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:Neplota

Neplota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We currently have an editor (User:Neplota) having multiple slow edit wars in the middle of short talks and an RFC. Canada, UK, Japan.The main purpose of the edits is to add data to the infobox that despite being in other articles is being contested in these cases . I do find this edit odd that removed the data they are trying to add on other pages? Is this someone here just to mess with us and waste our time? Moxy- 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the Australia page. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

this edit is to that page...what is odd is they removed the data they are trying to add in other places. Saying "as the categories included are very ambiguous e.g., oceanian"..but this is what they are trying to add to other pages ...clasification with the term "oceanian". Are they just trying to start problmes/debates all over?Moxy- 17:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There's more countries, he's made such bold changes to, as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There are similar issues with this editor at United Kingdom per this thread. However, they abruptly stopped editing when this thread at ANI was opened - ANI flu? - but a pause for the editor to take stock may be helpful and all that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well he's active again. GoodDay (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply a net negative Copyright Moxy- 00:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning issued on user's page for three reverts in a few hours on Jesus. Justification given is "restoration of a stable version" of the lead, and consensus claimed on talk page where I can find none (and plenty in disagreement). The edits user is trying to restore are 16 days old. 4th revert has not yet occurred at this time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Matthead

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

Diff 1 - the user Matthead added original research to the first sentence of the article. It might be a WP:PROMO violation as well if you look at where they've placed their content and the links they've added. Diff 2 - I reverted and referred to WP:OR. Diff 3 - I left a note on their talk page. The note was reverted. It means the user is aware about the issue. Diff 4 - the user misused their rollback tool and rollbacked me without providing an edit summary. Diff 5 - and after I reverted them again they baselessly accused me of using Wikipedia to promote propaganda by abusing a real name of real people. Diff 6 - I created a new topic on article's talk page. And explained everything in detail. I asked them to stop making baseless accusations and to self revert, but they did not listen. Diff 7 - Instead I've got another pile of baseless accusations and uncivil behaviour. The core issue was not addressed at all. To be honest, I've looked at this thread (yes, about Matthead) - AE thread - and this situation is just a continuation the situation described in the AE thread. The same pattern - Repeated accusations against others (of edit warring and stalking) while edit warring himself. Bad faith towards other editors. It looks like not much has changed since then. --Renat 12:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm lost. You say it's original research but there is a source for it, and I did a quick search and ancestory.com agrees that Putler is a sir name, although they don't mention Germany specifically. So it doesn't strike me as that odd to include that fact in the lede of an article specifically called "Putler". The intensity of your language when talking to him on talk page, and even in this report, almost smacks of WP:OWN. Your language towards him seems to be just as hostile as his towards you, although I've only checked a couple of times, and it was you that started the dialog. I'm not going to lie, when I followed your diff showing prior instances of his problematic behavior at WP:AE, and saw the date was over 13 years ago, I thought "wtf?". Diffs from 2009 aren't really helpful to show a pattern of abuse. Unless you're saying he does this every 13 years, like clockwork. Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be more of a problem than he is with the aggressive tone. I was going to ask how this was possibly WP:PROMO, but I don't think it matters, as you didn't bother to explain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown I can explain and I also want to ask you something about your comment here. 1) Diff 1 - Matthead replaced the first sentence of the lead section of the Putler article with "Putler is a German surname and a software company." It is original research, because the first source added by them is a main page of a restaurant's website. The source does not say that "Putler is a German surname". It does not even say that "Putler is a surname". The second source for the "software company" part is a main page of that software company's website. The primary topic for "Putler" is a neologism. Currently, other meanings of the word "Putler" can not be mentioned in the Putler article due to lack of reliable sources. And Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. 2) You mentioned ancestory.com, but I do not see how is this website is relevant to this particular discussion. Could you explain why you mentioned it? There are no ancestory.com in Matthead's edits. Anyway ancestory.com is a generally unreliable source per WP:RSP. If in this case ancestory.com can be used as a reliable source to justify the inclusion of the "surname" meaning - it needs to be discussed on article's talk page.

  "The intensity of your language when talking to him on talk page, and even in this report, almost smacks of WP:OWN."

  In what way the intensity of my language suggests that I am violating WP:OWN? I can reword, because I do not think that this article is mine. And I never said that it is mine.

  "Your language towards him seems to be just as hostile as his towards you, although I've only checked a couple of times, and it was you that started the dialog. Can you give an example of my language that you think is hostile towards them? The user accused me of "using Wikipedia to promote propaganda by abusing a real name of real people" and "... dragging the oh-so-clever propaganda hate speech into English Wikipedia ..." before I filed this report. They also edited my comment which is against WP:TPO (see the topic name change here - diff talk). These accusations are false and inappropriate. I am not using Wikipedia to promote propaganda and I am not "dragging" hate speech into Wikipedia. I really want to understand how would someone will see my language as hostile as the user's language.

  "Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be more of a problem than he is with the aggressive tone." If you think that I am more of a problem, it means you think that I should've done something differently, yes? Initially, I reacted to this edit - diff 1. Me being more of a problem starts with this reaction or later? There is a sequence of actions so I want to understand what exactly made you think that I am more of a problem then Matthead. Renat 08:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

• "The primary topic for "Putler" is a neologism." That is decided by consensus, not the person who creates the article. I didn't say his edit was perfect, just that adding the fact that the Putler is a common sir name is not really a big deal in an article that is covering several uses of the term "Putler". Whether it is in the lede or in the body (lede is most common) is immaterial. I mentioned Ancestory.com simply because that was the first place I looked for the name "putler" and instantly found that the claim that it is a sir name is true. I already covered this. I'm not going to break down the rest of my comment because it is already above. Again, the intensity of your comments is rather high. Is there something I think you should have done differently? Yes, be less intense and just use the talk page. Accusing him of PROMO without any evidence is also casting aspersions. On the talk page, he provided examples of his claims, after your overly aggressive attack. You are very demanding about all this, and that isn't conducive to finding consensus. You said "Can you provide a quote? 2) "Putler" as "Putin+Hitler" is a primary topic, not a surname or a software company." and he elsewhere gave you two example from website. It sounds like Putler needs to be broken down into two articles. But the fact is, you are taking a word that is used for a persons name, and creating an article with that same last name, and you have turned it into an article on why that name is a pejorative. You shouldn't be shocked that some will take exception with that. On that talk page, you talk about how ancestory.com and other examples of "Putler" being a common sir name are "unreliable sources". You completely missed the point, the links weren't provided to be included into the article (the same as mine), they were provided to EDUCATE you that Putler is a real sir name, and some consideration must be taken. But you don't care, and that is the problem. You aren't using common sense or common courtesy here. So yes, you are the problem that instigating more problems, and your overly assertive attitude is ramping up the drama. From an admin perspective, it is you that is being unreasonable, combative, and intentionally obtuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User Matthead violated WP:TPO again - diff. And I already asked them not to edit my comments. --Renat 21:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

RenatUK, no one owns the section title, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. And as Talk Pages are to discuss Article Content, not Editors- your section title is inappropriate, though I wouldn't call their pointy replacement an improvement. Slywriter (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter I hope this one is better. Renat 21:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal nominations of Danish international footballers

I am highly sceptical that BilledMammal is doing a true WP:BEFORE. He has nominated multiple Danish international football player articles to AfD. There are questions like, why are they international footballers, they are not called up to the national team for no reason. In fact, some of these footballers have won honours in their country of Denmark like Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) who has won the Danish Championship three times. That's not even noted on the article, this is just stub article like all the others on his AfD nominations, just because something is a stub, doesn't mean it's not a notable topic.

There is a load of articles at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves which he has nominated.

There are multiple issues at play here, I feel there is an attack on Lugnuts who was trying to bring light to the project of useful information that can be expanded on, for these player biographies. An attack on the wiki-stub culture, it's as if an stub article is not allowed.

Another weird issue with all the AfDs in this series BilledMammal writes: Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry.

I have a big problem with that, as Wikipedia is a database!

Yes there is GNG issues, but this should be addressed by doing the research and not nullifying the ability for other uses to find these articles and expanding them. This delete culture is simply unacceptable. I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. There is serious detrimental issues here at play, and we are about to loose a load of articles because of laziness, people not wanting to do the research to expand on them and rather delete? Who's attack who?? pfft, I am getting fed-up of people who want to feud and run policy base arguments instead of actually working and expanding on the content that actually needs work. Someone here really needs to have a word with BilledMammal about his attitude. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the above paragraphs that suggest anything relevant for this board. Your skepticism is not evidence of misconduct. Your dislike of another user nominating stubs for deletion is unacceptable to you, but nothing in any policy suggests it is unacceptable to Wikipedia. That you dislike the idea of somebody making policy base[d] arguments seems to be a personal problem. Your defense for the merits of stubs would be fine for a userspace essay, but not for ANI. nableezy - 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say I am also frustrated, 1. by the sheer number of AfDs that are coming in which gives editors little time to review them, 2. by questionable nominations.

Today BilledMammal nominated two dozen Danish international footballers with the surname "Nielsen". Many of these players were active before the internet age so a web search probably isn't enough to check for WP:SIGCOV. But just a quick look at some of the players' careers suggest they could very well be notable. For example:

• Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953): two international appearances, played abroad in the Netherlands with Roda JC Kerkrade from 1979 to 1981 – Playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. Even a quick web search turned up a long article: https://politiken.dk/navne/foedselsdage/art5439817/Allan-Nielsen The AfD nomination makes no mention of it.
• Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923): one international appearance, played abroad in Scotland with Dundee F.C. in the late 1940s – Again, playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk suggest there's coverage of his time in Scotland.
• Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938): ten international appearances, played abroad in Germany with VfB Lübeck from 1966 to 1968 – Again, playing abroad… A search of Danish newspapers at statsbiblioteket.dk suggests quite a bit of coverage.
• Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951): one international appearances, played abroad in Belgium with K. Beerschot VAV from 1966 to 1968 – Playing abroad… Coverage in Danish newspapers.

Bottom line: It's very hard to assume that "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" per WP:BEFORE were taken. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not optional. He could well have done all the WP:BEFORE and the nominated the articles. If it's a bigger problem maybe it should be part of the ongoing AE discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. These articles (as far as I can tell) are non-frivolous AfD nominations--which is not to presume that they deserve deletion, simply that they're worthy of discussion. Presenting evidence (as Robby.is.on has done above) would seem to be the way forward to me. That said, I feel like everyone is being a bit overly prickly here. A bit unkind to presume no WP:BEFORE had occurred, but also some unnecesary templating. The NPA business seems a bit much to me, but that's subjective. I think, if possible, everyone should try to reset and return to the evidence. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The politiken article is a good one, and had I have found it I would not have nominated the article. However, I did not; I don't know what search terms you used, but "Allan Nielsen" "Kerkrade" places it on my second page of results, and "Allan Nielsen" "Odense" places it on my third. I normally review beyond the first page for Google News or Google Scholar, depending on the topic, but for mass created articles like these I rarely do so for Google search which I find usually produces little but Wikipedia clones and unreliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I understand. But how do we deal with the problem that for players that were active before the internet came about most sources that would indicate SIGCOV probably can't be found online or at least not with a simple web search? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A person writing a new article has a responsibility to make sure the article is suitable for Wikipedia. That includes making sure the subject is notable. Why not include the results of your notability search when initially writing it?

WP:BEFORE doesn’t require going to printed sources. It’s impractical otherwise, though it does create a challenge for someone who writes an article about a person who doesn’t have ongoing coverage during the internet era. The answer again is, include documentation of notability when writing the article.

We are in a bit of a bind with the mass-produced stubs. Was notability required when they were produced? If so, why didn’t the producer include evidence of notability?

And that still leaves one more mess. For stubs that met earlier laxer notability standards (primarily sports), no one is to blame, but they are subject to challenge, based on a good?-faith WP:BEFORE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers is dormant. At one point, when that guideline reflected consensus, it was apparently thought that playing in one full international match showed presumed notability. But currently, there's no sport-specific guideline at WP:NSPORT for footballers.Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• The way to counter a challenge of NOTDATABASE / GNG / SPORTSCRIT at AFD is by producing two or three high-quality sources with significant coverage of the subject, that’s the way for you to go here; alternatively, the content may be folded into a broader article, if one can be identified. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a databse. That is one of the basic principals of Wikipedia. All articles should be made to meet GNG before they are created. There is an article for creation process, which is where people should actually take material that does not meet nclusion criteria, instead of just dumping it into article space. If it has already been dumped into article space in a sub-par condition, as Malcolmx15 says you should go and find tow or three high quality sources that meet our inclusion criteria. Basically in the huge discussion of sports realted articles earlier this year it was decided that we would scrap all participation based inclusion criteria, that we wanted quality sources backing all articles, and that we wanted an end to sports stats table entries masquerading as articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. It has standard inclusion criteria, and I strongly reccomend you review the current inclusion criteria, and recognized in regards to sports figures especially they have been significantly reworded and tightened in the last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  In computing, a database is an organised collection of data stored and accessed electronically. What is wikipedia but a stored collection of information through it's article structure accessed digitally! Wikipedia is still a database no matter what people want to say. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. Do you infer from that statement that it's better to have no article about a notable subject at all than having a stub article? Is that Wikipedia policy? Because that's what happens when dozens of stub articles are sent to AfD daily and articles get deleted because there is too little time to check for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If no SIGCOV can be found during an AfD it can be included in a list instead; if it's indeed notable then eventually someone with access to sources will come along and recreate it as an actual comprehensive biography. Standalone articles are not the only way information can exist on Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO BilledMammal actions referred to here are not only proper but doubly not a behavioral issue for this board. Both the notability guidelines overall and also what happens at AFD call for the same thing.....to provide 1 or 2 GNG suitable references to establish GNG notability, and producing or being unable to produce that will resolve the question every time. Trying to ignore all of that and instead just look at wp:before and imagining that somebody didn't do it is not right. Similarly, is the poster saying that the search is too burdensome to do for the person wishing to retain the article? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oh for pity's sake. Govvy, do you recognize that the reason critical masses of editors agreed to remove participation criteria from NSPORTS -- and, incidentally, to sanction Lugnuts for his egregious and longstanding sub-stub creation -- was outrage at the laziness of many editors in creating so many unsourced sub-stubs for athletes, which those editors then proved completely disinterested in sourcing or improving? What I am fed-up over are editors who always feel that someone else should do that work, but oh no, not them, not ever. North8000 takes the words out of my mouth -- the extremist inclusionists are ever ready to protest attempted deletions, but generally curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles ... source the damn things. I'm militantly disinterested in hearing them call other editors lazy or negligent where they don't want to do the work themselves. In any event, it is no more egregious for BilledMammal to nominate a dozen soccer sub-stubs for deletion a week than it was for the likes of Lugnuts to create a hundred soccer sub-stubs a week ... something I doubt you opposed, then or now. Ravenswing 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles As I outlined in my examples above that can be very hard to do when the article subject was active in pre-internet times. When I saw 18 Danish internationals called Nielsen sent to AfD today I went looking for a way to find old Danish newspaper articles and found statsbiblioteket.dk. Example: https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis/search/Erik%20nielsen%20lübeck/page/2 The search results show the title of the newspaper, the date, the page but no article content. Now what? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Now either Danish editors get into the act, or one can resort to the text from the Danish Wikipedia ... or else an otherwise obscure footballer from a century ago gets merged into a portmanteau article until such time as someone does pull it off. WP:V requires sourcing, and there is not and never has been a waiver from its provisions just because there's some excuse for why sourcing is hard to obtain. Ravenswing 18:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

But no one is disputing the verifiability of these articles. The databases that they're based on are generally thought to be reliable. What's being disputed is notability.Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And in like fashion, WP:N/GNG requires sourcing. This ought not be difficult for people around which to wrap their heads. Once again, the oft-held canard that if sourcing is hard to obtain for a subject, the provisions of WP:V/N/GNG are somehow waived in its favor is utterly unsupported in any guideline or policy. Ravenswing 06:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Amen amen. Write an article once you've got the sources to do so! -Indy beetle (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Whether or not BEFORE has been complied with - and I'm willing to AGF here - my biggest concern is nominating 18 (I think?) articles all at once. What is the rush? A handful of AFDs a day allows both 'sides' of a debate to spend the time to find sources and make a wiser decision. 18 in a day is too big a task. GiantSnowman 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is an all-too-common complaint at AfD, and I've never bought it. Decisions are made by those who show up. Neither your input, nor mine, nor anyone else's is essential to any deletion discussion. If you don't have the time to find the sources that the article creator should have included from the start, someone else may. If no one does within a week's time, then no one cared enough about the article to save it anyway.

