that there was any malice intended. But at the same time I can see your point of view and why you would even take offense to begin with.TruthGuardians (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As TruthGuardians rightly pointed out, TheWikiholic did not mention Rihanna in this discussion. On the other hand, Harout72 states that "he also compares Whitney Houston to Madonna. He's constantly using the racial bias to push his point of view forward." TheWikiholic has compared two artists named Whitney and Madonna. Who mentioned the skin color of the artists first on the Talk page? I still think that to have come to this point of talking and discussing about this is just terrible. Anyway, it is the user Harout72 who has brought our discussion here, accusing TheWikiholic, and also accusing TruthGuardians and me of disruptive behavior. If you go to my User talk page you will see an accusation against me of disruptive editing (whose discussion continued on the List's talk page from this message), made by user Harout72 when I was trying to restore the "Definitions" section of the List to its status prior to February 10, something that still needs to be done. Salvabl (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User Harout72 claims that TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and I abuse the Talk page. Please read the Talk page itself and you will see it for yourself. I have been offering an open door through my messages over and over again. Even when the user Harout72 has changed the content of the "Definitions" section (a conditioning section for the management of the list in the future) unilaterally and without any previous consensus (despite the fact that the matter was being discussed on the Talk page at that moment), I made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would be the most appropriate action. However, if we state a point of view that he does not support he often labels our behavior as disruptive. This has also happened in the past (please see it here). The difference is that, with a positive attitude (which, of course, TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and I had. And also Harout72 at that time) and trying to reach common consensus we were able to bring the discussion to a good conclusion. Unfortunately, that does not seem possible this time. He also claims that we refuse to get the point, to which I gave this reply, with the matter better explained here. Salvabl (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Salvabl, now you're posting comments here without having read mine above. Read my post above here "He keeps comparing black artists vs white artists, in that edit Mariah Carey with Taylor Swift and Eminem. He gets those digital figures straight from the RIAA, notice that how he could've compared Mariah Carey with Rihanna, the digital certified sales of the latter are 151 million, when used the same style subtraction, the total certified sales of Rihanna would drop to 170 million". TheWikiholic uses just about any strategy to push his agenda forward, if he runs out of one argument, he'll try another, whether it's a racial bias, or any other false accusations. And that's not how I built that list with my fellow editors since 2010.--Harout72 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, I have read everything you have posted (both here and on the List’s Talk page). I can also think that you have not read my message in its entirety, since I talk about various things, among which is the unilateral and without prior consensus modification of the List's "Definitions" section made by you. I really dislike that the physical qualities of the artists are being mentioned, and honestly I prefer to focus on this other matter (which is the one that has affected the List with a substantial non-consensual change, since nothing has been changed regarding Whitney's claimed sales yet). Additionally, in this discussion herein, started by you, you have also mentioned disruptive behavior (allegedly on my part, for example) that is not related to the other “matter”. The "Definitions" section should be restored to its previous status, since its last modification was made unilaterally by you when it was being discussed on the Talk page (moreover, it even goes against previous agreements reached with common consensus). You have the opportunity right now to restore the section to its status prior to February 10. And, let me be clear, the very next moment I will be totally willing to discuss any proposal you make for the modification of the "Definitions" section, and then we can discuss percentages, figures, certain conditions.. Each one of us will be able to propose our ideas and expose our different points of view. Because that is what should be done to implement a substantial change in the "Definitions" section of the List. Salvabl (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I've read all this, and I have just one teensy little question ... what the fucking hell are you all talking about? How on earth can the race of a performer make a difference to their verified record sales? If I'm missing something obvious, please feel free to let me know, but I couldn't read that talkpage for a second time because I'd lose the will to live. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, to simplify it, some of the artists on the list are listed with lower claimed sales figure and higher claimed figure. When artists' Gold/Platinum certified sales grow and get closer to the lower listed claimed figure, we normally remove the lower claimed figure leaving only the higher claimed figure. However, ever since the Gold/Platinum certifications issued for singles/tracks especially after 2016 became mainly streaming based rather than sales of downloads, we tent to postpone the removal of the lower claimed figures quickly even though the certified sales might be close to it. And this is what initiated the discussion, which later turned into unproductive argument, full of accusations directed at the main editor (myself).--Harout72 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I’m not offended by the language, but that language is not allowed on the talk page. I did my best to explain briefly how race is involved. “ Also, it’s a little more to it then just documenting already noted sales figures for older artists. The page uses a particular formula(stated in page rules) to calculate claimed sales for each artist. It’s the claimed sales that are being disputed. It’s being pointed out that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it.” The formula has been debated before as it isn’t 100% sourced (which is a problem in itself), and I think that’s where the problem lies.the formula exists because it is impossible to track the sales of artists from the 50’s-90’s so their available certifications are used along with the decade their music first started to get certified. Some have questioned if it’s about race, not made it about race, as the existing formula have not applied to white artists as they have to some black artists. With all due respect, if you do not follow sales, this is not going to be an easy topic for you or anyone to understand.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What Harout has answered you is true and false at the same time (therein lies the difficulty of this discussion). Just one example to clarify this: user Harout72 says that “we normally remove the lower claimed figure leaving only the higher claimed figure”. This is false, as for example, when Michael Jackson's 300M claimed sales figure was removed (and the 400M figure was added) his certified sales were "only" 240M. This is reasonable, since the higher the certified sales, the higher the claimed sales. In fact, Elvis Presley's current certified sales are "only" 229.4M, while his claimed sales are 500M (and when he reaches 280M certified sales, the 600M claimed sales figure will be added; as agreed in past discussions). Therefore, as I have stated in other messages, the modification made by Harout72 to the "Definitions" section of the List is inappropriate, firstly because it is a substantial change made unilaterally by him, and secondly because it even contradicts previous agreements reached with common consensus. Salvabl (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to say that the obvious next question is - "who is suggesting that Artists like Madonna, Swift, and Eminem get to ignore the page’s own formula, while artists like Whitney Houston must abide by it"? but now the most obvious one is "why are you using a formula that isn't 100% sourced"? Isn't that simply WP:OR anyway? I don't know about anyone else, but the sentence "Elvis Presley's current certified sales are "only" 229.4M, while his claimed sales are 500M (and when he reaches 280M certified sales, the 600M claimed sales figure will be added)" has just made my brain attempt to escape my head and emigrate to Switzerland. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly. It would be necessary to read old discussions in which we have participated to see the replies that the user Harout72 has given to our proposals and the replies that we have given to his.. To understand several things. Salvabl (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I said "We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million", to consider and will be added are two different things. Considering would mean it could be discussed, not definitive. Also, Elvis Presley is a very different case, there were absolutely no certification systems anywhere in the world except in USA when he was charting in the 1950s and 1960. I explained all that in another long discussion involving the same group of editors above. As for the sources the formula's using, the main source we rely on is IFPI, that's also been explained in yet another long discussion. Simple glance at the discussions in the archives for the page of the list, will confirm that all artists are treated the same way.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

We have already discussed about Elvis’ sales in the past. It is true that in part of his career there were only certification systems in the USA, but it is also true that if we compare (in any period of time) the relation of his certified sales in the USA to his certified sales in other countries/markets of the world, we will see that US sales represent a huge percentage of his total sales. And it is also true that artists like Michael Jackson have uncaptured sales in major markets outside the USA (such as Japan, for example, whose certification system did not begin until 1989). For that reason, I, in my mind, will continue to see it as inappropriate to add claimed sales figures like 600M to Presley when his certified sales are 275-280M; not even if his certified sales were 350M, taking into account the US-rest of markets ratio. 600M is a too high figure in Elvis' case. One only has to look at the certified sales of The Beatles, Michael Jackson or Madonna to appreciate a globality that is not present in the case of Presley. But even so, and despite our different points of view, in those past discussions we were able to reach a common consensus (and I respect it). But I think this is not the appropriate time to talk in depth about the sales of Presley, The Beatles or Jackson, because then this could become an endless discussion. But it serves to show that the unilateral change you have made in the List's "Definitions" section does not allow to do what you yourself accepted (eg.: “We'll consider reinstating Presley's 600 million figure only when his certified sales grow significantly and be in the neighborhood of 275-280 million.”), and it is also wrong to claim that the text is inline with how the List has always been operated (the case of the last modification of Michael Jackson's claimed sales figures proves it). For that reason, it is necessary that the "Definitions" section of the List be restored to its status prior to February 10. After that, everything could be discussed, maybe it would be possible to add part of your text, and maybe it could be complemented with some ideas like the one I proposed (that when the artists meet certain conditions, only the List’s percentages will be applied). But it should be properly discussed with other users, as it is a substantial change, since modifying the "Definitions" section affects the management of the List in the future. That is why a change made by you unilaterally, without prior consensus at the moment when the matter was being discussed in the Talk page is intolerable. Salvabl (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This was brought here because of TheWikiholic's inappropriate behavior. It is absolutely unacceptable to assume that the list and the main editors discriminate against black artists. Now that's intolerable.--Harout72 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, but in this discussion that you yourself have started herein, your message addresses several matters. Salvabl (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the issue here. I always know that my concerns are up against your POV and that they the discussion on the talk page tends to go nowhere. I am expecting the views of different editors on this. For those who are interested in the subject, I will attempt to explain why I had the above complaints against Harout72.

The List of best-selling artist is based on the Total available certification of an artist combined with the year that the artist first crafted charting. This means of two artists are from the same era and have the same percentage of total available certification, excluding certification generated through digital downloads and streaming, to support their claimed sales there must be some uniformity.

Harout has mentioned that he has been the top contributor to this page for more than a decade. I have been closely and seriously observing this page since 2014. The page has almost maintained the same rules and structure ever since 2014. I also have done my research on both archives and edit history of this page since its creation. According to the edit history and talk page archive, artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Since then the page has undergone a few changes. The one billion figures for both The Beatles and Elvis Presley have been reduced to 600M and  Michael Jackson's 750M claimes have been reduced to 400M and later 350M and again to 400M. Queen has been removed from the 250M club, among other changes. However, Harout72 never touched the claimed sales of Madonna and let it stay as is when Madonna did not meet the page’s own requirements. It took 11 years before she reached 60% certification to support her 300M claims. But on the other hand Whitney Houston, an artist who began charting only one year after Madonna has 152.7m available certification which is more than 76% for her 200M claimed sales. Even if we remove the total digital certification of 29.5 from Whitney's total available certification by using Harout’s own argument, Whitney will still have 123.2M available certification. Which is more than 61% for her 200M claimed sales.  However, Harout still refuses to remove the 170M lower claim of Whitney. Keep in mind, even though the list has 116 artists and out of this only 12 artists have their lowest claims being used.

Harout72 has also been saying 50M digital singles certification of today will only be converted to 20M actual sales as you can see here. I don't know how he reached that conclusion. The total available certification of Eminem is 247.5M, out of this, 107.5M are RIAA's digital certification. Where the total Available certification of Mariah Carey is 185.5M and she only has 39.5M digital certification from RIAA. Similarly, Taylor Swift has 235.4 total available certifications and out of this 134M are digital sales. If we deduct the digital certification from these three artists the total certification will be 140M for Eminem, 145.8M for Mariah, and 101.4M For Taylor. Even if we pretend that Harout’s unsourced theory of 50M digital certification = 20M actual sales for face value, It's impossible that Eminem and Taylor swift meet their claimed sales of 220M and 200m respectively since they are basically artists from the 21st centuries.

Harout72 refers to all editors who oppose his point of view as disruptors. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change for privacy and legal ground. You can also see from this discussion from last June that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that “the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time" like an owner of this page.” But as a result of that discussion he had to decrease the highest claimed sales of Elvis Presley from 600M to 500M and the lowest claims 500m to 360M. Here is another instance where Harout was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor having so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, you might want to do your research correctly, just because Eminem and Taylor Swift are 21st century artists that doesn't mean that all of their digital certifications are streaming generated. The certifications issued before 2016 are good 70+% download based. You can see here 2015 Nilesen soundscan, Adele's "Hello" sold 3.7 million downloads, certified 4x Platinum by the RIAA. Taylor Swift has 99 million units of RIAA certs issued before 2016, that alone translates to 70+ million digital downloads. Her RIAA certs issued in 2020 are also not 100% stream based, they're good 25+% download based. The same is with BPI certs and all others, if issued before 2016, they're 70% download based. Eminem also, he has 40 million units of RIAA certs issued before 2016 for singles, and those issued in 2018 are also over 25+% download based. As I stated above you could have made your criticism by taking either Rihanna, Kanye West or Chris Brown, as example, they're also 21st century artists. And if I were to deduct their RIAA digital certs from their total certified sales, their total certified sales would drop to 170 million, 114 million and 102 million respectively. But you didn't, because your agenda is to discredit me. And in this case you used specifically white artists to achieve your goal, which is to make it look like that I'm discriminating.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWhikiholic, you also mentioned above that the rules of this page have not changed since 2014, well you're wrong on that point too. The required percentage for an artist like Madonna who began charting in 1983 was 33.28%, and at that time Madonna had 165.7 million certified units. That's actually 55.2% certified units for a 300 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Now that my brain has decided to return to my head, the problem here is that we have a large number of editors who believe that changes to this particular page are very important and are willing to engage in a significant amount of uncollegial behaviour in order to ensure that their "correct" version is there. Note that I'm not talking about all the editors involved, but some of the behaviour is not acceptable. My suggestion would be to fuly protect the page so that it could only be changed with an edit request. Obviously, that would not prevent any of the issues at the talkpage, but at least that's only a talkpage. What do other admins and uninvolved editors think? Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, just a side note, the page is being updated for newly issued certifications multiple times on daily basis by me. It would be impossible, I think, for me to disturb administrators at least once a day to submit the updates.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Harout72 is right when he says that the list needs to be updated frequently. For that reason, I believe the easiest solution is to first restore the List's "Definitions" section to its status prior to the unilateral modification made by Harout72. And after that, establish that only the update of certified sales can be done without prior discussion. Salvabl (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news service. There is no deadline by which data must be updated, especially on an article like this. I would suggest that if the article's regular editors don't want it to be protected, they start working together in a more collaborative way. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Outside of some of the aspersion-casting going on, I'm not seeing much that's actionable here. Perhaps a big WP:RFC on it could help, so you could get some new input so it's not the same four of you guys clashing all the time? As a fellow editor of the music content area, I may be able to help mediate some as well, though I do admit it can take some investment to understand what happens at this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins for your assistance and your time. I look forward to reaching a consensus on the talk page on the matter. Disruption was and is never my intentions. I think if we were to approach this systematically with a goal in mind, then a conclusion can be reached. We’ve reached consensus before in the past.TruthGuardians (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Adele's case is entirely different. I can explain it on the articles talk page on another occasion. As far as Madonna is concerned, she only had 153.7M certification when the article began using her 300m claimed sales figure in 2010. It was only 51% then. You know this. It become 165.7m in 2014 and 180m (60%) in 2021. You know this as well. 1) My first question is why did you not ever remove her 300M claim during this 11-year time span?

Black Kite, Sergecross73 My main concern is Harout’s way of handing the talk page. He often imposes his views on other editors. For example, I mentioned above that he used to say 50M digital certifications for nowadays only translate to 20M actual sales. I have never seen any source or anything to support these claims. This is because one doesn’t exist anywhere. He also added a definition that supports his arguments, even in the very midst of a discussion.

Another issue is that up to a few months ago, the article was using the 2010 IFPI's market share data. According to it, the USA is the biggest music market having a 30% total market share. Using this data, Harout set up a requirement for an artist to be on the list. For example, an artist who began charting in the 1950s and 1960 should have at least have 30% available certification to support this claim. Just imagine using data from 2010 for artists from the 50s and 60s, and assuming that there was an existing online database in other countries, these artists would all have sold three times more than they have, per Harout’s findings. If we check the data of IFPI in 2002, you can see that the USA has generated 35% of the worlds total music sales which clearly indicates that when we go back to the 80s, 70s, and 60s, the market share of the USA would be much higher than compared to other markets. I also read in the 50s and 60s the USA dominated with 60% of market shares, followed by the USA and UK, where today are USA and Japan.

