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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [1] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [2]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [3], and [4], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Partial Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal might suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I might support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work, but that would have to be worst case scenario. However, I would primarily support someone mentoring FDO per my original comment and idea above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking myself off from this. Neutral. MarioJump83! 08:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
  On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – After one week with this proposal open, there seems to be clear consensus to institute a topic ban or other action against the user. Can an admin please take the necessary actions to institute this? Thanks, ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 15:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Should it really be closed when most of the editors in the "consensus" are inside the wikiproject? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As much as I want this to be closed, most of the proposal's consensus here comes from the WikiProject Tropical cyclones, with voices from outside the WikiProject is lacking. I smell WP:CANVASSING here... MarioJump83! 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support - I wasn't even going to weigh in, given how clear the consensus appears. However, since there's some concern I'll chime in as an uninvolved party. I agree with comments previously that FDO's behavior has been disruptive and incivil. A topic ban seems like the best way to move forward, and they can appeal at a later date after working on other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions...for now with the caveat that FleurDeOdile gets a mentor. The idea of blocks and topic-bans are to be preventative, so I don't see the point in taking such an extreme action when the less dramatic option of a mentor exists and can also be preventative. If that doesn't work, a topic ban is merited. versacespaceleave a message! 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentorship requires someone to volunteer. No one has stepped forward in a week. So that's not a realistic option at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support ban - Fleur's conduct around changing image names amounts to disruption as his image editing mostly revolves around changing timestamps for no apparent reason - such as in his most recent edit to 2021 Atlantic hurricane season, which led to an editor to revert his edits. Since no-one is willing to take Fleur on with regards to mentoring, I would support a ban here. Hx7 18:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel. Additionally, User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.

The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[5][6][7] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [8]. You have not provided one even today [9]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• What an incredibly horrific and unpleasant TfD discussion we have there. Multiple participants deserve WP:TROUT, if not actual warnings. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the report wrt User:Triggerhippie4:

Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [10]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [11] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).

Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [12] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [13] 'Nominator is a newbie', [14] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.

Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [15] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [16] 'unhelpful', [17] 'for a second time enters PAs'.

-DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the report wrt User:Gidonb:

Gidonb expressing PA [18] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [19] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [20] pretending not understanding.

Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [21] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [22] and elsewhere [23][24][25] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [26] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [27].

• All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.

I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See #report wrt Triggerhippie4 above. The diffs there show that you were WP:CANVASSING, made WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Also proofs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on WP:EDRC for that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you hiding behind others to justify you own breach of WP guidelines? Quite a non-defence. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

>These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
>User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
I don't consider this ([28]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
>The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
>user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't even be making a comment like this when the discussion is ongoing and elsewhere. That certainly was harassment. "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}": Did I do my math wrong? And there were 2 uses until you added it to this article.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, you write: "I don't consider this ... canvas". But IT IS. You are not free to judge yourself, of course. You wrote a personal attack. Now at last, respond to the content, do not ignore it. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am a bit surprised that this quite simple report on two editors does not gain any traction by ANI regulars. Any rational explanation? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  Simple? I can't even tell who the two editors are. EEng 04:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  As I said: nothing rational. (logged as: another trolling post by User:EEng). -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thus reminding us why you're under an editing restriction providing for "immediate sanction (including blocks) if [you make] any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". You've really gotta stop seeing dark motives all the time.

  I was serious: I honestly cannot tell which two editors you're talking about, and this report is certainly not "simple". It's a confused mish-mash of accusations and counter-accusations, with a dollop of side stuff thrown in along the way. EEng 21:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Random addition of sources and inflammatory edit summaries by User:Sarakhanjunglee

Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements in edit summaries such as:

• Zionists want us killed[29] in Paracetamol
• Palestinians are failures. Mahmoud Abbas is not even a Muslim, he's a Baha'i. Wake up Muslims[30] in Palestine 194
• Sufi erdogan freemason only barking like dogs. All staged drama[31] in Islam in Palestine
• No leader will tolerate khawarij extremists. Long live Widodo. What he's doing is right[32] Joko Widodo

The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text[33] after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.

Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior and other various issues, I get the impression this user is not here to built an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The second one looks particularly racist, and almost all of the other edit summaries seem to be Islamophobic or potshots at Islamic terrorists like [34] at Abqaiq. I see that the edit summary in [35] at Bilal Erdoğan has already been RD3'd; should any more edits or edit summaries be revdel'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Actually they're not Islamophobic, but seem to loathe everything that deviates from their Sunni mainstream POV, whether it's Sufi mysticism or Salafist terrorism. Most of their edsums are not as gross as the ones I have picked for the report, so I don't think there is much more out there for redvel. And they haven't edited since the report, so this might become stale anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

They added a satirical Twitter link as a source about Iranian elections. They're only trolling and causing disruption and so I've indef blocked them. Fences&Windows 00:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Atharv Bakshi

Atharv Bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

@Atharv Bakshi: continues to engage in content dispute/edit wars despite being told not to several times by @Number 57:. The user does not indicate any intention of stopping this. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer, I'm only finding one warning from @Number 57 on that user's talk, and it's about infoboxes, and a single mention of edit-warring on their user talk -- can you give us some diffs? —valereee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor is disruptive and I'm not sure is entirely competent to be editing Wikipedia. Virtually every edit of theirs that I've seen has had to be reverted. Number 57 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article to try to get the editor's attention/get them to discuss. Still not sure we tried hard enough, but p-blocks aren't as aggressive so I'm willing to. Actual diffs for the problem would be really helpful, though. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree w/Number 57 as to disruptiveness, but think we have to go through the series of warnings, as usual. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee @Number 57 It seems the user is now involved in sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atharv Bakshi -- DaxServer (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Indefinite Block On Kelvinsage1

Kelvinsage1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Has been an editor for five years and has been using Wikipedia for purposes described in what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Their talkpage indicates possible covert undisclosed paid editing since 2016 up until date. They were warned by Praxidicae in January 2020, see here of engaging in upe, of which they denied and claimed they were not collecting financial rewards for article creation, but since January 2020 till now their actions negates their claim as they have created six promotional non notable articles all of which have been deleted, (5 BLP's and one article on an organization). Their most recent article, this was yet again on a non notable individual and the article is currently in an AFD. So either this is gross incompetency and a failure to understand WP:GNG despite being here for five years or this is undisclosed paid editing, either way I am proposing an indefinite block on them for violating our TOU policy on paid editing and or/for WP:CIR, though the former is much more plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a failure to understand GNG (for which there are different levels of understanding, and interpretations); from their comments in discussions it's more about verifiability and identification of reliable sources - for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hefna380. In their most recent article Okoro Blessing Nkiruka there was a "scandal" referred to without any explanation or source, and at least one unreliable source (reference 6 in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Okoro_Blessing_Nkiruka&oldid=1025605110 linked to a site with self-published content and no mention of the article cited - the only search result for the title is a copy of the Wikipedia article). Some advice from an editor who is better at assessing the reliablility of sources would be useful, as WP:RSP doesn't say much about Nigerian sources. Also RSP is becoming useless - Fox News "generally reliable" and Daily Mail "deprecated" when outside Wikipedia they are considered to have similar levels of reliability - and is not always taken seriously at AFD, so an article can be deleted because a source is "deprecated" when RSP and the linked discussion show consensus was unanimously against deprecation. The main issue is that for content that discusses living people (either the subject of the article or other people mentioned) the sources need to be adequate for the purpose, particularly with controversy, and with material unrelated to the subject's notability, but also to verify assertion of notability. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I'd suggest the best course of action here is to review Kelvinsage1's remaining articles carefully to make sure they are all neutral and verifiable. If they are paid editing, and those efforts are fruitless, that is the best way to put them out of business. Either way, it is concerning that Kelvinsage1 has not responded to the allegations expressed here, despite editing since. – bradv🍁 02:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bradv, thank you, that’s a reasonable approach. Celestina007 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Intransigent new editor User:DagneyGirl

This incident began when I found 34 articles on my Watchlist had had linked place names changed with either no edit summary or simply "Spelling" given. When I clicked on DagneyGirl's talk page, I found several editors had already commented on her entitled attitude and poor EngLang skills. There followed a prolonged discussion between myself, Keith264, and a couple of other editors trying to persuade DagneyGirl to conform to WP consensuses. When she did not ignore or deflect our statements, she lectured us on how WP should be run. She is wedded to the idea that she is the only person who knows the true names of these locations, and that they must be the most modern iteration, regardless of usage a century ago.

When we got to the point of her third revert to my edits, I went to the Help desk, and posted the below:

I find myself in an edit war with a Belgian editor over place names. She insists that Belgian place names take priority over those found in my English language sources, and gives no source for her changes. She insists on destroying links in numerous articles I created tying the source place names to the modern place name. Several veteran editors, including myself, have used her User talk page to make good faith efforts to persuade her to follow the consensus to use English. Her behavior has been consistently defiant in stating her opinion is correct, although her language skills are lacking. I picked List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg to serve as a test case. She has now made her third set of reverts to this article, though not in a 24 hour period. Her User talk page and the edit summaries in the Sachsenberg article tell the tale without my writing anything further.

I am unsure if this is the correct forum for this problem. Please advise me of the proper forum if I am in the wrong place.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to go to WP:Request for comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A I am not from Belgium and b Georgejdorner so called 'English language sources' claim is not holy true. The sources that Georgejdorner uses on pages like List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg do not English names only, not even English from that time but uses names from documents, that can be English, French, German and Dutch names but also misspellings and phonetic spelling.

Georgejdorner just introduce these spellings on the pages with results that that on one page you find that spelling and an another spelling for the same place. Mistakes in documents are not corrected because taking one on one from the source. For example the misspelling 'Nieuwscapelle' is introduced on Wikipedia from the main source that is used to fill this pages, theaerodrome.com. There's no need for that. Same goes for the German word 'Uberschwemm', Georgejdorner added there (flood), so Georgejdorner knows that is not a English word, but did not correct the term or use the actual meaning in this context, flooded land. So text means that the fight was taking place over flooded land. On List_of_aerial_victories_of_Walter_Göttsch Georgejdorner decided not to always copy the name from the source one on one, heaerodrome.com. But that resulted in a mistake, making one place two places, 'Schaep-Baillie' to 'between Schaep and Baillie'. The actual place name is Schaapbalie. On List of aerial victories of Paul Billik it was spelled as 'Schaep Baillie', as spelled on heaerodrome.com page of Billik. On List of aerial victories of Eduard Ritter von Dostler there is the spelling 'Oostroubeke' directly from theaerodrome.com dostler page and this the only place where this spelling is used, apart from a forum that uses this name. We all make mistakes, but importing mistakes and different spellings for the same places not so helpful. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Immediately after this posting, she deleted her Talk page to eliminate the ongoing discussion of her misbehavior. However, the above quote gives a sample of her deleted responses. She also deleted her Contributions page to disguise the articles she had edited. I hope some admin can prevent her from further damaging Wikipedia. I am willing to aid the admins in any action they wish to take.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge it is not possible for an editor to delete their contributions page, and DagneyGirl's contributions page remains available here. I do agree that the editor's English skills are not excellent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally nothing has changed on the user's talk page either. So really not sure what is being referenced above. Perhaps Georgejdorner mistyped their username or something is the only explanation I can think of. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed "foreign" from the title of this section. I am an American, which means that every English-speaking British, Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand-based editor is technically a "foreigner" to me, as are all non-American English-speakers from other countries. The problem being reported has little to do with the editor being "foreign", but to the quality of their English skills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• (Slightly off main topic, "Uberschwemm" is neither a place name nor a valid German word in its own right, but most likely an abbreviation of "Überschwemmung" (flooded land). This is not something we will be able to source, and the best guess of a native speaker is probably the most useful option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC))

• The relevant policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, which is really not complicated. Article subjects should be consistently referred to by the most recognizable name for speakers of the English language, our target audience. This is why we have an articles on Germany and Hulk Hogan instead of Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Terry Eugene Bollea. Other names should be briefly mentioned in the articles on these subjects, but incoming links from other articles should generally use the article title. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox is quite right. Insisting on using archaic (and even incorrect) placenames in Wikivoice just because a source uses them is really not the usual (or most useful) way to do things. DagneyGirl is doing good work to correct these archaicisms and misspellings. I've been surprised at how entitled and condescending the often misguided comments to this new user have been — particularly the insistence that archaic spellings or simple misspellings on obscure pages about often minor First World War engagements constitute some sort of "WP consensuses" simply because nobody has corrected them sooner. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, Georgejdorner, I'm surprised you missed the bit at the top of the edit screen for this page where it says in big letters "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I clicked the user name in the title of this section, and did not find DagnyGirl's Talk page or Contributions page. Now that another editor has found them, I will post the requested notice on her Talk page. I also withdraw the accusation that she willfully deleted them, and apologize for my careless use of the term 'foreigner'.