  But beyond that, FAR too often, my observation is that those who complain loudest about how hard it is to research sources for bundled AfDs (and come on, how many of these searches require much more than a minute?) never get around to researching any of them. And surely -- if their focus was really on improving threadbare articles rather than just disrupting the process by any means to hand -- they could manage a handful? Or three? Or two. Or any. Ravenswing 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree - once it is at AFD, the burden shifts dramatically to those wanting to keep. If nobody has the time or interest in finding sources, or if interested people are unaware of discussions, then it will invariably end up deleted. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  The best search for sources on mid-twentieth century (post-1921) Danish Footballers would generally require going to a library in Denmark to look at Danish newspapers. Quite a few are digitized, but the collection isn't available remotely post-1921. That's why a presumed notability guideline is sometimes a good thing to have.Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Then why not make articles (where one has suitable sources) instead? If you don't have sources, you don't have a real article. Also presumed notability is where such is from an SNG, and it appears no SNG was even claimed on these. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  The SNG was WP:NFOOTBALL, which existed when the articles were created but has since been abolished. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, the SNG is and was NSPORT, which always required the subjects actually meet GNG and that this be demonstrated with sources in the article eventually. The article creator should still have verified that the subject was notable before making the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  NFOOTBALL was part of NSPORT, smartarse. GiantSnowman 20:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Treating NFOOTY like it was an SNG unto itself perpetuates the idea that SSGs don't have to meet the wider requirements of NSPORT, which did/does not presume notability solely through meeting an SSG criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  I can't answer for the creator of the articles. When I create articles I expect to have better sourcing than a database entry, but their creation has already happened, it's their deletion that is being considered.Jahaza (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  But there has been zero effort to demonstrate why we should presume notability for these players. What evidence do we have that they meet GNG 95% of the time? If existence of SIGCOV isn't even falsifiable in general then how can we possibly argue it should be presumed in specific instances? Not to mention the fact that we do have evidence playing for national teams in other countries in the same time period is not a reliable predictor of GNG: the many, many AfDs on those subjects where no coverage is found despite access to digitized media. That was one of the major factors that led to deprecation of participation-based SSG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem with BilledMammal noms. WP:BEFORE isn't a policy so much as a courtesy expectation that can be disruptive if constantly abused, but I digress. We aren't going to sanction someone for "violating" WP:BEFORE because there is no way to prove it anyway. If he is in error, and two or three reliable sources are giving significant coverage, simply add them to the articles and note this at the AFD. If someone is constantly nominating articles that get kept, THAT might be considered disruptive, no one is claiming that. Everything you claim in this report is not actionable. This doesn't belong here, and I expect someone will close this shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• @Govvy and Robby.is.on, databases are not a creative aggregation of facts—hard work, they are to build, but thin gruel for even a stub. An article requires creatively gathering significant coverage and using a natural language to summarize and contextualize the data. Because an athlete competed before the internet age is not sufficient reason to stop at building a "database stub". Be aware that before the internet age, orders of magnitude more newspapers, magazines, and other media existed than do now. The Wikipedia Library gives access to millions of archived print articles. Mine these. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) —
• If someone is starting AfDs you think are flawed, oppose those AfDs. If you're right, the AfDs will close as keep. (This is definitional: Assuming everyone proceeds in good faith, "right" in an AfD is whatever gains consensus.) If those AfDs consistently close as keep and the person continues to start AfDs that they ought to know will close as keep, then it's a user conduct issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• My issue is not deletionists vs. inclusionists but the pace of nominating articles at AFD. I've seen editors nominate a dozen, two dozen or more similar articles within a minute of each other. I'm with GiantSnowman, this pace is unrelenting and also completely unnecessary. It falls harder on those who want to Keep articles who have to track down reliable sources within a week or two, only to see those who wish to Delete the articles shoot them down as not supplying enough evidence for notability. I follow the rules and I close AFDs with delete decisions as much as the next admin but I wish those who are seeking to sweep clean Wikipedia of certain types of articles would accept the burden they are placing on other editors when they nominate 10 or 20 or 30 articles on the same day. No editor, at least no editor who has a job and a family, can spend all of their time tracking down sources for that many articles which will be accepted by those advocating deletion. And I don't know that those advocating "Delete" should be given sole veto power on which sources are acceptable and which are not which seems to be the norm in AFD discussions these days.

This is not a comment on whether individual articles should be kept or deleted, that is for consensus that emerges from a discussion to determine, I'm just talking about the manner of which some editors go about nominating or PRODding articles and to have some consideration for the other editors who want to participate in the process. Slow down, there is no deadline, those 20 articles can be proposed over the course of a week or two, not all on the same day. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

These articles (and one more, which I declined to nominate) were created between 18:45 and 19:38 on December 21 of last year. They also weren't the only articles the creator made that day; a total of 36 were made, excluding those already deleted. In this context I don't think there is a problem with the number of nominations. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 to BilledMammal. The day when article creators are limited to making a handful of new articles per day, that's when a limitation on how many AfDs/PRODs per day can be filed is appropriate. Ravenswing 06:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. I considered it necessary; at the AfD on Kai Nielsen every post you made was discussing behaviour and casting aspersions, rather than discussing whether the player was actually notable. These aspersions, where you accuse editors of behavioural issues without presenting any evidence, are relatively minor, but they aren't isolated incidents; a look at your recent AfD's shows that this is a common pattern of behaviour for you; for example, Rintaro Yajima, Monaem Khan Raju, and Carlo Ansermino.

In addition, the civility issues at AfD aren't limited to these accusations related to WP:BEFORE; you were warned about personal attacks at the AfD on Thomas Green, and since then I see you have issued other attacks such as suggesting articles are being deleted because everyone is too afraid to do the actual work at the AfD on Tobias Linse, and for saying that JPL's vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as he doesn't care for the footy project at the AfD on Simon Gibson. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by Govvy's edit summary when removing the warning and subsequent comment; Rv, pathetic comments. Concerns about Govvy's civility at AfD are valid, but that edit summary suggests they don't intend to alter their behaviour going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I commend BilledMammal for working to clean up these mass-created stubs and see no evidence of misconduct on their part.

I think that Govvy may have an unrealistic view of what an adequate Before search looks like: They've insisted that it requires an offline search [1][2][3][4], which would presumably require the AfD nom to travel to Denmark if they are not currently located there. WP:BEFORE actually says that if an editor has searched Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library and found a lack of sources, than they have completed their basic due diligence.

A lot of the comments here show a lack of AGF toward noms and Delete !voters, with an assumption that people who claim a lack of sources simply haven't looked hard enough while ignoring the possibility that they may have done an exhaustive search and come up with nothing. Often the folks making this argument don't appear to have done such a search themselves, as they often don't have any sources to present as evidence.

In terms of volume, this year BilledMammal has generally been nominating a batch of 10-20 articles once a month, which comes down to 2-3 articles per day if a single editor wanted to check all of them and none were relisted. The Football deletion category currently has about 125 articles. This sounds like a lot but comes down to about 4-5 per editor per day if it was split between 4 editors. This isn't excessive when you consider the number of searches that folks are presumably able to do to confirm notablity before creating these articles. –dlthewave ☎ 00:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Umm, I do do online searches, maybe if you review a few histories on some of the nominations you will also see the updates I done to a few in the past. I've been over the Danish international player articles before. And I strongly believe this topic needs to be given to a Danish editor who can perform such tasks. It's not a great help when an article goes to AfD to get the importance it needs, very few if little, people don't seem to communicate that this article needs improvement or not. More often or not people post, this article fails GNG. And that's not helping anyone. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: WP:NPOSSIBLE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace – but I see very little acknowledgement of these sound arguments. If the database of Danish newspapers only allows access from Danish universities and libraries, how are non-Danish editors supposed to deal with that? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace

Except that these reasons were explicitly rejected as presumptive of even SIGCOV, let alone straight notability, with the deprecation of NFOOTY. No one has demonstrated that Danish international footballers at this time generally do have SIGCOV in these offline sources, so assertions that it exists for specific footballers have zero justification. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose any administrative action against Billed Mammal based upon this complaint. One can argue about whether a bulk nomination is proper or not, but I don't see anything in the present case that suggests bad faith. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to the argument that lots of AfDs are a lot to keep up with. But, at the same time, so are all the microstubs that have been vomited onto Wikipedia without a second thought. Do note, if an article has been deleted at AfD for failing GNG. It's very easy to simply recreate the article, providing you have found sources which you are confident would make it pass GNG if nominated again. But I'm with Ravenswing, I've come increasingly under the impression that none of the inclusion extremists would want to do that because that would require a minimum of effort. AfD isn't cleanup, but don't expect articles that aren't obvious GNG passes to never be challenged. I'll put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru as the sports AfD that exhausted me. I nominated a current Burundian woman footballer, as there was no SIGCOV about her. Keepers cry BIAS and make baseless claims about it being impossible for us to check Burundian media sources since they must all be in print and hiding within the country, so we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt. Me being familiar with Burundian media and having done an extensive BEFORE, then demonstrate that Burundi's sole private national newspaper, the government newspaper, and a national women's magazine (all of which do regular football reporting and have online presence) show no meaningful hits for the subject's name. This wasn't enough to change people's minds - the claim that we are furthering systemic bias by deleting footballers from third world countries has everything to do with the fact that they're a footballer and nothing to with actually caring about coverage of African topics ("silly Burundian media must be racist against Burundians, us enlightened American/European Wikipedia editors know better about Africa than those dumb Africans" is the only other logical explanation aside from rabid football fanboying for such an attitude in light of the evidence). In this case it's Danish footballers, but allow me to place a bet that the keepers who are not actually looking for sources (like Robby has done, the proper way) but demanding that we prove a negative and go sift through the Danish national archives have zero intention of ever doing such a thing themselves, and will be totally content for the stub to be abandoned and stagnant for eternity, as long as it exists for whatever reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

State of play at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

I don't want to address any specific editor, but I do want to address the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. I used to vote in many Football AfDs. Since the football notability rules changes, the flood gates have been released at this deletion sorting list. I fell inundated, to the point I choose not to participate in most them.

Part of the problem is the sheer mass of nominations. The other problem is that placing an informed voted and doing a detailed WP:BEFORE on the articles nominated is difficult. For English footballers it is easy to locate sources. But English footballers aren't the one's being nominated. There are many nominations from Pacific islands and far away places, where the native tongue is not English and I have no idea what amounts to a reliable source or not. The nomination above of the Danish footballers illustrates this. Just from looking at their record, it is apparent it is likely most of them are notable as they played in top clubs and appeared internationally. However locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy. This is compounded by Nielsen (surname) being the most popular surname in Denmark, held by 5% of the population, and some of the given names being popular as well. Denmark had press, books, radio, and television in this period so offline sources are probable fro some of them.

With the current rules, I can vote keep if I see others presenting sources supporting notability. In some cases I find sources myself. But in many cases I'm left with a feeling the footballer is probably notable, but no obvious sources available as they are difficult to locate, so I don't vote either way. I don't think I'm the only one with this feeling, as many AfDs stay there with very few voters.

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? Or at least create some yardstick that is more restrictive than the former football notability rule but at least saves us time on the more obvious cases? Maybe apply this rule only to "old articles", and not newly created articles to prevent new sub-standardly sourced stubs? As it is, the football deletion list is facing a couple of decades of stub creation thrown at it now.--Mvqr (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly one of the points I wanted to make, how can you do a detailed WP:BEFORE when you're nominating that many articles. I also work during the day, right now I am on my lunch break and just popped on for a look here. I don't have enough time to do all the checks, I am not time rich like I use to be. There are a lot more people time rich around here who aren't doing the checks and that's what bothers me. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Avilich (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Maybe, but the articles were created at a time when there was an SNG for footballers. Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; That is possible, obviously. But having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier to contributing for editors. It takes more time and knowledge than editing an existing one. it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Huh? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a bad argument. This entire nonstop back and forth around AFDs is because WP:BEFORE is placed incorrectly in the process. No articles should be created without multiple sources, preventing this drama. Making an article is easy, most of these were auto-generated from a database. Do the work on these articles if they are notable. I suspect many are hoaxes 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier I don't see how; the AfD is on record for everyone to see, and the only difficulty is WP:G4, which shouldn't be a problem if sources actually are available. Avilich (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Most IP editors won't know what G4 is and neither did I until just now. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? We've been asking this question for years... about article creations. Sorry, but the community let a few editors mass-create these pages by the tens of thousands for years and years, and the result is too many non-notable, under-sourced articles. This "deletion spree", this is closing the floodgates some... closing the floodgates of mass creation. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Then hold current creations up to a higher standard, if a new creation is subpar then sure, if the creator doesn't pony up proper sources then delete it with haste. But allow some kind of grandfather clause for older articles. Doesn't have to be one pro match, could be something more restrictive. Maybe phase back the grandfather clause slowly The reality is that the Football deletion list is flooded. Over a 100 discussions listed now, and it's been over 200 as well. For many of these discussions it is very possible there are some sources available, but the ability of editors to cope with this flood is lacking. Look at my record at deletion, I'm not shy at deleting substandard stuff, not at all. But I can't keep up with this flood and from what I see in the discussions other editors are letting these pass by as well. There were a couple of Manchester United players that were put up, for Christ's sake, which were stopped, but those are easier to catch. So sure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Doughty, was obvious even within all those cookie cutter nominations, but this isn't true for other countries. The amount of editors who have experience with Danish or Micronesia footballers is miniscule.--Mvqr (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason I dont find this argument about its too many AFDs at all convincing is that these articles are not being deleted and salted. If at some point somebody actually finds some sources that support some player being notable they can always create the article anew. People are acting like deletion means that now and forever there will be this giant void. But that is just not true. I never understood why people are so adamant that terrible articles remain because someday some person may want to improve it. Well if that day ever comes they can create the article anew or request it be created. nableezy - 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: for years, many editors have been saying that some editors are mass-creating non-notable articles. Now, what you want to do is to stop editors from doing this in the future, but grandfather the past creations? Why the heck would we want to do that? What the heck are you trying to preserve here? Non-notable articles? Why?

Look, there are tens of thousands of these. If we keep going through them one-by-one in batches of 10 or 20, it'll take us years. Years. Buckle up, the deletion is going to take longer than the creation. The fact that we don't have time to do so many BEFOREs is the proof that we never should have made so many in the first place.

Mass deletion is the consequence of WP:HIGHSCORE editing, and it always has been, as it always must be. Shoot, at least they're being taken to AFD; if it were up to me, I'd be looking for some criteria for a mass CSD. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If the less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources were just redirected to the team article or a list related to the team, then that would be much more manageable than what is going on right now in the football deletion.--Mvqr (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The manageability of the deletion is directly proportional to the manageability of the creation. There are tens of thousands of less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources. Redirection won't work because players often played for multiple teams, so there isn't a single clear target, and anyway we don't need to turn entire rosters into redirects. We don't need tens of thousand of redirects any more than we need tens of thousands of non-notable sub-stubs. Again: what is it you're trying to preserve here? A redirect with a person's name? Why? Levivich (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that many of these supposedly perfect redirect targets would in no logical instance actually mention the name of the person which serves as the redirect. E.g. The parent team article which is supposed to broadly cover the whole history of the team as a well as some of the recent performance is probably not going to mention by name that one left defender who played a half season in 1923, as that would be WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the "MUST BE REDIRECTED NEVER DELETE" privileges these trivial footballers over other possibly notable subjects which might have the same name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim, for example, whereas a result a footballer who played one match in 1909 has a redirect to a list of Austrian footballers, so if you're searching for Harry Oppenheim the newspaper publisher, or the art collector, or the South African businessman, or the Scottish politician, fuck you I guess, only football matters. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And then if it is pointed out that a redirect isn't suitable, the proposal then becomes to move the article to a disambiguated title and redirect that, before creating an unmaintainable dab page at the primary title for non-notable people in contradiction of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. With a similar case in hockey, where an editor outright defied the SNG (and it took a couple YEARS to finally community sanction him) to mass-create articles, we are still untangling his messes, several years down the road. And he created a tenth the articles Lugnuts did alone, and with more content.

If I thought that the footy project genuinely cared about turning these sub-stubs into actual articles, you guys wouldn't be waiting for AfDs, but working through the backlogs to source and improve the articles you could. But that's not happening, is it? So you will have to forgive some of us from coming to the conclusion that the sentiment is in fact just that bundled AfDs make it harder to delay and obstruct the process. Ravenswing 18:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Too much bad faith here for my taste. Stubs get fleshed out all the time. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

To much bad faith in AFD discussions as a whole. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll bite, Robby. Can you link to some of the recent footy sub-stubs you fleshed out? Ravenswing 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I won't bite. :-) Like yours mine was a general observation which cannot be proven or disproven by anecdotal evidence. Stubs or not, I generally don't write a lot of prose. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe you're not the right person to comment on the issue, hmmm? Ravenswing 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Huh? My observation is just as valid as yours, perhaps even more so considering I actually edit footballer articles all the time so I get to see what happens in this topic area. I haven't seen you edit there. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, fair point Ravenswing, it's true that evert article arrives here fully formed. GiantSnowman 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So what if some non-notable articles hang around in mainspace longer than you'd like? I'd say the deletion of potentially notable subjects is a far greater risk than non-notable subjects not being deleted. It's much easier for a new editor to expand an article that is already there than to create a new one. NemesisAT (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Months ago, I attempted to bring consistency between National Football League season & American Football League season pages, but was rebutted. My first & last attempt, concerning gridiron football pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC) ...which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Fram (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The Australian Football League was used as the primary reason for the rebuttal. So there's a loosely link. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

^^^^ Can we please all learn that the best way to handle off-topic comments is to ignore them, not to revert them, restore them, reply to them, or hat them. Ignoring is actually less distracting than engaging. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this is an unsolved and unsolvable collective action problem -- as long as you are in an open forum, there is no way to establish the necessary strong norms. Hatting, by contrast, is very effective because it can be implemented by a smaller group and helps communicate what the norms are. 66.44.49.56 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is part eleventy billion of User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD and the underlying AfD, which suggests it needs discussion to eventually reach a conclusion rather than being re-litigated quarterly across the project. Star Mississippi 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• As far as WP:BEFORE, we actually don't have to assume anything about how exhaustive a search is being performed, because at least one editor here has provided an answer outright: they generally only look at one page of Google results because "the rest are just Wikipedia clones" (except when they're not, as in the case mentioned here). That is not an exhaustive search. It's barely even a cursory search. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • One full page of search is an entire page more than was used to create these articles. It's unreasonable to ask for more effort at afd than create time. Didn't spend ten minutes sourcing it, why should anyone else? If these aren't hoax articles, someone can write them properly. If they are hoaxes, we will forever be waiting on nonexistent "but likely to exist" sources. 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

    There is no exception clause to WP:BEFORE for "well, they didn't do it, so I don't have to either." Nor is there anything in it that says "if you think there probably aren't sources, you don't actually have to prove it." 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

    I believe you have misunderstood that comment, and misquoted me. I only looked at one page of normal Google search results for each of the search terms I tried, but I also looked at Google News results, Google News archive results, Google Books results, and Google Scholar results, and often multiple pages of those; I believe this is fully compliant with the expectations of WP:BEFORE.