When any user points out these issues he labels edits and the editors as disruptive and any discussion related to the flaws being discussed is futile. As you can see here, there was a consensus to raise the minimum requirement of artists that began charting in the 50s and 60s to 40% from 30%. Even though he prepared a model of it, the consensus has yet to be implemented, even 5 months later.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic, you are making stuff up as you go, that's why you and I can't work together. What consensus are you referring to that has yet to be implemented? Your supporter TruthGuardians was supposedly going to receive IFPI information directly from IFPI and pass it alone so i could implement it, TruthGuardians never did. Adele's case isn't any different than others. Look at the digital sales of the song "Happy" by Pharrell Williams, 5.6 million in 2014, certified 6x Platinum in 2014. That certification is based on more than 90% downloads. As for 2010, we didn't have any of the percentages implemented in 2010, we had no such rules. The first time we had such percentile based rules was in 2012, and I had to develop it over the years doing lot of research. FYI, Madonna had 157.9 million certified units then, that actually was the double the number what she was required to have then. You need to stop with your false accusations.--Harout72 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I think everyone's time would be better spent on creating a carefully crafted (and concisely worded) RFC to get some new input on all of this rather than these massive walk-of-text listings of mild grievances. It's impossible to follow all of this. That's why you've got a meager response of 2 outside editors commenting on this after 2+ days of discussion. That's pretty awful for a venue as populated as ANI. You're all doing a poor job of breaking this down for any outsiders. Wrap this up and try a new approach. Sergecross73 msg me 05:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Harout, stop referring to me as a supporter of another editor because I agree with their sourced content and ideas and disagree with your unsourced rhetoric. @TheWikiholic is an admin. I trust that he knows what he is doing and saying. I admire his work here on Wikipedia and yes I do follow his edits. Wikiholic is right, regardless of what you are waiting for (the same thing I am), it is still a consensus. @Sergecross73 I kept warning the editors about an RFC and even an AFD. I didn’t want it to go that far. I didn’t think it would have to, but as it is there’s only one editor preventing accurate editing from moving forward for whatever reason. While I’m still on the fence for an RFC or an AFD, I am certainly in favor of protecting the article for each an every single edit. At least until this matter is settled or another agreement is reached to I protect it to allow normal uniformed edits to take place. As @Black Kite has stated, there’s no deadline that this information, or any other information on Wikipedia must be updated.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

An AFD would certainly be inappropriate- we don't delete articles just because we disagree on how to handle content within them. Definitely don't go that route. But an RFC isn't that big of a deal. I think the only issue is that most participants struggle with making concise points - if you put together a long, bloated RFC, it'll go much like this long bloated ANI discussion, where few will jump in and it'll just be you 3-4 arguing amongst yourselves again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, however, we see poorly sourced wiki articles deleted everyday. Like you said, it’s difficult to follow this topic and to just jump in and know what’s going on. I totally get it. None of the participants, including myself, have been able to put into words appropriately and in plain language the WP:NOR that is involved with the page’s formula, but I believe with the right wording may qualify for an AFD. Or at least a discussion. I agree that that it should not be the next course of action by any means though for sure. On my way to talk page now.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no way there's a valid deletion argument that a topic cross-section like "best-selling" and "musicians" isn't a notable topic. A nomination like that would likely be quick-failed out of AFD, and you'd probably get a warning for WP:POINTed editing or ill-conceived AFD nominations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenditious editing by User:Policynerd3212 - crime and Islam?

Policynerd3212 added a bunch of crime statistics to the article on Sweden - their edit (here) was in my opinion quite tenditious (compare to my revision); it read to me like a deliberate misreading of some of the statistics, it only brought up increases (and not the decreases visible in some of the diagrams) and they also removed the in this case obviously relevant ideological position of the author of one of the studies cited. (on a sidenote I also question whether having all of these statistics at Sweden rather than Crime in Sweden is necessary in the first place and I think just dumping all of the statistics in this way lacks quite a bit of nuance).

They also added a figure for the number of muslims in the country (here), but referred to it as a "documentation" - there are no official stats on religious affiliation in Sweden. This should appropriately have been called what it is (an estimate) and have been (if added at all) added together with other estimates. It's not necessarily an unreliable source but the specific study has been criticized in the Swedish media for its possible use in scaremongering propaganda (for instance). I reverted this but they added it back (here). The information was also added in a quite strange spot. Nearly all of Policynerd's edits have been concerning Sweden's statistics on crime and Islam (IMO bordering on a WP:SPA). They have also removed my concerns of their edits not being constructive from their talk page (here) - this is allowed but I feel like it's relevant to take note of. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): The above claims are simply untrue. I have updated a nearly decade old crime section and added nuanced information. I have explicitly mentioned decline in sexual assaults since 2017 and that Sweden is one of the safest countries in the world. I furthermore link to and use Swedens official bureau of statistics:

https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/crime-statistics.html https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/violence-and-assault.html

Regarding muslim population Pewresearch estimates are reliable and Ichthyovenator offer no contratidicting evidence. My source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/

Furthermore Ichthyovenator link to unreliable opinion articles when he edits on the Swedish wikipage. For example he writes: "Even when accounting for increased expenses in terms of education and healthcare, the economic advantages of immigration over time outweighs the disadvantages." And as a source links to an opinion article. " His source: https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2019-06-26/over-tid-vager-de-positiva-effekterna-av-invandring-over-de-negativa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even respond to everything I said here. There wasn't really much nuanced information added. You wrote "For a long time ranked amongst some of the safest countries in the world" (implying it no longer is - it still is). You mentioned mainly the risen crimes - mentioning a single downward trend while ignoring others is not being nuanced. I still question the necessity of having all of these stats here, almost only mentioning the negative ones, and what difference it makes to add an unverifiable stat on the number of muslims in the country? So the article written by researchers on migration is unreliable? I also don't know why you assume I'm male.

I also question why you continue to edit war with this discussion raised and why you more or less copy-pasted my edit summary while doing so (here). I think we can wait and see what others think before you continue to push your stuff at Sweden. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Still continuing... Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And now they've removed my notice of this discussion from their talk page. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): As already mentioned, I added nuance to the statistics. But in general the crime has risen on most parameters. So therefore that's what the section reflects as the official statistics from the Swedish bureau of statistics are quite clear. I further use clear citation from The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and pewresearch. If my information is incorrect or misleading please offer sources which contradict the official sources. Your personal opinion is not relevant.

Another factual error in your critique is that I haven't contributed to other pages. But I have contributed to a lot of different sections in Danish: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciel:Bidrag/Policynerd3212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I dispute your idea that you added nuance to the statiscs. I have not disputed that in general the crime has risen on most parameters - the article still makes this clear, but you deliberately or by mistake ignored parts of those statiscs and added largely only what could be construed as bad. I'm not interesting in wasting time to continue argue or to dig up sources that contradict your interpretation of the other sources - I already linked one article concerning the pew study in particular. For an example of an alternate estimate, this page (also cited in the article already) puts the number of muslims at 6.5 % - it's impossible to produce a reliable or accurate estimate. Hopefully more people weigh in on this; please stop editing Sweden until some form of decision is reached. Your conduct on Danish wikipedia is not of concern here but I don't think that looks good either (edits to three articles, some sort of concern on your talk page). My main issue is that the combination of adding IMO misleading information concerning crime w.o. nuance, removing the ideological position of Adamson and adding stats on the muslim population (from a study which the Swedish media was concerned would be used for scaremongering propaganda no less) doesn't paint a good picture. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): Göran Adamson is not som alt right-wing proponent and anti-immigration type which you seem to insinuate. He has simply as a sociologist, an expert, researched the consequences of high immigration. Furthermore you aren't disclosing professor in criminology Jerzy Sarnecki ideological position as a proponent for immigration. Why? Because it isn't relevant. They are social scientists/criminologist. You are being very aggressive and disingenuous. And I said, I added nuanced statistics. The estimate by pewresearch is not contradicted by any sources. Why do you continue to delete this valid information in the immmigration section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policynerd3212 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already pointed out my problems with the pew study and more specifically the way you cited it. I don't see why it would not be relevant to mention that Adamson is a self-admitted critic of multiculturalism? I never said he was "alt right-wing". If you have a source on Sarnecki's ideological position you're welcome to produce that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps Policynerd3212 is unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. I am unable to make out the content dispute from the diffs provided, and I don't see a discussion on the talk page, or a noticeboard. This is the wrong venue for a discussion whether the percentage of Muslims in the country is DUE. Pious Brother (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: my concern is that Policynerd3212's addition of the crime statistics was misleading (for instance, they mentioned just the significant increase from 2012/2014 but deliberately left out that there is an obvious undergoing decrease - just look at the diagrams they sourced), that they initially claimed the estimate of muslims was a "documented" number (and I feel they implicitly connect that number to the crime) and that none of these statistics ought to be included without a more nuanced approach. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern as you explain it here, but this should have first been discussed on the article talk page. I added the talk page to my watch list. Pious Brother (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pious Brother: I do not have a huge amount of experience with ANI so I apologize if I moved here prematurely. I didn't see anything saying it had to be discussed anywhere else prior. Are you saying that this should now be discussed at the talk page or should this proceed here? Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should continue the discussion there and keep this discussion open for a few days. Pious Brother (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added a response there as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Islam? Crime? Sweden? Statistics? This sounds very familiar. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I'm concerned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I second Drmies, we've seen this before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was 1Kwords, but fortunately it's not. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator I completely understand the concern for alt-right crazy people adding inaccurate information and stats. At the same time we need to have objective accurate information on the page. Before my update the crime section section stated: "Violence (both lethal and non-lethal) has been on a downwards trend over the last 25 years". This is simply misinformation according to all official sources.

Yes - I approve of objectivity and nuance. Notice that I have not added back the "downwards trend over the last 25 years" part. My concern was that I felt that you sort of picked and chose what you wanted from the crime statistics sources to push your POV and that I felt the addition of the estimate of the number of muslims (initially with no indication that this is just one estimate, and the reaction it had in the Swedish media), combined with the removal of where Adamson is arguing from, painted a worrying picture. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Response from Policynerd3212 to Ichthyovenator (talk): The religion section is completely unrelated to the crime section. — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be, yes. Don't feign ignorance as to why editing both sections (and no others) tenditiously is worrying. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out here as well that the discussion has continued at Talk:Sweden. My POV is that Policynerd3212 is continuing to display tenditious behavior and a reluctance to incorporate a fair summary of WP:RS, they will obviously disagree. I have proposed rewrites to the disputed content to make it what I believe is more in-line with WP:NPOV, Policynerd3212 oppose these. The discussion has mostly devolved into repeating the same arguments so I'm hoping for a neutral third party to weigh in here ASAP. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:PlanespotterA320 and WP:GS/UYGHUR

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

---

PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · count) has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing with respect to topics relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed. Over the past year, the editor has more or less been continuing to ignore community consensus on a number of sources and instead has been attempting to push a fringe POV that the abuses in Xinjiang are not reliably reported. The user has continued to refuse to respect consensus on several sources, most notably Radio Free Asia, and has used their opposition to the use of this source (as well as research by tbe respected Adrian Zenz) as a sort of bludgeoning tool to smear everything on the subject.

Their edits on Uyghur genocide indicate a history of misusing maintenance tags to WP:POVPUSH and outright POVPUSHing, comparing the reporting on the abuses of the Uyghurs to crying wolf.

• In March 2021, Inserted POV templates into Uyghur genocide and disguised it as a minor edit, only to later edit war the POV template into the header of the article after the user was reverted by separate editors
• In October 2021, the user tagged the article with a {{partisan sources}} tag, making more or less the same complaints that they made in March about article sourcing, despite prior consensus that the article's sourcing practices were fine. After the PlanespotterA320's tag was removed by another user for it having been a drive-by tag, Planespotter restored the tag into the article rather than engage on the article talk page.
• In December 2021, the user inserted content into Uyghur genocide relating to a 1960s Soviet Union propaganda campaign that reliable sources don't connect in any way to the ongoing abuses in Xinjiang. The user attempted to insert a Chinese denialist memorandum into the article that framed the abuse allegations as arising from only separatists and nationalist groups (the content sourced to Chinas ministry of foreign affairs was removed here). After I removed the content about the Sino-Soviet dispute, the user restored the content on it. The user noted in their edit summary that it was Worth knowing that this isn't the first time someone has played the Uyghur card and cried wolf with Uyghur genocide—that PlanespotterA320 sees the abuses in Xinjiang as crying wolf is explicitly motivating their disruptive edits.
• In February 2022, the user has persisted to continually tag the article with tags that include {{partisan sources}} and {{unbalanced}}, arguing that the inclusion of content from the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Radio Free Asia is reason to put giant cleanup notices atop the page.

This pattern of editing is not just limited to the Uyghur genocide article itself. In fact, this extends to templates and other articles as well.

• In February 2022, Planespotter removed all mention of the Xinjiang internment camps and the Uyghur genocide from the {{Xinjiang topics}} template, while inappropriately placing a number of articles (including Uyghur people) in a "separatist elements" row. After this was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, PlanespotterA320 made an edit that inappropriately restored the "separatist elements" row, Uyghur people article included.
• Also in February 2022, the user has inappropriately marked substantial edits on East Turkistan Government-in-Exile as minor and was reverted by Beshogur. When PlanespotterA320 restored their edits, Planespotter acknowledged that their edits were of substantive nature.

PlanespotterA320 was warned of the active general sanctions on the topic in June 2021, yet nonetheless has persisted (and been particularly active as of late) in disruptively editing in the Uyghur genocide topic area in a manner that reflects clear attempts to push a denialist point-of-view. I'd kindly ask that an administrator take a look at the editing activity of that editor in order to help prevent future disruption in the area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the right to point when an article heavily sites partisan, state-funded outlets and tag an article that does so as having such problem. The so-called Uyghur genocide is a current event, not as historical one, and is subject to controversy as such. If heavily citing partisan sources wasn't a problem then we wouldn't have a tag for it. The fact that so much of the alleged "abuses" (many of which are prevalent in neighboring Muslim-supermajority countries) come from Western state media outlets certainly merits noting until the article is not so dependent on them. There is clearly a concerted effort by an organized group of POV pushers to deem everything in Xinjiang a "genocide", watering down the term at the expense of small peoples who actually suffered genocide. Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship to prevent the availability of important context to users, even removing well-cited verifable information about historical precedents of the term's usage by ungrateful separatist elements dating back to the Sino-Soviet split. I simply call a spade a spade, a state funded media outlet a state funded media outlet, a state-funded NGO not independent, and a separatist a separatist. If you want to argue about the merits of those agents case for separatism on your social media, go ahead, but that doesn't make them NOT separatist. And I cannot help but point out here as well just how incredibly damaging the disingenuous propaganda shamefully painting the well-off Uyghurs as victims of genocide is to ACTUAL small peoples on the brink of assimilation, begging for dignity in representation, recognition, the right to live in their land, and respect, all of which Uyghurs in Xinjiang are not only endowed with in addition to titular status in Xinjiang but have completely taken for granted, ungratefully tossing false accusations of "genocide" to the government that includes them in the 56 flowers but could revoke that status with the stroke of a pen as punishment for their treason if it felt willing to but veiws such act as blasphemous and unthinkable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship to prevent the availability of important context to users do you mean like removing all mention of the Xinjiang internment camps and the Uyghur genocide from the {{Xinjiang topics}} template? I'm all for including relevant information published in reliable sources in line with the principle of due weight, but repeated tendentious and otherwise disruptive editing of yours on this topic to push the fringe perspective that the people being forcibly sterilized and held in camps are well-off despite no reliable sources actually reporting that have not been a benefit to Wikipedia. Civilly engaging in talk page discussions is absolutely OK, even if your arguments aren't great, but the repeated disruptive editing of articles by pushing fringe views that fly in the face of community consensus that you are well aware of makes this very clearly a conduct problem. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean the info about the Sino-Soviet split which you added with the massively inappropriate edit summary "Worth knowing that this isn't the first time someone has played the Uyghur card and cried wolf with Uyghur genocide. Perhaps the alleged genocide of Uyghurs during the Sino-Soviet split that never happened should get its own article"[44]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