I stand by my methodology of linking source names to articles with the present day names when needed. It does not promote archaic names; instead, it helps explain them. However, if there is a consensus that this is a faulty methodology, I will cease doing this. If nothing else, that would save me the extra work of searching out links.

Now that I have been raked over the coals, how about giving equal attention to the subject of this complaint? The editor whose good work is marked with nonexistent or vague edit summaries on her Contributions page? The rude editor with deficient English skills? She was the object of this complaint, you know. And there are several other editors who share my opinion. Why not read what they have to say on her Talk page?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now belatedly posted the ANI template on DagnyGirl's Talk page. Please allow her some response time before critiquing her.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw in the original post that you said she had deleted her talk page and contribs and meant to comment on it, seeing as she is not an admin, we do not generally delete user talk pages, and it is literally impossible to delete your contribution history. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Georgejdorner. The summary text 'spelling' doesn't seem vague to me, it says exactly what the edit does, spelling correction (s). One of those things that has been mentioned here and on my talk page is that you have used sources that use not only archaic names, but also foreign names, misspellings and phonetic names.

The main source you use uses the names of the original documents which are in different languages. That means that you have to 'translate' the information so that it knows what it is about for the general reader of Wikipedia. Just because the source has decided to use document names does not mean that you should copy that one to one for another platform with a different purpose than the source.

As mentioned above, introducing incorrect names does not help the reader. You hadn't linked many of the misspellings either. Besides the fact that linking alone does not directly help the reader. Clicking on a link can distract the reader from the topic but in some cases create confusion if the name is too different.

Writing out information helps the reader more than just linking a name. It also distracts the reader when different spellings are used on different pages, as indicated above. Or when the information has been incorrectly entered by the user, as for example in the case where a place became two places.

Much more troubling than a user's level of language knowledge, it seems to me when a user just does not have sufficient knowledge of the subject on which they would like to write articles. And although it may be your passion to create these types of pages and get encourage for it, it can sometimes help to be open to help from others.

As others already point out here, good guidelines have been drawn up that are quite clear how to deal with spellings and (place) names. Sometimes this can be deviated from. For example, to use a specific name for specific time periods. This then goes via the guidelines, so that other users can also follow this and it is also clearer and unambiguous for the readers across the various pages. Even then, good transcription of information can be more informative to the reader than just a link.

It is all not intended personally, if it came across as that, my apologies. My goal is only to get the reader better informed when they read something, partly through clearer use of names (and spellings), whether or not across different pages, such as endorsing the Wikipedia guidelines and sometimes to clarify what it is about and sometimes what alternative spellings are used by the sources if one wants to delve further into the information. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

DagneyGirl is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Words in common use in English like Ypres or Roulers (Roeselare ("Dutch pronunciation: [ˈrusəlaːrə], French: Roulers, West Flemish: Roeseloare)....) should be left alone. If anyone wants a modern Belgian place name in an English wiki article, I see no reason why the common name in English shouldn't be paired with the new name rather than deleted; Ypres (now Ieper) for example. English wiki shouldn't be a battleground for internal Belgian politics. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Keith-264. I am not changing still current English names like Ypres, even more I changed spelling Ieper on different pages to Ypres because of it. Roeselare is a another matter, the article is named Roeselare not 'Roulers'. Roulers as stated on the article is French. In the article there is nothing to indicate that Roulers is still wildly used in modern English enough to warred a mention. If you think you this is wrong maybe change this on the page itself, preferably backed by modern sources or start a conversation about on the talk page, even more if you think the page should be named differently.

Another example would be Sint Elooi, there it is clearly stated that St. Eloi is still well know enough and used in modern English, and I personally would not change St. Eloi where this is used.

As I explained on my talk page using the 'now'-option is not a good option. This because it indicates that the name of the place itself has changed instead of the usage in English. So using 'Niewport (now Nieuwpoort)' would indicate that the place itself was renamed from Niewport to Nieuwpoort, but what it exactly should be indicating the usage in English is changed, so simply using 'Nieuport (Nieuwpoort)' is better. Depending on the context, it also can be used as 'Nieuwpoort (Nieuport)' or 'Nieuwpoort, back then know as Nieuport in English,'.

I do agree with you on the point that the English Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground for 'internal Belgian politics'. As stated already, I am not from Belgium. Even more I want to avoid the 'internal Belgian politics' by using the current English naming of places. Wikipedia has good guidelines on it, we should use that instead everyone doing there own thing, because that can be politically charged or motivated. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not explained anything, you have asserted a point of view and altered names unilaterally. If you want examples, all you have to do is consult the bibliographies of the articles you have edited. Nieuport (Nieuwpoort)/Nieuwpoort (Nieuport) [depending on the term in the text] will satisfy me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, I tried to but maybe my point did not come across as cleary. But good to read that you satisfy at least now with it, with the small alternatives. DagneyGirl (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Mbroderick271 on the article Louis C.K.

The following concerns:

Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Louis C.K. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This begins May 4, 2021 when Mbroderick271 claimed a WP:NPOV dispute on the page Louis C.K.. This was announced on the talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. Major changes were made to the article without gathering consensus. I reverted some of the user's edits but drew back not wanting to engage in an edit war.

On May 6, 2021 after searching for other editors that had been active in discussions on the talk page archive - I pinged a number of them. Some responded, others did not.

On May 6, 2021 Guy Macon came to the talk page to help referee a bit and offered a solution: for both myself and Mbroderick271 to removed ourselves voluntarily from editing the page or talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#A Modest Proposal. I agreed as this seemed like a worthwhile resolution to the conflict. I didn't want to be starting an edit war or conflict. The other party did not agree to this solution. Bilorv also had an active hand in the discussion. Guy Macon later restored all edits to a February version of the article per WP:STATUSQUO.

Mbroderick271 had been warned by Bilorv about various violations here: User talk:Mbroderick271#May 2021.

Mbroderick271 attempted to accuse myself and other editors of being undisclosed paid editors here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. And accused me personally of WP:VANDALISM in the same thread and on their talk page.

The conflict calmed down and Bilorv and I had one or two conflicts but attempted to settle things on the talk page. We began discussion until recently when Mbroderick271 began editing the article again without consensus. I believe they are WP:BLP violations.

In short, I'm willing to take a step back from editing the page or engaging on the talk if other editors can come to a consensus and/or blatant WP:BLP violations are kept at bay. Hence this noticeboard incident.

Thanks.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that sanctions here would not be necessary and so I'm not sure what outcome is desired. There is discussion on the talk page, which Mbroderick271 has demonstrated interest in engaging with, and Mbroderick271 should be advised to stop editing the article directly, but we are all acting in good faith here. I would advise CaffeinAddict to let some of these earlier things (like the "undisclosed paid editor" comments) go where the user has apologised for them or understood someone else explaining why these things are not acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I have screwed up a lot on this Louis CK thing. I am frustrated that CaffeinAddict has expressed sympathy for a sexual predator and continually minimized this predator's actions, as I have many friends who have been sexual assaulted and I myself have been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of a comedian who later lied about and distorted the events after the fact (should note said comedian is neither famous nor successful in case anyone reads this and thinks I'm talking about someone they might know). However, Bilorv has been kind and patient enough to remind me that you have to work with editors of all different perspectives on Wikipedia, even editors whose views one may find odious. I am committing to approaching this article with a less personal and more professional style of communication moving forward, as ultimately my goal as a former fan of Louis CK is for the article to accurately represent both his achievements as an artist as well as his many offenses against his female coworkers, and his lies and attempts to cover up said offenses. Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your personal experiences, Mbroderick271. My comments will always be based on my reading of secondary sources, not my personal view of C.K., but I am also a former C.K. fan who was outraged and depressed when I learned about his sexual misconduct, and though I've never been victim to sexual violence I have seen the effects it has through people close to me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of the problem here - I don't believe any editors are approaching this article unbiased. The facts need to be presented in a WP:NPOV tone. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm unfit to edit the article because of my personal experiences relating to sexual violence? Because you don't seem to have a problem with people expressing their personal opinions on C.K. or the reliable sources that should inform the article content: the articles that focused on C.K.'s assassination of character in 2017 overstate and maximize the consensual private sexual conduct of a man made very public (Special:Diff/1021506846) and This event is obviously a largely topical and important event in the comedian's life but is a blip on the actual history of his long and prolific career. None of his actions were or will be criminal and this completely hogwash attempt to blow up what remain "he said she said" allegations that reminded the masses that even the very important #MeToo movement had it's [sic] limits (Special:Diff/1021693699). — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavour aimed at objectivity. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we need editors free from all biases, I guess human beings are right out and we should recuse ourselves as a species. Makes things easier, I will give you that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between natural human bias, and editing a topic which you have a personal connection- positive, negative, and especially traumatic. Its hard enough to overcome that natural bias, having gone through a trauma and then trying to edit pages that related to that trauma is going to be ten times more difficult. I'm not necessarily agreeing that the editor in question should stay away- but I do think they should be even more aware and careful to avoid bias and be sure to get 2nd or 3rd opinions before making edits to this page. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This just sounds like good Wikipedia practice to me, no matter what the connection might be to a given article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing - Slake000

There is a user by the name of User:Slake000 who has been messing around in some pages, and also has a poor command of English. His edits began on the Sylheti Nagri (a South Asian script) article, where he removed a lot of information and instead added pretty much the same information worded in a poorer manner with innumerable spelling mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that his edits have not really been contributory, rather they have downgraded the layout, format and structure. Other than myself, it appears that other users have also attempted to undo his edits on the stated article.

Putting that issue to the side, it seems that Slake000 has realised that the habitual contributors to the page are not keen on his edits so he created his own article titled Sylheti script. Realising that this constitutes the Wikipedian policy of CSD-A10, I marked his article for speedy deletion and notified him on his talk page. Instead of responding and notifying me, he continued to abuse Wikipedia by copy and pasting random excerpts from different pages. This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.