    I would also disagree with your claim about an exception clause; considering it in the context of WP:ONUS and WP:FAIT, I believe it is permissible for editors to claim an exception when nominating mass created articles. In addition, BEFORE is only required when the main concern is notability; when the main concern is related to WP:NOT, such as WP:NOTDATABASE, such a search is not required although editors may chose to do it anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an idea, move these stubs to draft space. Now you get six months to establish they belong and not seven days. Problem solved? nableezy - 00:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

until WP:DRAFTOBJECT, when literally anyone can move it back and force you to use the seven day option. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like people in favor of deleting it wont be moving it back to the mainspace just to start the 7 day clock on them. If somebody were to move a draft to the mainspace and nominate/vote for deletion that move would have been done in bad faith and I would think worthy of sanctions. If somebody who feels that it is notable and wants to move it back, well guess anybody is welcome to start the seven day clock at that point if they feel otherwise. nableezy - 02:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't really seen people moving drafts to mainspace just to nominate them for deletion. The more common scenario is that an article is draftified by someone who thinks that it doesn't demonstrate notability, and then an editor who wants to keep it moves it back to mainspace which forces an AfD.

On that topic, I think it's interesting that drafts submitted through AfC are quite often rejected due to lack of SIGCOV sourcing even when the topic is likely notable. It would be helpful if we held experienced editors to the same standard as newbies rather than giving free reign to move them back to mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The current policy permitting draftification refusal causes these problems. Generally, people who draftify articles are doing it for good reason, and if they’re not, the usual warning and enforcement pathways would manage abuse of draftification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've constructed a list of mass created articles on Olympians by Sander.v.Ginkel (an editor who engaged in unauthorized semi-automated mass creation) and I am considering making such a proposal at the Village Pump; that all those that are not listed as having a non-statistical source are moved out of article space.

I've also constructed a similar list of mass created articles on Cricketers by BlackJack, but I'm giving Wikiproject Cricket time to work out what they want to do with those articles before I consider further action.

Draft space would be an option, but if editors want to avoid the 6 month cut off I wouldn't have any objection to a different location. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• I personally would prefer it if BilledMammal slowed down a bit.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

user:Praxidicae

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

---

I'm user:Nguyentrongphu. I've been blocked indefinitely due to an incident (short summary). First of all, I'm not contesting my block and haven't done so for almost a year. I have tried to forget about all of this, move on and continue to contribute to Vi Wikipedia "in peace" like I've done so over the past 14 years. However, Praxidicae continues to insult me by calling me a Nazi and throw wild accusation by implying that I use sock with absolutely 0 evidence (here). This is like harassing a dead horse (me). I'm happy to be checkusered. I'm asking Praxidicae to either retract her completely false statements or face serious consequences for her misconduct. Lastly, I also ask to be left alone from now to contribute in peace. That means no more insulting, wildly accusing, digging up the past, beating up a dead horse and etc. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

By posting here logged out, you're evading your block. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. However, I have no other way of reporting misconduct, and my account won't be unblocked. Just because I'm blocked indefinitely, that doesn't mean I deserve to be continuously insulted long after the incident especially when I haven't done anything ever since. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Don't mean to bash you for a mistake, but Praxidicae's pronouns are she/her. Also, please take GoodDay's comments into account. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I concur with C.Fred. While Praxidicae may sound harsh with her discussions with you, know that she means well. Nguyentrongphu, this is not the way. What you need to do is relax, simmer down, and prove the administrators that their block on you is not necessary because you have stopped any wrongful behavior of yours and that you will make useful contributions. If necessary, take the standard offer. If you can prove that you can do well without a block, you will eventually gain back the trust of the community and Praxidicae. She may be biting you, but note that she has the right to be suspicious if someone has a low edit count and [has] ties to Vietnam. If you haven't read already, you should assume some good faith on your part. Please, stop all this and go down the right path. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless I feel strongly compelled to make another comment, I'll stop here and leave it to the administrators, because, after all, this is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I no loner live in Vietnam. Second, even if her suspicion is justified, that does not justify her calling me a Nazi for no reason since I haven't done anything since my block. I can't assume good faith when someone calls me a Nazi, can you? Third, I have no intention of gaining the trust of this community. Lastly, I ask to be left alone from now on (that means no more personal attacks toward me from now on!). 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to your repeated bludgeoning, the act of referring to WP:NONAZIS to describe your behaviour ≠ calling you a nazi. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have reason to believe that it the IP is not a troll impersonating Nguyentrongphu, but rather it is them making all these comments. I have evidence in the form of this edit, with similar behavioral characteristics in the edit summary. In this case, it would lead to a community ban per C.Fred. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Praxidicae is well within her rights to be suspicious of an account with a low edit count and with ties to Vietnam asking about your block and wondering if they are connected. As for the invocation of WP:NONAZIS for the rationale of the block: it may be abrasive, but it's not entirely unreasonable, after reading the history of events that led up to the block. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've blocked Victor311 for sock-puppetry and trolling in Vi Wikipedia. The whole thing (that led to my block) was a big misunderstanding. How many times do I have to say this? Regardless, I conceded and accepted my block. Does that mean I deserve to be continuously insulted when I have done nothing??? My only concern right now is that I'm continued to be a target for harassment and insults for no apparent reason long after the incident was resolved. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The explanation of Victor311 trolling—and note that it was a question from Victor311 about Nguyentrongphu's block that started this mess[5]—is plausible. If that's the case, then congratulations on spreading their latest troll of you all over ANI. *sigh* This report now involves, by implication, Victor311 and Victor311Alt. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You guys can block Victor311 if you want. However, Victor311's misconduct does not justify someone else calling me a Nazi for no reason. Please don't attack the strawman. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the real world. There's no rights on this project, but only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP. I cannot rule out the possibility that somebody else is trolling Nguyentrongphu by editing as the IP. Since Victor311 was mentioned by Nguyentrongphu while logged in, that seems a plausible but unproven identification. There is no good that will come out of this situation by allowing the IP to continue to post here—since if it is truly Nguyentrongphu editing as the IP, that sort of doubling-down behaviour is the kind of thing they did that led up to their block, and this time the outcome would be a community ban. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be the sort of situation where it's either evasion or impersonation so blocking is definitely the best situationsolution. If the editor wants to request an unblock they can go thru the normal channels. If the editor wants to complain about something else they largely lost that privilege with the block. I mean if they still have talk page access they can do so on their talk page but since that's not the purpose of leaving talk page access they may lose it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Also to state the obvious, no editor gets to demand we stop suspecting them of socking otherwise any editor could sock with impunity by just saying they retired and don't sock and we're not allowed to suspect them. More to the point, this began because someone asked about the complaining editor's block not for any other reason. If there's no sign of socking and if this doesn't happen, we're not going to be talking about the editor, why would we? It's unfortunate that the editor asking the question was possibly trolling due to their block on the Vietnamese wikipedia, now that it's happened once possibly editors may be more aware of the possibility and so may simply delete such messages but you can't reasonably expect every editor to be familiar with everything happening on other projects so editors may simply reply assuming it's a good faith question. And it's not clear to me the question wasn't in good faith anyway, I make no comment on what the editor did on the Vietnamese wikipedia, but finding out someone who blocked you is indefinitely blocked on another project is going to be a surprise to many, and it's easy to understand why someone who realises that would want to know more. Also while editors are entitled to disagree with their block, we as a community are going to explain blocks from the communities POV, not the editor's. (While blocks can sometimes be contentious, they tend to be far less so when the blocked editor insists there's nothing offensive about calling yourself a "holocaust enthusiast" when multiple native speakers tell you it is.) Also there's some irony in insisting the other editor must be trolling because they were rightfully blocked on the Vietnamese wikipedia, while continuing to claim your unblock was unjustified. I'd note that removing the denied unblock request technically violates WP:OWNTALK. I'm not going to revert and possibly no one else will, but if this happens then they should take it on themselves to ensure that this isn't an issue if they change their mind and make a future unblock request. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I see this is mostly resolved but I just want to clarify that I don't tend to mince words. If I were going to call someone a Nazi, here or anywhere else, I would have said it directly, not made some vague reference to WP:NONAZIs. I hope that clears up OPs confusion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• WP:AN & WP:ANI isn't the place to request unblocks or unbans. There are proper means to do so. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks to me more like a block extension request. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Fairly2k3z

Fairly2k3z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly2k3z has made personal attacks towards other editors (including me), such as a legal threat toward Kaseng55, and one towards me (I think). Furthermore, he has done multiple disruptive edits such as here on the Luis van Gaal page, and straight up removes/griefs the content at the Mark Noble article. Patachonica (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bradv. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, could you revoke his TPA? He's been posting impolite messages on his talkpage ever since he was blocked. Patachonica (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive POV editing by User:JordanKSM

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia; user has a real bad case of battleground mentality and removes large amounts of content from Myanmar-related articles that they believe to be "Chinese propaganda".

Here they revert to an old revision of the article Chinese people in Myanmar, giving no explanation other than "jingoism". Then they go to the talk page, making copyright claims without evidence and accusing editors of the article in general of being paid by the Chinese government (see Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar).

Here they revert my edits and dismiss me a "wumao", an internet commentator who is paid by the Chinese government (ex 1, ex 2). This is actually the first time I came across this user.

This user is clearly not willing to communicate with users in good faith either, because they immediately removed my comment on their talk page insisting on considering others in good faith. If you check the comments made by them at Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar, it proves my point more; aggressively attacking other editors, labelling other editors, not providing policy-based reasons for their edits, and changing their explanations each time (but primarily sticking to the conspiracy that editors paid by the Chinese government are nefariously trying to paint Myanmar in a bad light on Wikipedia).

More examples of nonsense explanations ranging from "Han chauvinism" to "you just made it up": ex 1, ex 2, ex 3.

The oddest thing about all this is this user is not the first person to have (in my opinion) a battleground mentality and edits which are primarily removals of large amounts of content from Myanmar-related articles that they believe to be "Chinese propaganda". User:SSH remoteserver and User:Pak Thais are two other editors who have a very specific fixation on Chinese people and interests in Myanmar and accuse other editors of being paid by the Chinese government. SSH remoteserver and JordanKSM both made blank user pages shortly after creating their accounts, and all three have specific grievances regarding Aung San and Ne Win, two important figures in contemporary Burmese history. Most interesting however, is that Pak Thais' account was made shortly after SSH remoteserver was permanently blocked for disruptive editing, and JordanKSM's account was made shortly after Pak Thais' last edit.

So either three self-proclaimed "anti-Chinese propaganda" and "anti-Han chauvinist" editors popped up at different times with a specific interest in editing articles related to Chinese people in Myanmar and coverage of Aung San and Ne Win on Wikipedia, or it's the same person on multiple accounts. Either way, User:JordanKSM has clearly demonstrated that they are not here to collaboratively edit with others, but to push their personal POV by aggressively attacking other editors and paying lip service to Wikipedia policies. Yue🌙 20:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor is aggressively pushing POV using a source that does not exist. He repeats the same lines from a state-backed editor. He tries to restore a section that has been removed by many editors for not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. And then, he tries to lecture others using templates. His other edits should be investigated and banned from Wikipedia if possible. JordanKSM (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a place for sockpuppet investigation. I was a former editor who locked his account and retired. I edited from 2009 to 2017. JordanKSM (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor looks like trying to promote the CCP agenda on an industrial scale through a vast number of articles. Looking at his edits, he does full-time editing nonstop. I am a part-time editor who is unpaid. There's no way I can allocate enough time to compete with him. There are really VERY FEW Chinese people who speak fluent English, have an interest in Myanmar, and are able to allocate enough time to mass edit Burmese articles. If you check Chinese Wikipedia as a guide, there is virtually no editor who has an interest in Myanmar. In the past two years, I have seen an EXPLOSION of Chinese editors on English Wikipedia. Aung San's article was singlehandedly edited by a proven CCP editor who was outed and has since retired. Clearly, for Yue, someone does the research for him to accuse me of a sock. It's most likely teamwork consisting of hundreds of editors and researchers, with only one doing the edits. JordanKSM (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It gets more interesting as he shows up on articles of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPICS which are only related by proven state-backed accounts. For example, Bamar nationalism, as the talk page argues, was created by an indef-blocked Chinese user with poor English skills, User:ZaDoraemonzu. Why would a Chinese user create such an article? It's well known in Myanmar that China likes to divide and rule. The article was mainly to sow discord between various ethnic groups and use the divisions to advance Chinese strategic interests such as BRI. The article was turned into redirect by User: SSH remoteserver presumably with support from another editor CentreLeftRight, "Your explanation for redirecting this article was valid" (talk page).

However, two months later, user Yue suddenly appeared out of nowhere and turned it back into a page. The "Burmese nationalism" was an orphan article before and a redirect by then. It's impossible that he could have known its existence in other ways. The only way he could have reached there was some back-channel collusion between CCP state-backed editors. For example, there is a dossier tracking how many articles they have created, how many were deleted or turned into redirects, and how many of them could be rescued. It seems to me there are thousands of similar accounts doing full-time propaganda on an industrial scale. Wikipedia needs a task force to find out and block state-backed accounts. Otherwise, the values we stand for are gone forever. JordanKSM (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What we need is a dedicated task force of admins who are experienced in dealing with Chinese state-backed operations. Hopefully, Wikimedia Foundation would create one. A state-backed operation is highly intricate and too difficult even for admins to pinpoint and act. Only a dedicated task force could solve the problem. Suspected state-backed operations and accounts associated with them will be reported to and dealt with by the task force. That's how Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and others deal with the problem. If we don't, the project is useless and harmful to the vast majority outside of the West who don't have enough editors and admins and are subjected to relentless Chinese propaganda. JordanKSM (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I need not say more. You continue to avoid direct communication by removing other users' comments on your talk page, you continue to go on long conspiratory rants accusing other editors of being nefarious state agents after they try to engage with you in good faith, and you continue removing massive amounts of content you dislike and claiming it is all definitely added by the Chinese government and communist party with no evidence. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and think you are on some crusade against the Chinese state by harassing and aggressively engaging with other editors, removing content on a whim, and treating talk pages like forum conspiracy threads. I would also like to add that I did not "[appear] out of nowhere"; like I mentioned on your talk page when I first engaged with you in good faith, I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for nearly eight years and been with WikiProject Myanmar for nearly seven. I have never had such vitriol and libel directed at me, much less for accusations so ridiculous without any indication as to where they came from. I have made my case and you have furthered my points; I will allow administrators to review our comments and make a decision on the matter, if any. Yue🌙 22:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Typical. Lie outright, push to the extreme, and pretend innocent. You haven't replied to anything on either Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar or Talk:Aung San. I haven't added or removed anything. I am removing content that has been removed countless times by numerous non-Chinese editors: Alamak alamak, 71.202.21.101, 219.74.66.148 for not being encyclopediac and contradicting numerous WP policies. The content is extremely racist, devoted to how the Chinese are superior to "barbarians" with arbitary and cherry-picked facts from non-authoritative sources on Burma, often copied verbatim. Your attacks on Talk Page can be removed by any. Get familiar with WP policies first. Guess CCP didn't pay you enough? JordanKSM (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you won't reply how you reached Bamar nationalism or some other highly obscure articles edited by proven CCP accounts. You'll rest a few months, and once volunteer editors have moved on to other topics, you'll act and revert back contrary to the established consensus. You'll count on our volunteer nature and the fact that the encyclopedia is free for anyone to edit. We can obviously see the state-backed nature of edits, given the fact that Japanese, Southeast Asians, or Indians with 1.4 billion English speakers never end up doing anything remotely similar. The closest would be, once upon a time in 2014, a Thai user did something similar for articles related to Burmese-Siamese Wars but that's nothing out of the ordinary. JordanKSM (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You continue to avoid direct communication by removing other users' comments on your talk page. Can you imagine the outright and brazen nature of the lies? He added warning templates on the talk page and say, "you avoid direct communication." It's now proven at this point. 09:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKSM (talk • contribs)

You can accuse me of lying all you want, but unlike you I actually provide links to edits made by yourself to backup my claims (ex 1, ex 2). Can you actually respond to some of my accusations since you believe them to be false instead of just attacking me? Can you reasonably explain edits like this one to Chinese people in Myanmar where you remove 46,748 bytes of content with the explanation "revert jingonist edits"? Then you make the same edit but the reason now is "mass reversal of so many edits without concensus" when that is literally what you're doing by reverting to a version of the article from 2016. Then you made the revert again, now claiming it's for copyright violations without providing a comparison using a Wikitool or just linking the source of the copyright violation. I guess by the fourth and fifth times you just didn't see any reason in repeating one of your three aforementioned justifications for removing 46K+ bytes of content with no engagement on the matter aside from attacking another editor on Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar. And how about those two "first" edits of yours to Aung San (ex 1, ex 2) where you call me an editor paid by the Chinese state like you do in this thread for no reason other than to insult me? I do not need to lie because you continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole. It should be evident even without my comments that you're not here to work collaboratively and only seek to push your POV onto articles and attack those who oppose your edits. Yue🌙 07:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits being undone in 5G NR frequency bands page

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia and not overly familiar with all the procedures. I have been working to update the page HERE as it contains some mistakes. My latest edit added sources from FCC, Ericsson, Samsung, but was removed. I've tried to discuss my reasoning in advance in the "Talk" page, and there doesn't seem to be valid counter arguments. I don't understand why my edit was removed, and also don't understand why less reliable sources are being given more weight. For example, another user referenced a few blogs like Android Authority, and that reference remains, although it is less reliable than FCC, Ericsson and Samsung. This kind of selective editing seems to be against Reliable sources and undue weight policy.

Could a neutral third-party please review?

Thanks! Sheytoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheytoon123 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dnywlsh is relevant. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it relevant? Patachonica (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sheytoon123 is one of the suspected socks in the case. Nil Einne (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I'm getting a bit confused here. If someone could help me understand what's going on, I would really appreciate it. My question is regarding my references for 5G NR being removed, and now it seems like I was investigated for being a sock puppet? How did that happen?