1. so-called Uyghur genocide
2. alleged "abuses"
3. come from Western state media outlets
4. concerted effort by an organized group of POV pushers
5. watering down the term at the expense of small peoples who actually suffered genocide
6. Editors here are clearly on a campaign of censorship
7. Mentions separatism at least four times
8. disingenuous propaganda shamefully painting the well-off Uyghurs
9. have completely taken for granted
10. false accusations of "genocide"
11. the government that includes them in the 56 flowers

Yikes! Pious Brother (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't just template:Xinjiang Topics, they also removed wikiproject human rights and the GS notice from the talk page [45]. Theres also this bizzare series [46][47][48] of edits at Dinigeer Yilamujiang which are serious BLP issues in addition to UG issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And as I said, Xinjiang is a geographic region and province of China, not an activist or a political ideology.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain removing either the wikiproject or the tag, both of them apply to the geographic region and province of China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Or why you suddenly added them to Hawaii, Texas and Guam immediately after making the point that it shouldn't apply to a geographic region or territory. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Theres this edit [49] which scrubs all controversy, including the Uyghur Genocide, from the lead at 2022 Winter Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This series [50][51][52] of edits across different pages which qualify Uyghur Genocide with "alleged" in a rather pointed way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

They're also currently edit warring [53][54][55] at Salih Hudayar over the "separatist" characterization again without apparent regard for WP:BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously think he advocates FOR Xinjiang being part of China?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, can you explain these edits, especially after having made this edit. You are doing the exact thing you are saying is not applicable in your first edit which very much calls into question the reasoning for it. You state on your first edit "Xinjiang is a GEOGRAPHIC REGION and administrative entity, not a political ideology" and then proceed to add the very project template you're removing to other political and administrative entities. It's very hard to assume this was done in good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, for six months. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since Planespotter is belligerent, edit warring, argumentative insists she’s right and have severe OWN issues in every area she edits in these days I actually support a block. A topic ban would have to be ridiculously wide. Canterbury Tail talk 02:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I'm going to push back on a full block—a more narrowly tailored thing would be a topic ban on WP:UYGHUR with either a general one-revert restriction or an additional logged warning with respect to ownership of articles more generally. The user's edits in the topics of aviation and Soviet military biographies seem to be generally productive and I'm hesitant to block longstanding users with one problem area until more narrowly tailored efforts to prevent future disruption have been tried. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support six month topic ban on the WP:UYGHUR area. I'm not opposed to an additional sanction of a one-revert restriction for behavior outside of the problem topic area, but I'd prefer to give a formal warning before being putting restrictions on all of the user's editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on on WP:UYGHUR for six months. Pious Brother (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment User has similar edit warring on Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era [56] [57] [58] [59]. Also at his talkpage, despite getting different warnings, he said Two reverts is not an editwar. and Editwar is THREE reverts, NOT 2! twice. Beshogur (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI, PlaneSpotterA320 is female editor, not male, so please use the correct pronouns and don't assume all editors are male. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block - This is way beyond pale. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wider topic ban If we are going to go the topic ban route I think it should be wider than just the Uyghur area. It was only 3 weeks ago when they were at this board last for the same owning, ignoring consensus, combative edits and I dare say bludgeoning with the same arguments and not listening to others, but this time on Crimean Tatars. This isn't exclusive to the Uyghur area. If it's going to be a topic ban I think it should be on all ethnic minorities/repressed or displaced populations/separation movement/disputed type areas (open to wording as this generally isn't my area.) Uyghur is too specific as this behaviour is in other areas as well. In general any time PlaneSpotterA320 comes into any kind of disagreement with other editors, these are the results. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• She was featured at this very noticeboard for an unrelated issue as recent as three weeks ago. As usual, she responded that she is right and everybody around is wrong, and the topic, as is common with East European topics, was archived without closure. It is now time to take action, which presumably should not be limited to Uyghur genocide.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all CN and CIS politics - widely construed. We need a WP:CNPL sanctions regime like WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBPIA4 to prevent the POV pushing by Wumao, Wangluo shuijun, Little Pinks and other CCP symps. These guys are ruining it for good faith editors trying hard to introduce nuance where they are WP:DUE. For example, Pompeo's "landmines" [60] [61] [62], are probably due in Uyghur genocide as part of some wider changes, but this is impossible in the current WP:BATTLEGROUND environment where no one wants give up an inch to these guys. CutePeach (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Pompeo “landmines” stuff (I couldn’t read SCMP) seems to be not include reference to the XUAR, which would render it undue in Uyghur genocide (unless RS are saying that the Genocide designation was actually a domestic political play to screw over Biden—the claim is a bit extraordinary and I can’t exactly find reliable sources supporting that claim from a Google search). That being said, content issues are best resolved on the article talk pages. I also don’t think that summing this up as a WP:BATTLEGROUND on with two distinct sides is generally accurate here—editors on the Uyghur genocide page generally try to resolve disputes by surveying reliable sources, attempting to gain consensus in the talk, and making edits that reflect that consensus. The issue that brought me here is that Planespotter, in particular, has been utterly disruptive across the board in this topic area while explicitly stating their intent of POVPUSHING. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I was originally thinking that a topic ban or short block would solve this, but given the views expressed in the "I have the right to point ... blasphemous and unthinkable." post and the previous issues with another minority group I think we have to topic ban them from ethnic and religious minorities broadly construed at the very least. An indef block on nothere grounds woild also be justified after what they wrote here, as other users have said "beyond the pale" and "yikes"Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking. Genocide denialist bullshit wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else, and it shouldn't be here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

+1 You beat me to the punch, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Why do I start reading from the top? El_C 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope they get WP:Standard Offer, along with a topic ban on any topics related to international politics or race. I think they deserve a chance to clean up their act after being told what they did was wrong. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Plutonical, they are obviously not listening. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Calton again

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

---

On the 11th of February, an unregistered user went on the 2021 page and added in the June section the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin. It had long been established, in part due to Talk page discussion (which I personally had nothing to do with), that the event is primarily of domestic US significance and therefore had long been relegated to 2021 in the United States (the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and verdict is also not included) - so I reverted the edit and restored the status quo against inclusion. Calton (talk · contribs) then reverted my edit with the summary "Worldwide attention, Mr. Gatekeeper". He used that same disparaging bad faith name towards me that he had used back in September 2021, and of which his behaviour towards me led to a [report] as well as [condemnation from other users] at the time.

I sent Calton a Talk page message making it clear that I did not appreciate him coming back after around four months only to again violate WP:CIV and not assuming good faith, and again referring to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" - behaviour for which he had already been formally cautioned. I asked that he never refer to me as "Mr. Gatekeeper" again. His response on my Talk page speaks for itself: "I don't care what you think, Mr. Gatekeeper. You don't like being called a "gatekeeper", here's what you do: stop gatekeeping. Your prickly reaction tells me that you're well aware of what you're doing. Oh, and a reminder: the Norm MacDonald discussion had pretty much everyone saying that you were wrong. Maybe you should have remembered that bit before bringing it up". I would appreciate if something was done about this, because this is entirely unacceptable and bordering on WP:HA. TheScrubby (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Calton needs to calm it down and cut out the aspersions. However, I will point out that unless it's disappeared from the archives, there has never actually been a discussion about the Chauvin verdict; it was only brought up during the discussion about Rittenhouse, and even then was simply one user (Jim Michael) saying "it's not internationally notable" three times without any evidence (when it clearly was - how many verdicts end up being shown on live TV outside the country they're taking place in?). There probably needs to be a discussion about it now, because it hasn't clearly been decided, and it would probably help if it wasn't bludgeoned this time. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If there has been a firm discussion r.e. Chauvin, at the very least I wasn’t involved. What I do know is that Jim Michael did argue that the event, though receiving international coverage, was of domestic US significance only, and that the only aspect which had international relevance was the global protests against police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s death. At the very least there was no opposition to what Jim Michael argued, and from June to now the 2021 page has reflected this by not including the Chauvin verdict, which at the very least could be construed as WP:EDITCON - and it’s worth noting that the Rittenhouse case did lead to a more substantial discussion, and which was ultimately excluded from the main 2021 page. All I had done was revert back to the status quo on this.

Ultimately though, none of this really matters. Even if there had been a consensus in favour of including the event, nothing excuses or justifies Calton’s conduct and constant bad faith allegations & demeaning labeling of those he disagrees with. What concerns me most is that he had already been reported and condemned for his past behaviour (not just towards me, but I also note towards other users over the years), and he had been formally cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this back in September, and Calton yesterday has made it crystal clear that he has zero intention of even acknowledging this and following through on the caution. I just don’t understand how this is at all a remotely acceptable standard on Wikipedia? TheScrubby (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Can concur with TheScrubby (talk · contribs). Unfolding here is a damning and awesome indictment in the form of past WP:AN and WP:ANI records.

• WP:AN Archive 74

• WP:AN Archive 164

• WP:AN Archive 166

• WP:ANI Archive 211

• WP:ANI Archive 217

• WP:ANI Archive 293

• WP:ANI Archive 317

• WP:ANI Archive 328

• WP:ANI Archive 349

• WP:ANI Archive 365

• WP:ANI Archive 462

• WP:ANI Archive 518

• WP:ANI Archive 788

That being said, however due to his longstanding productive contributions to Wikipedia, if a formal vote is held over this I would favor giving him the choice of a face-saving option entailing that of voluntary resignation in the form of self-requested blocks. With that he can choose to contribute in other projects like Commons which might suit him better. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So "damning and awesome", in fact, that the *newest* of those ANI reports is nine years old. Thanks for your input, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regardless of the time of the past records, the Universal Code of Conduct had been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation on December 9, 2020. This means that Calton's incivilities such as name-calling are de jure no longer acceptable. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Calton hasn't decided to even defend their actions here is an issue. This is an editor with a very long history of incivility that, as individual events, aren't sufficient to justify action but taken as a whole need a response. Their personal talk page is littered with requests from other editors to tone things down. About year and a half back they were topic blocked for incivility directed at me [63]. They were blocked in March 2020 (not in their block log though) [64], reminded of civility [65] yet here we are again. Perhaps the issue is just the topic areas they choose to work in. An AP tban vs a block might be a productive option. Doubling down after another editor raised a concern is not acceptable [66]. Springee (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Though of course that might be because he hasn't edited at all since this ANI was filed. And whilst a chance to remove an ideological opponent is de rigeur in that area, an AP ban for an edit on a page that isn't even covered by ARBAP is probably pushing it a bit. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, last time he was reported (over his conduct during the Norm Macdonald discussion in September), he chose to essentially not acknowledge the basis of that report and instead attempted to double down on bad faith accusations towards me - as if that at all justifies his conduct. Nor did he acknowledge at any point the caution issued by El C; and with his latest behaviour on both 2021 and his post on my Talk page, he has made it absolutely clear that he has no intention in remotely listening to anybody or to take heed of the original caution. After all, why should he? For all these years he has been allowed to conduct himself this way as if the rules don’t apply to him at all - because he knows that he would suffer no consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I would think content related to the Chauvin and the protests would count as American Politics even if the article in question isn't. I rarely edit the same articles as Calton and in this case I think I lean towards agreeing with Calton's edit. That said, this is an editor who repeatedly shows that they don't think CIVIL applies to them. They have been warned and blocked in the past but that doesn't stop them. Since short term blocks have proben ineffective I was suggesting keeping them out of problematic topic areas but I certainly would be open to something else that fixes the issue. Springee (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately according to past track records such as WP:ANI Archive 217, his incivilities isn't limited to American Politics. Next according to WP:ANI Archive 518, even Jimbo Wales himself has at one point criticized him. If a tban is to be enacted it has to be indefinite and cover all topics broadly construed, except perhaps some Japanese non-political local topics, such as geography, because the latter seems to be the only field so far where Calton is less prone to succumb to his incivilities. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In light of Calton’s behaviour not just towards myself, but towards what is evidently an innumerable number of users over the course of well over a decade, it does beg the question: what is the point of having WP:CIV or to ask people to assume good faith if we cannot apply this equally to everyone, or if we make excuses for/turn a blind eye to the actions of one user because they happen to be deemed otherwise substantive or "productive" contributors? Frankly, enough is enough. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and it is a damning indictment on Wikipedia that a bully like Calton has been tolerated for this long. Anywhere else, and Calton would have long been made persona non grata. This, incidentally, is why Calton will ignore warnings and condemnation from other users, and why he feels it is acceptable to continue behaving this way. Because you ostensibly have one set of rules for Wikipedia, and another for Calton. He knows he can get away with it without consequence, and so will not learn. It is a toxic cycle, and Calton is an extremely toxic user. Whatever levels of substance he may otherwise be judged to have should not be regarded as a factor at all if he is incapable of basic civility, and incapable of not being hostile & incapable of maintaining a basic respect for those he doesn’t agree with. TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the only admin to have weighed in so far and I'm not taking any action as serious as a block unilaterally, because I don't think - at the moment - that it justifies it. I'm not treating Calton any differently from any other user, but I'm certainly not going to block him for this one incident, and it isn't helping that our probably-a-sock 91.x IP address keeps butting in shrilly demanding action (FYI there is a long-running LTA sock which has targeted Calton), so I'm generally ignoring them as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t know anything about the latter (regarding the IP) to comment, though if that’s indeed the case then it’s understandable that you don’t take that into account (although I can’t say I disagree with the points this user has made). If not necessarily an outright block, what do you suggest would be an appropriate outcome? Calton after all had already been issued a formal caution regarding this back in September, and it’s deeply concerning that he made clear on my Talk page that he will not even acknowledge this and continue with his (entirely unprovoked, I should add) aspersions as if the caution never took place and the comments by other users condemning his behaviour were never written. TheScrubby (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no good reason to believe that casting needless whataboutisms and aspersions such as "probably a sock" or "he can be referred as a gatekeeper with an ad hominem vibe because he edited a lot in an article" is in any way helpful in this case. Per WP:YANI, nobody is irreplaceable and chances are there are one or more equivalent of Calton in the sense of the term, "ideological opponent", sans the chronic incivilities, partly because there are presumably increased interest in encyclopedic editing in this pandemic when everybody are forced to stay home. I'd propose that this to be moved forward by one or more impartial administrators or sysops to hold informal votes on whether to enact the options of a tban that would limit him to Japanese non-political topics and/or that of a voluntary resignation, given his concurrently long-standing positive and substantial contributions to Wikipedia. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore at just about the same time, Calton made a disparaging comment "There is no fucking "discussion". Sealion elsewhere." on an IP user's talk page. This reeks of WP:BITE and when these incivilities are a pattern rather than isolated instances, that's where it became a major problem. However, as the often-called face culture is socio-culturally prevalent in Japan, there's the danger that he will become disgruntled and come back as a vandal as in many cases if we move too rashly or harshly against him. Therefore the informal options of topic bans or WP:RETIRE should be considered. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For context for that message on an IP user's talk page, see the history of Talk:Manchester High School (Virginia) and Special:Contribs/27.33.119.160. Levivich 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