Now, I understand this noticeboard does not deal with speedy deletions, but this sort of behaviour that is being shown is unacceptable. I urge you to penalise this disruptive user. UserNumber (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[36]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[37] after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies[38]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, another user Glennznl seems to be undoing the reversions to Slake000's edits on Sylheti Nagri. UserNumber (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, use of unreliable sources, user is now forging signatures

Tony1811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• He's been amply warned about disruptive editing, e.g. his misuse of sources that are listed as "red" in WP:RSP. His latest stunt today is posting bogus warnings to user talk pages and including my signature instead of/in addition to his own. He was blocked for edit-warring a few weeks ago; has he learned his lesson or not? Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Elizium23 was being generous with the initial report. Tony1811 has been including blatant BLP violations supported by subpar or unreliable or deprecated sources on Joy Behar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Cynthia Nixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which they claimed were part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media related to free speech issues. KyleJoan^talk 01:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• The editor has problems but I don't know if the 'forging signatures' should really be one of them. Considering the exact same warning with the same signature including time stamp is currently on Tony1811's talk page and that one of the people they gave the warning to was Elizium23 themselves, it seems clear the editor is trying to give the warning back but has no idea how to do so and so just copied and pasted the warning on their talk page. So at best it may call into question their WP:competence to edit here but doesn't seem to be malicious. While talking to the editor doesn't seem to have had much success so far, I've tried talking to them about the signature issue. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• They've just removed this discussion, though it was reverted immediately. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Tellyring

Could I ask for some admin eyes on User:Tellyring's contributions? They have a long history of problematic edits, and have for the last few weeks been trying to create an article about Vansh Sayani, a child actor. They created Draft:Vansh sayani and when that was rejected they inserted the material over the redirect at Vansh Sayani. All without adequate sources, which makes it a serious WP:BLP violation. Despite multiple editors warning them about the copyright and BLP violations involved in their editing, they have edit warred to keep this inappropriate material on Wikipedia. Their one interaction on their talk page is this which doesn't address anything. They are clearly going to continue violating BLP and copyright until action is taken to force them to stop. Laplorfill (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The same copyrighted image has now been removed from Draft:Vansh sayani seven times. It has been deleted from Commons once as a copyright violation, and the re-upload is up for deletion again. I was under the impression that we took copyright violations seriously. This user has been reported to AIV twice for repeated vandalism and copyright violation without any action being taken. Now this report is being ignored. This is a very serious WP:BLP violation and repeated, blatant copyright violations. Does anyone care, or should I just give up? Laplorfill (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring appears to be WP:NOTHERE and WP:INCOMPETENT. pinging other who have interacted with this user @David notMD:, @Amakuru:. Polyamorph (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tellyring is pretty much single-purpose editor, persistently edit wars, and writes useless edit summaries ("I have made some changes") despite being advised to do better. I agree with Not Here. David notMD (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Ergo, UTRS appeal #43900 has been opened. 😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: I have declined that appeal, because it seems to show no awareness of the issues that led to the block, or to a commitment not to repeat those issues. Apologies if you were intending to handle this one, I had not seen that you were the handling admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Their lack of awareness was appalling. We will see if they 1) deign to reply on their talk page and/or 2) straighten up and fly right once the block expires. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. Just before the block, they added this comment to my talk page: [39] in which they said "I made a mistake. I will never upload copyright content wikipedia". I hope this means they are learning and will be a productive editor after the block. Laplorfill (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ERWINMAISCH, the MoS, and a failure to WP:LISTEN

Let me begin by stating that I believe this user is absolutely acting in good faith. However they have been totally disregarding the MoS on Julie Wojta and ignoring numerous warnings on their talk page about improper use of external links in the body, failing to use edit summaries, and not following the Manual of Style generally, which is why I've come here. They've offered no engagement back, and just continue to work on the article, adding in what myself and other editors have reverted. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Etzedek24, Sigh. Looks like they're possibly not aware that talk spaces exist. I have to say I miss the big yellow banner for talk page messages ... the red bell can probably be missed more easily especially when—I assume—new users get all kinds of welcome messages there. Not a ton of good options in this situation other than a block, perhaps a partial one of just the page in question, I suppose? Go Phightins! 13:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable recourse. As I said, I have no doubt that they have good intentions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Etzedek24, Since they haven't edited in two days, can I ask that if it resumes, you send me a message on my talk and I'll go ahead and impose the partial block at that time? Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Terreberry and Singles

Steve Terreberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let me preface this with I have distanced myself from the first discussion as I haven't made left comment in a number of days. The first discussion stemmed from the singles in Steve Terreberry's discography being put in a table format. It was reverted a number of times. The issue is now a separate discussion on singles between Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mbdfar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They have been going back and forth for days to where it's gotten to the point where they've reverted each other multiple times and are now resorting to petty squabbling. If the latter two things weren't happening, an RfC would have been sufficient. But since that's not the case, that's why coming to the ANI is the best course of action. They strayed away from the discussion on singles. This issue between Mbdfar and Walter Görlitz needs to be put to rest in some form or another. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. Fishhead2100 is correct. I had three concerns: 1) MOS:TABLES that a list like this should not be in a table. I don't know if Fishhead2100 and Mbdfar agree or not. 2) I was under the false and unfortunately archaic perception that a single was only one if released to radio or charted in some other way. A member of the songs project and Fishhead2100 have convinced me that I was wrong in that regard. 3) The sourcing is inadequate. https://open.spotify.com/artist/752rmY08pvHpub4FyIXp0n will change over time and does not display of the songs it claims to support as singles. I was planning to convert to a list and low-quality references like https://open.spotify.com/album/0YdemwyAzhnkL8K8L1cHTx to support the fact that songs were released as singles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It was how you two were edit warring and being childish in the second discussion. That's the issue. That's the focal point. Don't deflect. The rest was context as to how you two arrived at such behaviour. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you see this as deflecting. Explaining that you and Mbdfar were ignoring that the sources did not prove the content was the ultimate issue and it takes two to edit war. So, ye, I take full responsibility for the song=single problem, and for reverting per WP:V, but nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Also not deflecting, but making statements that I like "to start beefs with people. He thinks he is always and everybody else is wrong." Doesn't this make you an involved editor? In short, Thanks for raising this issue and for stepping away from the article. I do not like to start beefs, I like to make sure the WP:V is followed, as well as MoSes and editing guidelines. I do not always think I am always [right], as can be seen from my acknowledging I was wrong about something and learning from it. I do think many other editors have much to teach me, but I need to be convinced, not edit-warred about such things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I didn't deny that I said that. Like I said, I removed myself from the conversation. It's about Mbdfar and yourself. You two kept on going. Someone should have went to WP:RFC to get an outside opinion. I'm trying to get this put to rest which one of you should have done. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to go to RfC for trivial disputes. Since Mbdfar has explained that the editor can see the content in a mobile view, and it cannot be seen in desktop it clears up the second-last issue for me. Mbdfar wasn't going to actually correctly source the singles, so I have indicated that I will. In short, if you want something done right, you sometimes have to do it yourself. That seems to be the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my computer has been out of commission so I'm on mobile. I'm not dealing with those sources on this thing. Some of my words were petty, and for that I apologize. For what it's worth, I tried to be direct and rational. But to be honest, having Walter jump around in arguments from the table formatting, to debating what a single is, to worrying about the sourcing, made me assume bad faith. I thought he just wanted to get his way of removing the table and would argue any avenue to get there. I've been clear, I don't care about the formatting, but the way Walter seemed to be bullying Fishhead and KullyKeemaKa a few days ago, and him seeming to base arguments on feelings instead of MOS, rubbed me the wrong way. Frankly this whole situation was a waste of time and I'm sorry for prolonging it, but I just wanted consensus based on guidelines and not arbitrary decisions. Mbdfar (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mbdfar: Whether Walter Görlitz will admit wrongdoing or, I don't know. If he wants to apologize for his behavouir, good on him. If not, we can't dwell on it. If he thinks going to RfC is petty, than everything he has done has been petty. But I digress, put this in past and move on. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be glad to know what you think I have done wrong that I have not already admitted to above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Harassment by Ratnahastin by fake warning template, following up my edit and frivolous cases

Disruptive editing and content blanking on various pages like Hada Chauhan, Rathore. Harassment of other editors through frivolous sockpuppet investigation. Heba Aisha (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Edit warring on Hada Chauhan and abuse of warning template, [40], filled my talk page with content blanking msg, though i restored the content. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Abuse of warning template to harrass other editors. I restored the content on two pages. Here [41] and Here [42] and the user is posting content blanking msg, he himself did that. Would like to tag Ravensfire as the user was in edit war with him.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Tagging me on various pages and following up my edit also keeping a tab on my talk page without anyone tagging him. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• After failed sockpuppet investigation filed against me, the user came from nowhere on Talk:Maratha (caste) and dipped himself into the discussion though none had invited him and he had also not made a single edit on it before that. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It seems , the user understand this place as playground rather than an encyclopedia. His intention seems to disrupt the editors with whom he donot share view. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lmao.🤦‍♂️ from next time write a more coherent report and.cherry picking few 2 notices sent on your talkpage 4weeks ago,and secondly i've not edited Rathore Hada chauhan page more than twice that too with an interval of 1week how is this edit warring? i've only sent 3 u-w templates on hebas page till now the first 2 were from 21days ago and latest one was because of personal remarks made against me in SPI of an unrelated user. and i've only tagged Heba twice 2week ago that too because of a content dispute on talk:Rathore as they were clearly breaking WP:TALKDONTREVERT by restoring disputed content without discussing, i don't know how is this "harrasment"?(see WP:AOHA ) Normal consensus building processes and content disputes are not harassments. Violations of WP:AGF, and WP:WIAPA. Almost all your claims are baseless. and around 5warnings you spammed on my talkpage within 20minutes (5warnings within 20minutes for utterly no reason) is not miss use of twinkle and dubious edit warring report you filed against me just 15minutes ago is not Harassment of mine? (see) heba has filed 2 SPI's against me til date. Im tired of this i have no interest in your edits , you're actually following my edits when you made those personal remarks against me on the spi i filed against chariot rider who is no way related to you. please admins ignore this crap.

Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I ws searching for right place to end up this. I have removed complaint from there as that was not right place. You need to stop following and harassing me and other editors with whom you donot share your view. You have been warned earlier that this is not a battlefield, but still you follow all the articles just after i make edit. Ex: List of massacres in Bihar. This is like putting a pressure on us to leave this place. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And now you're calling me a crap? See WP:NPA. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Crap is this report and 3other baseless reports you filed against me this monthRatnahastin (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed after the end of investigation against me. You anyhow visited all the pages where i went and even involved in edit warring with editors like Ravensfire. List of massacres in Bihar is one example. When I tagged LukeEmily in Maratha caste related dispute, you were hurry to file a complaint against him at WP:UAA. Plz stop making it difficult for us to work here. Heba Aisha (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are both very active editors, so it took some time to parse through everything, to form a comprehensive picture. It does appear as though Ratnahastin is indeed wikihounding Heba Aisha, by getting involved in many of their pages, showing up unsolicited in discussions and other forms of revenge editing, such as reporting involved editors for username violations. Likewise, it is not constructive in any circumstance for Ratnahastin to leave multiple warnings for Heba Aisha simultaneously, as those are intended to be administrated consecutively. I'd be inclined to let Ratnahastin off with either a warning or an interaction ban, to avoid further revenge editing. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sir Please look at my side of story aswell. if you look at my talkpage Heba misused her twinkle rights to spam my userpage with 5warnings within 20minutes for content dispute edits i did 3weeks ago. afterwards they filed a false edit warring report against me which they themselves withdrawed and now this(note that heba has filed 2SPI's against me this month this increases the number of report they did of mine to for 4) it appears that Heba dont at all like me when i sent a caution note on her talk for the personal remarks she made against me (note that chariot is unrelated to her) in SPI of mostly unrelated userhere this is serious revenge editing, why is she proxising for other users? Is this some WP:FACTION ?Luke didn't mind a bit when i filed username violation report, please check my side of story aswell.these filings of deliberate false reports against me started when i removed] some WP:SYNTHESES of material from Hada Chauhan,Rathore page which was reverted by Heba by sahing "vandalism" ? Content disputes aren't Vandalism (see WP:NOTVANDAL),Heba instead of engaging in civil discussion on Talk:Rathore  she filed a unrelated SPI against me to get me terminated these are clear violations of wikipedia 's 5 pillars that is WP:GOODFAITH.she still hasn't sorted out the content dispute when i tagged her for explaining her restoration of disputed material without discussion(violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT we can never build an encyclopedia like this) she thought this is Harassment !(note they still haven't replied or agreed to explain their reverts ) Lol so much assumption of bad faith and not wanting to cooperate with them to sort out dispute, misuse of twinkle to harass other editors by spamming their talkpage with 5warnings and filings of false reports against edtiors who dont share same view on content on wikipedia.Please consider this. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to flash policies like NOTVANDAL, GOODFAITH or FACTION my way, as I'm accusing anyone of vandalism, nor am I involved in any way beyond providing input from this rat's nest of a situation. Though, you probably should resist following Heba Aisha's activity and seeing how you can get involved, as that is a problematic component - unless you have a compelling reason for that. Looking at the May 10, 2021 report you pointed out, Oshwah didn't refer to the findings as frivolous, but rather possible. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That being said, Ratnahastin makes a good point about the spamming of warnings. @Heba Aisha: if you have warnings to give, please leave it at one and wait for further activity before administering another. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 04:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do it, i am less active nowadays. But I would request not to tag me on various pages and please don't visit my talk page, if not tagged. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bad Behaviour and unnecessary page moves by User:Lugnuts