Do I need to do anything to prove that I'm one person?

More importantly, would anyone be able to review my references on that page and comment on whether they are valid and should remain?

Thanks! Sheytoon123 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

When a new account shows up to advance the same arguments on the same talk pages as someone who has already been caught using multiple accounts to evade blocks, it is common for a sockpuppet investigation to be triggered to make sure that it isn't happening again. MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to ask him about possible sockpuppetry but he didn't answer. Patachonica (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Patachonicaapologies, I didn't see that question before, seems it got deleted after it was made. I've replied now. I'm not a sock puppet.

@MrOllieHow is a new user supposed to know the history of banned users? I have no idea who Dnywish is, and when I click on their account, I can't see what they had posted in the past. That account seems to be totally blocked. If you can help me understand what the "same arguments" is referring to, I can get a better idea. I've posted valid references from RAN vendors and regulatory bodies. I don't understand why those sources are removed, yet less reliable sources from blogs are ok?

I have many years of telecom / RAN experience and this is an area I have been writing about on other websites. I'm happy to share those posts if it helps my credibility. I have extensive knowledge of 4G and 5G network deployments, both from a standards/architectural level and specifically as it pertains to the Canadian market. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in rehashing what other people have been telling you on the article talk pages again here. I suggest you read their comments over again. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We have been trying to explain why we reverted his edits but he continues to say that User:Nightwalker-87, User:ebahapo and my contributions 'Don't have any valid counter arguments.' We have constantly refuted his edits on the talk page but he refuses to listen just like Dnywlsh. The account Sheytoon123 conveniently showed up right after Dnywlsh supposedly resumed his sockpuppetry using the IP "73.128.151.200" and Sheytoon123 has not edited any other articles beside 5G NR frequency bands which makes his account very suspicious. Joshua Shah (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright this will be my last comment since it's clearly not going anywhere.

I don't know who Dnywlsh is, I have no idea what their previous involvement was, and I also don't know who 73.128.151.200 is. I don't know why 73.128.151.200 showed up at the same time as me, you'd have to ask him. I came here because of a Rogers reddit post where someone thought Wikipedia references were always accurate and came from standards bodies like 3GPP, so I signed up and saw some mistakes that I tried to fix. Telecom/RAN is my actual job, I have lots of experience in this field and was willing to contribute.

Apart from a few generic comments at the beginning, ebahapo wasn't really involved in the discussions in the Talk page. For the most part it's Joshuarshah and Nightwalker-87 engaging with myself and 73.128.151.200. Looks like 73.128.151.200 is banned now.

My main source of frustration is the quality of references, I wanted a neutral third-party to review them. Looks like there is no interest in doing that.

This environment is really unfriendly towards newcomers. So much conspiracy theories and baseless allegations going around. I haven't vandalized or participated in any edit wars, haven't made random accusations again anyone, but I feel like I'm on the receiving end of backlash. Somehow it's suspicious for a RAN expert with years of internet presence under the same account to make edits to a 5G NR page? I'm quite surprised this is how Wikipedia operates. If you don't value newcomers who may disagree with you, just say so. No reason to accuse a new member of being a sock puppet without talking to them first and gathering facts.

Thanks for reading my message. Good luck and take care! Sheytoon123 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sheytoon. There's no good reason to assume that he's a sockpuppet of Dnywlsh. Patachonica (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hence the reason why I filed the SPI. They will be able to confirm or deny if you're a sock or not. No hard feeling bro but this is just a sanity check for us because Dnywlsh abused a lot of accounts to vandalise articles so we just need to be sure. Joshua Shah (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Nil EinneForgive me, but I didn't see your name in the Talk discussions of the 5G topics. Is there a reason you are suspecting I am a sock puppet, or someone else made that claim and you just noticed it? I'm just trying to understand how I got caught up in the middle of all of this. Thanks. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Matza Pizza

• @Matza Pizza: has repeatedly added unsourced information to the article Elizabeth Holtzman and has made personal attacks such as "dishonest and biased editor" and "You have made baseless and biased edits and accusations against me". Jon698 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Jon698: has repeatedly removed essential information from the article Elizabeth Holtzman and has made false claims and personal attacks against me, such as falsely accusing me of "add(ing) unsourced material" and "vandalism".

Matza Pizza (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Holtzman's parents immigrated from Russia. Her father was a trial lawyer, her mother the head of Hunter College's Russian department. Her twin brother, Robert, was a neurosurgeon." had no sourcing in all of your edits. Other parts of your edits repeated information already within the article or were unnecessary. Jon698 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jon698: there is a washingtonpost.com link with "As the daughter of hard-working Russian immigrants, Elizabeth Holtzman was weaned on success. Her father is a trial lawyer, her mother became the head of Hunter College's Russian department, and her twin brother Robert is a neurosurgeon." it in on the paragraph under that. However, Matza Pizza's comment of "Undid vandalism by a dishonest and biased editor. Every word is clearly sourced, without a doubt. Information is highly relevant." is an attack.לילך5 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• The source makes it worse as "Her father was a trial lawyer, her mother the head of Hunter College's Russian department. Her twin brother, Robert, was a neurosurgeon." and "Her father is a trial lawyer, her mother became the head of Hunter College's Russian department, and her twin brother Robert is a neurosurgeon." and are barely different and too close of a paraphrase. Also that sentence was not sourced as Matza Pizza did not leave a citation at the end of the sentence. Jon698 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the citation wasn't at the end of the paragraph, it was at the end of the next one. You are right it is almost like a direct copy.לילך5 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Pulpfiction621 and vandalism

Pulpfiction621 attempts to revert vandalism, often doing a few edits within a minute. They also place NJ portal links at a high pace. However, they often makes mistakes, reverting non-vandalism as vandalism and besmirching the reputation of those they revert. I noticed this after they reverted me and wrongly called me a vandal. After they did that, I looked back at their edits and located five instances in which they reverted non-vandalism as vandalism and besmirched the reputation of those reverted. I tried to discuss this with them, but instead of discussing this with me they blanked my analysis on their talk, and called me a vandal again. Below is a listing of some of the bad reverts and attacks Pulpfiction621 made at users yesterday:

bad revert 1 - the organisation is designated as terrorist, not vandalism. attack charging vandalism at me.

bad revert 2 - isn't vandalism as Cursa is just the final boss, she hijacks Bowser's army who are her minions. attack charging vandalism at 45.51.74.102.

bad revert 3 - isn't vandalism, and if anyone is vandalising it is Pulpfiction621, because the actor is named Marcia Gay Harden not Marcia Hay Garden, the show is real. Pulpfiction621 also left the sentence without a period at the end. Despite this 122.177.249.150 was attacked. I agree those shows don't belong way up there in the top of the article, but vandalism they are not.

bad revert 4 - Probably the worst here. Not only isn't this vandalism, the information posted is cited to https://nicholasg.me/blog/road-to-college-president and was posted earlier in the day by NicholasG04. However this blog posting does not contain the information posted, and the information removed from the article contains information on a kid, Athena Gallagher, without any supporting source at all. It is not obvious the blog post is even about the college, but even if you guess that it doesn't say what was posted and is even irrelevant. 82.11.89.123's summary of "unimportant info" was pertinent. After restoring this to the article 82.11.89.123 was attacked.

bad revert 5 - 164.106.45.19's linked to a source for the name change https://alleghanyjournal.com/aj_article_test.php?ndx=23620 but despite this it was promptly reverted within the same minute and 164.106.45.19 was attacked.

Attack number 6 of the day was blanking my attempt to discuss with them and calling me a "vandal". לילך5 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the above reverts are mostly wrong. I took a stroll through Pulpfiction621's talk page, which is filled with users posting concerns, and Pulpfiction621 posting an acknowledgement and swiftly blanking them. They appear focused on reverting IP editors. The history of miscommunication here is alarming:

• Improper reverting: 4 February 2022, 21 April 2022, 24 April 2022, 27 May 2022,
• BLP: warned 7 April 2022, but yet made this edit with unsourced BLP information on 2 June 2022 and providing this wrong explanation
• Another vandalism charge that appears baseless: 1 July 2022
• Copyright, coyping without attribution: 13 July 2022, 14 July 2022
• Welcoming spam: 8 April 2022
• Portal spam: 14 July 2022
• Unreliable sources: 9 February 2022 (revert with no reply)
• Edit summary issues: 31 January 2022

There are no archives on the talk page, and these sections are blanked an hour after they reply.Pikavoom ^Talk 08:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Meters, Doug Weller, Fastily, Ponyo, Vsmith, Lcodyh803, DanCherek, and Diannaa: who were involved with some of these warnings. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I notified Pulpfiction621 about attribution requirements when copying within Wikipedia, for content that they had copied from Nuclear power into Nuclear reactor. In their reply, they claimed that they were the original contributor of the content, and then removed the entire post from their talk page 41 minutes later before I had a chance to see it and reply. But that claim was false – they have only made two edits to Nuclear power, this one and this one, that don't include all of the text that was copied. As an example, the first sentence that was copied, as well as the parts about M. King Hubbert, has been present in the Nuclear power article for years, long before Pulpfiction621 joined Wikipedia. So I was a bit taken aback by their reply since it should be easy to remember what you did (and didn't) write yourself. DanCherek (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The top editor by far to Nuclear power is Boundarylayer who has a history of sanctions and was indef blocked at the time this was copied, and still is. Coincidence? Pikavoom ^Talk 12:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Boundarylayer was active until they were blocked just last month, so I think the case for sockpuppetry is pretty thin. DanCherek (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a bunch more examples in their contributions. I know rollback hasn't been used in these instances, but somebody who clearly doesn't understand what vandalism is (or is just too lazy to actually check what they're reverting) shouldn't have that right. – ².O.^Boxing 09:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I see five rollbacks, this one is wrong as is this that I listed above as a BLP issue. But the problem isn't rollback, it's reverting non-vandalism edits as vandalism and warning IP editors that they are vandalising or are disruptive when they aren't. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As the admin who originally assigned rollback to this individual, I'll now be revoking it. The reverts linked above are grossly inappropriate and fall well below the threshold for acceptable use of rollback. To be clear, I'm aware that these reverts were technically performed with the undo function, but rollback could have just as easily been used, as these are clear attempts to revert "vandalism". -FASTILY 09:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am still wrapping my head around User talk:86.175.107.183 and James Desborough (journalist). 86.175.107.183 made good edits on a biography. Pulpfiction621 reverts them five times without edit summaries and even rollbacks once while placing successive warnings up to a final uw-vandalism4 warning. The IP is then reported to WP:AIV as a vandal by 73.22.122.66, a IP now blocked by Blablubbs for being CLCStudent, and 86.175.107.183 is then blocked for a week by Kinu a couple of hours later, but with no additional edits in the interim until the block elapsed. 86.175.107.183's actions were legitimate, even required, on a biography. This kind of information on affairs and scandals can't be present without sources. Pulpfiction621's actions have consequences here. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think it's appropriate to raise the question as to whether the editor should also have pending changes removed. How can somebody who has such a clear lack of understanding of relevant PAGs be trusted to determine whether an edit is suitable for mainspace? – ².O.^Boxing 12:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to say that I apologize profusely to all who have been negatively impacted by my actions. They were never intentional and I have learned from all of the mistakes that I have made in my effort to improve the encyclopedia. I would first like to apologize to @לילך5 for reverting the edit regarding the terrorism. I have seen it used in instances in the past in which it had been clear vandalism and was quick to assume that it was the case in this instance, it will not happen again. Additionally, I apologize to @Pikavoom and others for my other procedural errors in the past regarding my Talk page and not knowing the procedure for how to copy my work to other pages. Both of those instances happened within close periods of each other and I have not made that mistake since then. Additionally, I would like to learn how to make an archive on my Talk Page so that there can be that in the future, I was under the impression that if an issue was resolved I could remove that from my page. Clearly I thought this in error and I take responsibility and apologize for that.

  That being said, I have reverted a significant amount of vandalism from the encyclopedia and revert a strong degree of vandalism and have long held the rollback permission without abusing it. I would respectfully ask that it be restored and please consider my overall reverting history in your consideration. For my work I have been thanked by @Arjayay @Bartallen2 @JeffSpaceman and, most prominently, @LPS and MLP Fan and many, many, others for my extensive efforts in ensuring the encyclopedia is as vandalism free as possible. I would like to continue my work on the encyclopedia and will be sure to be as responsible as possible moving forward, only adding to pages when it is done properly and in a way that adds positively to the content of pages and only reverting vandalism when I am sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is not harmful. I will also create an archive on my talk page if someone sends me a tutorial on how to do so. Thank you all for your understanding and patience. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but cynical ol' me doesn't quite buy this miraculous 24-hour turnaround. In less than a day you've gone from reverting the OP's undeniably-good-faithed explanation of why you were wrong in giving them a vandalism warning, to now--with no additional explanation of why it was wrong--having learned from your mistakes? How? Because it ended up here? You also haven't explained the other examples of your bad reverts and vandalism warnings. I think the fact that an IP editor was blocked due to your bad judgement far outweighs any barnstars or 'thanks' notifications you've received.

I think it would be a bad idea to reinstate rollback (and pending changes should be removed) until you've given an explanation of how you made these mistakes, and then demonstrated over a period of time that you actually understand what WP:Vandalism is (a requirement for possessing those rights). You don't need rollback to smash some vandals. The undo and restore buttons work just fine.

Regarding talk page comments, you've done nothing wrong there per WP:OWNTALK. Setting up an archive is optional (something which I never intend to do. If anybody wants to see what naughty shenanigans I've been engaged in, you can search for them in the history). – ².O.^Boxing 15:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear your criticism loud and clear, and while criticism is often warranted on Wikipedia, I hope to earn back community trust if I have indeed lost it. I may have gone too hard on IP users in the past such as in February, unfortunately I suffer from Asperger's and can get a bit too obsessed with routine and thus, have been too critical of IP editors in the past. Luckily, I have been able to get my disability under control and have refrained from being overly critical of IP users for almost half a year. I appreciate your patience and understanding with the disabilities and challenges that I face and appreciate the accommodation in accordance with WP: Accessibility. I'd like to ask that rollback be re-instated on a month long trial basis. I promise to show that I will not abuse this trust again and, if somehow I do, even by mistake, then by all means follow through with a revocation of the appropriate permission. @Fastily Pulpfiction621 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you've previously read it but a thorough read of WP:Vandalism would be advisable. I (a nobody, btw) think your explanation is more than promising. I still personally believe rollback shouldn't be reinstated until you've demonstrated you can adequately identify what is not vandalism, but that would be up to admins (as I said, you don't need rollback to continue your anti-vandal efforts. And probationary periods for user rights are quite common, if I recall, so that could be an option).

My concern was with the vandalism issue. I don't have any comments on the sourcing problems Pikavoom raised though. That's a seperate issue. – ².O.^Boxing 18:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Pulpfiction621, thank you for listening. I felt insulted when you just blanked your page at me, but I'm so happy we're all working together now on improving the encylopedia. לילך5 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As you said, you need to earn the trust back. Show us you've learned from this experience by spending several months establishing a track record of good edits. Rollback is not going to be restored by any admin until this happens. -FASTILY 00:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for listening. I hope to gain back the community's trust in time and will continue my work to improve the encyclopedia. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Resumed Promotion of Unreleased Film Pathan

I don't know whether WP:ANI is the right place to report these disruptive efforts to get an article into article space on an unreleased film that is too soon, but this has been going on for nearly a year.

There have been efforts at least since October 2021 to get an article into article space for the unreleased Indian big-budget film Pathan or Pathaan, with a long history of gaming the system, including by gaming the titles, by changing the English spelling or adding a qualifier. We currently have in draft space:

• Draft:Pathaan (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pathaan (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have also had:

• Pathan (Film)
• Pathan(film)
• Draft:Pathan(2022)
• Draft:Draft:Pathan(film)

There have been three deletion discussions, all deleting articles as too soon:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film)

Much of the activity with all forms of the titles has been by IP addresses and by sockpuppet accounts. However, a recent sockpuppet report was closed with no finding of sockpuppetry. The admin noted that they were not ruling out UPE. This is a film article, so that it is hard to tell UPE from good-faith disruptive editing by ultras.

At this point I think that the best administrative action is to semi-protect the two drafts and any more drafts, and to provide extended-confirmed create protection for at least:

• Pathan (film)
• Pathaan (film)
• Pathaan (2023 film) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: And an FYI standard discretionary sanctions are in place for all article India articles, broadly construed. Considering your info that may be needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b133:30fa:8dc0:5f55:86f4:c8a1 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING by Sundayclose

• Sundayclose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It all began when Sundayclose decided to remove well-sourced information from Aamir Khan filmography's page here. Since then, the user has filed bogus "complaints" about me, one for "vandalism", the other at ANI, and another here. As expected, the user received no support in either three. I did not engage with this editor at any of these pages. Since then, the user has gone on a WP:HOUNDING spree, reverting no less than three of my edits at different pages:

• At Marisa Tomei's page
• At Kristen Dunst's page, which goes directly against WP:ROLEBIO, and was reverted by another editor
• At Dharma Productions's page, in which the user readded a shelved film that was deleted following this discussion, which I had removed from the listicle.