See also: WP:Two wrongs don't make a right. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Those aren't two wrongs. Telling a troll to fuck off isn't wrong. Levivich 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nor do editors supposed to be goaded and lose their cool upon being baited by trolls. Slap templates on their talk pages, or report them straight to the admins. That's all. The main problem remains that WP:CIR especially when dealing with personal emotions and behaviors while editing, and someone has been lacking the capability to control it for years while being condoned by the editing community like a missing stair, despite being concurrently an "OG" and productive user. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think Wikipedia is, some kind of finishing school or honor society? We don't judge editors for being goaded and losing their cool upon being baited by trolls. They're people, and people get goaded and lose their cool sometimes. It is not an expectation that in order to edit Wikipedia, one must avoid being human. Levivich 17:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And you know what's worse than people being goaded and losing their cool? The fucking assholes on the internet who spend years harassing editors because they had an argument one time. Those people ought to be prosecuted by law enforcement with greater vigor. I think a few highly-publicized arrests would have a deterrent effect, and I wish the WMF would throw more money at making that happen. Levivich 17:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuses based on the imperfection of humanity, in the end does not negate the fact that an uncivil environment is a poor environment, which in this context, would scare many potential productive editors away as long as the missing stair or the elephant in the room is ignored. Sure, I concur that there are actual malefactors who would goad these editors and disrupt the project, but usually most of them can handle it pretty well without stooping to their level. It is a pretty lame excuse to negate WP:CIR, and also WP:NOTTHERAPY. Furthermore, the past records indicated that there are instances where Calton succumbed to incivility anyways, be it gross level or not, without any malignant provocations beforehand, such as this case. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors responding to provocation are not part of the toxicity and incivility problems on Wikipedia; it's the people who abuse Wikipedia's open nature to commit WP:BLP violations, such as using an article about a high school to try and add some negative information about a living person, and using IP addresses to harass editors who try to stop those BLP violations from happening, that are the real problem. The single biggest problem facing Wikipedia is that people sometimes use Wikipedia to hurt other people. Nobody cares, and nobody will ever care, that an editor lost their patience when dealing with such scum. Levivich 19:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither should be deemed acceptable; nor should one excuse the other. And this is also under the assumption that Calton only behaves this way towards users generally regarded as “trolls”, which frankly is a laughable assertion. I don’t think it’s anything other than toxic to make excuses for this (persistent; very long-term) behaviour, and it again begs the question of why we even bother having WP:CIV or imploring on users to WP:AGF when users like Calton are given a free hand to openly disregard and violate this without consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can't agree more on that. To paraphrase an editor and an admin, Wikipedia isn't a bazaar, not a bar, nor a private playground. All the denials or covering-ups of the missing stair is downright surreal, or to put it bluntly, cringeworthy. We can agree by now that the can is at the end of the road. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I complain a lot about incivility and toxicity on WP, and I'm pretty sure I've complained specifically about Calton in the past. But I don't see "gatekeeper" as a personal attack at all. In fact, I see it as an accurate characterization of TheScrubby's editing at 2021, especially lately: [67]. If most of your edits over some significant amount of time (months?) consist of reverting other editors' additions, you're gatekeeping. Levivich 15:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I completely reject this characterisation. I’ve been an active contributor for these yearly pages for some time and the discussions on the Talk pages, but the reverts that I do make are usually to do with removing figures in line with Talk page consensus - which, unregistered IP users especially, often don’t check and hence they add said figures anyway. For almost a year there’s been a realisation there and discussions over the fact that the yearly pages have gone well beyond the recommended maximum Wikipedia article size (which was first brought to our attention by Deb (talk · contribs)), and that it was essential to limit the number of figures included in the main Deaths section & to ensure that those who are included have international notability (just ask Deb, or Jim Michael (talk · contribs), or Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs), or PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk · contribs), etc.). Reverts to do with images are mostly because usually when some users add additional images, it leads to an image overflow, which every regular contributor works to avoid. Reverts that I make on that page are virtually always in line with consensus and in line with the result of Talk page discussions, and in line with edits/reverts also made by other regular contributors. And no, there’s no way to construe “Mr. Gatekeeper” as anything other than a personal attack - especially when Calton doubles down after I ask him to never refer to me as that again, and especially when he has already been cautioned by El C (talk · contribs) about this and his overall conduct towards me back in September. He had no right to say it; it was entirely inappropriate; and it’s reflective of his nature where he think it’s okay to disregard WP:CIV and to go around making bad faith accusations towards those he disagrees with. TheScrubby (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    I think you're significantly misinterpreting prior discussions, such as the September ANI and that Norm McDonald thread. Levivich 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

    • I don’t see how I am at all; it seems pretty clear-cut to me. With what happened in September (and I don’t wish to fully rehash this here as that has already been dealt with and the issue at hand is Calton’s continued behaviour up to now), to make it tl;dr PeaceInOurTime started a thread questioning Macdonald’s international notability; I briefly gave my two cents; Calton responded to me with uncalled for and out of the blue personal vitriol and attacks; this ultimately led to an ANI which ended with admins cautioning Calton over civility; other users expressed disgust over Calton’s personal confrontation towards me; the discussion ended with Macdonald’s inclusion and I happily went along with consensus. Regardless of whether or not one agrees or disagrees over content or with somebody’s two cents, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate for anybody to conduct themselves the way Calton did, which is toxic and would put people off from wanting to contribute to discussions. If that standard is considered acceptable, we may as well get rid of WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and be done with it. TheScrubby (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As an aside and as a perspective, I'd like to bring the attention of everyone to this concurrently ongoing case whose problem is very similar to Calton's, such as incivilities on talk pages and edit summaries. You see, there was no problem in hopping to the stage where permanent blocks are actually going to be meted out in that case. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's tacky to mention my comments without telling me. From a very brief review, this thread is not very similar to the one I'm addressing. If I were planning on getting involved in this thread (which I'm not), I would handle it much differently than I am handling that thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording is incorrect so, it's my bad. Regardless, from a quick search here are three more past possible precedents of uncivil editors being censured by ways of blocks or bans.

• 1
• 2
• 3

To quote TheScrubby, had it been any other projects or platforms, or had it been other user(s), they would have long been made persona-non-grata. The Fram incident in a way or another can be argued as the end result of repeatedly kicking the can down the road which mistake I think we are repeating now, and it almost tore apart the whole project if not for the miraculous fluke of the world being distracted by the protests in Hong Kong back then. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, here is by far the closest analogue to this incivility spree. First edit in 2012, similar WP:BATTLEGROUND issues, briefly blocked before being unblocked in 2018, squandered it, then finally a not-so-pretty sitewide community ban in 2020. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's a paragon of virtue for hypocrisy and double standards. The IP was blocked for good under WP:CIR despite the admin's guide that IPs should not generally be blocked in such way because most of the time they are dynamic addresses, and even as the user in question only lacked the command of English language. Furthermore, Calton was warned by an admin last August that he's on "very thin ice here", which if he had heeded and not take it for granted, we wouldn't be discussing him on here today. Chances are this will one day end up in those Netflix or Hulu documentaries together with all other surreal or cringeworthy incidents far in the future, and most of the time the optics wouldn't really be good then. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

IP making unsourced edits to biographies

This IP has made poorly sourced edits to biographies, including those of living people. I suggest they be blocked. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Firestar464 I had a quick look at the contributions. This is a BLP violation, but this is more marginal. Have you tried talking in words instead of templates? I'll have a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Wesshejjejej

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

---

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

Literally all of this users edits have been disruptive and reverted. Some examples; Changed "Indo-Afghan" to "Afghan" Changed "Iranian" to "Pashtun" Changed "Iranian" to "Afghan" Changed "Tajik" to "Pashtun" Changed "Turkic" to "Turko-Afghan"

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Roje Vala and WP:CIR

Roje Vala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor has not changed its behaviour since the last block in August 2021. The editor was warned four times since then and one editor has left advices on what is wrong with editor's edits (User talk:Roje Vala#Jackson Cates and User talk:Roje Vala#Bowen Byram). In January 2022, other editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Roje Vala's refusal to communicate also acknowledged Roje Vala's problematic behavior (not using edit summaries, no communication with other editors, etc). It looks like the editor's behavior is a case of WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE as per my previous report back in June 2021.

Examples of editor's problematic contributions:

• Special:Diff/1072006147 – MOS:CAPS and MOS:DATED;
• Special:Diff/1070842719 – MOS:DATED and MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1064084572 – MOS:DATED and MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1057754058 – MOS:CAPS and MOS:DATED;
• Special:Diff/1054050127 – WP:NCIH (reverted more than once regarding this player's surname at 2020–21 Ottawa Senators season and other team-related pages);
• Special:Diff/1067292287 – MOS:OVERLINK;
• Special:Diff/1067491899 – MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:DATED.

The edits may have good intentions, but there is no improvement. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• The guy's been asked to communicate many times, been template- or otherwise-warned many times, has already received a block, and in over a year now has never posted to a talk page, his own included, and never has written an edit summary. Given his pattern of bad edits, I'd support a long-term or indef block. Someone who willfully refuses to communicate, ever, doesn't belong on a collaborative project. Ravenswing 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, so I'll do it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Billy6688

This new editor has a single purpose - to remove material from the article Heather Ripley. Claiming to be a family member, he says the material is inaccurate, misleading and causing distress. I can’t see anything in the material that could possibly cause distress. I have posted warnings on his Talk Page about his edit-warring and have urged him to take his concerns to the article’s Talk Page but he just reappears and deletes the content. He claims the newspapers The Guardian and The Times are not reliable sources! He has blanked swathes of the article four times in 24 hours. I have not reinstated the more personal material but even these were Ripley’s own words.

See this [68] and this [69]

Jack1956 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked them from editing the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jack1956 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This user hasn't been going about things in the way that regular Wikipedia editors would recommend, but I think there is still an issue with the article to be looked at. This person's only claim to notability seems to be what she did when she was nine years old, but everything that she has done since, which is indicative of a normal, unnotable, life, is considered fair game because of that. Should we really be doing this? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point, Phil. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Ripley, where I suspect I'll get roasted alive, but Phil makes a very good point and it's worth debating. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't feel like a roast of the nominator, but it is snowing there. 🌨️ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123

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

---

Could someone please do something about the behavior of Martinevans123? This man is for some reason reverting my edits without reasonable arguments, let alone logical ones. Above all, on the discussion page of Talk:Martin Heidegger this man is publishing without any legitimate reason at all the location of my IP-adress. This had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and had more in common with intimidation. After that, he's following me to other articles and starts reverting my edits there, again without any form of logical reasoning. Very weird behavior that reminds me of stalking. Can an admin please do something about this?Cornelis Dopper (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would that be the IP address(es) that you plastered all over the history of the talk page by editing as an IP before creating a username? I'm pretty sure we can't blame Martin for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm assuming you are Special:Contributions/213.124.174.59 and Special:Contributions/89.205.133.144. Every time you edit as an IP you are publishing your IP address, and anyone can look up the location. As far as I can tell Martinevans123 was trying to determine if the second IP was the same editor as the first, which had been blocked earlier the same day for edit warring. This is a legitimate query as blocks apply to the person, not the account and it would have been block evasion. Here, you admit that you have in fact done that. It is also legitimate, if one sees perceives a user as being disruptive at one article, to check their contributions and follow up at a different article. That is not stalking or intimidation. I don't see anything actionable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• This complaint is without merit, and should be closed without action. There is a run-of-the-mill content dispute at the article talk page, about the use of superlatives. Martinevens123 has one position about it. A series of IPs expressed different positions, and then the account making the opening post here was created ([70]), and continued to express the same opinion. Martinevens123 raised the issue of the accounts likely being the same person, per WP:DUCK. And WP:IP edits are not anonymous. The "following to other articles" seems to be only to Ludwig Wittgenstein, which Martin has been editing since long before the new account was created: [71]. This is not stalking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Re-opening (Martinevans123)

I'm going to have to re-open this, because I've had to protect Ludwig Wittgenstein for clear and obvious edit-warring between Martinevans123 and Cornelis Dopper. I can't figure out who is right and who is wrong (if anyone), but I note that Martin has left his rationale on the talk page while Cornelis hasn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with waiting a bit longer in order to see what develops, before taking admin action. But this is getting to where it's not really a question of right or wrong about content, but rather about who is WP:HERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you are a long-time and obvious wikifriend of Martinevans (and vice versa). I don't think you should be the one taking any action in disputes where they are involved, whether it is closing a discussion here or protecting pages. No matter if your actions are correct or not, they may appear to be biased and should, per WP:INVOLVED, be avoided. Fram (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If there's an edit war between two people only, it seems inappropriate to have applied full protection, blocking everyone else from editing, because of two people. Moreover, demanding just one of those editors to "explain the rationale for your changes", and not the other editor, seems prejudiced. An edit war is an edit war. Both need to explain, get consensus, and stop.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In this specific instance, nobody else was involved in the dispute. Otherwise partially blocking both editors from the article would have been a suitable alternative. I've left a third opinion on the talk page which I'd suggest the two editors use as a compromise, otherwise they're going to have to seek dispute resolution elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, for you, that would have been an equally unsuitable alternative, per WP:INVOLVED. You should not be the admin on any situation where a wikifriend (like Martinevans) is involved, and should stick solely to commenting. This applies even when your actions are completely impartial, and even more when they seem prejudiced, like Bagumba says right above. Fram (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Fram and Bagumba, I'm sure you can both find something better to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went and looked at WP:INVOLVED, which defines involvement as "conflicts with an editor... , and disputes on topics...". Not conflicts of an editor one is friendly with, with other editors. As with all such things, this does include gray areas where judgment is required, and so it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement. But when no action (beyond commenting, and asking for discussion by the person who was not discussing) has been taken against the other party (who in this case is getting awfully close to not-here), there is hardly need for a commotion. (This is the comment that is cited above as a problem: seriously?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement." No, really? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, someone else who is buddies with Martinevans and felt the need to close this discussion and now to dismiss claims of involvedness. Shameful behaviour, but I guess you don't have anything better to do. Or at least not a better example to present. Good going. Fram (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You added to the closing statement twice. Gee, where could this confusion come from? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Where could this confusion come from? An apt question, indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection, which was a welcome relief, I must say. For "clear and obvious edit-warring"? If a claim fails verification in the source provided, I've always assumed it's valid to remove it. Similarly, if a source can be removed, as per WP:LEADCITE, I've always assumed it's not valid to simply restore it with a sarcastic edit summary. If this was edit warring, it was done with a polite invitation from me to discuss at the Talk page. With wikifriends like Ritchie, who needs enemies? But I'd better forgive you for not notifying me that you had re-opened this thread. Or was the OP meant to do that? I was getting close to taking Ludwig Wittgenstein (which I've been editing since 2011), off my watchlist, thanks to this. Might save you a job. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The appropriate picture --Tryptofish

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention during this morning's meeting. Are we doing a burma-shave or a funny picture for this one? Levivich 21:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Either one would be fine with me. You didn't miss anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Funny picture? I'd recommend Rabbit–duck. But, just like Ritchie, I'm not sure which is which. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm partial to the Spinning dancer, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, spinning. British television viewers might be reminded of the title sequence for Tales of the Unexpected... which is what this thread seems to be turning out to be. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to buzz kill and I'm sorry to pile-on, but Ritchie, after everything that happened with Diannaa (though I don't believe you acted as an admin in that incident), I really do think that, at the very least, you need to maintain some extra-good optics. Speaking for myself, I grant Gerda's RD requests via my talk page all the time (i.e. editing WP:ITN, an admin action). But I do that because those requests are uncontroversial.