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

---

Hi. Hope that everything is well with all. Lugnuts is falsely repeatedly saying me a sock, sock and sock. He is repeatedly saying me a sock and reverting my edits to his articles or pages with an edit summary of "rv sock". See this diff. Here Lugnuts reverted my edit saying in the edit summary rv sock, although the edit was constructive, he wrote rv. However, he again added the same content that I added, so the revert by him was pointless. The unnecessary reversion of the article says all the future. Because reverting it, Lugnuts already considered that I am a sock and perhaps, he will revert all my future edits to his articles. If he wants to prove me a sock, then he may hold an investigation, but is just assuming. Even, if there is any investigation, I am well confident that there will be no result against me. Let me tell more about background of the incident: He first moved Julian de Mey to Julian de Mey (cricketer), although the disambiguation was unnecessary. But I was surprised when he again redirected Julian de Mey to List of Netherlands Twenty20 International cricketers. Thus both the articles Julian de Mey was also about a cricketer (as the redirect is about cricket), and Julian de Mey (cricketer) was also about a cricketer. So, two articles with different titles was created, although both articles are about a single cricketer. I assume that Lugnuts took this strange action to take the credit of creating article. Or, Probably, Thinking me a sock, he moved the article created by me, because generally articles created by blocked users are deleted, although there is no sock puppet block of me. Prior to that strange action, he had also taken another strange action to this article by moving to draftspace. But then he again created the same article in the main space with a redirection to International cricket in 2022–23. So, that time also, probably his motive was to take the credit of creating article. So, due to his unnecessary page moves, I left a message on his talk page saying to stop. See this diff, this diff and this diff. In this diffs, he also told me a sock thrice in the edit summary. I am still just a high-school student, and it is very distressful for me when one puts pressure on me saying a sock falsely. Please block Lugnuts for some days because this is a kind of personal attack.— A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate Lugnuts's contributions to Wikipedia. But seeing his block log, I observed his past blocks was also due to behavioural problems. He again said me a sock when I left ANI notice on his talk page. See [43] edit summary. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There are apparently many more such examples here. An editor cannot continually make unfounded accusations that another editor is a sock. If an editor believes another is a sock then they must go to WP:SPI or a CheckUser with their evidence (note this is a redlink). If they refuse to do so then it's simply personal attacks, and in this kind of frequency borders on harassment. The weirdness with the page moves and suppressions also doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the conduct side of this, just noting that I've now filed the OP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambria Math, though. --Blablubbs|talk 09:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. It IMO doesn't excuse the conduct but probably makes the report non-actionable. It is poor practice for an editor to unilaterally decide someone is a sock and keep making the accusation without taking their claims and evidence to the appropriate venues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I first raised my concerns here when the OP requested the Auto-patrol rights, including my thoughts on why this is not a new user. For the record, I also emailed an admin who is a checkuser yesterday evening (about 7.30pm UK time) with some more diffs as evidence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Note that Lugnuts had reported A.A Prinon as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImSonyR9 three months ago, and a checkuser found them to not be a sock in that case. That Lugnuts decided to treat them as a sock anyway, prior to having any sort of determination and with a distinct finding otherwise, is harassment territory. Does the end justify the means? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as that is who I believed was the sock-master. Apologies that I'm blunt and to the point - I admit that's one of my failings. However, I don't throw round sock accusations for the sake of it - when you have a gut feeling, you stick with your gut. I had been gathering evidence, most of which was contained in the email I mention, above, and some of that has now been posted in the SPI case for Cambria Math. A point of interest is that the initial editor I thought was the sock-master did edit for the first time months only ten days ago, with AA editing about 20 minutes later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been unblocked because I am considered a good faith editor. And Cambria Math was created just 1 month before A.A Prinon account was created. Lugnuts was trying to know how I know about most of Wikipedia policies despite being a new editor. But as Cambria math was created just on December 2020, it is clear that creation of that account has no impact on my knowledge of WP policies. If Lugnuts again reverts my any edit saying it a 'rv sock', I shall report him at ANI again. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"and it is very distressful for me when one puts pressure on me saying a sock falsely" (my emphasis) and yet the evidence (at WP:SPI) is that you were socking, and therefore not being honest when asked a direct question about other accounts. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Yes I used multiple accounts. But my intention for creating those was never for socking. Except two AfD comments, probably none of those two accounts' edits were abusing or misusing. The reasons I explained in the investigation was plausible as stated by a user. as you've experienced here, trying to juggle many different accounts for different purposes, such as having one for articles and a different one for your user space, often just leads to trouble. It's technically allowed, but you've done so in a way that makes it look to other users like you're trying to appear like two different people, which is not allowed, and so we have to put a stop to this., the administrator stated. He also stated I was checking this with a feeling that it's too obvious to be deliberate abuse, prior to A.A Prinon's explanation and ProcrastinatingReader's followup. I had already found that the technical data supports a good-faith user who is basically trying to operate multiple accounts in line with the policy, including abandoning one and continuing with another (WP:CLEANSTART) as well as operating a legitimate and disclosed alternate account. It's hard to describe the pattern I see but if I say it looks clumsy, I think other checkusers will be able to see what I mean. So from this might understand that there are some good reasons for my use of multiple accounts. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• New users, (arbitrarily I put that under 6 months) with vast knowledge of Wikipedia and it’s inner workings is almost always indicative of a returning banned/blocked editor evading a block. That is my opinion and could be totally flawed, but all the same, my opinion. Furthermore, when ever comments such as If you think I’m a sock report me/open an investigation or anything along those lines are made, it further increases my suspicion as it oozes of a well versed editor with knowledge of how to evade Checkuser. Furthermore, @Ivanvector and ProcrastinatingReader, first, thanks for contributing to this thread and secondly, I should also state categorically that I share the same concerns as Lugnuts, I very strongly do, although I do not support his approach (his motives are good but his approach may be a tad bit harsh) I expressly created WP:DBY for this is sort of scenario and I hope it helps good faith editors re-think their strategy and manner of approach when faced with this sort of challenge. Celestina007 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

So we've gone to a user saying that I've fasely called them a sock, to them strongly denying any socking, to having two non-involved editors finding them using at least four accounts, including vote-stacking at AfD, when the user admits to socking, to then be given the OK to carry-on. Awesome message. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: what's happening here? A user who is confirmed as a sock has come steaming into ANI, attacking someone who correctly identified them as a sock, and then continued the attacks even after realizing their mistake, and you're just letting them off? I'm all for AGF, but this editor is acting like someone else is to blame for their socking, and showing no signs that they understand that they were the one in the wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: if you've read my discussion with the user and the clerk at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambria Math and on A.A Prinon's talk page, and you have more questions, it would probably be best to follow up on my talk page. There's a bit of a witch hunt happening here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Amakuru: There's no witch-hunt, just question marks on what happened here and what happened at the SPI. The very first post at the SPI starts with Blablubbs saying "Very clear-cut...." and concludes with "All three are obviously tag-teaming [14] here. The amount of overlap between the three makes it near-impossible for this to be coincidental." But you've dismissed this as being "clumsy" and their explination of socking "plausible". Was their deliberate vote-stacking at AfD "clumsy"? Would other users be afforded the same treatment if they vote-stacked, and then said they were trying to manage multiple accounts on different devices? I don't believe that result in a swift unblocking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: yes, I've read what's written on the other pages, and as I said above, I could well accept this if the user made an honest mistake and then was suitably apologetic about it. But instead they continued the battleground rhetoric against Lugnuts:"If Lugnuts again reverts my any edit saying it a 'rv sock', I shall report him at ANI again". I don't think this is a witch-hunt, just concern by several editors about why you so quickly unblocked a confirmed sock, who is continuing to attack the editor who discovered their socking in the first place. Obviously I don't have access to the checkuser data that you do, but from where I'm sitting thread here should be resulting in a fairly routine WP:BOOMERANG block or other sanction for unacceptable conduct, or a recognition of where they went wrong and commitment from the editor to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: You see on my talk page and the investigation, I have apologised for my acts and decided never to use any accounts alongside this one. I tried to use multiple accounts legitimately, but while using maybe sometimes I went to the illegal path. And I am not continuing the battleground rhetoric against Lugnuts. I am just asking him not to revert my edits from now on in the future because I have been unblocked and promise not to sock again. And you may see the suspected users contributions, after February 2021, I didn't make any abusing or misusing edits through multiple accounts, even though there were constructive edits through those accounts. So, when I came to know about sockpuppetry, I realised my guilt and stopped misusing. And the reason for starting to use A.A Prinon's account actively (since January) was also WP:CLEANSTART. Because you may see on Cambria Math's talk page, there were several warnings or cautions (even by Lugnuts) on me as I edited disruptively. And that is why, I stopped using Cambria Math as I wanted to have a new and clean start with A.A Prinon, through which I would only make constructive and helpful edits. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

On the back of all this, is this OK for AA Prinon to accuse someone else of not being a new user in the past hour? WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour indeed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts,No, actually I asked him this one. Because he participated in an AfD discussion nominated by me. So, being surprised, I just asked him if he is new or not. Because he just joined 15 days ago. And I will not prolong any discussion with AgentCody because I don't have sufficient time as Lugnuts has for opening a lengthy discussion or investigation. I just asked AgentCody as part of my interest how he knows many things. Nothing else. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll try to address these comments here, since clearly nobody is reading what I've already written about this elsewhere. The subject of this thread here was whether or not to block Lugnuts for harassing a new user; I chose not to but I am reconsidering. I am annoyed when I see experienced editors equate "new user with competence" with "this must be a sockpuppet", and I've said this often before. We literally write out detailed guides for everything you could possibly want to know how to do on Wikipedia, and then accuse new users of wrongdoing when they follow what we've written. You all clearly need to be reminded again that WP:AGF is a non-optional policy. That annoys me, but I get really fucking mad when I see an editor use this as a justification to follow a new user around and make their Wikipedia editing experience miserable for no other reason than their own confirmation bias and sense of superiority. It's plainly harassment: it's literally the behaviour described by the second sentence of that policy. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry then go file an SPI and let the editors with experience in this realm investigate; if you just want to enforce your own version of the rules for the power trip, go be a cop.

I did investigate A.A Prinon for sockpuppetry, identified which accounts belonged to them and which did not, blocked those accounts, and tried to describe the results of IP information as well as I can while respecting the privacy and checkuser policies; that's all archived and I'm not going to restate any of it here. Everyone here is forgetting that users are allowed to use multiple accounts; people earn blocks for using multiple accounts for a short list of deliberately deceptive behaviours. This user manually signed under their account name when they were logged out, and created and operated a same-name "(Alternate)" account - who here thinks those are the actions of someone trying to deceive on purpose? They admitted that their double-vote at one AfD one time was not appropriate and did apologize for it, but that was also a unanimous WP:SNOW-speedy delete result, so who the hell cares? Otherwise, their explanation that they wanted to stop using Cambria Math and use the other account instead, but got mixed up managing logins, I found to be plausible and easily supported by the technical data for their connection. Having had no other issues with their edits identified and seeing none myself, I asked A.A Prinon to agree to a one-account restriction, which I saw as all that was needed to put a stop to the disruptive behaviour which was their clumsy but good-faith account-switching. Anything more would be punitive. As for the accusation that they lied about it: if someone who has been following you around and interfering with your editing suddenly holds a gun to your face and says "I'll shoot you if you're using multiple accounts", would you be honest about it? I don't see anything wrong with their post here asking for intervention to get Lugnuts to stop bothering them: the action is for Lugnuts to stop bothering them.