I did not engage in conflict with this user at any of pages, and I do not wish to either. I just want this hounding to stop, so I can go back to editing without having to deal with this harassment. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I didn't bother to respond in that ANI thread in part because it only concerned a single edit and it looked like you were trying to improve. But Sundayclose seemed to be largely correct. How on earth s the information well sourced when the only source does not support the information? And why are you telling other editor's they need to provide sources for information you are insisting on preserving? You need to quickly learn that it's your responsibility to provide sources if you want to keep information in articles if you want to keep editing here. And these sources need to actually support the information you're trying to keep. If you don't you're likely to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the three sources provided does support the information, which another uninvolved editor confirmed as well. Please have a better look at them: one, two, and three. Even if it did not (which it does), that is no excuse for hounding me across articles. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed one of the sources in the diff as it was a ref defined elsewhere. You're right that the other source does mention he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor. However it does not mention the "National Film Award – Special Mention (also for Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak)" neither for Raakh nor for Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. So I apologise for my mistake as one of the awards was sourced. In that case Sundayclose should not have removed the film. Technically the other sources does support Aamir Khan's appearance in the film and his role which I should have made clearer in my earlier comment (I tried to correct it but was too late) so even under my earlier incorrect assumption Sundayclose should have just removed the awards but that's IMO a more minor thing when a most of the information there isn't sourced as I incorrectly though. Note there was no 3 sources as can be seen in this perma link [6], only two sources. There may be 3 sources now as I said, one of the reasons I didn't get involved is you seemed to be trying to improve. However you cannot fault an editor for correctly identifying that you were claiming information was sources when it was not. You need to provide sources when adding information, not after many reverts. I should mention that the other reason I didn't get involved is whatever else Sundayclose should have opened a talk page discussion before coming to ANI. But you should have opened that talk page discussion as well so it's a bit of a wash. And the fact you were, and are, still falsely claiming the information was all sources when it wasn't is IMO far more concerning that anything Sundayclose did. You cannot claim the information is completely sources when part of it is not. If you later add sources, great, but you should be acknowledging you made a mistake rather than coming to ANI claiming you made no mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that I did not come to ANI to discuss the Khan filmography article. I mentioned that for context, and I quickly added a better source to that article when I realised what was missing. That one revert was my mistake, and I never denied it. I think owning up to one's mistake, and correcting them is part of an editor's work here. And I did just that. But I came here to talk about the subsequent hounding that I am being subjected to. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to my response after this response. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And what? Right above you claimed the information was well sourced "remove well-sourced information from" when you now acknowledge it was partly unsourced and you only later added sources. You then replied to me and claimed there were 3 sources "the three sources provided" when there were only 2 at the time of the diff [7] you linked to. While I was wrong about there being only one source and the information being almost totally unsourced for which I've apologised, I was right about it being partly unsourced at the time something you seem to think doesn't matter when you are the one who incorrectly told us it was well sourced. While it's great you later improved and added sources, it doesn't explain why you are claiming stuff that isn't true. And when you came to ANI. When you open an ANI thread, your actions are always under scrutiny. And since Sundayclose has good reason to be concerned over your edits as you seem to think it's acceptable to revert challenges of unsourced information and insist the editor trying to remove the information is the one who needs to provide sources and then try and mislead others about the information being sourced when you only later added sources, it's likely fair for them to scrutinise your edits. If you're acknowledging your mistakes, why did you mislead us about them until I challenged you (partly incorrectly for which I apologise, partly correctly)? Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, I do agree they're a bit concerning. While it's IMO fine for Sundayclose to scrutinise Krimuk 2.0 edits, they should ensure they have a good reason for reverts and none of those look that great. If Krimuk 2.0 had better acknowledged their earlier faults (both that the information they were trying to keep was partly unsourced which they've finally acknowledged but also that they were wrong to claim the other editor needs to provide sources), we wouldn't need the above mess so IMO Krimuk 2.0's opening comments are even more unfortunate. I'm also concerned about Sundayclose's false accusation of vandalism, a clear a personal attack since while Krimuk 2.0's editing may have faults, they're clearly not vandalism. Ultimately while Krimuk 2.0's editing may have problems, unless Sundayclose can better control themselves they need to leave the scrutiny to someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Having been the victim of WP:HOUNDING myself I'm aware of how much it can make the object of such attention feel. After evaluating the diffs I am not seeing a case made for hounding, however per Nil Einne's comments above looking at the recent contributions [8] does show a pattern of recent focus on Krimuk's editing. I agree that recent reverts were suboptimal and perhaps Sundayclose should definitely take care in their action. If it were to continue in this vein a case for hounding could be made but I don't think it currently stands up to scrutiny. This is not to dismiss Krimuk's concerns but to suggest that perhaps they've not yet risen to a point requiring admin action. WCM_email 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor who for years has making era/eng var change etc calling them "typos"

• Troy von Tempest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is Troy von Tempest (talk · contribs) whose latest edits have been era changes ignoring WP:ERA - from BC to BCE in this case. Some are also engvar changes. Some are just arbitrary, eg [9] where he changes the correct F190 D to F190D. This one is just weird[10] he claims to be changing the Japanese date format but he isn't following Date and time notation in Japan. There are just so many bad edits I doubt that anyone is going to find time to fix them. I've done a few of the more recent ones. User:Beyond My Ken warned him about "typos' in 2018; User:BilCat warned him about unusual styles, particularly date styles. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree, those aren't typos, and this use of misleading edit summaries is wrong. Furthermore, the canned edit summaries of "Fixed typo" or "fixed typo" are in my experience often couple with bad edits, to the point that they should probably be given a vandalism score boost in anti-vandal bots, though in this case it isn't vandalism, just subpar editing. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the editor is editing via mobile, which offers a limited number of canned edit summaries which can make it look like you have no choice but to pick one. This editor may not be intending to be misleading. valereee (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee that doesn't deal with the content of their edits. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the comment was purely that the actual edit summaries might not be intentionally disingenuous. valereee (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can a bot be fashioned to make the change sitewide? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Happy to permablock him, though he doesn't actually edit that much - newest screen of contribs takes you back to Nov 2020. Or a very stiff warning. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since he’s using mobile, a warning might not be seen. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. Another case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  If a warning notice cannot be seen, then an attention-getting block is justified. I recommend this action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup in multiple aisles for copyright violation

Pretty much all content added by Josephnjata (talk · contribs) has been a copyright violation taken verbatim from sources. I've already left messages on their talk page, and the user is new, so I'm not requesting a block (unless they continue). Rather, just rev/deletion to the multiple articles they've edited. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sauce5544 refusing to source new content

The user Sauce5544 is currently engaged in a spree of additions to articles related to Egyptian modern history. Unfortunately, all of the material is unsourced, and, despite exhortation, the user seems to have their ears closed to the need to actually source the content they are adding. They've technically continued passed four warnings for the unsourced additions, but their behaviour is not typically vandalistic in nature, so advanced vetting and reporting is not really appropriate - and yet, an editor with absolutely zero interest in sourcing content is more of a hinderance than a help to the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked to try to get their attention, as this is a mobile editor. valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So what were saying here is that their content...is unsauced? *sunglasses* GeneralNotability (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

groan valereee (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

damn ... missed a trick there Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: this is probably such a simple joke, but the punchline escapes me. help lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 10:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight, it's a pun on the username and editing issue. Sauce5544, unsourced: unsauced. valereee (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand i'm retiring. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic lamentation of mobile users being unable to receive notifications

(shakes his head) At what point will the WMF clear the garbage out of their collective heads, get off their asses, and actually imbed talk page notification warnings into the mobile platform?? Ravenswing 19:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC) If Wikipedia could only get another 70 or 80 million dollars in donations, then maybe they could make that happen. As it is, they're barely keeping the servers online. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC) (raises an eyebrow) You're saying it'd take 70-80 million to put that functionality into an app?? Ravenswing 03:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Scottish-Finnish sarcasm can be hard to detect. Levivich (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC) When we elect reformist trustees, and not before. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Please elect your trustees from this list pre-approved by the establishment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Few will admit it, but that's nevertheless an improvement from letting the affiliates elect them directly. Levivich (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC) I did provide feedback on another talk page discussion directing them back to their talk page - but do mobile users really not see user talk page alerts? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC) It depends. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Hmm ... so IOS is particularly patchy ... pfft, Apple. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC) This is one of my pet peeves. I have been doing 99% of my editing on Android smartphones for over ten years. I use the fully functional but misnamed "desktop" site on my phone. If all these dysfunctional mobile apps and sites were shut down, this problem would be solved and the chronic, ongoing waste of money would come to an end. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC) How big is your screen? Levivich (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC) I've got a 5.7 inch screen on my phone, and I do a significant amount of my editing with it on the desktop site. Sometimes I archive the section on your talk page about your block, but for the most part it works reasonably well. I don't use it for making large edits, and because my phone is pretty old and low-spec, it gets pretty crappy editing large text sections, but it's still infinitely better than the app or mobile interface. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I wholeheartedly endorse Cullen328's views. These mobile apps do not have the required functionality to operate in a collaborative environment. The slightly malicious part of me suggests setting up an admin bot to indef block any user editing via one of these apps, but that would not gain traction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) 5.7" is a really big screen. I suspect Cullen has a large-screen phone, too. Desktop-on-mobile ain't the same when you're on a 3" screen. Not everyone can afford a $1,000 mobile device. So, it's important we have a functioning mobile website for small screens. Simply telling people to use desktop view because it works for you is... a first-world perspective. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "So, it's important we have a functioning mobile website for small screens." (emphasis mine). We don't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC) My phone was 70 dollars three years ago. Not exactly a $1000 flagship phone model. What 3 inch screen smart phones do you think are being used around the world? A phone that small would likely end up being even more expensive, rather than cheaper. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential massive sock/meat farm or coordinated activities on CubanoBoi/sandbox70

Ok, before you say anything, I am well aware that this is likely a case for SPI, but since this seems to be a user/IP related suspicion of this size, I’m trying to figure out the best way to put this, and your input would be greatly appreciated. So I have come across a page, and the interesting part about this is that the page was created and content was added to it, but after CubanoBoi (the page creator) finished this, he wrote “Anyone randomly getting onto this page can edit it and do what you want. I want CHAOS.” [11], essentially advertising people to vandalize the page. Within minutes of this edit posting, Bilikon (who hadn’t edited anything since March 2022), shows up and begins adding flags of random countries to the page. Following this is random additions from a wide range of IPs geolocating from different parts of the world, mainly European countries such as Germany, Croatia, Greece, and others. I also have found that multiple users, such as SlipyCVBN, Ckiddestroyer239, Yhowuwu, JackDarlo, Tjstp2021, and Massi2335, created their accounts and then proceeded (typically within 20 minutes of joining) to contribute to this one user sandbox, and as of this point, their only edits are to this one sandbox article (some of them even did it a minute after they joined). Now, I did CSD the page as being used for only vandalism (G3), however, a few minutes later, that got removed by one of the IP addresses (who geolocates to Spain and has only edited this article, as is common with most of the other IPs contributing there), and that’s when I started looking back through the article history. What struck me the most from that is the fact that a lot of the accounts and IPs contributing to this article have only contributed to this one article (a user sandbox page no less), and the fact that some of these accounts are going straight to this page minutes after joining, and if someone tries to remove a large portion of the article or tries to stop people from editing it, CubanoBoi reverts what they did and then harasses them (this has happened at least once that I’ve noticed in the article history, such as here. [12])

Now, I didn’t report this to SPI because of the number of accounts editing the page, and the fact that the IPs are literally all over the world, so establishing a clear-enough connection to warrant an SPI would be tricky to do. This leads me to believe that this may be something that was coordinated somehow, most likely outside of Wikipedia. It seems very unlikely that people would go out of their way to randomly put things on a user sandbox page and go straight to and edit only that page, as compared to a page in mainspace. That is why I brought this information here, rather than trying to make an SPI about it. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd classify that as a forum invasion. Which forum, I have no idea. It will probably want some protection, in whatever deletion state it's left in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And an update, TheTuranistBrabander did the same pattern of creating his account and then editing this article, asking why the page was blanked, which would indicate that he has previous experience with this article. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And now Tjstp2021 created his userpage and said “Welcome feel free to mess around in this,” which is basically the same thing that was suggested at that user sandbox, as mentioned before. This was likely done in response to the user sandbox getting blanked. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about individual users, though I have blocked one vandal, as most are going to be visitors from another website (and in fact many do not appear to be malicious). In terms of expediting a solution, I've asked what's supposed to be going on. It may (or may not) be more efficient than whac-a-mole. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Make that 2 vandals. It's TikTok, apparently, of course. I don't know, maybe it's calming down. Maybe User:CubanoBoi wants to take a moment to reconsider the wisdom of their strategy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And CubanoBoi states that the worst abuse happened while he was dining at an Amish restaurant lacking internet service. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• From what I can gather, here's what happened:
  • CubanoBoi, who has a history of good faith editing, wants to make a "just for fun" page that was a spoof on the Ukraine war article and thinks it would be okay to do that in his sandbox since it's back-of-house.
  • CubanoBoi makes a public invitation on social media for folks to join the fun and maybe make some memes/lore/whatever. More people than expected show up and, predictably, one of them makes some racist edits to the sandbox page.
  • CubanoBoi calls the racist a Very Bad Word and, predictably, Wikipedians zero in on this as a harassment issue.
  • After someone blanks the page and people keep editing, CubanoBoi leaves a message saying admins don't want folks to do this anymore ("this" being treating the sandbox as a playground). This seems to work.
  • Taking CubanoBoi's explanation at face value, it seems that the situation has resolved itself and CubanoBoi has learned his lesson. I don't think this needs anything more than a gentle reminder that Wikipedia sandboxes are not to be used for recreation. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

dlthewave Wrong, I called somebody who deleted half of the infobox those words, not the person who was being rascist. I was in the Amish place at that time, and before I could even see that edit it was cleared. –

CubanoBoi

• Ah yes, the old "I was in an Amish restaurant" excuse. We're hearing it more and more. Maybe we could get a WMF grant to explore the possibility of installing WiFi in Amish restaurants. Looks like there's an untapped market there. EEng 04:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I mean, we can't expect everyone will remember to bring their Ethernet cable to dinner. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Aqşin Abbaslı

Aqşin Abbaslı (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aqşin Abbaslı has multiple times tried to remove (censor) the word "Azeri" (a well establish word in English academia, often being used by WP:RS, but abhorred by the regime of Azerbaijan) with no explanation whatsoever. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen him use the edit summary thing, let alone a talk page. Saying that their talk page is filled with warnings would be putting it mild. They have warnings stretching all the way back to November 2019... the same month they started editing. Mind you, they have been reverted for ALL these diffs and warned for it, yet still continue.

1. 22 November 2019
2. 26 November 2019
3. 29 January 2020
4. 4 March 2020
5. 5 March 2020
6. 29 April 2020
7. 28 August 2021
8. 8 November 2021
9. 24 November 2021
10. 31 December 2021
11. 31 December 2021
12. 31 December 2021
13. 15 February 2022
14. 20 July 2022

And mind you, this is just disruption in one field. They have made other sort of disruptions as well, just a few examples;

1. 28 December 2021 Removed the Armenian romanization of the city name
2. 22 October 2021 Replaced "Iranian" with "Iranian Azerbaijani" under "nationality"
3. 2 June 2021 Removed the Armenian tranlisteration with no explanation

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Another mobile user. The only thing this editor has ever done on a talk page is remove someone else's thirteen-year-old comment. Probably got there by mistake and didn't even know what they were seeing. 100% nonuse of edit summaries, probably hasn't discovered them yet. This is so incredibly frustrating. The encyclopedia anyone can edit turns into the mobile app no one can use to communicate. valereee (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Starting off on the wrong foot: User:Tancredileone

Tancredileone (talk · contribs) is a brand new user who might be able to morph into a good editor if some bad behavior can be nipped in the bud, but he needs a course correction fast and I'm not sure of the best way to do this. He has managed to cause quite a little kerfuffle in only ten career edits (as of 20 July 2022, 23:20 (UTC)). BusterD summed it up best at the Teahouse:

Your disparaging tone in talk page discussions is unwelcome, and insulting other longtime and trusted contributors gets new editors like yourself off to poor start. Gaining the negative attention of three administrators with only one mainspace edit is quite impressive, but not for any good reason. —17:15, 20 July

The situation started with T's addition of a commercial catering service as a reference at the article clambake, reverted by Julietdeltalima, followed by addition of a {{uw-advert4im}} template by jdl on Tancredileone's UTP (5:42, 19 July; as page creation). The situation degraded from there. Since then, most activity has been on his UTP, including additional explanations about Refspam, and attempts to explain and point out WP:INCIVILITY. There's also some refusal to hear explanations on T's part, but the major issue is over-the-top aggressiveness in interactions with other users.

Refspam pointed out or explained to him on his UTP:

• by Julietdeltalima (15:42, 19 July) via {{uw-advert4im}}
• by Julietdeltalima (16:53, 19 July}) (own words)
• by Maproom (07:35, 20 July) (own words; at Tea house)
• by David notMD (10:44, 20 July) (own words; at Tea house)
• by Mathglot (10:58, 20 July) (own words)
• by Cullen328 (16:15, 20 July) (own words)

Civility explained at his TP:

• by Ad orientem: (15:31, 20 July)
• by Cullen328 (15:36, 20 July)
• by Ad Orientem (16:11, 20 July) (with formal warning)
• by BusterD (17:15, 20 July) (at the Tea house)

Aggressive responses by Tancredileone:

• by T (to jdl): "I really don't know who you are since you haven't mentioned it yet. Maybe you own wikipedia? Maybe you own those other websites in the references?" (06:43, 20 July)
• by T (to Mathglot) (12:53, 20 July): "[I]f I were you I would start being a little less hypocritical, aggressive and rude, and have less conflict of interests on this 'encyclopedia'. ... It seems that those 'lot of rules' apply exclusively to people that aren't in your circle of trolls so far."
• by T (to Cullen328) (16:28, 20 July): "Ok, so she can insult me and be downright offensive left alone defaming and I cannot even defend myself, good stuff, keep on shining great defenders of the peace of Wikiplanet! ... Good luck you seem to be all on the same page when it comes to harassing and attacking people,"
• Additional prickly responses at the Tea house; opener: "Hi everyone, I've recently added a reference on this page Clambake, someone attacked me rather harshly, threatening of blocking me from editing." —07:06, 20 July) (referring to the {{uw-advert4im}} placed on his UTP)

There are other minor issues, such as persistently requesting pseudonymous users to out themselves (16:29, 19 July, 06:43, 20 July, 12:53, 20 July), insisting on setting the terms of discussion himself and demands that others answer his questions ("still waiting for an answer to my question"-(06:43, 20 July), "You still haven't answered my first question"-((12:53, 20 July), "however did you even take a look at it?"-(15:50, 20 July); "now you need to sign up for a New York Times subscription in order to read that reference!"-(16:28, 20 July), which can be chalked up to growing pains, but there is a real problem in the unnecessarily aggressive attitude towards any editor who either disagrees with him, or doesn't even necessarily disagree but merely points out basic policy and guidelines that might apply to some previous edit of his. If Tancredileone can drop the battleground mentality and adopt a civil tone with others, they could become a productive editor, but I feel like the time window for a change is short and needs to be rapidly addressed.