By contrast, once, after I blocked Mathsci (via a report by Fram of all people as I recall, small vwold), I found out he was Gerda's friend, I never acted as an admin in his case again. And I never will. I'm saying all this as someone who isn't friends (but is friendly) with Martinevans123. Though I'd like to be, because he's fuckin' awesome! El_C 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I am deeply touched. Ritchie, the cheque is in the post. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Gaming extended-confirmed to continue edit war

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

There has been an ongoing red-hot edit war at Suraj Mal. I'm completely uninvolved in that and want no part in the content since it's caste war nonsense. That said, I submitted an RfPP, and the page was ECP'd last night, since all of the involved editors were not extended-confirmed. However, Basedch wasn't too far from 500 edits it seems; Basedch conducted a string of minor grammatical edits ([72] [73][74]). They were automatically elevated to extended-confirmed at 10:32 am (EST) [75]. A single minute later, at 10:33, they were back at Suraj Mal continuing the edit war there [76] [77] [78]. They obviously gamed getting extended-confirmed in order to continue their edit-war. Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Will block for 1 week under WP:GS/CASTE for edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Justanother2 - disruptive edits, ignoring attempts to talk on their talk page, leaving nasty messages on others' talk pages

Justanother2 (talk) has been engaged in making disruptive unsourced edits to Super Bowl LVI and, to a lesser extent, Super Bowl LVI halftime show. Multiple editors have had to revert his edits, and have tried to talk to him on his talk page, but he consistently deletes everything from his talk page (questions, invitations to discuss, warnings) without responding. He leaves edit summaries such as these:

• "If you have a beef or something go look up the myriad of reviews. Take this to a talk page, maybe this one for the halftime show." [79]
• "Learn how talk pages work; you continually run into arguments. You're a deletionist too." [80]
• "Can't most of you use talk pages? Don't remove this info; you're showing you don't understand sports reports or how stats function. Also you can find sources." [81]
• Do you even edit sports articles? It's not a production line; there are two or more admins editing on here now. I will ask them about this prob. Making a note of the rash of reverts on here, stop it!" [82]

I would like to invite Fynsta, Bluerules (talk), and Kinu ^t/_c to weigh in with their experience with Justanother2. As he is not taking advice from other editors, perhaps a warning from an administrator will get his attention. Back Bay Barry (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: Minor point; why are you copying and pasting the signatures of the editors you're pinging rather than using {{ping}} to do so? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ummm... because I didn't know that was the accepted way to do it? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: do I need to edit that with the ping function for them to be alerted? Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: It's too late to do that now, but keep that in mind for the future. It's likely the users you did intend to ping, were pinged (because of how the notification system works). Just keep this in mind next time, as I know some users may not like it if you use their sig as a ping. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

yep I wasn't notified, only found this page by accident. So allow me to ping @Bluerules: and @Kinu:.Fynsta (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a recurrent editor on most Coldplay-related articles and this user has been a hassle there as well. They went to my Talk page and kept saying I was wrong all the time when their contributions rarely, if at all, improved the article. They just kept changing the way how the (revised, corrected and approved) text is worded to his personal preferences. In fact, one of their edits on Coldplay's discography page was outright disruptive and misleading. At first I thought I was just being over-protective of the band's articles since I created or revamped everything there except for the History section, but seeing how he got into a much worse debacle in Super Bowl LVI's article, there's clearly a pattern going on. --GustavoCza (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Right, that's exactly what this is. The user changes the wording and structure of the articles for the worse, and he does not stop even after repeated warnings. Going through their contributions history, nearly every edit seems to follow this pattern (and on top of that, using random nonsensical strings as edit summaries). Most of these were on small articles that weren't reverted, but should have been in my opinion. Fynsta (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur that this user's edits are unhelpful. On the Super Bowl LVI article, they made the second paragraph of the lead awkwardly-written and even added notes demanding that it not be changed back. They changed "quarterback Jared Goff suffered a decline in production, which led to tension between Goff and McVay" to "threw more interceptions than he had in 2016 and 2017, including 12 in 2018, 16 in 2019, and 13 in 2020, which led to tension between Goff and McVay" an unnecessary and overly-detailed bloat that makes the sentence awkward (which doesn't tell the full story either - Goff declined in general, not just with his turnover differential). They also restored outdated information on the Tony Boselli article about him not being inducted to the Pro Football Hall of Fame (which he was this year), while pledging to write an updated summary (which they never did). And their attitude is worse - when they created a talk page section to justify their Super Bowl edits, they accused me of having talk page full of complaints (even butting in to an unrelated discussion on my talk page to criticize me) and incorrectly thought edits were decided by polls. Bluerules (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Update apparently in retaliation for me filing this report, Justanother2 is now stalking my edits on other pages that he wasn't involved in before and reverting them; see this and this. Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Update He's now playing the victim on Coldplay's article as well, since I never really bought his facade, I'm rolling my eyes right now. --GustavoCza (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • More stalking he's now reverting me on more articles, see here and here. Back Bay Barry (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Continued stalking came to an edit I made minutes ago and reverted, purely to harass. Is there no one that can put a stop to this? He also immediately removed another warning placed on his talk page about his near-constant vandalism of the Coldplay article. It appears he is just trolling for a week straight. Back Bay Barry (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at Justanother2's talk page contributions, I see some likely WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT issues. I'd attempted to engage with the editor on their talk page, but it was deleted (although they left a rather non sequitur response on my talk page in return). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this continues I will block Justanother2 indef. Please let me know if it continues and I don't seem to have noticed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to talk with User:Justanother2 user on my talk page, and now have a good idea of the problems people have been having trying to have a discussion with them. While I don't expect perfection (i.e. don't report him for being wrong about something), please let me know if this user's behavior doesn't improve (examples would be edit warring, insults, hounding, or ignoring consensus), and I will block them for disruptive editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:AEMoch

User:AEMoch has just made a legal threat with this edit. A sockpuppet investigation linking this user to a previous user whose name suggests this is the same person and who was blocked for making legal threats is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aedwardmoch. Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

SPI, COIN, and AN/I at the same time... darn, still two shy of Bingo. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AEMoch, who is an obvious sockpuppet making disruptive edits and a legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Good block. F W Harvey would have been impressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Carfian is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

See their many recent edits to Emergencies Act. Could we please indef? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Their attempts to remove this section at ANI alone provide a case for blocking, indeffed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this user is edit-warring, this may also be reported to WP:3RR. Additionally, you have not notified the editor, I have done so for you. Outdated comment, user is already indeffed by Rosguill.Severestorm28 01:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I did—they reverted that too! A moot point, now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Copperwidth is WP:!HERE

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

---

This user is just doing un-constructive editing, and isn't here to build a encyclopdia. From making pages such as Wikipedia:Entertainment theater that doesn't have a clear purpose, to making drawing pages like Wikipedia:KraftwerkASCII, and screwing up other's talk pages, such as this Special:Diff/1071140973. They have also made bad GAN nom's, and added protection templates, when it's not protected. This editor refuses to answer questions, and doesn't seem to want to learn.

Pinging @Blaze Wolf as they have had some interactions with this user.

Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

oh sorry... im just a newbie to wikipedia. :( COPPERwidth (💬) - (📋) 02:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Copperwidth, you will need to explain why you edited and wrote

{{explosivedog}}.

The edit was not necessary, as what Sea Cow stated. Sea Cow, it's not Blaze Wolf, it's me, (maybe a "ANI" stalker, we'll see)Severestorm28 02:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note the overlap in editing with TwentytwoAug, who created Template:Explosive Dog and shares a similar interest in creating questionable (at best) pages in Wiki-space. --Finngall ^talk 02:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's socks. Spoiler alert: so far I've found TwentytwoAug and BeeDoubleuroolerl554, but there's probably more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, those are the only ones that are obvious enough to really care about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think blocking is necessary or proportionate at this time, but I would urge User:Copperwidth to start small – focus on articles and think carefully about how constructive your edits are, because the amount of effort that it's currently taking to clean up after you means you're at serious risk of being shown the door. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: I've also had a few interactions with the user. However, I do agree that this user's edits are questionable at best (using my talk page as a sandbox for a template isn't acceptable, or nominating articles for GA when they clearly aren't ready). I'm not going to say much more since I really dislike ANI (usually involves a bunch of people arguing). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• User has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:TwentytwoAug. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for a block and rev-del

Could someone give 2603:6011:9400:B395:B031:4048:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a block and rev-del the edits they've made? They've been inserting unsourced rubbish into BLP's about how people are "Globalist Tyrants" then left a rather nasty threat on the talk page of the person that reverted them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, this kind of request is best handled at WP:AIV rather than on this board. In any case, I'm sure an administrator will take appropriate action soon. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the existence of AIV, I've been here a long time. In this case I brought the editor has posted this stuff over multiple weeks and some of the stuff they posted (like the talk page threats) probably needs rev-delling, AIV isn't really suited to doing anything except quick blocks of obvious vandals. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range. For future revision deletion requests, please take a look at WP:REVDELREQUEST. -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of admin tools

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

---

I just got roll backed without a reason. I would like the roll backer to lose his roll back privilages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.35.216 (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because you violated WP:NPOV at least for the edit I reverted. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@63.152.35.216: I agree with Philipnelson99 that was a WP:NPOV Violation and no Philipnelson99 will not lose his roll back privilages. Chip3004 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to IP from another IP: Rollback is not technically an "admin tool", even though it's included with the admin user right. By definition, rollback is used to revert edits that don't need any explanation or summary, i.e. WP:Vandalism. Therefore there is no such thing as "rollbacked with a reason". However, that being said, if indeed rollback was used because of NPOV violations (I haven't examined the edits in detail), that might be a misuse of rollback because POV issues aren't vandalism, but in any cases probably doesn't merit anything more than a warning to the rollbacker in question unless a pattern of similar questionable uses can be established. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:AFF6 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• As the IPv6 IP said, "standard" WP:Rollback the MediaWiki function generally should not be used for NPOV violations. As the guideline says, it doesn't provide a custom edit summary and so is only intended for vandalism and other cases where an edit summary isn't needed. In some cases standard rollback can be used if an explanation is offered elsewhere but that's generally only for cases where you are mass undoing edits as there is no reason to use the quick tool for a single edit then take the time to offer an explanation elsewhere. Using rollback in cases where it's not allowed is considered abuse and can result in loss of the tool if the editor keeps doing it, even if the reverts themselves were reasonable and were fine to do with the undo function (probably with an edit summary). However AFAICT, no one here has used standard rollback. WP:Huggle rolback was used [83] [84]. As the guidelines also say, as Huggle rollback does offer the ability to add a custom edit summary, it does not carry the same restrictions, and indeed the first revert/rollback did offer a custom edit summary saying the edit was being reverted for violating NPOV. While the second edit (by a different editor) did not provide custom edit summary, since Huggle rollback was used and it was undoing the exact same edit, this isn't really an issue, the reason can be taken as the same. There's little difference between doing thg Huggle rollback and clicking undo and not bothering to modify the edit summary. So without judging the details of what was reverted, there was no violation of what we expect from editors with either rollback/revert. This edit [85] wasn't a rollback but a simple revert/undo and did give a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  And frankly having looked at the Huggle rollback edits now, they come so close to vandalism that I don't think anyone would blink an eye even if standard rollback was used. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This "blocked for what?" and the trollish GAN remind me of some past vandal, but I can't remember whom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Agree, there was an edit summary, no misuse of rollback. the IP,. on the other hand, describing notable lawsuits as "fake liberal lawsuits" is NOTHERE. Furthermore, describing this revert as "Vandalism" is a personal attack. The IP is also an obvious returning customer. Please block the IP for a week. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeated edit warring and personal attacks by IP

• 2.203.242.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 188.109.177.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 178.4.50.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 90.186.219.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Multiple personal attacks (1) (summary of previous attacks), including xenophobic edit summaries (2) and long personal rant at their talk page and another editor's talk page, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Andra Febrian (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2.203.242.222 and 188.109.177.148 blocked; others are stale. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Block review requested

I don't think I've asked for one of these before. We've got a new editor going through articles in good faith trying to make ENGVAR, grammar and spelling corrections, some of which are good but others sadly adding more errors. These include changing quotations, meaning, and in at least one case capitalizing a refname. The editor is Gaya3em (talk · contribs). User:Bonadea and I have reverted all of their contributions. I blocked to stop the problems, but I'm not happy about blocking a newbie who is trying to help. If anyone can take this editor on as a mentor they can be unblocked. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've asked them to comment on their talk page, hopefully someone will copy their comments here if they make any. I have to go out now. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that they are disruptive (though clearly editing in good faith). My first thought was that an indefinite block was a little harsh, but it's really a case of "indefinite is not infinite". suddenly I get a flashback to a grammar lecture many years ago where I talked about "infinite articles" until a student timidly asked me what the difference is between a definite article, an indefinite article, and an infinite article...

Copyediting articles is a fairly straightforward and simple task, on the surface, and so it's something new editors are encouraged to do. Unfortunately, it's pretty common to see edits with multiple changes that look like they have been suggested by a grammar checking tool, and accepted wholesale because the editor doesn't understand that a) the tool will often suggest a change that is grammatically incorrect, b) there are often several acceptable ways of saying something, and the tool might be suggessting a grammatically correct phrasing that replaces another equally correct one, and c) journal titles and other names might look like misspelled English words, while filenames and urls can't be copyedited even if they contain a glaring error. Not to mention the fact that any spelling that doesn't conform to the tool's settings will be flagged as an error, causing good-faith WP:ENGVAR violations. I started writing a short explanation of this some time ago, because it's something I have explained more than once to good-faith new editors and it's tedious to repeat the same thing... I should finish that text and put it somewhere in my userspace. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You very clearly made the correct call, Doug. The editor has not responded to any attempts to communicate on their user talk page. Though their actions were clearly in good faith they were also disruptive and you acted to stop the disruption. Hopefully they respond. I have their talk page temporarily watch listed incase they do. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 4

Special:Contributions/219.77.210.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 14 August in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a relatively benign IP range. Does this guy have a filing on WP:LTA? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No,but this user have a filing on zh:WP:LTA.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 14:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/1.36.224.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 7 June in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/42.2.137.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 14 November in last year (only 42.2.137.41 is not),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Ping User:El C.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year, all. El_C 09:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/219.77.217.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 9 January in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive user removing split template after voting delete on Neo-Nazism article

• CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neo-Nazism in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neo-Nazism in India was created as a bold WP:SPLIT from Neo-Nazism as the parent article was 190KB (much more than 100KB WP:SIZERULE), the split is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Nazism in India.

A Template:Split was added by me on top of Neo-Nazism with a link to the discussion. CapnJackSp (recently became extended confirmed) who had voted Delete in the discussion is now edit warring and removing the split template from the article Neo-Nazism, [86]. Even though the discussion is set to be closed tomorrow. He is refusing to restore the split template and arguing that it is not split discussion but AfD. This is an obvious attempt to disrupt the AfD by a user who has voted Delete.

I have already, tried to reason with him on the article talk page [87] and his talk page [88] [89].

I am posting here to request an admin to restore the Split template [90] on the article Neo-Nazism till the time the discussion is open. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat, you have not yet explained on the talk page why there should be two separate templates. You opened up this ANI discussion after making one message for resolving the issues. The messages on my talk page were warning templates, which can hardly be counted as dispute resolution attempts.

Even though you split the article without discussion, I am still willing to entertain your incorrect usage of template at Neo-Nazi#India for the sake of resolution, as I pointed out earlier. However, I dont see why/how you can justify a duplicate usage of an incorrect template (assuming we overlook the first usage). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

PS:Would like to add that contrary to the implication, a split template already exists on the page. My edit was to remove the duplicate temple. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the edit [91] and the current version, in which User:CapnJackSp has removed the split template from the page.Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, contrary to the implication, I have removed "a" template (out of two), not "the" template. Just to clarify. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As seen in the diff [92], you have removed it inappropriately and continually refused to restore it from the top of the page, giving specious reason. Venkat TL (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion already, I think it is best left to the admins. If you are disputing my statement, then any admin can check that the template is in place at Neo-Nazism#India and has not been touched at all. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This seems unequivocal. Special:Diff/1071392341 is where User:Venkat TL added 2 notices instead of 1. Special:Permalink/1072195018#India is the version edited by User:CapnJackSp mentioned above, and there's a split notice right there. This has already been acknowledged by Special:Diff/1072255476. Nothing to restore, therefore.

  If the problem is a 190KiB article, choosing to split on the section that has a mere 4 sentences, and in fact is one of the smallest subsections of the article, seems a weak approach to the problem.

  Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the key consideration in article length is prose size, not overall size. The neo-nazism article comes in at 73kB, so longer than perhaps ideal, but not a behemoth by any means. I'm not sure if there is any need for action now, the question of whether and how the neo-nazism article can/should be split is a discussion that can occur no matter where exactly a split tag is located on an article. It would be more productive to focus on the actual discussion than a discussion about the discussion that would have little impact either way. CMD (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Uncle G and @Chipmunkdavis Thanks for the comments and the correction on prose size. Noted. Do you think it was justified to remove the template:Split from the top of the article while the discussion was ongoing? and then edit warring to remove it? Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  We may have guidance regarding tag placement in this situation, but I am unfamiliar with it. I would say looking at it now that actions both ways were done in good faith, and that the important factor is that discussion is ongoing. CMD (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ginguladin

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

---

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

This editor has been edit warring against at least five other editors over at Gehraiyaan (film) for a couple of days now, trying to add in a rather poorly written, unencyclopaedic synopsis of the film. After I gave them a 3rr warning (their second edit warring warning, after an earlier ew-soft) they have made their first edit to a page other than the Gehraiyaan (film) page, this addition to my talk page. Indef NOTHERE block time? Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Indefinite block. The filter log shows more problems. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

IP user 124.104.57.209

IP User 124.104.57.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has for many months now engaged in edit warring, pushing his WP:POV in many political articles. He has changed ideologies and positions despite established consesus, has been reverted multiple times by several editors, and has engaged in breaking WP:3RR. He has removed sourced information to instead add in his own opinion of an article. Despite reverts by many editors, he has insisted in adding in his own info, and toggles of what an he believes the article should look like without sources too. Definitely worrying with a user trying to push his narrative in too many articles to keep up with for many editors. Not only that but he has also been WP:HARASS several editors.

Honestly he has broken all of the things above too many times, however I have added some of his violations here. I recommend an administrator to look at all his records if this is not enough. In my opinion a permanent block would be the best solution after everything he has been doing. He has also receives multiple warnings by several editors and been blocked from editing certain pages due to his edit warring. [93] [94]

WP:HARASS against editor Vif, [95], against Vacant [96], against me[97], against Shadow [98], against Ben [99]

Broken WP:3RR several times, refusing to discuss, adding unsourced or WP:OR content and reverting back against multiple editors: [100] (6 times) on that page), [101] (4 times on that page), [102] (4 times on that page), [103] (6 times on that page) and these are just some examples.

WP:POV pushes, unsourced too: [104] (edit denied), [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], and there many many more.

If someone can put an end to this, it would be appreciated. One of the worst IP users I have seen and he has basically been waging an edit war against all editors to push his point of view. BastianMAT (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You should request an administrator's intervention to block the IP user. It can be WP:AIV. 91.225.105.30 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ignored [[110]] Shadow4dark (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They're now getting a month off since they had a week off earlier this month. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Made in Baltics

I am not sure what to do, I tried to merge content into one article, but it got taken back out and moved around to other articles. Seems there was draft articles, moved and stuff. I found it all rather odd, felt as if user PauliineMitt was claiming ownership of the articles! I really don't see the point of all the splitting of content for such little of it. I don't want to get into trouble, maybe someone else can look into it? Govvy (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there was an issue with this, guess admins think there is nothing... :/ Govvy (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an issue here with PauliineMitt's editing. This editor created her account in 2020, so is not new, but at this point is editing entirely about the record label Made in Baltics; she's created that article and also List of Made In Baltics artists and List of Made In Baltics singles, has moved the label article back to mainspace after it was draftified, and I think recreated the singles article a second time in mainspace after it was draftified (there's been a histmerge). Both lists have more sources than the main article, but I haven't looked at their quality and the label article could definitely use more references. There's a section on Talk:Made in Baltics but so far as I can see, PauliineMitt is edit warring without discussing, except via edit summaries. Hopefully she'll respond to my ping at the talk page, and maybe there's some wikiproject guideline recommending separate lists? But the label was only founded in 2018, so unless there is such a guideline, I don't believe there should be any certainty that the lists must be separate. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I've sent List of Made In Baltics artists to AfD. I don't see the need for that article, seems covered enough with the main one. I still feel the other article with the singles on needs to be merged. I am going to avoid doing that myself. I've been in enough trouble recently over another article. PauliineMitt Hasn't responded to my question yesterday or even responded on ANI here, so I am a bit myth'ed. Govvy (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Is there a problem with the Made In Baltics page having only one editor, should there be more? And is it really bad if the List of Made In Baltics singles and List of Made In Baltics artists is in separate pages? I didn't want to put them both on the main page. Is there anything that I could do to improve the pages Govvy ? I would really like if the two lists could be separately from the main page. PauliineMitt (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: The problem lies in rejecting Govvy's edits simply because it's another editor seeking to edit the page (that's a violation of one of our basic principles, which we refer to as ownership). We work collaboratively; that can be messy, but we're expected to be ready to defend our viewpoints on how an article should be written when someone disagrees. I appreciate your responding here and at Talk:Made in Baltics, and pinging in both places. But so far as I can see, other than a comparison at the talk page to Sub Pop, an article with far more references and on a label founded in 1986 rather than only in 2018, you've offered no reasoning except your personal preference. In fact, other than a question on the article talk page that you removed two weeks later, that appears to be your first talk page edit, and I don't see any edits to user talk, including no response to two draftifications, to an AfC denial of Draft:Made In Baltics, or to an inquiry by 331dot about possible conflict of interest or undeclared paid editing. Instead you appear to have circumvented both draftifications by recreating the articles in mainspace, using different capitalization to do so for the Made in Baltics article and requiring a history merge by Primefac for List of Made In Baltics singles. I'm aware that new editors are by definition single-purpose when they first start, I know our usage of "notable" and sourcing requirements take a bit of getting used to, I am probably one of the least hostile of long-term Wikipedia editors toward articles on businesses, and I note the article on the label has also been edited by Uuskasutaja, whose user name, Google tells me, means "new user" in Estonian, but the non-communication, the recreation of the articles, the edit warring with Govvy, and the undeclared conflict of interest if there is one are all violations of our policies in addition to the lack of collegiality implicit in the assumption that the article can be the way its creator wants it to be just because. (I apologize for all the links; I want to be open about the basis for my statements to someone who hasn't been here that long.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is off-wiki evidence that convincingly shows Pauliine Mitt is an undeclared paid editor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

She had been warned before but didn't reply. I gave her a second-level warning and asked her not to do further edits until she responds. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I understand all of your statements and I agree, it's just that I haven't made a lot of edits here, so I don't know all of the functions and what is needed for a good Wikipedia page. My main goal is to create a acceptable page for Made In Baltics. But as I am one of the only people doing it, with the lack of experience, it can have a lot of faults in it. But I definitely would like to improve.PauliineMitt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: The reason I didn't reply before, was that I didn't know how to do it and I didn't know how to see the comments, it was all quite messy for me and I am very sorry, but it wasn't intentional.PauliineMitt (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: You should have a look at WP:CONTENTFORK, Made in Baltics isn't a big article, it's a rather small article really. You only need separate pages when the need arises or under certain conditions. On a side note, I noticed the Estonian wiki page but couldn't work out how to add it to the English version. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: So would this help, if I'd just put the Made In Baltics singles and Made In Baltics artists pages both on the Made In Baltics main page and then I could put the references on the main page as well, so it would have more references and there would be no other pages, other than the Made In Baltics main Wiki page? PauliineMitt (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@PauliineMitt: Originally yes, you shouldn't mess about with the AfD article, that would need closing first. Moving all those pages around was a major red flag and one reason why I posted in this forum. However this conversation should continue at Talk:Made in Baltics and this ANI should really probably be closed now thank you. Govvy (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen account compromise?

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

---

User:7&6=thirteen's account seems to have been compromised, looking at the account's most recent edit. This is concerning, because it looks like this is a long-term abuser compromising a long-term contributor's account. What to do? -- The Anome (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They were reporting an issue on Oshwah's talk page, I believe. I saw the edit summary and was concerned myself, but the edit on Oshwah's talk page is already reverted and revdelled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of the abusive content in the edit comment is really odd; why quote this there? -- The Anome (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume to get an immediate response, so the first admin to see it would know it was an immediate block and didn't need any discussion or investigation. A link to a diff might have been better, but not as eye catching. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To get a swift result perhaps? No disrespect to you, Anome, but was that one edit really worth a 31-hour block, or is there something I'm missing? (And I say that as someone who's about far off 13's Christmas card list as it's probably possible to be!) SN54129 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it was an excess of caution, in case 7&6=thirteen's account was compromised. Better safe than sorry. Looking at their block log, this may actually be their second compromised account block in error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! Odd though, as WP:COMPROMISED is pretty clear on actions to be taken, and short term blocks don't enter into it anywhere... SN54129 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The block log gives no indication of a compromised account, instead citing "disruptive editing." And there's been no block notice or explanation on 13's talk page. Some tidying up to do by Anome I think.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sokay, Ritchie333's got the whitewash out  ;) SN54129 18:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec x lots) Having known 7&6=13 for some years, the writing style of the redacted post looks nothing like anything he would write, and I suspect the account is compromised. I've upped the block to indefinite with talk page access disabled and advised them to contact the stewards (which I believe is the correct policy but I don't often do this and don't have the Checkuser Magic 8-Ball that would help). I've left a note that if any checkuser can confirm the account is not compromised, they are free to lift the block without consulting me if they so wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Did they make the original edit at User talk:Oshwah, or did they just copy it in a report here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Dumb move from a "let's not shine light on it more" perspective but that's what happened. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: To be clear, Thriteen copied the content and name of the user that left it (albeit censoring some parts). An odd choice, considering Thirteen's experience, but it happens. I think a trout for both Thirteen and Anome are in order. Aside from that, I don't think there is anything else to be added here. Isabelle ^🔔 18:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Not anywhere near compromised. Unblocked. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks to Primefac for re-opening this, and thanks also for unblocking so quickly.; As young say there might, indeed, be more to discuss. Starting with a few gentle words directed at The Anome for leaping to the conclusion that a long term account had been compromised, calling one post at ANI disruptive, and then blocking without warning or any other notice, in breach of policy on both blocking and compromised accounts. D'oh! A small portion of fish for your tea tonight, Anome! SN54129 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll repost here what I put on 7&6=13's talk page:

• At the time I saw the ANI thread, the post there had already been redacted.
• I saw a reference to "posting on Oshwah's talk page", but no indication 7&6=13 had edited there, so didn't understand what that was about
• I noticed the account was blocked for "disruptive editing", which was inappropriate either for a compromised account (which should be indef blocked pending review) or a not-at-all-compromised account (which mandates a discussion and reasoning)
• Having looked at the redacted post (which admins can do), it looked so completely out of character for anything 7&6=13 would write, that I had reasonable enough suspicion that the account was compromised, and blocked as a safety precaution, immediately broadcasting out to any checkuser who was about to confirm and reverse the block if necessary.
• A checkuser promptly turned up, concluding there was no compromised account, and unblocked - as I had already asked to happen if that were the case.
• Tea and biscuits

In summary, I waded into something without full accumulation of the facts and jumped to a wrong conclusion. Although I didn't explicitly say it, I didn't particularly want to block the guy who encouraged me to start contributing to WP:DYK about 9 years ago. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It also looks like you failed to disable 13's talk page access as you had intended to do, which was for the best in the end:)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder who that reminds me of? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What's that got to do with you failing to pull TPA, Ritchie333 :p SN54129 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the sake of clarity, I put a 31-hour temporary block on the account solely to give time for this discussion to occur, so that we didn't race to a conclusion without proper consideration,. It sounds like the checkuser has taken a proper look and removed any confusion, so everything ended well. -- The Anome (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus here, The Anome is most certainly not that "all ended well"; much discussion of trout, following overreaction in the first place. Having said that, your message to 13 just now was very nice and something that many admins would "forget" to do. Thanks! SN54129 21:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS by IP hopper

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

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

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

Gonna be blunt here; Typical case of new IP appearing who starts to remove reliably sourced information because it clashes with his pov. Here he removes the Persian theory regarding this persons origin but keeps the Turkic theory bit:

[113]

[114]

[115]

[116]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 49.199.143.248

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

---

See this edit threatening "legal action". — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

GenoV84's accusations, false statements in discussions, and WP:NOTHERE

• LGBT in Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Report by Santasa99

GenoV84 has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing, edit-warring ([117], [118], [119], [120]). Being on multiple ANI's for biting, casting aspersions with especially troubling being presentation of false claims in personal attacks (warned [121], [122], here they were called out for false personal attacks [123], [124] by User:LindsayH in this diff reiterated by User:El_C, then for attempt to engineer sanctions for opposing user [125]) over the past and this year, and earlier during the 2018. They showed disregard for community consensus (as reported in this ANI User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s) in the middle of which GenoV84 supposedly retired, but they were warned [126], they were called out for "gaming the system", "bludgeoning", "writing manifesto", "incivility", "hypocrisy", even being "anti-Muslim", all in that ANI by the community of at least half a dozen or more editors, and then on another again here (when they reported opposing editor for removing warnings from their user TP [127], but they themselves were removing all warnings and block notices from their user TP, and explained by User:Justarandomamerican that editors are allowed to do that and warned for not assuming good faith, again, [128], [129] by User:TheDragonFire300 and [130] by User:Bishonen, and again month later they filed a report [131], [132] on the same editor and were warned [133] by User:Fences and windows). They often disregard community standards on issues such as OWN, OR & SYNTH interpretation and usage of sources, the bad faith assumption ([134], [135] report by User:Vaticidalprophet, also noted by [136] User:Apaugasma). From my personal experience - main accusations and false claims: ...if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals..., by explicitly stating that he doesn't care... i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content - I posted my raw intent on very specific matters concerning eventual changes in problematic sentence [137], no more no less, I didn't debated, threaten, disregard opinions - "deficiencies and misdemeanors" on my part and "unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content" should be explained; How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, only we don't require evidence to remove unrefed/unsourced material, and we always expect to collaborate; ...you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made, not one proposal or solution was offered, only more of the same, and "refusal to get the point" and provide asked ref; Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times,..., only we don't require reliable source to remove unrefed/unsourced material, they didn't provide ref for contested material; If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes..., they were not, they were just bunch of source, meaningless quotes, non of which contain required ref for contested material or justify accusations; then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users,..., more evasion and aspersion; I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly., they did constantly spread aspersions, and the rest should be easy to prove and justify; I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, ...no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially ...that this entire discussion and edit war that you started, evasion, untrue due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion, aspersions w/o evidence? Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, not upset just contesting unrefed material; depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users, yet, it was GenoV84 who started to revert and broke 3RR as well, actually first, insults and attack should be easy to prove; I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for., evidence? he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, evasion, untrue; Timeline for the TP exchange: GenoV84 reverted me on my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, disregarding good faith, [138], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [139], [140], with additional comment [141]. VenusFeuerFalle & GenoV84 has established contact via e-mail two weeks ago, 6-7 days before our first encounter, as evident from this exchange on GenoV84 TP [142] between 2-3 Feb.2022; VenusFeuerFalle replaced GenoV84 in reverting me, so I stepped on that mine foolishly. I initiated discussion [143]; GenoV84 responds [144]; I followed [145]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references and without offering what I asked [146]+[147]; nevertheless, I checked them and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found in them [148]+[149]; now they were starting to get angry at me and to write essays with lots of wikilayering [150]; I tried to explain [151]+[152]; they started with a new round [153]; I asked them to stop with accusations [154]; they started asking in circles [155] and I replied again [156]+[157]; they simply didn't want to get the point and repeated again [158]; I was a bit annoyed at this point [159] but I pinged other two editors and asked [160]; one replied Your edits today on this article have violated WP:3RR. Could you please explain why you have ignored that policy? — Manticore; then the other [161] not exactly clear what they said; I was baffled and responded with [162], I was asked about my proposal but I wasn't sure what [163]; so I said that [164]; editor said they can try to fix English [165]; I wasn't sure why they debating when reference is my main request [166]; they tried again but made thing worse [167]+[168], which isn't the point after all, both editors were simply evading to provide reference which was my main request ! Then, GenoV84 posted essay of 10 thousands bytes [169]! Sorry for the long report, even though it could have been longer.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Response by GenoV84