The clean start policy sanctions two reasons for a clean start: acknowledging past misdeeds and avoiding harassment. Both apply here. A.A Prinon botched it themselves (Lugnuts and Blablubbs helped) by mismanaging their logins, but our usual remedy for either a botched or an impermissible clean start is to connect the accounts, and that's already been done, so I don't see the need to do anything else here. I'm not about to end someone's Wiki-career over a series of fairly simple (and easily corrected) mistakes, and over cricket no less. I do feel the need to reiterate to A.A Prinon that a clean start is not a get out of jail free card. I don't think you had "good reasons" for using multiple accounts at all, that's why I told you not to do it any more. I unblocked you only because you agreed to the one-account restriction, and I don't currently see any other problems.

Now I suggest that someone should close this, it is generating more heat than light. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"I get really fucking mad..., Well believe it or not, I don't chase every single new editor around yelling "sock! sock! sock!" This editor raised plenty of red-flags. I admit that I could have handled that better, and logged an SPI case earlier. As per my comments above, I did contact a checkuser via email with my concerns. By the time this had all boiled up here, the SPI case had already been logged by Blablubbs. "...for no other reason than their own confirmation bias and sense of superiority..." And directly before that crass comment of yours, you state "that WP:AGF is a non-optional policy", but show zero WP:AGF with that comment! Which bring me to your "who who the hell cares?" comment. Unbelievable. Who cares indeed. Can that be applied to any situation at ANI, SPI, AFD, etc, etc? I've seen socks perm. blocked for a lot less than double-voting in a SNOW AfD. So it doesn't it matter if it was going to be deleted anyway? You've tried to deflect this back at me, and at the same time pretty much ignore the questions/concerns posted by Amakuru. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything. I posted a detailed explanation of my rationale in the SPI, I posted another detailed explanation when Blablubbs followed up, and I posted a third far more detailed rationale here in response to Amakuru's concerns. Since you seem to be wholly incapable of finding those comments yourself, here are the diffs: [44], [45], [46]. If it would help you see them I can copy and paste them onto your talk page. I would offer to record myself reading them aloud and send them to you, but voice work is a union job where I live; you are free to recruit someone else to read them to you if that's what you need. The only thing missing here is a commitment to stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, to which you can commit any time. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there's a big difference between the rationale Blablubbs used when reporting the user at SPI, and Lugnuts' rationale here. The former is detailed evidence connecting the user to another account. The latter is basically summarised as "made 4 articles in 2 months, nominated something for Featured List (a venue which we openly link from many talk pages via {{Article history}}), for making an AfD with a semi-coherent rationale, and making a REFUND request". This is pretty much fishing, but in any case the narrative is that the user was experienced via history on another account. Their other account later discovered turned out to have a grand total of 55 edits and only started editing 1 month before the A.A account, i.e. was practically no more experienced. There's a big difference between a valid sock-accusation rationale and just fluking it. This seems to just be fluking it, as established facts at SPI do not support this narrative (unless there is a third account, undetected by CU; very much possible, but no evidence presented for that). I'd say neither party has really done their best in this situation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Socking in the USSR.png

User:Lenin, with socks.

I am annoyed when I see experienced editors equate "new user with competence" with "this must be a sockpuppet", and I've said this often before. We literally write out detailed guides for everything you could possibly want to know how to do on Wikipedia, and then accuse new users of wrongdoing when they follow what we've written. Amen. Two and a half years ago, I was that new user: the one who read the help files and then was accused of being an obvious sock because I showed familiarity with the help files. It was fucking infuriating. Don't do this to new users. Levivich 15:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the underlying dispute here, but must agree with this comment. My very first edit to Wikipedia, 14 years ago, was made to an AfD discussion and I made damn sure that it was competent before I made it. Someone sticking to the rules (which we have many of, in spite of the "ignore all rules" mantra) is not evidence of sockpuppetry. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My first couple AfDs were of a far higher quality than my AfDs these days. I guess you could say I'm becoming more incompetent with experience. (in seriousness it's probably in part due to realising that one can get by on "fails GNG, could not find RS coverage" and save a lot of time.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I shall also not prolong the discussion if Lugnuts don't call me rv sock in the future. You see previously Lugnuts called my edits poor publicly on Cricket Project's talk page which should also be counted in favour of Lugnuts being blocked. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 90#Dutch cricket team in South Africa in 2021-22. And this is not a good behaviour presented by Lugnuts. And Lugnuts hasn't still responded why he moved the pages Julian Mey and Indian cricket team in Bangladesh in 2022—23 but created the same again unnecessarily. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

VIJAY DARSHINI pasting copyvio into multiple articles

VIJAY DARSHINI (talk · contribs) entire contribution history so far consists of pasting copyright violating text into multiple articles. Talk page messages about it are being ignored. I think a block (and some revision deletions) are warranted here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned everything up given a final warning. Please let me know right away if the problem persists.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Several more accounts that are following a similar pattern:

• Naveenjacob21 (talk · contribs)
• Anandhus181 (talk · contribs)
• Asishbabu09 (talk · contribs)
• Arundhathypramod (talk · contribs)
• Jeffasish (talk · contribs)
• SNSW (talk · contribs)
• SNSW-DMS (talk · contribs)
• Mageshwar Selvam (talk · contribs)
• RIYASHARMA1 (talk · contribs)
• Zakariyya Eraniyan (talk · contribs)
• Team11web2.0 (talk · contribs)
• Ramya Poosarla (talk · contribs)

Some kind of edit a thon off the rails, or maybe student editors from some undeclared course? Is there enough here to start a SPI? - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not ask for a sock check? 2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've checked the edits of the above users and done the required cleanup. Opening an SPI would be pointless if they are students all editing from the same school.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block of Axtoche for WP:NOTHERE

The user user:Axtoche uses Wikipedia purely for pushing a nationalist agenda, edit warring and vandalizing in the process. Their "contribution" consists to more than 90% of trying to suppress references to minority languages in France, and Axtoche do this by blanking references to these languages. For some recent examples, see [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. These are not even a fraction of the total, but serve as examples. Furthermore, Axtoche consistently and disruptively mark these blankings as minor edits, even though they obviously are not minor. In short, the user does not contribute anything of value to Wikipedia, and instead engages only in blanking, edit warring and disruption. Despite multiple warnings from several users, this behavior continues. I propose the user be indeffed as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, did you mean to indef the user? You actually just blocked them for 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC).

Yes, I did, not sure how I messed that up. Fixed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ha, glad to see it's not just me. My little specialty is writing a block notice (in lieu of using Twinkle, which blocks automatically) on a user's page and then forgetting to block them. Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

Canvasing

There's a continuing disruptive behaviour on the part of User:Red Rose 13.

Namely, Red Rose 13 continues to canvas other users, even though they've been noticed on 26 April 2021, that such behaviour is disruptive and goes against Wikipedia's policies. [54] Red Rose 13 has been asked to refrain from such behaviour in the future [55] and asked to follow Wikipedia's guidelines to try to contact other editors via RfC or through relevant WikiProjects. [56]

On 27 May 2021, Red Rose 13 continued to canvas other users. [57]

Here are examples of canvasing before the notice: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62] and after the notice: [63].

--Governor Sheng (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to this false allegation. User talk:Governor Sheng has been attacking, reverting and blocking my edits for months now.

• (1) The definition of canvasing - "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." I already explained to Governor Sheng here [[64]] that my intention is to find an editor willing to work with us to create a neutral balanced article.
• (2) Link #84 - I posted on GShengs page that I would like to ask an editor that was taking on adoptions to help us with the sources. I gave him the name and asked what he thought. He did not respond. See here [[65]] So I made the request for my self with Rosguill
• (3) Both link #85 & #86 relate to the editor Skyerise who I worked with a number of years back. He was neutral, knowledgeable and fair. I was hoping he was available and if he was able to help, then planned to introduce to GSheng.
• (4) Link #87 is about Gråbergs who came from the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard board to help on the page.
• (5) Link #88 I did reach out to an administrator in hopes that she could help us Melanie N - but she declined.
• (6) Link #89 Sundayclose was already an editor on the OLM page.
• (7) Duplicate Link #90 Same as Link 84 Rosguill

Again Governor Sheng is accusing me of something that I have not done. I do not have the intention of influencing anything. I just want the Our Lady of Medjugorje pages and the many pages associated with this page to be neutral, fact based pages. We have been struggling since October 2020. It seems every time I edit, he reverts it. An example of the difficulty is in the last couple of days I tried to communicate with him about ways we can come together as a collaborative team to edit OLM and the MANY related pages but he never responded.[[66]] and [[67]] So I began editing as encouraged by another editor. Governor Sheng then reverts my edit demanding that we have discussion before we edit. He had time to revert my edit but not to respond to my communications regarding collaborative editing. He did have time to do other editing however. You will need to scroll down to May 28th to see him editing. [[68]]Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The reason you have to scroll down so far is because GSheng did over 500 edits today. Not sure what is going on.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I won't be able to respond to your messages, there are days when I'm not available. But even when I do not respond, it doesn't give you any right to violate Wikipedia's policies. --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It is quite clear that I did not violate Wikipedia Policies and I have explained it thoroughly. Looking through your edits, it is obvious to see you had plenty of time to respond. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: If more links are added in threads above this one, the numbers will "move". Atm, I seem to be in link 87. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I corrected it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated addition of improperly sourced content by Badsanta69

Despite several warnings, Badsanta69 regularly adds improperly sourced or misrepresented content to Bangladeshi diaspora.

I've tried to engage with them on Talk:Bangladeshi diaspora and on User talk:Badsanta69, where I've explained at length the problems with their edits (while also encouraging their few beneficial ones). They haven't responded on the article talk page, and after writing about ten days ago that, "Those are my collected data you recently changed i know some are not accurate because of good and strong reference", they've stopped replying on their talk page. But their disruption continues.

Examples of improperly sourced additions from their most recent batch of edits:

• [69]: France 50,000 (2020) [70] Although the source says "We, more than 50,000 Bangladeshi people", it's quoting a random Bangladeshi migrant. A man on the street is not a reliable source for demographic data. A reliable source would be Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, which says there were 15,200 Bangladeshis in France as of 2018.[71] They've made this edit before and been reverted with an explanation on their talk page of why their source is not reliable.
• [72]: Greece 12,000-20,000 (2019) [73] The source doesn't support 20,000, which is plucked from thin air. It says "there are as many as 12,000 undocumented Bangladeshi migrant men who work in the agrarian labor market in Greece".
• [74]: Japan 14,956 (2016) [75] The 2020 source says the city of Sapporo's foreign population was 14,956, of whom about 100 are believed to be Bangladeshi.
• [76]: Netherlands 5,000 (2012) [77] Presenting a single number obscures the subtleties of the source, which says "There are a little over 1,500 officially registered Bangladeshis in the Netherlands. However ... According to a Bangladeshi migrant organisation located in the Netherlands, the number lies somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000. Another Bangladeshi organisation estimates the number to be at least 2,500."

Badsanta69 says that English is not their first language, so I've cut them considerable slack, but the disruptiveness of their editing is outweighing any good edits.

A block of an at least temporary duration is needed to, at a minimum, get their attention and make them realize that reliable sources must be used, and must be comprehended and accurately represented in order to be a constructive contributor. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Worldbruce, Thanks for bringing this up and for your work here. I'm wondering if a partial block of that one page might be sufficient? I hate to drop the hammer fully with a sitewide block right away, though I'm not sure about the veracity of some of their edits elsewhere (e.g., [78]). Ideally, they'd engage on the talk page as you've suggested ... I suppose a partial block from the article namespace to force a discussion in talk space could be an option too. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 20:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

At this stage, Go Phightins!, I'm open to anything that would get their attention and make them reflect on their edits. A namespace block might do that. A partial block as narrow as Bangladeshi diaspora might work too, although so far their interest is almost exclusively with that article, so a partial block might not feel any different to them than a full block. If it turns out that the language barrier is so great that they can't understand feedback or participate in discussion, then CIR may need to be considered, and further steps taken. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Worldbruce, Proceeded with a one month block from article space in hopes of cajoling discussion on the article talk pages. We can proceed with CIR as needed if this proves not to do the trick. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Bob Blaylock

On May 28, Bob Blaylock made two edits to Talk:Transgender, describing "transgenderism" as "pseudoscience" similar to homeopathy, phrenology, biorhythms, and such. After these edits were reverted by another editor, Blaylock created a new section complaining about "censorship" which they described as an admission that one knows that one is full of solid digestive waste, and that one's position cannot stand up to honest discussion. At this point I placed a level 2 warning template on his talk page at User talk:Bob Blaylock#May 2021 asking him to "Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Transgender for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics."