A word for Tancredileone: if you take this as an attack on you, it isn't. I wouldn't have bothered spending all this time writing this, if I didn't think there was a possibility things could be turned around. You are still very new here; I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is intended, which is waving the yellow flag so you are aware of the seriousness of the situation, and can make a course correction before it's too late and things get even worse. This is a page on which a lot of administrators hang out. What you want to do here, is think about what's been said by multiple editors, own the behavior that's being pointed out to you, show that you understand what they are saying (even if you don't agree), and make a commitment to interact better with other editors going forward. Feel free to ask questions or make comments on my Talk page any time; I wish you good luck. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. My response has been to work all day to expand and improve the referencing of Clambake, an article that was in poor condition when I started. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixing missing ping: Ad Orientem. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the props as a possible editor, I feel like I'm the only one who stands accused not sure why, I get it some of the comments were sharp, and so was the first remark I've received, I've only replied to that tit for tat. I'm not the kind of person that gets accused or insulted in real life and says nothing. Only in real life nobody usually dares to insult me, mainly because of respect.

I've only attempted to edit a reference link on a page that as everyone agreed was in bad standing. I saw other references which were completely irrelevant (and commercial) and acted on them. Only to be greeted by this language: "This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Clambake, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising vehicle. Do not ever do this again."

Now I found that a bit much. Nobody ever took into account my good intentions and purpose. When I tried to explain what I did and why they kept going at it like I was some kind of criminal. So it seems that the "good faith" other admins invoked so much was kind of a one-way street thing. At the end of the day, just wondering is it all this publicly defaming me?

(Reason, why I asked other users to share who they actually are, is that in case you haven't noticed you have my real name while I only see pseudonymous and that felt a little creepy besides the obvious privacy issues that it entails on my end) Hope this clear things out, I understand that other users might have intervened out of good intentions, so was I in the first place. Tancredileone (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to me to be an example of why we have escalating warnings. I think a 4im spam warning for that initial edit is over-the-top - I would certainly have reverted their edit, but would have given them a level 1 'adding inappropriate links' warning, which is a lot less in your face. Their behaviour since receiving that warning has undoubtedly been over-the-top too, and way too aggressive, but this might have been avoided had they not been nibbled in the first place. Tancredileone: many editors, probably most of us, edit pseudonymously, to protect our privacy - you'll have to get used to that if you want to edit here, it's not creepy, it's the norm. As a beginner, you are going to make mistakes; people are going to point those out, and you are going to have to respond better. I agree that the initial warning was excessive, but none of the other comments on your talk page, from Mathglot or Cullen328 or Ad Orientem, were aggressive or insulting. You need to put yourself in learner mode: if you don't understand something someone has said, don't get angry, ask for guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for chiming in @Girth Summit, ok I put myself in a learner mode. However I still have a public reputation online and all these pages are publicly defaming me. Therefore these are the options I can envision moving forward:

  1 - We forget this all happened *lesson learned and we leave it behind us, deleting all the defaming accusations with my REAL NAME on it (all of the pages containing my name as well as URLs User talk:Tancredileone Starting off on the wrong foot: User:Tancredileone).

  2 - You allow me to edit my name out and use a pseudonymous just like you all are doing.

  3 - If none of the above options work, we would have to ask what the competent authorities think of this and possibly if left no recourse take legal action.

  I'm looking forward to a detailed reply ASAP possibly from an admin @Mathglot, or someone who can address this officially. Thank you. Tancredileone (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Legal threat. Block needed!! This one needs to get a WP:CLUE. - Roxy the mindfulness dog 08:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have blocked Tancredileone for making the above legal threat. Any admin may unblock them without consulting me if they make an unblock request in which they withdraw the threat. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tancredileone, I've responded at your talk page. (P.S., I'm not an admin.) Mathglot (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand Girth Summit's concerns. I don't usually go to 4im, except when a new user's only edit is to add a link to the website of a small business to an article related to the purpose of that business, in a manner suggesting no attention to detail or familiarity with the encyclopedia's style and content (this seems to happen most often, at least on my watchlist, with household maintenance and repair businesses, followed closely by niche food/beverage providers/makers), as was the case here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

On closer examination of the circumstances, including some off-wiki stuff which I won't mention here, I actually think the 4im warning was justified, along with a similar warning for UPE. Happy days... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Tancredileone is open about his real name, and he himself added the link that exposes the off-wiki connection - so I don't think it's any outing violation to point out that he was promoting one of his own clients. And having seen the connection, I lost all sympathy. He might be regretting any possible damage to his online reputation, but *he* did the damage, not Wikipedia - and his aggressive threatening behaviour should absolutely not be tolerated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by IP 24.191.115.221

Resolved

 – Blocked again for three months

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

24.191.115.221, User blocked previously on July 6th for 2 weeks. Immediately after returning, July 20th, user made a unsourced/vandalism edit to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim with factually incorrect info, which was accompanied with false (yet plausible) citations (One citation was Twitter, which is another can of worms in its own right). The citations were for the announcement of 3 unrelated shows on Adult Swim but the citations were plausible without further digging. User has a fairly extensive history of prior vandalism, primarily to television pages, and has made similar high effort vandalism attempts in the past. This edit is in line with the prior MO this user was banned for originally. Etriusus (Talk) 00:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional unconstructive/deliberately false edit(s) since final warning was given:

• Minnie Mouse here
• Pandalian here, and here
• Galaga: Destination Earth here

Important correction: User was blocked for 'Block Evasion'. User was still warned multiple times about vandalizing pages for disruptive editing and vandalism. Etriusus (Talk) 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, it seems that ip needs to be blocked again but this time for longer. Chip3004 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• The user was previously blocked for long-term abuse but this is not one I'm familiar with. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Malcolmxl5: I originally became aware of this user when reviewing the Pending Changes Log and his edit had waited for a few hours without review. The edit in question here involved the IP user adding Pandalian to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. The addition was accompanied by two refs which, upon further inspection, did not support the addition. In fact one of those refs was twitter of all places. I took an interest when I saw the had been previously banned and this user seems to have a history of making plausible yet factually incorrect edits (i.e. here) in what I suspect is a subtler attempt at vandalism.

  After sending them a 4im warning on the talk page, the user made a handful of similarly plausible but factually incorrect claims. Claiming Pandalian again was on Adult Swim here, without citation, just to name one. The exhaustive list is already posted above. Looking at their contribution history, there are a large number of examples, none of which fill me with any hope this user is willing to turn a new leaf. This is me very much nipping the issue in the bud. I'll ping @Daniel Case: since he was involved with the original ban. Etriusus (Talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this user again, for three months. I used "block evasion" since the filters have identified the edits with a long-term abuser, but I can't remember which one. Anyhow, it doesn't matter for the time being. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

This IP address is making personal attacks to editors who revert his edits.

I have feeling that this IP address may belong to a long term abuse user named Blue Barrette Bam. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you protect the page The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)? He's coming back with different IPs.

IPs blocked. Page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Pindrice being uncivil in edit summaries

• Pindrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I placed a warning on Pindrice's talk page regarding uncivil statements against S.A. Julio in edit summaries at 2022 CONCACAF W Championship and 2022 Women's Africa Cup of Nations. I reverted Pindrice's edits in the two articles to maintain formatting consistency with other high-level football tournaments listing own goals with the edit summary for consistency with other articles. Also, be mindful of what you say in your edit summaries. See your talk page. I then observed identical edit summaries at 2022 Copa América Femenina and 2022 AFC Women's Asian Cup and was about to amend my warning when I discovered that Pindrice had blanked their talk page. I proceeded to revert the edits at the third and fourth articles and considered the matter settled as Pindrice was obviously aware of the warning I had placed.

I have since discovered that Pindrice has continued their uncivil language in edit summaries toward not only S.A. Julio but also myself at 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship, 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship (women), and 2022 AFF Women's Championship, so the matter is not settled. I take Pindrice's blanking of their talk page as an indication they do not wish to engage directly, so I am bringing this here in the hopes that Pindrice learns to be more civil in their edit summaries and to exhibit less ownership of article content and formatting. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Pindrice notified / S.A. Julio notified — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This also seems to apply to the following IP : User:2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What is uncivi in my comments for the edits ? There is nothing uncivil ! This is so subjective. You only want me to be quite and to disappear because you want nobody to argue with you. If I'm ban, shame on you, really ! Pindrice (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In my edits I said this was your ideas to do this kind of edits, not mine. I'm in my right to not agree with you ! Pindrice (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Pindrice one of your favorite edit summaries recently is JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT, YOU'RE RIDICULOUS. All in bold is considered shouting. Why are you shouting? Please explain to all of us here at this noticeboard how this edit summary does not violate the clear-cut policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Do you think that you are exempt from this policy? Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pindrice: I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but to argue about formatting and content in edit summaries is highly inappropriate, and pointed statements like the ones you made border on personal attacks. Article talk pages and user talk pages exist for those types of discussions. The fact you continually blank your talk page is, in my opinion, evidence that you are aware of that fact and choose to ignore it. I also wonder whether this edit to your talk page was you editing while logged out or if there is an IP vandal involved. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that your posts were civil when a cursory glance at your contribs would very clearly prove otherwise is not a good look. Also, while you are permitted to remove talk page notices, the fact that you do so without any acknowledgement of any WP:NPA breach at all is not acceptable. Communication is required on this project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history they almost never actually use the edit summaries to let others know what they changed. Gusfriend (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is bordering on WP:CIR. While not the most extreme case, the fact remains, you have to be able to collaborate with other and cope with disagreements without instantly shouting and getting aggressive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The overlap in areas of editing between Pindrice and 2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7 is too great for me to ignore. It may be a case of Pindrice not checking "Keep me logged in" on the login page, but the regular switching between logged-in and logged-out editing seems almost WP:DUCKish. I've added userlinks for the IP at the top of this section as well. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Continuous Vandalism and removal of warnings

User LionAjk who I believe is a sock puppet has vandalized numerous articles and has received warning from editors. Whenever he or she receives the warnings the refresh their talk page and go on vandalizing. Uricdivine (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You have made an allegation of socking without naming the master or providing any evidence. Indeed, you have provided no diffs at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason I included socking is because. 1. As a new editor it took me months to learn some of the things the user in question has done in just two days. Meaning maybe he was an editor who was banned before and has created a new account. Again he is still vandalising pages, the sock puppet allegations is not a hill am willing to die on, I would rather want admins to look into continuous Vandalism and destructive edits. Uricdivine (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User has just received a(nother) final warning for blanking Religion in the Middle East as well as a 3RR warning. User did give a rationale for removing the text in their first edit summary,[13] so it's not obvious bad-faith removal. They do need to discuss it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours by Rosguill for edit warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Reporting 66.65.110.16

The IP address 66.65.110.16 has been making very biased changes to the article on Jonas Mekas (and, recently, the Naujosios Birzu zinios Wikipedia article). These edits are geared towards obscuring Mekas's role in working for two far right and Nazi-collaborationist newspapers during World War II in Lithuania, both in the lead section as well as the controversy section. This IP address only edits the aforementioned pages, and persistently deletes well-sourced, cited content from the pages. This is a very serious violation of Wikipedia's ethics and norms. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the IP address's edit history and there is a pattern there of removing information from the Jonas Mekas article. I posted a warning on the talk page for the IP address.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Problematic editing. Range blocked needed?

IPs geolocating to Dubai have been vandalizing a few articles. Articles common to more than one IP:

• Alvin and the Chipmunks in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of The Muppets productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rolie Polie Olie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Seville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IPs and articles if only vandalized by that anon:

• 2001:8f8:1735:ff21:8d1c:bb0f:7119:ca41 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Boonie Bears: Back to Earth
  • List of Horrid Henry episodes
• 2001:8f8:1735:ff21:5df2:39a2:143a:67a9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:d67:bc9a:6ac3:57b5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Ross Bagdasarian Jr.
• 2001:8F8:1737:69FB:7133:EE81:12AF:8FB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:c9b4:fce0:a1d4:7354 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1735:ff21:2015:2116:86a6:b5d2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Jason Lee (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:2d85:11bd:3693:2333 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:c0c2:542f:ca26:d62b (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Should I leave a ANI notice on all these IP talk pages? Given the rather rapid rate of IP changes, it seems unlikely the message would seen; and a waste of server space. Adakiko (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have protected the first four articles based on the level of long term disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The range looks to be 2001:8f8:1734::/46 (User contributions for 2001:8F8:1734:0:0:0:0:0/46 - Wikipedia). I am not super familiar with range sizes but this looks to be pretty large to me. That said, as I am going through the contrib log it's clear that a very large percentage of edits have been reverted. Question for more experienced admins; is this range too large to block? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping Oshwah... thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The IPs listed are two /64 subnets: 2001:8f8:1735:ff21::/64 and 2001:8f8:1737:69fb::/64. It may be worth blocking the first but not the second. The user may move on to another /64 subnet but we can reassess the situation if that happens. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, both /64s are clearly the same person and they've moved from the 69FB block to the FF21 one. So I've  Done blocked that /64 for a week. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Good call here - that's how I would've proceeded. Ad Orientem - Thank you for the ping; please do so at any time and I will be happy to assist. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Attention drummers: IP making unsubstantiated technical equipment changes on drummers' articles

199.188.85.46 (talk)

I don't know enough about drummers and drums to be able to assess this IP's unexplained edits, but they all look like vandalism. I think they should all be reverted and the IP blocked as a VOA. (Came to my attention when he vandalized an opera singer's article, for a bit of variety I suppose.) Thanks to anyone who can help. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 you know about this stuff, right? Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Softlavender The edits look superficially plausible, but are all unsourced. Revert per WP:V and block if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333. I reverted all that could be rolled back. The IP is still vandalizing today, after a final warning from me last night. Could you please block him as a VOA?

I'd also like to alert Binksternet, who has been removing the uncited equipment fancruft on these types of articles. Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Generally, the details of a drummer's drum kit and related gear are not encyclopedia material. Sometimes, the full drum kit has been analyzed by a WP:SECONDARY source such as a drummer's magazine, which is the ideal situation, but even then the full list of gear is a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's enough to say that the drummer uses a drum kit made by Ludwig with cymbals by Zildjian, heads by Remo, drum sticks by ProMark, or whatever. If there is some special additional gear (drum triggers, drum machine) they can be mentioned briefly. Primary sources are good enough to establish that the drummer represents a particular drum manufacturer, and has a signature line of equipment named after them. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Costatifrons

Costatifrons (talk · contribs) has been making numerous disruptive edits primarily of two specific types: changing links to avoid redirects (contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN), and capitalizing the first letter of piped links / changing links to piped links and capitalizing the first letter thereof (unnecessary per MOS:PIPE, resulting in a zero-difference edit that only exists to spam watchlists and irritate people). There are also a variety of assorted minor edits with no, or slight negative, effects on the article (notably this edit removing a language wrapper which has been made and reverted repeatedly, also found at [14]- see Line 88 in the History of France sidebar in the diff). These habits have been addressed on their talk page on two occasions by three users including an admin, to no effect. Thepsyborg (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

References

It is not the only types of edits I make. I have many times updated international goals. Costatifrons (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it has been reported here and Costatifrons replied they made this edit contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN as well as introducing an error in use of he/him. I would also note that changes like this are a really bad idea as the page that is no longer being linked may at some stage be expanded especially if the redirect used the template {{R with possibilities}}. Gusfriend (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you English speakers have lost the ability to distinguish between object and subject. It must not be object only because it is last in the sentence. It is actually a shortening of "as drunk as he was" and it proves subject is right. Costatifrons (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope. See https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/i-or-me. “Than” can act as a preposition. English is a slippery language: lots of things that look ill-formed are not.

Anyway, that’s getting away from the main point: changing links to avoid redirects is a bad idea. See WP:NOTBROKEN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you made the change to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada since your last update here? Specifically this edit where you replaced [[Emergency Operations Centre]] with [[Emergency operations center]]? Whilst the change was contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN it also changes centre to center contrary to the {{Use Canadian English|date=December 2020}} notice at the top of the page and the fact that it is referred to as the Emergency Watch and Response Centre (according to the page linked from the existing reference). It should also be capitalised as it refers to the official name of the organisation. Your [[Roche Diagnostics|Roche Molecular Systems]] to [[Roche]] Molecular Systems also meant that rather than being sent via a redirect to the "Diagnostics" section of the Roche page. In this particular case you actually skipped a page that has a history, was merged into the Roche page and may be split there in the future so linking to the redirect is a good thing. Gusfriend (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Gusfriend (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I can not understand why the article name is Emergency operations center if Emergency Operations Centre is the right name. Costatifrons (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is named Emergency operations center, because it's a generic article about the topic and is written in U.S. English since the idea originated in the US. But the article COVID-19 pandemic in Canada uses Canadian English, because it's an article about Canada. So in referring to the concept in the article COVID-19 pandemic in Canada the name Emergency Operations Centre is correct, but the link goes via redirect to the article about the general concept. Each name is correct in the context in which it is used. Jahaza (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a guideline about the version of English to use, which you can review at WP:ENGVAR. Jahaza (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User: Mquintana28

Mquintana28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has - seven times! - made the same change to Big Brother 24 (American season), changing the name of the city of one contestant, despite repeated notices both in edit summaries and warnings on their talk page that we go by the information provided on the CBS website. Their only communication was tonight in this edit summary - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&diff=1099692399&oldid=1099681213 - "Siesta Key is part of Sarasota... It does't matter what CBS says, I'm from Sarasota as well and Siesta Key is just an Island." Not a serious problem, but still frustrating to have to clean up every few days. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What? If you watch the feeds, She contestant Herself said She lives in Sarasota. I am also from Sarasota and Siesta Key is part of Sarasota...