intractable, long term history of POV pushing.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users (@VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore:), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink. In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently. You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes. So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.) paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. Evidence with reliable sources and diffs that directly indicate your disruptive edits on the article LGBT in Islam, along with your reiterated violation of WP:3RR, have already been provided by me and the user @Manticore:, both here and in the article's Talk page. And no, responding to your incessant, passive-aggressive comments and offensive remarks about me and the editors @VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore: in the most polite way possible is not harassment: it's called manners. Did you manage to behave that way and treat other users like trash for 14 years without ever getting blocked or reprimanded by an admin? Impressive.... and depressing. Despite your attempts to repeatedly inflame the dispute resolution with uncivil comments and personal attacks by inciting me and the aforementioned users to push the boundaries even further, as you just did with your latest comment (You really need to hit the brakes a little bit), I'm pretty sure that I have already expressed my opinion far too well, both here and on the article's Talk page, and there's no need for me to restate my argument ad infinitum. I also took the initiative to request a third opinion from users that weren't involved in the dispute resolution in order to find a constructive way to reach consensus together, but so far nothing seems to work. I invited other users and editors to join the discussion and express their own viewpoint both on WP:AN3 and the article's Talk page, if they wish. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 ([170]; [171]; [172]; [173]; [174]; [175]). There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies. Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus: Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty"; I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word. How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? As if this entire dispute resolution over a simple, innocuous wikilink wasn't entirely avoidable if only the user that opened this report had tried to engage with me and other editors in a more polite, respectful way from the beginning, in accordance with the policies WP:Civility and WP:KEEPCOOL, as I suggested him many times during the dispute resolution, he disregarded all my advices and continued to behave in the same disturbing, disrespectful way (Oh, sorry Aristotle, i wasn't aware you go digital now.). Furthermore, Santasa99 has blatantly, explicitly DENIED that he was WARNED by the admin EdJohnston just yesterday following the closure of the report on his edit-warring [176], which can still be found at WP:AN3, with the following phrase on the article's Talk page: EdJohnston never said that [177]. GenoV84 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) After all this mess, who is the one making accusations, insulting other users with personal attacks multiple times, treating them with disrespect and offensive remarks after being asked to stop multiple times, persistent lying despite the provided diffs and evidence with the continuous dismissal of all the diffs and evidence, accusing them of bad faith and WP:NOTHERE? GenoV84 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) But the user Santasa99 didn't stop there. He continued to post comments and replies on WP:AN3 after the admin EdJohnston had already closed Manticore's report on him for edit-warring, knowingly (Thanks @EdJohnston:, I am well aware of what I shouldn't do [178]), insinuating that me and editor VenusFeuerFalle had a conversation via email regarding the article LGBT in Islam because I gave them an email address to reach me on my Talk page weeks ago (I was, apparently, up against two editors editing in concert, which I suspect from this short but worrisome exchange User_talk:GenoV84#Discord? between 2 and 3 Feb 2022, and manner in which they took turn in reverting me. [179]). In the same fashion, the user Santasa99 stated on the article's Talk page that he won't let me go while the discussion is still ongoing (Are you now refuse to work with me, do you think that somehow goal is accomplished and now you don't need to explain to me anything? [180]). See and judge for yourselves, who is the editor in bad faith and casting aspersions here (WP:ASPERSIONS: It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.). I wish that I didn't have to do this and write this papyrus above, but if other editors and admins need to see the full story, there it is. For what? A wikilink. GenoV84 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) References

Wow, well, this is basically unreadable. El_C 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please El_C, work with us, and let's try to make this as simplest as possible. My report is long to begin with, but GenoV84 reply is exactly what makes this case important.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment (to break from walls of text)

I was long past content issue problem, and my intention was to present pattern of continuous breach of behavioral policies and guidelines - any editor with a history of bad faith assumption, false representations of other editors' discussions, and willingness to wage a crusade over simplest matter, as apparent from ANI, User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s), case about racist userbox three time deleted by community, three times re-created by GenoV84, or from disruptive editing on the article Criticism of Muhammad edit-warring and discussing over edit-summary [181], which eventually earned them a block; and now, with all this over removal of one word, "Islamic", from absurd, provocative and deceptive phrasal construction "Islamic death penalty", created without references, should be signal that editor is not here to build the project.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I've amended the collapse title that read Bludgeoning evasive counter-report and wikilawyering by GenoV84 into Response by GenoV84. Even if the former is so —I haven't read these very lengthy exchanges and am unlikely to do so in their current state (doubtful someone else would, but who knows, I guess)— I don't understand why you'd think it okay for an involved user such as yourself (the OP) to frame the collapse title like that, in such a favourable way, to you. There's a serious lack of clue in doing that, I'm sorry to say, again, regardless of the claim's factual veracity. You should not be clerking a discussion in which you are involved, period. El_C 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, this is a poor summary. A diff from 2018 is beyond Stale. El_C 11:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

El_C, I concur and totally accept your remarks, it was risky and not neutral, but your first reaction was clear that in previous state it would probably discourage any editor from reading through it, let alone attempt to curate it and make it less repellent. I worry that my report is too long, but I hoped that at least was organized in usual, practical manner (my experience on filing ANI is based on what I observed only, it is possible that I tried ANI before but I don't remember.) It would be shame if it fails because either my report was unreadable or because GenoV84 respond made it repellent more than it should be. As for the stale diff, I used it only to illustrate how long this patter persists, my experience is much deeper than any previous editors' presentations showed in those old diff's and cases. How many should I present here is dilemma of inexperienced editor filing the report.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Compile the three most egregious recent diffs, with brief summaries if needed. El_C 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, I will take diff's my first three TP discussion posts and juxtapose it with GenoV's replies. Since their replies are always longish and contain enough evidence I will tq it with diff's. Thanks and thanks again. (Let's see how it looks in 10-20 min.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I initiated discussion [182]; GenoV84 responds [183]; I followed with a second attempt [184]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references[185]+[186] and without offering what I asked exact place in sources; nevertheless, I checked the sources and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found [187]+[188]; now they replied with a long post with lots of wikilayering evasive explanations and aspersions [189]; I tried to explain [190]+[191]; they started with a new round [192]; I asked them to stop with accusations [193]; they started asking in circles [194].

Now, I said I will tq specific lines, but I will leave that for separate post if specifically requested, so that we keep it simple this time. I think that these diff's are most interesting because this is me, cool as Antarctica in July, trying to initiate TP discussion and get reference for specific part of the article (lede), and the answers I was getting. There are worse things hurled at me later on, and while I was too getting more blunt later on, there is no justifications for the things said and how they were said in GenoV's answers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And, it's not irrelevant that on our first encounter GenoV84 reverted my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, completely disregarding good faith, [195], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [196], [197], with additional comment [198]. That was really unexpected.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, I'm not seeing anything egregious in those exchanges. Looks like a content dispute that could use further dispute resolution. Spirited debate is allowed. GenoV84, on Feb 11, you removed Santasa99's comment from Talk:LGBT in Islam ( diff). This was by accident, I presume...? El_C 12:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, there's another paragraph. I don't understand why you're making this so complicated, Santasa99. Too much redudant material, still. Anyway: //looking. El_C 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a spirited when you get this you should try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggresively. when you are calm and there is no lashing out on other users aggresively just because you ask for reference in absolutely calm, even cold manner.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I hate being here, I never wanted to use these channels.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see a diff, so I have zero context, but I don't think it matters at this point, anyway. El_C 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay...? El_C 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's diff 196 - I hate being here because it means something went wrong, and that's why I have little experience, and why my posts are "complicated".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And you expected me to just remember? And you don't link it directly now because...? Doesn't matter, I'm not gonna look at it. If you can't bother making this convenient for me, I'm just gonna disengage and you can try seeking further assistance from someone else. El_C 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, El_C, I don't expect much anyway, but you said be concise give me three diff's, which I posted, but than you missed entire sentence in it where the editor literally accuses me of being xy. I am not sure what else could I do.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are required to read it at all, let alone carefully, but I provided those diff's and they contain some pretty inappropriate attitude.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99, no, you didn't. You posted 17 diffs. El_C 14:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

:-) you got me there, hah it's really that much, but how else you can show what happened in this kind of report, where behavior is examined, I mean if I post their diff you are left without "why" they said "you are angry, cool down , don't lash out and don't be aggressive" - so, in this case it really felt that it was needed to be in the format "I said/they said". I wanted to remove this report from the content issue, so it is a case of two editors and their behavior.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Warned. GenoV84, don't mis-use user warning templates during content disputes. Don't label a content dispute as "vandalism," disrutpive," or "censorship." If you do this again, you will be sanctioned. Both of you: find a dispute resolution request that works for you, like WP:3O, an WP:RFC, or posting to WP:RSN, and take a break from one another. It's too much and it's getting neither of you anywhere. I've already warned Santasa99 above, so hopefully, that would be the end of it. El_C 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But you already warned them once in July over the same thing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So now it's twice, I guess. El_C 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@El_C, I accept the warning and agree with your suggestions regarding the proper dispute resolution. To answer your first question, I'm afraid that my revisions and Santasa99's revisions overlapped while saving the respective replies; it happened unintentionally by accident.

However, I had already requested a WP:3O at the very beginning of the dispute resolution; except for the intervention of other editors mentioned earlier, which don't seem to be interested in this discussion anymore, nobody else has joined the discussion yet, and I explicitly invited other users to join in the article's Talk page.

From my perspective, especially considering Santasa99's disturbing and concerning conduct towards me and other editors, I think that both of us should WP:DISENGAGE and let other users step in, because it's clear that this entire mess about something so trivial and innocuous as wikilink is not worth the effort. GenoV84 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not the break! That's not the break! El_C 18:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What a ... :-))) , I was thinking to Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

IP without sufficient competence in English.

IP 2804:389:A08C:4B:41AA:CB5E:3049:972D has been editing articles about a number of previous Olympic Games, but has demonstrated a serious lack of competence in English. I have twice reverted edits to one of those articles, but these edits this morning to another article again show that the editor's English isn't good enough for editing this Wikipedia. I have given one warning, but it appears that further action is necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to do gnomish updates also. There's potentially other options. Let's see their response.—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I know some people like to think everybody can contribute to the English Wikipedia no matter how insufficient their English and it's everybody else's responsibility to copyedit what they write. But this case is as if I should contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia on the strength of one year of Spanish studies in high school. There has to be some limit to how much we demand of others in the way of assistance. I have blocked the user and their /64 range per WP:CIR. Thank you for reporting, David Biddulph. Bishonen | tålk 11:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC).

• Sorry, Bagumba, I had already blocked when I saw your post, or I would have waited. I stand by the block, though. If they appeal the block, or reply in any way, on their page, it can be moved here. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC).

User:Symon777

Symon777 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring with me about the articles Eskiarab and Boʻrbaliq (two places in Uzbekistan). They consider these articles their own property (see [199], and respond on comments by myself ([200]) and by Ost316 ([201]) with profanities (blanked afterwards, including the comments by Ost316 and myself. It is likely that the accounts BioCaliforniauz (talk · contribs) and Salman unity (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person, see [202] and [203]. I have no hope that this user will engage in civil discussion. Markussep ^Talk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the problems described by Markussep, Symon777 has repeatedly removed this section from this page, and after that failed because it was repeatedly restored, changed it to make it appear to be a report about Markussep. I have blocked the account for 48 hours. It is up to Symon777 now to decide whether to start editing collaboratively when the block is over, or to carry on in the same way, in which case an indefinite block will be reasonable. I had already noticed Salman unity, but not BioCaliforniauz. I'll look at them and see whether anything should be done about those accounts. JBW (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty certain that the accounts Salman unity and Symon777 are connected, either as the same person or two people acting together. I'll drop a warning note. However, I don't see enough evidence to conclude that BioCaliforniauz is related, and there are enough differences to make it seem unlikely that it's actually the same person. JBW (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be right, the reason I suspected BioCaliforniauz was that they signed as Symon777 here. Markussep ^Talk 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Markussep, stupidly, I didn't think to look at the signature when I checked earlier. That throws a very different light on things. I don't have time now to follow this up, but I'll try to look at it again when I do have time. Thanks for providing the information. JBW (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NeverTry4Me issue

I strongly condemn the block of@NeverTry4Me: . He is a reputed editor with so many years of experience. Admins should not misuse their power. I ask the blocked user to defend his diffs here. I support you and thanks for your valuable contribution.TOAARN23 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Lololol. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NeverTry4Me, let me try a little bit of helpful guidance: this thing you're doing right now is transparent, and all it will do is make it harder for you ever to be unblocked in the future. It is really too bad that you didn't try harder to understand what El_C and others were telling you -- I get that English isn't your native language, but that means you should have spent much more time asking for clarification of what other people were saying and much less time arguing. Your best bet for being unblocked is (1) stop creating alternate accounts or editing logged out and (2) devote some serious effort to understanding what has already been written to you. Then, after a long interval of not creating or editing with sock-puppet accounts, (3) read WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, (4) read it again, thoroughly, (5) probably read it one more time, to make sure you understand what administrators will be looking for in an appeal, and what was problematic about your behavior before, and finally (6) file an appeal as it describes. --JBL (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: ZNKA, TOAARN23 both indef blocked for block evasion today. Please don't create a third one, NeverTry4Me. This is silly. El_C 13:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

MoiKebolTumar makes 3. El_C 04:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not tagging anyone. I have no ties to the old account (as you discussed) and have no plans to do so (I just laughed). This individual (the subject) has a Facebook page where he constantly posts/states that all ULFA leaders should have Wikipedia pages established for them and he's doing it. We're all in good spirits. That is not an issue. Then he started contacting everyone to write an article (no outing from my side). Although I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I am an engineer. Because we use similar platforms/method/psychology/rules to run our company, it takes one engineer 30 minutes to learn everything in a new platform. Because of his mental health, this user is restricted in his community (journalism). Isolated! Is it possible to send an email to one of you admin? I can explain everything. This is my last post regarding that user. Thanks to him for introducing you all. I'll try my best to do something here. GeezGod (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked GeezGod indef (User_talk:GeezGod#Indefinite_block) for that Because of his mental health, this user is restricted in his community (journalism). So now both of them have been indeffed (by me), so hopefully, they'll both decide to move on from this Facebook-to-Wikipedia, whatever it is. El_C 14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Are we at WP:3X level yet? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a moot point since the OP has already been blocked, but please don't lie completely through your teeth with statements such as He is a reputed editor with so many years of experience. Any one of us, me included, can easily verify NeverTry4Me's experience, or lack thereof in this case, and attempting to fabricate otherwise in a mountain of evidence is surely not a good look for any user. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

After having a second look at NeverTry4Me's contrib log, I have retracted the above comment. I don't think it's fair for me to make that assessment, though this has no bearing on competence issues. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting for posterity that it appears the apparent evasion was a joe-job. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm tidying up their contributions, many will be speedied under G3/G5 or by my own motion for being a ghastly useless mess. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, shit. El_C 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor Toyota Corolla E140 and uploading images

As per this edit here, I think Toyota Corolla E140 has pretty much confirmed that he's either not listening, not here to improve the project, or both:

Pretty fucking idiotic to ban me from wikipedia and preventing me from uploading photos, just because i did something wrong once, first upload was my bad, i accidentally posted it as my own work, second i posted it with the wrong license and now im banned? Fuck of both of you, especially "magog the fucking orge" i dont car what have i tried to say about the license but the FUCKING photo has been uploaded twice and i stopped but still "EaRnInG a MuCh LoNgEr BLocK" fuck of both of you, i hope both of you have a stroke and die.