After he made another edit to Talk:Transgender, this time describing being transgender as a passing irrational fad and bemoaning his experience, of questioning the very premise of this article, only to be subjected to brutal and dishonest censorship for doing so, I placed a level 3 template at the same section on his talk page along with a personal message asking him to "stop accusing other editors of censorship, and definitely to stop trying to initiate general discussion about your beliefs about transgender people at Talk:Transgender." I additionally noted that he was risking a block and that I wanted him to be aware of that fact. He responded by accusing me of bad faith and inviting me to depart, and to apply repeated impacts to fine mineral particles.

In a parallel discussion initiated by CaptainEek in the same section on Blaylockʻs talk page, Blaylock continued to describe "transgenderism" as pseudoscience. After CaptainEek made repeated attempts to get Blaylock to provide sources or point out specific issues with the article, Blaylock stated I'm not going to let myself be gish gallopped with a bunch of manure from a male bovine that makes no real effort to support the point that they are supposed to support. It should be noted that this personal attack was made toward CaptainEek, a user with {{User:Cogiati/agender}} and a custom userbox stating "This editor expects recognition as gender neutral" on their userpage, as well as a statement that "In both Wikipedia and real-life my pronouns are they/them."

I apologize for this overly long explanation, and Iʻm not sure how to proceed from here. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  At this point, Ezlev, it is you that is actively seeking to keep the conflict going. . Please just stop harassing me, and stop posting bullshit on my talk page.  In fact, let me make it as clear as I can.  I do not consent to anything more from you being posted on my, page, and consider it abusive for you to continue doing so, or otherwise engaging in any harassment against me anywhere.  Just leave me the fuck alone.

  As for the other parallel discussion going on on my talk page between myself and CaptainEek, that is none of your concern.  Surely it is up to me to decide what I will or will not allow on my own talk page, is it not?  I might not ever come to any agreement with CaptainEek on the topic being discussed, but unlike you, he at least appears to be making an effort to discuss the issue in good faith, in a manner of which you appear to be wholly incapable; and as long as that continues to be the case, I have no problem with him continuing that discussion there.  If you have a problem with it, then that is your own problem; not mine, and not CaptainEek's.

  You are unworthy of so much as another second of my time or attention, Ezlev.  Go away and leave me alone.

 — Bob Blaylock (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment. None of this is acceptable in a collaborative project. – bradv🍁 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bradv, I think I know why you didn't go with the old NOTHERE indef-block, but I wonder if Bob Blaylock knows how close he is to one of those. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, if the last few days were the only indication this would totally be a NOTHERE block. But there are some good contributions in the past, so I'm willing to give them a chance in the hopes that they're just having a bad week. – bradv🍁 22:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradv — I am not a “they”.  I am just one man, not multiple beings, and there is no rational reason to address me using a plural pronoun. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bob Blaylock, I used the singular they, which I typically do when I don't know the other person's gender or when their gender is irrelevant to the discussion. – bradv🍁 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I know it, Bradv, and I appreciate it. I hope they do too. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If the disruptive behavior resumes, perhaps a topic ban on sexuality and gender may be in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've been contributing to the Wikipedia for over a decade, and this is the very first time I have ever run across this sort of trouble.  I think I had some very valid issues to bring up, and I am very much taken aback by the response to my effort to raise these issues.  Apparently, in bringing up these questions, I've hit a nerve that we're just not allowed to hit.  This seems to go very much against what I have always understood to be the purpose and philosophical basis for the Wikipedia. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bob Blaylock: Literally nobody refutes - or cares - about your personal talk page. The subject of this AN/I thread was initially the bombarding of your personal, disputed perspectives onto pages. But, now I believe the focus should be on you not acknowledging why you were brought here - a case of WP:IDHT. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: — Two-thirds of Ezlev's complaint, including nearly all the false accusations against me of harassment and personal attacks, are about a conversation that was going on on my personal talk page between myself and another user. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Celestina007

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

---

Celestina007 has behaved very inappropriately to me. It started with when I created a new page on a Nigerian model and use the wrong choice of words when explaining the photo I used in the article. When Celestina007 made me aware of the "client" rule, I explained in further detail about my use of the picture. I was licensed the photo to use by both the model (who I do not personally know) and the photographer whom I do know. I agree that my ignorance of the client rule started that photo controvesy but as I said on my talk page, I can easily get the photographer and/or model to send an email with documentation that I was licensed the picture for Wikipedia. The main problem started when Celestina007 started being combative for no reason on my talk page and then making threats. Furthermore, the user accused me of being a sockpuppet and I have no idea why when this is our first interaction and the only thing I did was create a page about a popular Nigerian model. Celestina007 refuses to name who I am supposedly a sockpuppet of. When I attempted to end the conversation (now turning in a back-and-forth argument), Celestina007 reverted my talk page that I had cleared. Now they are making up further accusations saying I am part of OPE and I don't know what that is or what it stands for. In closing, this has jumped from being notified about a potential concern about page I created, to false accusations and rude behavior. Please view my talk page history. Thank you! Horizonlove (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Now a user (Magnolia677) who has hounded me in the past, has once again hounded me and chosen to take the side of Celestina007 in deletion vote for a page that I created. That vote is obviously bias. Horizonlove (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And after I opened this case and notified Celestina007 on her talk page about this discussion, they removed the notification message off of their talk page and wrote in the edit summary box "Go Away". This is also strange and unusual behavior because it's empty threats and no proof to support their accusations. I clearly stated to that user that if they do not stop their rude behavior and false accusations towards me, I would take them to the ANI. In addition to that, you can also see that Celestina007 has contacted Magnolia677 to further participate in the deletion process even though I said that Magnolia677 was clearly bias due to our past history. Horizonlove (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have taken them to the WP:COIBOARD see here. They appear to be disgruntled I nabbed them in covert upe. They claimed the professional shoot(image) on the article as theirs but did not disclose a COI, I asked why this was so and they gave the most improbable reply. They currently have blanked their userpage to make tracking conversations harder. However I propose a WP:BOOMERANG block, as anti spam editor I can categorically say this undisclosed paid editing. This is my forte and I know one when I see one. The article which initiated all this has been sent to AFD where !voters there also agree that this is UPE. Once more I propose a boomerang block. Celestina007 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  "They claimed the professional shoot(image) on the article as theirs" I have already explained this to them and offered proof to support my claim. And furthermore, it is not conflict of interest for me to edit the page. Another way of looking at it, would be a fan editing a public figure they admire. And I am obviously not part of some "covert upe". I have no idea what that is and Celestina007 still refuses to explain what it is. "This is my forte and I know one when I see one." is another false accusation however it is based on a poor choice of words that I take responsibility for but also explained. Horizonlove (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have nothing but good things to say about Celestina007, she was willing to change her AfD vote after being given information about a novel being used for national standardizedb testing, and was more than civil during the entire discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: I am glad that you had a good experience but that is not the case with me. All you have to do go through the history. Horizonlove (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish, my friend, this is UPE, it is my forte and without an iota of doubt I can tell you this UPE. They are merely disfigured I spoiled business for them which indeed gladdens me. Celestina007 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, is this about c:File:LynnDavis.jpg? That's a video screenshot. Or c:File:Kym Mazelle.jpg which has "Kym Mazelle" for both author and source? Or File:CharlotteKelly.jpg? That was from a talent directory. Or maybe File:JocelynBrown.jpg which was from Facebook? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have to concur that this article looks like promotion. The photo description given by Horizonlove is "A photo taken during a photoshoot session with Soludo Marcel in which the photographer licensed the photo to me." So there is obvious coordination between the editor Horizonlove and the subject. I guess there's always the possibility that Horizonlove is an innocent well-intentioned editor, but there is a lot of battleground attitude coming from their edits. --- Possibly (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly, I’ve lived in Nigeria 20+ years and I can assure you this blatant UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I don't doubt your opinion! However at this point it is a (respected) seasoned opinion rather than hard fact. That said, I agree that the article subject really has zero notability. The sources do not even mention him.--- Possibly (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I know about the model because I have seen their commercials on tv. But if it has to be deleted, so be it. But that's beside the main point of Celestina007 behaving inappropriately and also making false accusations. Horizonlove (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The original edit was I stated that I was photographer which was not true (and was the poor choice in words that I mentioned earlier) but I was hoping it would be simple if I said that since I have the license to the image and asked the photographer for usage specifically for Wikipedia. Furthermore, when I noticed Celestina007 was only interested in arguing, I attempted to stop the argument by simply stopped replying and removing their edits from my talk page but Celestina007 reverted and made more false accusations against me. If I'm going to be falsely accused of sockpuppetry or being in some covert, at least explain in full detail what that is. I still don't understand that part. Horizonlove (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So you concur you were intentionally being deceptive. Celestina007 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Please note that once again, the user is trying to be combative. They refuse to justify their rude behavior and threat on my talk page as well as distract from their sockpuppet accusations. Instead they choose to try to focus on something I have already stated in plain text. Horizonlove (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: a large number of the comments at ANI are by non-administrators, myself included. Now, regarding that photo, were you in touch with the subject to get the "licensing"; i.e. did you talk to them (or their agent or the photographer) or email one of those people or meet them?--- Possibly (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Yes, I personally spoke with the photographer about wanting use the photo for the Wikipedia page. I was granted rights to use them and as I've said over and over, I can have them forward an email that they gave me permission and license to use the photo. I have explained that to Celestina007 and instead of just requesting it, they proceed with rude behavior, threats, false sockpuppet accusations. Horizonlove (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horizonlove:. Thanks for clarifying that. I believe you have also said that you are not being paid and have no conflict of interest, correct? Finally, do you mind telling us why you chose this subject? He looks entirely not notable; In my experience there is almost definite certainty that it will be deleted at the end of the AfD. That might be one reason you are getting so much pushback: to the experienced eye, this really look like promotion of a non-notable subject. Do you get that point of view?--- Possibly (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Absolutely. As stated a little earlier, I first discovered the model in a commercial that randomly aired. I followed his career and today (May 30), he won a big modeling competition or pageant in Nigeria. It's not unusual for me to create a page on someone who is considered "barely known" or otherwise but I felt this person was notable enough especially because there are well-known in Nigeria. But everything media-related isn't always written in stone as with USA, UK, or other countries. But I have been wanting to start a Wikipedia page on the person for a while now and I figured I had enough sources to do so, especially considering the other pages in Category:Nigerian male models. Sorry it took so long to reply, there is too much editing traffic and I can't even reply because of it. Aside from that, I understand the page will probably be deleted, but is not my concern. The problem is Celestina007's rude behavior on my talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• They have now gone ahead to cast aspersions against @Magnolia677. Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely for a number of reasons. The first is that Magnolia67 should know better than to keep following me from page to page. I can easily bring up a history of [minor and major known] pages that I've edited and then conveniently, Magnolia67 showed up and reverted my edits. Next, you (Celestina007) are tagging Magnolia67 on your talk page to assist you in accusing me of sockpoppetry and we also know that's a lie but he has chosen to help you anyway. Another example of bias and inappropriate behavior from Magnolia67. This is sad and silly. It is stems from one page that I created. From here out, I am not responding until the admins jump in. Horizonlove (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: I've been back over your last 100 edits, which takes us back to February 2020, over a year ago. As far as I can see User:Magnolia67 hasn't edited any of them since your most recent edit. Can you provide diffs showing Magnolia67 "following you from page to page"? Because I'm not seeing any evidence to support your claim, and without evidence, that is a personal attack. Laplorfill (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Laplorfill: Absolutely. I need about 15 minutes to gather up the long list. Horizonlove (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Laplorfill: This are a few of them but are more. My computer is constantly locking up which taking me a while to get and it's hard to reply with all of the editing traffic happening. There are more but these are few that I can easily remember. Robert Owen (musician), Kym Mazelle, Joi Cardwell, Nathan Lee Graham. Most of these were point-blank reverts after my edits without verifying what I added. And that have been several instances where Magnolia677 stalked other people too.[79][80] Horizonlove (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So, four examples from 4 years ago? One was adding a citation which helped you. Two were rightly removing unsourced information you added to biographioes of living people which you absolutely should not do. I don't see anything except a good editor correcting your mistakes and helping you. Four years ago. Not exactly a good justification for what you said, IMHO. Laplorfill (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is that Magnolia677 came completely out of nowhere and kept reverting my edits. Like I said, there are more pages. Another one involved when I removed some false information of the Lil Kim page and Magnolia677 reverted back onto the page without even looking, which I removed again. But regardless, they are stalking me because they would not have known about some of these people if they did not keep watching my edit history. Regardless of how far back it was, the point is still valid. Horizonlove (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You've never edited Lil Kim, so I'm sorry but I don't buy your accusation. Magnolia677 didn't "keep reverting your edits" they did it 3 times. Even if you made a case that they were stalking you 4 years ago, which you patently have not, it would not justify you making that accusation now. Laplorfill (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; there's not much fuel for this report. I'd be fine with seeing it shuttered, without Horizonlove receiving a boomerang. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: My bad, it wasn't Lil Kim. It was Foxy Brown.[81] Although frankly, I'm not interested if you believe. The truth is truth. Horizonlove (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen enough copyright violations, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks based on ... nothing. I've blocked Horizonlove for one week. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• In hindsight, I shouldn’t have allowed them to irate nor vex me. In this process, I almost became a victim of WP:DBY. My very own invention. The project has bestowed great trust upon me and I’ve been trusted with very sensitive material so I should also note that with great trust comes great responsibility and a higher standard of conduct, although sometimes difficult I should also always remember this. My oath to the community and to self is forever binding and I, Celestina, would continue to fight undisclosed paid editing as long as I am alive and well. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:MLJ 657