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/entertainment/television/2022/07/06/big-brother-cast-2022-the-challenge-usa-florida-women-competing/7819105001/

https://theancestory.com/alyssa-snider-2/ Mquintana28 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This user has now made this reversion four times this evening. Again, we go by the original source on the CBS website. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up, this is starting to approach edit warring from Mquintana28's side. They've been reverted by myself and Bgsu98, and continue to revert, despite us mentioning the source cited in the article. Here's the diffs, all from within the last 24 hours: [15], [16], [17], and [18]. They're also no longer using edit summaries and have, to my knowledge, made to attempt to begin a discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

They've also been warned on their page (here) of proper discussion etiquette by me, and continues to revert. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the shown itself clearly shows the contestant is from Sarasota.

https://i.imgur.com/dTwZFCr.png Mquintana28 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if you brought these points up on the article talk page, either way the WP:STATUSQUO should remain in place while discussion takes place and a consensus is reached. You should NOT continue to revert to your preferred version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We are up to five reversions tonight. 🙄 Bgsu98 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna suggest you also stop reverting for now. We don't want to clog/disrupt the article history by edit warring. Now that it's brought here, an admin should respond soon and once they do, we can probably revert until proper discussion takes place, if the editor is willing to participate. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not touching it anymore. Not worth the hassle. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The fifth revert in question for any reviewing admins. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Jingiby

Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding dubious and irrelevant content to articles on topics related to Macedonia (see this and this) and engages in spiteful discussions with other users who warn him on the previously established consensus (see this). The user has been blocked for similar engagements multiple times in the past, with the last indefinite block being lifted after three years. I don't think that blocking a user is the right sanction for disruptive editing on a single topic, so imposing a ban from the topic "Macedonia" would be more efficient in my opinion. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone. A while ago I have got a message on my talk page about opening this discussion from the editor who started it. I find that I have been accused of some disruptive editing on 2 articles. However I don't understand why this happened without ending the discussion on the Macedonian language article talk page where is one. Also, there was no discussion at all on the second article's talk page about Hristian Mickoski. Regarding my edit on the page for the Macedonian language when requested a source with a citation, I have added one and there there are not any changes in the main text. I was treated rudely on the talk page there, and I was accused of being a paid editor supported by a government official for my work on Wikipedia. I do not accept this as a normal behaviour. As for the article about Mickoski, the text that is the subject of dispute concerns the contradictions with him, related to his attitude towards Bulgaria and the paradox that his wife has Bulgarian citizenship. Sources have been presented for the veracity of these circumstances and I don't see what the problem is. If I have to be completely honest, the political relations between Bulgaria and North Macedonia are very tense at this moment. At the moment in North Macedonia is one of the peaks of Bulgarophobia in recent years and the Bulgarians feel somewhat affected. Probably this also affects the editors from these two countries who write here. In this regard, I would like to point out that I am one of the best experts on the Macedonian issue here, and for years this has not pleased some of the editors from North Macedonia, who periodically try to report me here with some proposals like today's. I do not accept that there are real grounds for imposing on me any specific restrictions on the subject of topics related to Macedonia, due to an alleged but unproven destructive redactions. However, if someone is personally affected by my edits, I would apologize for that. Thank you everyone. Jingiby (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project where community discussions lead up to consensus, so making changes that violate its policies and previous discussions is uncollaborative and disruptive. In this particular case, your behaviour in the articles on the Macedonian language and on Hristijan Mickoski is out of the spirit of Wikipedia.

• Macedonian language is an article which attracted a lot of tense discussions in the past and was even subject to arbitration with a clear outcome. Therefore, it's highly recommended to check the archived discussions (in some of which you were a participant) to get familiar with the community's stance on the matter. Furthermore, your disputed edit can't be allowed in the article until the issue is resolved on the talk page, so this revert can be properly considered an act of edit warring.
• Hristijan Mickoski is an article to which WP:BLP applies and adding libelous opinions by individuals, such as this one, is totally out of the spirit of an encyclopedia.

I really don't know how a user, who has been editing Wikipedia for so many years and has been instructed zillion times about its policies, can add the sentence "According to the MEP Andrey Kovachev, Mickoski is an extreme Bulgarophobe" in an article on a living person. That's definitely not a good-faith contribution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that in the case with Mickoski, it is about political bias. The man in question is considered in Bulgaria to be a person who often takes extreme anti-Bulgarian positions. If this is indeed the case, and there are reliable sources for such claims, I see no reason why this should not be reflected in the article about this person. However, it is about information in the "controversies" section. It does not highlight the positive qualities of people, even if they are alive. As for the article about the Macedonian language, I will repeat that adding an academic source, even if this was requested by another editor, is not a violation.Jingiby (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment These are content issues, read WP:RfC and seek input from the wider community to solve them. You are wasting time here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As currently am interested in editing something related to Macedonia and Bulgaria, and in the past had constructive instances with Jingiby, am a bit stunned by the report and probably reluctant to engage any articles related to those countries. It is taking things way out of proportions. The edits by Jingiby were done using reliable sources, attributed and in appropriate sections (as per NPOV). I didn't saw any problem with Jingiby's editing in the last 5 years, at least on articles I worked on. I would advise everyone to continue or start discussing at article talk pages considering WP:BRD instead of immediately reporting an editor for bold edits.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Ktrimi991: We can't open an RfC and waste someone's time for every single edit a user insists on in an article. That's a perfect example of disruptive editing that should be prevented. @Miki Filigranski: I don't see how adding the opinion of an individual Bulgarian politician that someone is a "Bulgarophobe", which was published in the headline of a Bulgarian news website, justifies WP:BRD. This is not about who's right on what. It's about Wikipedia and its policies. If Wikipedia were a place where everyone could add personal opinions exchanged between celebrities and published in tabloids, then who knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I see editors insisting on their own almost every day - I do not report them. I have insisted in some cases on my edits for weeks - nobody reported me for that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that this user was blocked for similar things multiple times and still doesn't show to have learnt anything from it. Therefore, imposing a ban from the topic "Macedonia" would solve the problem for good even without a block.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: the editor literally done only two same edits at Macedonian language with one revert (small discussion at talk page started only two days ago), while at Hristijan Mickoski both of you are edit warring since 9 July and both of you didn't start discussing at talk page. Wikipedia is a (team)work in progress, don't rush the edits, but also don't postone discussing and dispute resolutions. Reports to ban or block someone are rarely a solution. This is starting to look like a witchhunt.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussing with the wider community whether the sentence According to the MEP Andrey Kovachev, Mickoski is an extreme Bulgarophobe belongs in an article on a living person and whether the text "The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the communist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian". should appear in an article that has been subject to arbitration is totally absurd. And it's completely irrelevant if such claims appear in sources or not. There is an academic community supporting the flat earth theory, but it doesn't mean that we need a community consensus that the Earth is not flat. There always has to be a red line for what's worth discussing and what's not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're taking things out of proportion and yes, it should be discussed. There's nothing absurd about discussing things especially not these which are part of NPOV/WEIGHT, sometimes simply is nedeed to have again a discussion. The scientific debate & viewpoint of Macedonian language identity and relation to Bulgarian language is totally not on the level of flat Earth theory. Actually, it is the only solution to not have (war-)edits with such, for you worthless and controversial, information or viewpoint in the future.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. You've clearly stated your opinion, so let's see what do others, especially administrators, think on the matter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: Not again. This is the 3rd (or 4th time?) that User:Jingiby is being reported on Macedonia topic area-related content disagreements. This is plainly unacceptable to see happening. I gotta agree with editors Miki Filigranski and Ktrimi991 and I would advice Kiril Simeonovski that they try to discuss with Jingiby at the Talk page instead of reporting them and asking for a topic ban. A topic ban is a serious measure and is meant to act more as a preventative step aiming at protecting a topic area and preventing wide-range POV disruption from occuring to it. A topic ban is not an appropriate punishment for a disagreement between two editors. I don't think the admins even have to hear our opinions here at all. It is recommended that this case is closed and the filler is encouraged into using dispute resolution procedures instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: Since I have joined Wikipedia, I have encountered Jingiby across numerous articles relating to the Macedonia topic area. Despite the fact that we tend to sit on opposite sides of the fence (for example, 1), I find Jingiby to be a user focused on making quality edits with valid sources that meet WP:RS. In fact, he helps to undo vandalism and check/evaluate many edits across articles in the Macedonia topic area and it would be wrong to topic ban him on something he contributes to in a positive way. Especially for something that seems to be a content-related disagreement, hence why we have the whole idea of TP's. Botushali (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SilentResident and Botushali: Do you think that expressions such as “extreme Bulgarophobe”, “obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists” and “mandated by the communist-led partisan movement” are acceptable and in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view? The main problem here is the abrasive language used in the edits. This is an encyclopedia, not a flea market.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: regarding the edited words on Macedonian language article, are you really accusing the editor for words he didn't even write nor edit into main text yet a reference quote stated by Dennis P. Hupchick? The quote itself isn't even controversial and outside of what can be found at Macedonian language#Political views on the language and articles Political views on the Macedonian language.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia with well-established policies on the language and style used across articles. If something appears in reliable sources, it doesn’t mean that it can be readily quoted. There are zillions of academic publications in which authors use such language on different topics, but that doesn’t make an argument that Wikipedia has to adjust its policies to accept it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'd argue there's at least a behavioral element here. Jingiby has inserted Bulgaria into barely-related articles to the point that Cincinnati chili ended up under DS sanctions for the Balkans and EE because they insisted the exact ethnicity of the inventors of this midwestern-US spiced meat sauce was important in understanding the article subject and wanted to support the insertion with OR, synth, an interview with one of the inventors' nephews, etc. Which is silliness. This takes up almost the entire content of an archive there, which is ridiculous for a US food item. Jingiby isn't unwilling to discuss and compromise, but certainly a lot of my own time went into trying to prevent insertion of nationalistic content w/re Bulgaria. I think warning them that this is taking up other editors' time without improving the encyclopedia for readers is not a ridiculous idea. valereee (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello valereee. We had some disagreements a while ago, but I think a compromise was always reached. People are different though. Jingiby (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby, yes, and I said above that you weren't unwilling to discuss/compromise. valereee (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t want to look like a witch-hunter because I generally don’t support blocking users at all (I even unblocked this same user on the Macedonian Wikipedia after he had been blocked for three years.), but imposing a (temporal) ban from a topic to a user who hasn’t learnt much from the mistakes made in the past seems to be a very reasonable solution to me. Wikipedia is a learning environment. Users who have been blocked for something in the past should come back and revisit their behaviour so that it’s not repeated again. I understand that some participants in this discussion seek the solution in a discussion with the user, which is a textbook recommendation, but that’s something which was done many time before and apparently to no avail. So, starting a new discussion with the user in order to explain that the behaviour is unacceptable is like talking to a brick wall. That’s why we shouldn’t invest someone’s time in discussions on minor things that didn’t have success in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This proposal is not serious. In the recent years, Jingiby has established himself as (1) competent in the topics he is contributing to; (2) a participant of positive attitude, respectful of those who do not share his views; and (3) always willing to listen different opinions, discuss and compromise. Users like Jingiby are valuable assets of English Wikipedia who help improve the quality of Wikipedia project, and whose effort deserves tribute. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Apcbg, when an editor requires other editors to make lengthy arguments about whether Bulgaria belongs in Cincinnati chili, it becomes less of a valuable asset and more of a net negative. There comes a point at which civil disagreement becomes sealioning. I am not saying Jingiby is there. I am saying that claiming "This proposal is not serious" is disingenuous. valereee (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee, my thesis was that this culinary product (Cincinnati chili) was invented by Macedonian Bulgarians, i.e. Kiradjieff brothers, which is an indisputable fact. However, this circumstance is taboo and does not appear in the article about it till today. Jingiby (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not about Cincinnati chili, it's about the ethnic identity and self-identification of the American (same for Canadian, Australian etc.) immigrants from Aegean Macedonia, Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia, an issue that, besides chili, proves relevant to quite a few Wiki articles and probably warrants a unified approach. Best, Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Legal Threat

178.138.34.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) diff Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Add WP:BLP and WP:NPA to the mix, diff, edit summary here, likely the same user based on behavior. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

178.138.34.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) left a clear legal threat on my talk page here Also has been adding unsourced content to George Sand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Adakiko (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a silly and boastful legal threat by a loudmouth, but it's time for bye-byes here anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The anon had changed IPs edited George Sand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as 178.138.99.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adakiko (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected George Sand for a week, but I've also blocked the range for the same time, as they have been vandalising elsewhere and everything from that range recently has been vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User: Kurdish Urd

• Diff - removes and rephrases "Azerbaijani language" with following comment: "go out of there"
• Diff - edit wars. Adding information about Afshars and asking other editor to "Bro pls stop and leave the english wikipedia"
• Diff - again edit wars and again trying to insert information about Afshars
• Diff - again edit wars and again trying to insert information about Afshars with following comment "Vandalism by Azeri nationalist"
• Diff - again edit wars and again trying to insert information about Afshars with following comment "Vandalism of Azeri nationalist"

I wont list all of his edits, but all of them are similar. Looks like this user is WP:NOTHERE, and I am not sure, but I believe that it is sock of this user who was doing similar edits, showed identical behavior and was banned.

--Abrvagl (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if this edit with following comment "It doesnt and brainwashed azeris like you should go out of this platform and nadir shah was afshar persian you idiot!" was done by the same user or not, but it is obvious that page is targeted by someone. Can we have some protection againt vandalism applied to Panah Ali Khan page? Thanks! Abrvagl (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed - it'd be nice if someone could request a global lock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've just semi-protected the article for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

102.91.30.36

Vandalism: diff. VilerIT (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

based on Diff you provided, It definitley Looks like vandalism Chip3004 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, VilerIT! We don’t usually do anything about one single incident of vandalism except revert it (which you did — thanks!) and drop the editor in question a warning template like {{uw-vand1}}. The vast majority of vandals never vandalise, or edit, again, so we don’t waste time and energy on them. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 20:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to act quickly and possibly prevent further vandalism by reporting the vandal to the administrators, so I did not have time to read the rules about this whole process of reporting incidents. I also apparently reported a case of vandalism to a wrong noticeboard :) Thank you for letting me know. VilerIT (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange IP behavior?...

• 2601:981:4401:1CC0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.235.155.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm honestly not sure what's going on here exactly, but the behavior coming from the IP and range seems weird... they're often manual reverting their own edits, which in turn is leading to some sort of self-edit warring? Either that, or it's two different people, but I don't think that's the case given how similar the edit summary styles are. Similarly, the edit summary style (with each word having a capital letter) seems similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Cena Fan 2002 to me, but not idea if it's actually the case. Either way, would love this IP/range to be looked into a bit. Thanks. (FYI- I found thing ongoing due to their recent edits on Blue's Clues- also take a look at Talk:Blue's Clues#Edit Conflict 22/07/2022, as I'm not the only one confused by the behavior going on here.) Magitroopa (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Also noting that both IPs have received blocks in the past- seemingly for the same (strange) behavior still going on. Magitroopa (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a method of trying to hide vandalism. See the history of Blue's Clues as an example. The user is edit warring with themselves, after making an edit to vandalise the article. So here a small bit of text is removed, and then another edit and the second edit is undone. The article history bills up with junk, and anyone not paying close attention may miss the original vandalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:173.216.5.44 (talk): Editing issues

Michawn2003 was working on the page Comparison of MUTCD-influenced traffic signs, and then, IP 173.216.5.44, and Michawn2003 began an edit war on that page. After that, Michawn2003 left a dicussion here on the article's talk page, then User:Rschen7754 protected the page for 48 hours so I've decided to leave a message on the IP's talk. I requested the user to block the IP here at: User talk:Rschen7754#IP 173.216.5.44. 2600:1700:6180:6290:60CB:CA76:257F:41DC (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethno-nationalist editing by user:Aloisnebegn

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

1. Tried to remove 10k of WP:RS sourced content on the Pan-Turkism article. Edit summary: "extremely biased and full of unreliable sources"[19]
2. Idem on the Pan-Turkism article. Edit summary: "Extremely biased and presents debated scientific arguments as facts."[20]
3. Tried to remove content from the lede that is very well sourced and explained in the body of the article, and also passes WP:LEDE. Edit summary: "no source"[21]
4. Tried to tagbomb the Pan-Turkism article. No edit summary/explanation, nor any talk page section created by Aloisnebegn.[22]
5. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 2).[23]
6. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 3)[24]
7. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 4). Edit summary: "If you disagree with the explanation in talk page, please open a section there. Instead of getting into an edit war and using vague phrases like 'you are creating noise'.)"[25]
8. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 5). No edit summary/explanation[26]
9. Tries to question the legitimacy of the Armenian genocide. Comment: "In whole article I almost only see Taner Akçam and other Armenian historians' citations, while there are differing views about this genocide."[27]
10. Tried to have the Sèvres Syndrome article deleted, a well sourced article explaining one of the many paramount conspiracy theories in Turkey.[28]
11. Tried to tagbomb the Sèvres Syndrome article after realizing they are unable to delete it from Wikipedia.[29]
12. Tried to remove WP:RS content from the Greeks article.[30]
13. Tried to insert tags in the Armenian genocide article at all cost in order to undermine content that in their view could somehow defame Turkey (attempt number 1[31], attempt number 2[32], attempt number 3)[33]
14. Warned on many occassions on their talk page.