The entire exchange is on my talk page Volkswagen Phaeton main photo here. Editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• This one is hilarious, too. Probably it is too late to get them to understand (1) "copyright" is the legal ownership scheme that applies to intellectual property (and is completely independent the ability to copy a digital image), and (2) Commons and Wikipedia are two different websites. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think that the intent to improve the encyclopaedia is genuine. There's just a total lack of comprehension of what copyright is. In fairness, you used the word "troll" first, Chaheel Riens. If you didn't think it to be true at that point, it would have been better not to say it at all. It very probably didn't help. If the account-holder isn't going to edit any more at all, I think that the problem is solved by the account-holder xyrself. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think this message should be revdeled, and maybe a block, as this message is totally unacceptable. --Stylez995 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Toyota_Corolla_E140#Indefinite_block. Uncle G, the "troll" quote actually reads: I was beginning to think them a troll, but a recent post makes me think not. El_C 13:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I know what it reads, thank you. As I just said, it would have been better not to say that at all if one no longer thinks that the person is a troll. It clearly got the person saying "troll" back, and that escalated into warnings about saying "troll" from the first person to say "troll", and then it got even worse. Just not even bringing up the subject if one didn't think it to be the case would have been better. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. El_C 13:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

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

---

Multiple editors are constantly reverting eachothers edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Stalking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisacascade (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:AN3 is third door on the right. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Block evation

A user doing LTA has again being evading block [204] with new IP [205]. --C messier (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And now is edit warring, not acknowledging consesus. --C messier (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

it is the same user as here (still blocked) or here. --C messier (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

IP 62.98.133.82/62.98.130.202

62.98.133.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is carrying on the same disruptive editing that 62.98.130.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was recently blocked for (their block expired today). As noted in the earlier report, they continually add/re-add information, which has shown to be incorrect. Their talk page comments are hostile and abusive and include what may be seen as a legal threat.[206] So far, they are editing six or more articles, so I'm not sure that RfPP is a good option. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

IP is now also using 62.98.156.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), so RfPP may be appropriate. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not an expert, but saw this thread. Given the history, I'd think blocking of some kind is needed, considering past legal threat, hostility, etc. Possibly range block at 62.98.0.0/16?... Or would that be too much...? Magitroopa (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Realjamesh

User talk:Realjamesh Multiple IP addresses spamming same image on banned user's talkpage. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Alpha Piscis Austrini, I've protected it and removed the garbage. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Manipulation of wikipedia by a French presidential candidate team

Hello. An infiltrated journalist in the campaign of French presidential candidate Éric Zemmour revealed that they had a team focused on manipulating Wikipedia. It was leaked to a French wp admin who identified the following accounts:

• Cheep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CreativeC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Additional information can be found (in French) on fr.wp administrator's noticeboard. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've left AMI notices for the accounts that you did not notify.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot one. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed editors from the list who either are not registered at en.wiki or who have no edits at en.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Comte0: Have you thought about filing a CU on Commons to confirm that "IllianDerex" is one of Cheep's socks? M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I am not active on commons anymore. Please do, thank you. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  A checkuser request has already been done on frwiki, came back positive between these two accounts. Regards. --Thibaut (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  In other words, in order to avoid suspicion, they used a single purpose account to upload a photo of Zemmour to Commons before adding it to the Reconquête article using their main account (which was used to add the photo that they openly uploaded to other projects[207][208]). To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• The French Wikipedia community seem to be clearly in favour of blocking all involved Wikipedians. I suggest we hold a discussion over blocking these three on en.wiki too. The press sources at the French ANI also make it possible for us to include content in various articles about Reconquête's astroturfing and misinformation tactics on Wikipedia and social media. We should also consider whether to keep using images uploaded by those involved e.g. File:Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg, used at Éric Zemmour and Reconquête. As far as possible, we will want to check the contributions of these three editors for policy violations that remain in articles, and perhaps could do with organising that in a manner like CCI does for Cheep to avoid redundant work. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  While waiting to see what other images have been used by those involved, I have removed File:Éric Zemmour meeting Villepinte 12-2021.jpg from both articles. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• There is a related discussion at WP:VPM#WikiZedia: an organized influence operation at Wikipedia by the campaign of a candidate for French President, which I created at the urging of a French sysop and bureaucrat who urged me to do so. I was unaware of this ANI discussion at the time, and probably I was composing the VPM message at the same time. In any case, this ANI should take precedence, but there may be links or other information there of interest. Or perhaps each discussion could continue with their separate scope and goals, with ANI performing the usual behavioral monitoring and blocks as appropriate, and the VPM article exposing what is going on and why, with the possibility of a broader discussion there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This had no tangible effect on English Wikipedia, other than the upload of some rather nice photos, which it will be a shame to see removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you think they are nice is proof that they have achieved their goal (to make him look presidential). M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

They are in fact nice, high resolution photos that illustrate the subject well. The next best photos of Zemmour we have are over a decade old. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course they are "nice". You don't expect his PR people to upload images of him that don't make him look presidential, do you? M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to go do something useful, why don't you clean up Reconquête, which has been extensively edited by Cheep, who is known to have been part of this campaign? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If I ever need some useless advice, you'll be the first to know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see anything wrong with the picture. Additionally, it's buried in the middle of the article. JBchrch talk 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the picture per se (there is nothing wrong with it), it's about who uploaded it and for what purpose. Leaving it would send a clear signal to all those who want to promote themselves: 1) if you want your "beautiful" image to stick, make sure you hire a professional photographer. 2) It really doesn't matter if you get caught, we accept faits accomplis. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons allows undisclosed paid affiliations with the subjects of the images that are uploaded on it. It is certainly not appropriate that people associated with the campaign appear to have initially inserted it into the English Wikipedia article. That being said, the current location of that photo in the English Wikipedia article looks appropriate—are there any better photos that you suggest we put there? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a much wider debate than this image, but yes, we do accept fait accompli. I'm not happy about it, but we do. There's no policy that provides for the removal or deletion of content written by COI/UPE editors provided that it complies with the rest of the policies or guidelines. The best we got is WP:DEL-REASON # 14 combined with WP:PROMO, but good luck arguing that at AFD if the article is not-too-bad and the subject is notable. There is of course a broader debate to have about this, but I would argue that this is not a good case to launch that discussion, because the image does improve the encyclopedia, even if it has been uploaded by a campaign member. JBchrch talk 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROMO is obviously what I've been referring to all along. Even though I'm aware that no single policy can be used to remove the image (wp policies don't usually work in isolation anyway), I was hoping that others may agree, especially now that story is in the newspapers.[209][210][211] M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with @Hemiauchenia with respect to Eric Zemmour. I took a look at this some weeks ago when I attempted a clean-up of the article, and I did not notice any suspicious activity. JBchrch talk 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not to be that guy… but is linking accounts to real-world affiliations WP:OUTING or is it OK? There were a lot of suppressed edits at Ketanji Brown Jackson and its talk pages after a report came out regarding someone who edited that page. I’m a bit confused on how the policy is supposed to be applied. Does the literal name of an individual need to be contained in an off-wiki link for it to be considered outing, rather than an affiliation of the specific editor with a third-party? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the French ANI thread and there is no attempt to connect specific accounts with real-world names. I don't see an issue here. For Ketanji Brown Jackson, the suppression was due to the fact that the accounts supposed real-life identity was mentioned in the report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure I have this right: a report that mentions a username and its affiliation with a particular article subject, but not the real-world name, is Kosher? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This is the only reasonable intepretation of WP:OUTING. Nobody is suggesting that any of these accounts is Zemmour himself, but just part of his campaign. If we couldn't accuse people of having COI's with regard to certain organisations or individuals then WP:COIN would have to be shut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indef blocks now in place at fr-wiki for: fr:Cheep (talk · contribs) and fr:Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs) after 50-some votes in favor. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Also for fr:Trismegiste0 (talk · contribs), fr:Salomegrd (talk · contribs), fr:Shōkakū24 (talk · contribs), and fr:Maurice Roux (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• For information. A news article in The Guardian 17 February 2022 - French reporter infiltrates campaign of far-right presidential candidate Éric Zemmour. I read it before this thread was opened, but didn't see enough in it to get enwiki involved. Narky Blert (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Can I safely assume the members of the presidential candidate team are being compensated in some way shape or form for their efforts? That seems more than just WP:NOTHERE, but firmly into WP:PAID territory. Kleuske (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kleuske, not necessarily. At least in some countries, campaigns rely heavily on volunteers (see https://www.google.com/search?q=%22campaign+volunteer%22), so unless France is different, it's quite possible that these people aren't paid at all. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: NOTHERE block of involved editors

I'll get the ball rolling—I propose that Cheep, CreativeC and Film sur Léo Major are indefinitely blocked as not here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia. This matches the French reaction to the same news, with 50+ users participating in the discussion that came to an essentially universal consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for CreativeC, which has not edited since 2019 and has not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia (blocks are not punitive, but preventative). Support for Cheep, who has actively edited in a COI manner if press reports are to be believed. I'm not sure about Film sur Léo Major: I can't identify any disruptive edits by the user. I'm unsure about if the user is a sock of Cheep being used to avoid scrutiny, or simply WP:MEAT, but that's best left for SPI. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Cheep, who has clearly done undisclosed COI work regarding Zemmour on English Wikipedia. Oppose for the others, as they have not edited English Wikipedia about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's important to respond rapidly because Wikipedia is very vulnerable to this sort of coordinated attack from high-profile figures; if there is any perception whatsoever that it produced any positive results, even temporarily, we could expect to see many more. Even for the editors who have not yet edited significantly about this in enwiki, the fact that they have declared or clearly displayed an intent to edit Wikipedia in order to advance a particular politician is sufficient to justify a preventative block per WP:NOTHERE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Cheep but not others per @Hemiauchenia: reasoning. Cinadon36 08:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom; although I agree that blocking accounts with few edits and little time on the project might be unnecessary  :) SN54129 13:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What do we think that Special:Diff/1039556531 (and Special:Diff/1039635235 and Special:Diff/1039635479 and Special:Diff/1051758630) where Film sur Léo Major (talk · contribs) signs xyrself as another, non-existent, account, is all about? Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• I found the answer myself. Account rename on the French Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Muhmmadaht

User Muhmmadaht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ignores the rules prescribed in WP:RS and WP:CONS and removes information from the article Mongolic peoples. In particular, he selectively removes the mention of one ethnic group according to its own judgments. I ask you to take action against the user and remind him of the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@KoizumiBS: per the big orange banner that you get when editing this page, you should notify an editor on their talk page when you report them here. I have done so for you. I'll also note that there was another ANI report about this same user a few days ago (here) which has since been retracted, originally posted by HistoryofIran. Finally, please post diffs providing direct evidence for any allegations: this is much easier for admins (who are also volunteers and have limited time!) to handle. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! User Muhmmadaht removed references to Hazaras who were of Mongol origin: [[212]]. According to the sources provided, the Hazaras are of Mongolian origin and spoke the Mongolian language until the 19th century. The Hazaras have been added to the chapter on ethnic groups of Mongolian origin. However, Muhmmadaht continues to delete information confirmed by reliable sources: [[213]], [[214]], [[215]]. I urged the user to come to a consensus, but this was not successful. The sources refer to the Hazaras, who spoke the Mongolian language until the 19th century. But for some reason he continues to write that the Moghols are mentioned in the sources. For some strange reason, he urges not to confuse the Moghols with the Hazaras. But the sources speak specifically about the Hazaras: I have added quotes and references.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Public wifi single-purpose editing at Cher Scarlett

Feeling some deja vu at Cher Scarlett with some edits that have altered the WP:NPOV and introduced WP:LIBEL, a few of which seem to intend to subtly discredit Scarlett's role in the organizing at Apple Inc..

128.119.202.233, 128.119.202.78, and 128.119.202.52 all seem to be the same user utilizing public wifi, and engaged in WP:EW, despite repeated requests to use the talk page. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:68.169.141.35 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

Openly criticizing Wikipedia on my talk page. [216] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm.. how is this is an issue for an administrators? Is this issue the criticism? Criticism is perfectly okay - sometimes consensus changes, and even if it doesn't people are allowed to at least express their disagreement. Is the issue because it was on your talk page? You can just ask them to take it somewhere else... Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, you need to notify the notify the other user when you take them to ANI. I have alerted the other user at their registered account (Douglassriverview). Singularity42 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: This edit was made by an IP; I posted the notification on their talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve been here since July 2012 according to the logs, and boy do I have a list of criticisms of this place. I also have a similar number about Twitter and Facebook, where I’ve also been for a decade or so. But unlike Twitter and Facebook, criticising this place is unlikely to get me booted from here. In fact some of our most prolific editors are our most prominent critics. We’re quite remarkable for that. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 22:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

LTA back with two new /64 ranges

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely nearly a year ago and has returned regularly as an IP for continued disruption. 2603:8000:B03:E5C5:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been a recurring favorite and is currently under a 3-month block.

• 2603:8000:B00:17BD:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B03:D526:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These two are active now and carry all the hallmarks of this LTA. Edits are mostly to automotive articles, the rest related to professional wrestling. Disruption includes tampering with dimensions, messing with predecessor/successor entries, and other falsities like adding a "previous owner" for a firm in a time period in which it didn't exist. Both ranges resolve to Downey, California; all of this LTA's IPs are from either there or adjacent Bellflower. --Sable232 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Delete P____"

A group of IP users:

• 81.161.49.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.94.128.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.80.213.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 220.141.206.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.20.88.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.92.21.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 217.164.148.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possibly the same person, using a proxy, has been adding "Delete P (numbers)" to articles without clear reason. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another group of IPs:

• 69.116.240.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.150.19.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 191.36.147.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been making edits with the same edit summary, but this time it's "Q105103969 needs to suffer". --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the IP editors are making Verifiedhandlers.com to suffer, Googling the "Q105103969". I needed to run basically everywhere to revert this shit. Another IP is also 190.87.160.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pinging Sea Cow, since Sea Cow may be familiar with this. Severestorm28 23:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Familiar" is a understatement. There's been roughly 10 different messages the botnet is doing. They do it for maybe 10 minutes, stop for 2, find a new message, and the process repeats itself. There's more IP's than listed above I believe. Sea Cow (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You said this is a botnet; are we talking zombies or is this a case of someone renting out a bunch of IPs to do this? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a suspicion, but probably renting out a IPs. I would find it hard to believe that someone has such a vendetta that they would use zombies. Sea Cow (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Filter 1184 (hist · log) (private) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely has to do with that site; see the history of TheresNoTime's talk page and this page (referring to "vh"), and d:Property:P9395 and d:Q105103969 are that site. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

Could you please delete this [217] history? HeeraDrishti (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The OP has been blocked as confirmed sock. Wikimedia Commons is a different website from Wikipedia. --Stylez995 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Telanian7790 uncivil behaviour

Newish editor User:Telanian7790 has previously been blocked for edit warrning on College of Policing. Now that he/she has been released from the block his/her first action was to reinstate the very same edit that caused the block. On the article's talk page the editor's response to discussions is uncivil, e.g. diff1 "What a bizarre response" and diff2 "Thank you for that emotional and unconstructive outburst". It seems to me that this editor doesn't want to play nicely and is only here to cause trouble / engage in arguments with others. --10mmsocket (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this, so this following epistemology (yes, I'm going full phisosopher today!) point might miss the mark. But when we summarize a source, in a sense, we interpret what it says. Now, as Telanian7790 notes, if it's a faithful interpretation, then all is well. If it isn't, then it'd be deemed WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH. When I read the first diff in isolation, I don't find it outside the realms of spirited debate (i.e. "bizarre," etc.). I'm just gonna quote that exchange in full:

And again your are interpreting what the source says. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. Of course I have ‘interpreted’ the source. That is what Wikipedia is based on: taking reliable sources and faithfully and accurately interpreting them. So here’s the important question. Is my interpretation wrong? If you think it is, then please give us what you say is the correct interpretation of the source. Telanian7790 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That actually sounds sensible (again, in relative isolation). Sorry for the weird indents. But I do propose we site ban Telanian7790 for double spaces (fixed in my above quote), a cardinal sin. El_C 13:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Consistent cross-wiki uncivilized behavior and addition of NPOV content by ShieldOfValour

ShieldOfValour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently accuses other editors as "(Chinese) state-sponsored agents" in both the English and Chinese Wikipedia article of Xuzhou when the editors revert their edits which (while truthful) scandal events are inappropraitely added in the lead paragraph as a clear attempt to use Wikipedia as propaganda against the Chinese government when viewed alongside their behavior in edit summaries and zhwiki. This user seems to be not here to build the encyclopedia and assuming bad faith of other editors. Please look into this issue. Thank you with regards, Luciferian𖤐 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)