I have noticed a problem with MLJ 657. They have persistently added unsourced series endings to articles that fail WP:V and are not supported by any citations in the linked articles.

A timeline of the situation:

• March 6, 2021: user made a series of edits adding unsourced series endings to 2020 in animation. Edits were subsequently reverted by Magitroopa, who then proceeded to warn MLJ 657. MLJ 657 then responds saying he will stop.
• March 18, 2021: user added Muppet Babies (2018 TV series) to 2021 in animation's ending section with this edit, breaking the promise he made to Magitroopa.
• March 25, 2021: I warned user, user then posts to my talk page saying "I won't be blocked from editing without further warning so I have to keep in mind to not do that."
• April 14, 2021: Once again, user continues to add unsourced/poorly sourced material, adding Fancy Nancy (TV series) to 2021 in American television ([82]) and 2021 in animation ([83]), citing RenewCancelTV, which is not a reliable source (see here for why I don't consider it reliable, posted under my old account). I then proceed to warn them for adding unsourced/poorly sourced material again, user replies making the same empty promise they made the last two times.
• May 5, 2021: Unsurprisingly, user adds unsourced content to 2021 in animation again.
• May 25, 2021: I removed user's addition, but it didn't occur to me that it was MLJ 657 until I scrolled through the page's edit history. Thus, I go to their talk page to express my frustration with this continued behavioral pattern. User has yet to respond to my message.

MLJ 657 has continued to add unsourced or poorly sourced material after promising multiple times to stop, and I feel that some disciplinary action should be in order. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sloop101 persistently adding copyvio images to Nick Fuentes and elsewhere

See the page history. Both photos, which they uploaded to Commons as their "own work" are clear copyvios: Nick Fuentes.png is from a USA Today article and Nick Fuentes 2.png is from Chicago Tribune (second image in slideshow). I've tagged them as copyright violations on Commons, but they are edit warring them into the article here in the meantime. I actively edit that page so I'm not dealing with this myself per WP:INVOLVED.

Their talk page suggests there have been other issues with this editor, as well. It looks like they were doing the same thing yesterday at Larry Pressler (page history). I'm not an admin at Commons so it's a bit hard to see how persistent the issue has been there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed File:America First with Nick Fuentes logo.jpg from the article; logo for the subject's podcast and also a Commons contribution under PD undeclared criteria (only other use is some fantasy sandbox article about College Republican wars). Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:TRANMINHTAMMUINE marketing edits

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

---

All edits made by User:TRANMINHTAMMUINE are to promote a private car service, request they are permanently blocked. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

IPv6 range, weird edit requests on user talk

I've noted in recent months that eight different IPv6 addresses in the 2600:1700:4300:2c8f:: range have contacted me on my talk page trying to get me to fix and change things about children's television on US TV station articles (and being generally the same user in style). I recently looked up the range (AT&T U-verse, Loganville, Georgia) and found that there have been 356 active IPs in the range since 2019 (and potentially User talk:172.127.114.25), mostly editing on television and video game topics, some making very repetitive and annoying edit requests (see User talk:BornonJune8). IPs in the range have 15 user talk pages with nine total warnings: one uw-chat1, two uw-vandalism1, six uw-unsourced1. Not sure where to notify given the constantly changing address. It's just this side of an LTA...just kind of weird behavior. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if User talk:75.115.18.34 might be related (see Mvcg66b3r's report above) — does not fit the pattern really, but worth consideration. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Convenience link: 2600:1700:4300:2c8f::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). --Blablubbs|talk 09:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Return of Andrewl1995

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

---

User:Andrewl1995 was recently blocked for a month for persistent addition of unsourced material to articles, and serious personal attacks, after an ANI discussion [84]. They have returned from their block and immediately resumed both behaviors. See, particularly this vicious personal attack [85]. Every edit since their return is completely unsourced. I don't see any likelihood that they are able to edit here productively. Laplorfill (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, that's quite a rant. Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Laplorfill (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Andrewl1995 (again)

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

---

Given this talk page response to their block, perhaps revoking TPA would be in order? Neiltonks (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Done + edits by user deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

BLPVIO

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

---

Hola! Can an admin please scrub some BLPVIO data from Tarun_Tejpal both on the article and talk page Thanks! VV 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated disruptive and inappropriate behaviour from User:Darshanpatil5567

Darshanpatil5567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see from their talk page, this user has a clear WP:COI with the articles that they are editing but they have still failed to declare it despite being instructed to do so twice. Furthermore, they have engaged in copyright infringement at Ayush Mehra, removed deletion notices from Vikas Santosh Patil twice and Bhushan Shimpi once. They also blanked the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikas Santosh Patil then proceeded to inappropriately closed the AfD. Similar behaviour also witnessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhushan Shimpi. I believe that this user has serious COI issues and is also WP:NOTHERE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, that's bad and it seems to be getting worse. I considered indef, but I've gone with a one-month block for persistent disruptive editing. Thank you, Spiderone. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

Thank you! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

user:Trople

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

---

Trople is edit-warring at Rose water and removes sourced content that has been in the article for weeks : [86], [87], [88] without engaging in a constructive discussion : [89]. More concerning, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of this editor, who keeps being aggressive with fellow wikipedians they disagree with :

• [90] : ' rv edit-warring troll"
• [91] : "seems to me you have WP:OWN issues"
• [92] : "You obviously wanted an edit war".

This editor has also been warned by another user : [93].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Trople is WP:BKFIP and have indeffed accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

"Women tend to use their emotion more than their ration"

The situation at Suicide methods, and especially this diff Poorya0014 (talk · contribs), needs some attention from an admin. Poorya0014 apparently believes that the source of our differences is "you are a woman and women tend to use their emotion more than their ration", and not because I believe that the article should rely on high-quality sources and not be an instruction manual for the method he personally favors.

I think this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Be sure to search through the discussions for his explanation of having tried to push this POV at the Persian Wikipedia and been told to take his POV pushing elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the user is WP:NOTHERE, but this edit about "punish[ing]... your inner little naughty girl" and women being emotional rather than rational is creepy and disgusting. Poorya0014, another edit like that and you will be blocked. You seem to have a lot to say about how to have a proper argument on a Wikipedia talk page, but that you think that kind of commentary or attitude is at all acceptable on this project shows you have much to learn. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 72 hours for sexist harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the block despite suggesting a slightly more lenient solution. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not notice your recommendation before blocking, GorillaWarfare, because I was studying this editor's contributions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow, that statement is sexist. Should the comment be removed and RD2'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the remarks are wretched but not to the extent that they need to be hidden. They have been quoted here after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Amazing. I left a further warning at article talk re the NOTFORUM violations (in addition to the fact that anything like the nonsense reported will lead to an indefinite block). Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

107.146.244.150 - disruptive editing, hoax articles/drafts, etc.

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

The past month or so, this IP has been a bit of an issue. They had created multiple hoax articles for nonexistent video games, all of which now are deleted (unless there are some that were missed). The IP was warned about creating anymore of these hoax drafts/articles here, and their admission(/explanation?) on these can be viewed here.

More recently, they have been more focused on a draft of a recent episode of The Loud House, at Draft:Schooled! (The Loud House). I've had it on my watchlist, and now have explained to them twice on the talk page that it will likely not be getting accepted anytime soon, as it is merely a massive plot of the episode that would need massive trimming if it were to be accepted (WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT). However, now looking at it closely, it appears as though it is basically a copyright violation.

Take a look at the draft itself, and take a look at the plot located on The Loud House Wiki here. Essentially, this seems to be mostly a copy/paste from there with the IP changing/adding/removing a few words, but still mostly copy/paste and copyright violation.

For example...:

The Loud House Wiki article:

"As Lori ponders what to do with her current situation, Lincoln and his friends arrive. While warming up, Lincoln says that it is time to accept defeat and get used to the fact that they will not be together for middle school, saying that they might as well make the most of it. After his friends leave, Lori, having been inspired by Lincoln's words, hugs him with gratitude before departing for college."

The draft:

"At The Loud House, as Lori ponders about her current situation, Lincoln and his best friends arrive. While they warm up, Lincoln does indeed say thatit is time to accept defeat and get used to the fact that they will not indeed be together in middle school and he is saying that they might as well make the most of it. After his friends leave, Lori and she has been inspired by Lincoln's words she hugs him with gratitude before she departs for college."

I'm sure there's plenty more examples such as this throughout the draft article, but not going through each and every one for a massive thing here. At this point, this IP is becoming a bit problematic- from disruptive editing/addition of unsourced content, hoax articles/drafts, and now copyright violations. Either a final warning or a block should likely be given at this point. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I won't try to do the disruptive editing and I am done with making all of those fake Zelda draft articles. I am serious and I am not lying. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am also a very nice guy in real life. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse by indef. blocked editor?

KIENGIR is indef. blocked on en.wikipedia and recently made a blog-like post on his hu.wikipedia account, where he complained about different en.wikipedia editors (Power~enwiki, Beyond My Ken, Biruitorul, Robert McClenon, Boynamedsue, Azure94, Arminden, Rsk6400, Schierbecker. I thought to bring this into the attention of the administrators. 82.78.61.106 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I really don't think there is anything more admins here can do about that, as he is already community banned, and there is not a sanction stricter than that that I am aware of. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Since they're only using their Hungarian Wikipedia account to post (in English) attacks against English editors, including writing messages on at least Beyond My Ken's huwiki talk page, a case could be made for cross-wiki abuse, which could be reported to m:SRG for a global lock. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted it per hu:WP:KSZT. dudhhr_Contribs 19:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's "interesting". That post is in English. I don't know any valid reason why he should be posting a lengthy attack in English in the Hungarian Wikipedia. I know of at least one reason, which is precisely that English Wikipedia administrators can't block him there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Kist-Dzurdzuk - disruptive hostile editing, vandalism, etc.