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user:Aloisnebegn is not here to build this encyclopaedia, and are solely here on a single purpose mission in order to remove anything that doesn't suit their irredentist pro-Turkish POV. Pinging involved editors Buidhe, ZaniGiovanni and Ohnoitsjamie. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed Aloisnebegn editing a couple of pages I have watchlisted; The continued content removal and edit-wars in Sèvres Syndrome, later launching an AfD with subpar reasoning [34] that is unanimously voted to Keep, same edit-wars in Pan-Turkism with subpar edit-summaries and no explanation on talk even after being repeatedly asked to gain consensus and warned on talk by various editors, and the last straw was edit-warring (again) and putting cn tags in Armenian genocide lead when they were repeatedly told that sources were in the article body, all of this is just extremely bad faith and I agree that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

My only comments are that Aloisnebegan made at least 3 reverts on the 1rr article Armenian genocide continuing after being warned. Additionally, Taner Akcam is not Armenian and it could be considered a BLP violation to call him that in order to discredit his scholarship . (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would support some sort of block for this behavior. I think it should be finite at this point; see if that straightens up their behavior. Maybe like a week or so and explain what they'v done wrong with some advice. Any disruption after that, I think and indef would be appropriate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - The user is very new to the Wikipedia. He has like 100 edits. Sort of block(or TBAN?) would be appropriate here, that way they will get a chance to learn basics of the Wikipedia and good faith editing. If they show similar behavior after that - ifdef would be appropriate. Abrvagl (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:SouthernCaliforniaExploration

[35] user making threats with a history of unproductive editing. Andrevan@ 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I filed a report at UAA as misleading and implies shared use, but the report was denied. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: To be clear, since I've seen this come up with you a few times at UAA, including today, "Seems like a company name" or even "Is a company name" are not on their own reasons to block. There's a whole lot of companies called "Flight Time", but you're not getting blocked over it. I don't see any companies called, verbatim, "Southern California Exploration", although I see two containing that as a substring. Anyways, mostly tangential, but I thought I'd address that. I see I gave this user AMPOL and abortion DS alerts back in May... Gonna take a look now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tamzin: I wasn't necessarily expecting a block, CHU would of been fine, Flight Time Enterprises, FlightTime corp are a little different. Why don't we just chalk it up to perception. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, perception, yes, but your perception appears to be at odds with policy. If you think someone should change their username, but their username is not a clear WP:UPOL violation (e.g. a corporate-sounding username with no promotion of such a company), the correct venue is discussing with the user, and then WP:RFC/N if that fails, not UAA or AN/I. Please don't report usernames to UAA just for being corporate-sounding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Have reviewed... Adding unreliably-sourced negative information to a BLP in a DS area one is aware of, and then doubling down by threatening battleground editing and administrative action based on a legally absurd WP:FREESPEECH argument is... not good. SCE, is this the kind of behavior we can expect from you as an editor going further? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• There's no doubt that the link offered by Andrevan raises concerns about this users conduct. With that said, I did take a very brief look at this users contribution history, and I didn't see any obvious signs of chronic misbehavior. I think it should also be noted that they are a new editor, and we should becareful to not bite a new comer. I would not be supportive of a ban or block at this time. Instead, a warning about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND should be a good first step for their behavior. Additionally, they should be directed to review editing guidelines and policies, notably WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:RSP to know what mainstream sources are usable or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe we should let this editor speak for themselves first. Andrevan@ 01:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Biting newcomers for using NYPost when the statements presented by NYPost are factual is the problem. Community deciding one of the most read newspapers is evil because of "things" will inevitably lead to friction when good-faith right leaning editors try and edit using a newspaper they read every day. So, while their response is out of line and extreme, I understand their position that it looks like Wikipedia is "protecting" AOC and censoring them. Slywriter (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Whoa there. The user was making threats. The NY Post is not a reliable source. Andrevan@ 01:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Neither Andrevan's revert nor his talkpage post reads like "biting newcomers" to me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Andrevan was calm, so bite was inappropriate to characterize his comments. Just pointing out that when a new editor gets reverted because NYPost isn't a reliable source while its a newspaper they read every day can cause a reaction especially in AP, especially when right-wing editors already feel wikipedia is biased as they do not understand why NYPost is considered an unreliable source. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Slywriter, I think this is fair as far as it goes, and if the gravamen of the user's complaint had been, "I don't understand why I can't cite the New York Post," then I think you would have a compelling argument. But throw in the inapposite appeal to the First Amendment, a rather grandiose understanding of the Post's place in society, and strangely escalatory threats, and it raises red flags for me. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  User's response to my warning them was to get on the talk page and yell a WP:LEGALTHREAT. Andrevan@ 02:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where did the user commit a WP:LEGALTHREAT? Can you provide a diff? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  The same diff I linked, maybe it's not an explicit legal threat, but they invoked their rights and WP:FREESPEECH and threatened to report me. It's legal-threat-adjacent. Andrevan@ 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agree as I see 1st Amendment grandstanding followed by a threat to go to the Admins. Chilling would be more accurate than legal threat. Neither good. And it was predicated on a false belief that NYPost was deemed unreliable by you alone. I don't have a great answer on how to handle because they are totally wrong, but chasing them away every time they dip into AP isn't the answer either. Maybe AP needs the 30/500 of P/I to prevent bad experiences early on or we need not quite ANI for newcomers. Slywriter (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  As a side note, the NY Post is widely considered unreliable for good reason, your personal viewpoint or this editor's nonwithstanding. And even if that were not the case, this is not the place to litigate that. Andrevan@ 02:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just pointing out how quickly things can go off the rails when edits are reverted as unreliable in a contentious area of the project on a lightening rod article. IMDB, YouTube and other less debated ones have same fighting, its just usually relegated to the AfC help desk and other less traveled corners of the project. AP adds a whole other dimension as multiple editors on both sides have strong opinions and the more experienced can use policy-based reasons that are opaque to a rookie and look like a brick wall being thrown up. Anyway, enough said. Ball is really in SCE's court to digest this and either agree to the WP:CIVILITY standards or find the rest of the world wide web which has far looser standards of discussion. Slywriter (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO the only things standing in the way of a routine WP:NOTHERE block is the lack of a history of such aggression. There was a small brouhaha in May over some anti-abortion editing, but nothing actionable. So, let's await a response here. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Zealous reversions and odd interactions with Chip3004

My concerns were first prompted by an interaction yesterday with Chip3004 (talk · contribs), over editing at Chickenpox: [36]; [37]. I'd reverted unsourced content by a disruptive account a few days ago, and the user was subsequently blocked. Chip sent me the standard vandalism warning, and I objected and removed it. What followed was this [38], and more oddly, this [39]. After the apology, I would have left this as a tempest in a teapot, but there are other edits that call their competence, and temper, into question. Treating this as vandalism [40], and this talk page comment that ToBeFree (talk · contribs) found [41] suggest occasional difficulty in discerning substantive edits from disruptive ones, and a short-ish fuse. More eyes requested, especially if further edits and comments like these are part of their history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I made mistake and won't do that again and will make sure i keep my tempure in check. Chip3004 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The concern here, I think, is mainly that yet another strange "vandalism" claim happened soon after an apology for the same issue. The easiest way to avoid this specific kind of mistake is to learn and understand that "vandalism" means "causing intentional damage to the encyclopedia" and that people are rarely clearly doing so.

If content is selectively removed in a way that doesn't break a sentence, that content may well have been unnecessary, unsourced, non-neutral or otherwise problematic. You may disagree about the removal, but you shouldn't quickly treat it as "vandalism". This applies even if people remove large amounts of text from articles, especially from biographies of living people. Re-instating the text makes you legally responsible for it, so it can't hurt to spend ten seconds on evaluating whether there may be a good reason for the removal. When in doubt, just leave it be, or at least do not treat it as vandalism.

Could you take a moment to explain what led to Special:Diff/1099769959? The time difference between the edit and the revert, and the manual description of the edit as "Vandalism" are not obvious to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Large-scale removal of sourced content by Roccitysubway

Resolved

 – Sock handled. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

New account Roccitysubway, created July 20, 2022, is removing massive amounts well-sourced article content from articles about malls, on the premise that the removed content was 'gossipy' and the new version is more 'polished'. They also deleted a relevant uw-delete2 warning from their talk page. Affected pages:

 Newburgh Mall
 Via Port Rotterdam
 St. Lawrence Centre
 The Shoppes at Buckland Hills
 The Mall at Rockingham Park
 Green Acres Mall
 Hudson Valley Mall
 Fingerlakes Mall
 Champlain Centre
 Eastview Mall
 Wilton Mall
 Poughkeepsie Galleria
 The Mall at Greece Ridge
 Oakdale Mall
 Sangertown Square
 Destiny USA
 User talk: Roccitysubway

Diffs: (Not sure if I linked these correctly)

 [42]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newburgh_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099621350
 [43]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Via_Port_Rotterdam&diff=prev&oldid=1099620968
 [44]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Lawrence_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1099622812
 [45]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Lawrence_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1099622252
 [46]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shoppes_at_Buckland_Hills&diff=prev&oldid=1099620789
 [47]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mall_at_Rockingham_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1099606227
 [48]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Acres_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099601435
 [49]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hudson_Valley_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099600632
 [50]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fingerlakes_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099597697
 [51]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fingerlakes_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099597610
 [52]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Champlain_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1099597443
 [53]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastview_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099592741
 [54]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilton_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099590938
 [55]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poughkeepsie_Galleria&diff=prev&oldid=1099588517
 [56]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mall_at_Greece_Ridge&diff=prev&oldid=1099588346
 [57]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oakdale_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099587375
 [58]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sangertown_Square&diff=prev&oldid=1099586401
 [59]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?  title=Destiny_USA&diff=prev&oldid=1099415244
 [60]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roccitysubway&diff=1099661907&oldid=1099634603
 

Note: may not have caught all of the disruptive edits; there are a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Roccitysubway&offset=&limit=500&target=Roccitysubway for futher reference. You can also see them commonly changes that bring back the removed content.

Almost all of the removed content was well-sourced, generally well-written, and generally does not warrant removal with the explanation given. Teb (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

TheEmeraldBoat, while not sure this rises to ANI as it is a content dispute, albeit across a dozen articles. However, I do think this is a matter for WP:SPI as the editing is suspicious. I'll prepare a report shortly since this isn't the place for that. Also, for future reference, no issue with editors removing warnings from their talk page Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the SPI. Blocked, tagged, massrollbacked. (Might be a few edits hiding there that the massrb didn't pick up, which y'all are welcome to find if you want, but the point of a massrb in a case like this [large number of marginal edits] is more to deter recidivism than anything else.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem, easy one. Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Tazmin and Slywriter. Teb (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed at age 19, looking to start over at age 27

• Jfgoofy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 24.21.66.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.59.205.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Jfgoofy registered in 2012 at the age of 17.[61] Jfgoofy was interested in dinosaurs, fictional monsters, TV shows and films. There were many problems with violations of WP:NOR and edit warring. Jfgoofy was blocked indefinitely in March 2014 for socking with User:Jfgoofy7 and the IP 24.21.66.220. The IP continued to edit until this blanking of Jfgoofy's userpage in 2015.

Starting in 2021, IP 71.59.205.114 from the same area has been editing, shifting primarily to an interest in music, including baroque composers. This shows a new leaf, a sort of clean start, except for a few edits to fictional monster topics. IP 71.59.205.114 asked Sergecross73 a few months ago about whether it was possible to start over with a new account.[62] The same discussion picked up today on at User talk:71.59.205.114. I think we can give this older editor the benefit of the doubt and allow a fresh start. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously a second chance is warranted 7 years later. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Should we really give this older edit the benefit of the doubt? If he were to create a new account, it would be sockpuppetry. Patachonica (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually gave him advice to stop editing and he made his unblock appeal request. Patachonica (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. After seven years and considerable time to mature I don't see an issue with them returning with a clean start. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seven years, that’s a long time ago. Besides, everyone here knows what will happen if the individual becomes disruptive again. Judekkan (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't like to be forever bound by the actions of 19-year old me, especially years later. If they become disruptive after the unblock, they can be blocked later, no problem. They were indefinitely blocked, but indefinite does not mean infinite. - Aoidh (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I feel they are deserving of a second opportunity. The fact that they requested if they may start over 7 years later shows that they recognized their errors and changed their attitude. (They could easily make a new account and no one would notice, but they chose the right course.) --Abrvagl (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Aside from logged out editing, there isn't any evidence of recent sockpuppetry on these IPs. I wouldn't have a problem with giving them a chance to start over. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - But he's been evading his ban, up to 2019 & again in 2021 & 2022. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I was asked about a scenario like this at my RfA, and stand by my answer there: Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and if someone has created a block-evading account [or evaded as an IP] and gone on to do a lot of good work with it, and the original block wasn't for something really nasty like harassment or serious BLP violations, then no misconduct is prevented by sidelining a competent contributor for six months. That's just making the encyclopedia worse in the name of hypercompliance with policy. If there are no current issues with edit-warring or original research, then Jfgoofy should be unblocked, or allowed to continue editing as an IP, whichever they prefer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page revocation might be needed

On this page, the user seems to be abusing talk page access. They have been reverting whoever reverts their edits. They have already been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. Talk page access may need to be revoked. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is also full of "YOU CANNOT ESCAPE RON MERKLE" until someone reverted it. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In a few hours, they made 73 edits. (At least it was 73 the last time I checked XTools.) That's a lot. This may be one of the most active vandalism only accounts I have ever seen. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I try to give them sone advice about their block appeal, and this is the thanks I get. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Once the user's talkpage access is blocked. Be on the look out, as he'll likely immediately create socks. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Dumb idea: Maybe we should even create a edit filter to warn users about these type of edits? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tbh I think you should not have edit warred but waited for an administrator to revoke his TPA. Patachonica (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

He was editing my comment to imply I was saying some pretty vile things. I am absolutely reverting that, every single time. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - That didn't take long, he's back as AngelaMerkelFan (talk · contribs) - Aoidh (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh my gosh... do we need an SPI once more of these possible socks appear? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...although their editing patterns seem to be different. One replaces content with the name, one adds the name. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't matter. Their names are similar and their edits are similar, so probably a CU should be run. Patachonica (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the pages he edits should be semi-protected. Patachonica (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I asked him and he responds with this message:

  "Never heard of him" I'm definitely not buying it. Patachonica (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Is there no admin to block this guy? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe it's gonna be the admin that blocked his original account. Patachonica (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Didn't take long. The socking has begun. Time for a range block. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a LTA editor. He's fully aware of his actions & is just giving Wikipedia the middle-finger. Communicating with him, will only give him more attention, which is what he wants. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

When did he start editing? If it was years ago then that would be considered LTA right? Patachonica (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jauerback: Can you please block AngelaMerkelFan? Patachonica (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, GirthSummit blocked him. Patachonica (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked, sans TPA/E-mail. They're socks of the Ron Merkle LTA, I can't remember what the SPI case is called now but will find it ans tag when I'm in front of my laptop. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atac2/Archive (there's also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molotov Cock/Archive which I guess didn't get rolled into the main SPI). - Aoidh (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be different SPI cases of the same users. Patachonica (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for digging them out Aiodh. Atac2 is the right case - I see that Zzuuzz blocked a bunch of their socks last week. I don't see any other accounts on the IPs they're using. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Quick IP block

Hi. Please can someone block 203.163.238.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's part of a WP:LTA with hidden text edits such as this. Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• 72 hours. Please let me know if they come back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor

90tillinfinitydue, registered on 30 March 2022, is WP:NOTHERE. His main purpose appears to be to whitewash crimes committed by Pakistanis. This has been seen on articles such as British Pakistanis, Rape in Pakistan.

He was blocked in March 2022 for "edit-warring (4 reverts), accusing others of sockpuppetry",[63] and he is still doing the same thing.

He is making personal attacks while being beyond sensitive when someone comments on his edits. An example of this disruption is right here where he removed my comment because "Remove personal attack by hounding account most likely a sleeper account". I made no personal attack and I am no sleeper account. Here he calls reliably sourced content a "vandalism", and here he says he is "not entertaining random accounts".

All of this confirms that he is being totally uncollaborative and WP:NOTHERE. Editorkamran (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Admins this user above which randomly appeared and his hounding all my edits in collaboration with another editor I have cleaned up the misleading information on both articles the article in question has a host of problems based on inaccurate statistics and sources not related to the topic. This user has refused to engage and has been reverting and edit warring himself so this allegation placed on me is false. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"hounding all my edits in collaboration with another editor" is another baseless bad faith claim by you. "This user has refused to engage"? You are clearly talking about yourself since you are the one who removed my talk page message by making personal attack. Editorkamran (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

1)You did not discuss anything on the British Pakistani article which has a long talk page discussion and just belligerently edited without consensus 2) I have fully explained my edits on Rape in Pakistan the stats were deliberately skewed and over exaggerated I added more recent stats you didn't bother to read or analyse anything 3) A 4 year old account with barely 200 edits randomly finding themselves in a dispute seems like your only here to cause disruption and disputes. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am in a far better standing than you who got 1 block for disruptive editing, 100 edits and was registered just some months ago. Consensus was against you on British Pakistani and I contributed to the discussion which ensured that the consensus is clearly against you.[64] You are not adding anything constructive but only removing the content that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Indeed you are "only here to cause disruption" as your history shows. Editorkamran (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad faith assumption and WP:NOTHERE attitude from 90tillinfinitydue is continuing even after this report. He is now accusing another editor to have "come with a particular agenda",[65] and while censoring content on Rape in Pakistan he is attacking another editor by speculating nationality with edit summary that "its time now for my Indian friends to focus on Rape in India".[66] Editorkamran (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have tried my best to engage this disruptive editor and all my edits have clear logical basis I have removed redundant and misleading edits and replaced with up to date figures. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:SJW R Idiots

Provocative username and disruptive editing. VilerIT (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Obvious username vio, blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)