• Kist-Dzurdzuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article Ingush people has been the target of vandalism by, what seems to me, a group of individuals operating with several sockpuppets over the past few months, up until the article being locked end of March. Yesterday it was targeted once again with a new wave of vandalistic edits by the user @Kist-Dzurdzuk, who not only accused me of "nationalim", but also tried finding out personal information about me. Now to his edits, which are straight up copy-paste edits from the article Ingushetia, an article I consider quite messy due to it's obvious biased editing, with wild theories that should not be given the platform on Wikipedia. Kist-Dzurdzuk then proceeded to vandalise the article Nakh peoples, adding a completely unrelated section, which was another straight up copy-and-paste edit from the already named article, Ingushetia. I also believe that this person is another sockpuppet and was involved in the vandalistic attack on the article prior. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like Gligvi-Kist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked recently for similar behaviour. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above IP; the similarity in usernames seems to be a bit of a WP:QUACK case. In the meantime, I've made a big revert to before the content dispute started. — Czello 13:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The username is also similar to the master, Dzurdzuketi. I've blocked based on behavior. The user did not come up on checks run in early April of this year by Zzuuzz and EdJohnston (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi). That does happen for many different reasons, but it did give me a bit of pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

130.193.198.44

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

Some disruptive editing where the IP attempts to remove any mention of Kurdish/Kurds in Ayyubid dynasty and Turan-Shah;

[94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

OK and that is not good what they are doing. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Capitalismation without an apparent reason.

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

---

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

Today I receivied a suprising message[102] in Serbo-Croatian on my talk page titled "Jedi govna cetniku" (transl. Eat shit, Chetnik), and the message below saying "Svi ste isti" (transl. You are all the same) by User:Capitalismation. This insulting message was left without any apparent reason as I have never interacted, or even reverted this user's edits and the insult is clearly based on my nationality and ethnicity as the word "Chetnik" is a derogatory term for the Serbs. Shortly after, the insult was reverted by another editor User:Ashleyyoursmile[103], who then warned Capitalismation for the personal attack against me, and he justified his behavior by calling me a "racist towards Montenegrins, Albanians and Bosnians, denying genocide and also Islamophobic".[104] All of this without me ever communicating with the user. I would greatly appreciate someone looking into this case. Elserbio00 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

[105] That probably doesn't help your case Capitalismation. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

After notifying the user of this report, he left another message on my talk page[106] titled "Gospodine, ne siri propagandu po wikipediji" (transl. Mister, don't spread propaganda on Wikipedia) and a message below saying "Ako dobijem ban zbog tvojeg rasizma, samo ce se vidjet sve" (transl. If I get banned for your racism, everything will just be visible). Elserbio00 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

They've said on their talk page that they will use socks to block evade. dudhhr_Contribs 04:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae

Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.

Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane ^talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I need some help here. Super long term hopping disruptor on computer hardware articles

Okay grab some caffeine for this one. Basically put there has been a block evading, IP hopping disruptive editor on the topic of computer chips and hardware from Malaysia for I'm counting at least a decade. They continually add unsourced information, perform their own analysis or original research, post rumours, and leave lovely endearing messages for people they don't like. Now I could list the IPs, but the list is literally hundreds of IPs long over a decade or more of disruptive editing. The following articles are the main targets over this time.

• Nvidia PureVideo
• CUDA
• GeForce 30 series
• GeForce 20 series
• GeForce 16 series
• List of Intel CPU microarchitectures
• Nvidia G-Sync
• OpenCL
• List of Nvidia graphics processing units

And many more. Now here's the thing. I can't pin down a range of IPs, or at least I'm not skilled enough to do so, so can't simply do a range block and I'm not that experienced with such blocks. Many of these articles have been blocked because of this 1 person many times as evidenced in the logs and histories. I feel the only thing I can do to stop this extremely persistent IP hopper is to permanently semi-protect the articles, but that seems like complete overkill. Short of just letting it go and allowing everyone else to constantly get involved with this disruptive edit warring editor I really don't know. So I'm seeking some advice, suggestions and/or assistance here. I'm not even that interested in these articles but I know a lot of long term editors are a tad fed up with this 1 person's decade long disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Fortunately I did just go get a coffee. My first thought was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/I B Wright but the geolocation is wrong. I realize it's probably a lot of work but there's not really anywhere to go with this until you do compile a list of suspected IPs. If it helps you can copy and paste raw text (like a page history) into the form at [107] and it will consolidate any IP addresses in the text into a flat list, and try to guess ranges. I suggest creating a new page in your userspace for this, or even a new WP:LTA page if you want to take the time. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• (literally just posted this at your talk page, copying here) WP:PBLOCK appears to indicate you can apply them to IP ranges, up to ten pages at a time. These appear to be all the IPs from the abusive editor's ISP. As you said, might be best to consult someone with experience, but indef PBLOCKs on those ranges would be what I'd try. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's not a terrible idea, although it would take a long time to enter all of those blocks (/16 is the largest range we can block). I'm not sure that policy supports indefinite partial range blocks, by which I mean I don't think the question has ever been asked. What about an edit filter? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure an edit filter would work, it's not the same edits each time, it's just general addition of rumours, excessive external links, unsourced material, original research etc. Not like they're spamming one link, or have the same text each time on each article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  It would have to be a pretty exotic filter, I know. Something like "IP editor from Malaysia restores a reverted edit on an article with 'nvidia' in the text", if that's even possible, I think would catch a lot of their disruption, although someone still has to revert them. For what it's worth I pulled the first page of history from the articles you listed and ran them through NativeForeigner's tool, and got back this list:

  • 60.48.0.0/13 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 110.159.98.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 115.133.24.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 118.100.173.32/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 175.136.0.0/13 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

  Plus these distinct IPs:

  • 50.53.189.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 85.250.211.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 90.150.180.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 201.202.14.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 210.186.99.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

  I'm going to have to go do something else for a bit now and I haven't reviewed contribs for any of these, but maybe someone else can do something with this. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The abuse has continued for multiple years but may have got worse early in 2021. A few of the targeted pages are already semied for three months, which should be OK for now. Considering just the ones on the list that are not currently semied, I think one year semiprotection should be considered. The partial-block idea would be tedious to implement when you have multiple ranges and multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User talk:SharqHabib

Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. The user is constantly making non constructive edits to Wikipedia, removing contents from articles without giving valid reason/s for doing so, using religious texts as references to Islam related articles. The user is even using unreliable sources such Youtube and facebook as references and is edit warring with multiple editors. Worse, they are paying no attention to what others are telling them and has no intention to work in a collaborative environment. I took a close look at their edit history, and it appears to me that the user is here with an agenda. I have issued multiple warnings to this user (so have others) and tried to convey our concerns. But none of the users have received a reply so far. I recommend an indefinite block, since this user I think is causing a massive damage to Wikpedia and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That is true. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I do some some attempts at constructive editing. I am also seeing a failure to communicate and a failure to grasp the standards of the project. I will not personally take action but I can understand if another admin feels differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok I do understand I have made many wrong edits, hopefully won't make now. I literally made like two or three wrong edits I think and that's the reason I am causing a massive damage to Wikipedia? Well I didn't knew, I have read some policies now 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@SharqHabib:, My use of the phrase "massive damage" may have been a little exaggerated. They aren't, however, just "two or three." My real concern was that you seemed unresponsive to other people's worries. But now that you're talking, I think we'll be able resolve many issues. Mosesheron (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I understand. The user is making some constructive edits as well. Their edits are mostly problematic in Islam related articles. Take a look at few recent edits for example. See this this this and this. This user is definitely not a vandal. However, they are changing these articles to match their own worldview, which is really concerning. I think right now they should not be allowed to make changes to Islam related articles. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: few other recent examples. Take a look at this and this as well. These are indeed massive damages to these articles. I am now hopeless after all of my efforts to fix these issues through discussion. And if the administrators believe this user can be left alone after considering all of these issues, then so be it. Mosesheron (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have the article on the Second Coming on my watchlist. User:SharqHabib edited the article to add "however in Islam, Jesus will come back for the first and only time, not for the second time unlike Christians." This is unsourced and inaccurate, given that Christians believe in the Nativity of Jesus 2000 years ago. It looks like the same user created a separate WP:CFORK of the article here in order to promote this inaccurate view. I think that his/her contributions probably need further examination. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For the administrator reviewing this, I recommend that the content fork created by User:SharqHabib be merged back into the original article. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant editing permissons to User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ

Hello, I recently made this account for the purpose of researching during school. I am sorry if I had broken any type of Terms of Service on this website, and I am sorry for any damage that I had made (if I had I don't know at all though.) Please forgive for any thing I had done wrong. I am willing to come through with something and hopefully you can get back to me if you can. Heres my wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CB%A2%E1%B5%90%E1%B5%83%CB%A1%CB%A1%E1%B5%97%E1%B5%89%CB%A3%E1%B5%97%E2%81%B1%E2%81%BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Stop posting this here. This noticeboard is for issues which require administrator attention, not for apologies. If you have an issue then say what it is, otherwise go edit an article. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"WP:AGF is a non-optional policy". Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: do you have a point to make? Or are you just following me around looking for opportunities to annoy? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No, just reminding you of WP:AGF and how to speak to new editors. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I wrote only yesterday that I was reconsidering my choice not to block you for harassing another user, and your response is to harass me instead? I don't know, I don't see the wisdom in it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts is correct, it was not okay for you to WP:BITE that new editor, his reasons for pointing it out notwithstanding. Please don't do it again. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone else with an axe to grind would like to pile on here, may I suggest in the interest of moving forward that you post on my talk page instead? Your beef is with me, not this new user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they think they are blocked?That's the only explanation I can think of.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Grant editing permissons to User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (redone)

Hello, I have had an issue with the editing feature recently where If I try to create and edit my own wikipedia page for example, it comes up with this message: You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: ""Creation of this page (User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page.""

When I had just joined this website I am already blocked from even making my own page. Is there any way to fix this? --ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is the message that I get when I look at the possibility of creating your userpage:

"Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:

.*[\x{1D00}-\x{1DBF}].* <casesensitive> # Phonetic extensions, almost never used in valid titles"

You have chosen to create a username using non-standard characters. I suggest that you abandon this account and create a new username using standard characters, as opposed to "phonetic extensions". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought that might be why you were posting here, but couldn't be sure because you didn't say what the problem was and I didn't want to guess. Technically an administrator could create the page for you, but you're going to keep running into problems because you created an account with an emoji username, and you will run into many abuse filters as a result. I echo Cullen328's suggestion that you ought to just abandon this account and create one with a proper username. You can see what's allowed and what's not in our username policy. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not emoji, phonetic extensions are part of writing systems. There is no requirement to use characters that are part of the usual script of a language. Peter James (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair clarification, thanks. Unfortunately our filters that the new user is having problems with do not make that distinction. Perhaps a change is in order? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's the title blacklist, not a filter; there is nothing in their edit filter log. A title blacklist entry that is only there because it was not expected that these characters would be used is not a reason to prevent their use. The only parts of the username policy that could be relevant are confusing usernames (although I'm not sure as the they don't look identical to the letters) and decorative names (which was not properly defined and consensus was unclear). Peter James (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Softblock and refer to WP:CHUN that username is going to be constantly disruptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• I'm aware of the username issue, but I've blocked the user indefinitely for probable socking and for incompetence. If another admin wants to devote more time to discussion with this individual, they may either do so with the user blocked or they may unblock the user without consulting with me. I personally think it's a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Based on two admins' comments on the user's Talk page, I've unblocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone think that the advice at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit needs updating? Sending them to WP:AN, where the big shouty banner says it is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here (emphasis not added) and sends them to WP:ANI instead? Where the friendly admins will tell them to Stop posting this here and go edit an article and discuss their incompetence and maybe even block them for a bit, because who knows, they might be a sock? Do enough admins, template editors, or page movers watch WP:Help desk? That seems like a better target. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1, to such a strong degree I couldn't just let it go unremarked. (As a PMR, would there be any objection to me making a placeholder user page for the editor, or are we working under the assumption he'll get a name change -- or chased off, as it is -- too quickly for that to be a concern?) Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

    You missed where their request here was also reverted twice for being "obvious trolling". Sub-par admin behaviour abounds here, and I acknowledge my part in it. We certainly could create their page for them, but like Xaosflux said they're better off being renamed, otherwise they'll hit this same problem with their user talk, with any userspace subpages, if they ever need to make a subpage with their name in the title (such as RFA, as far-fetched as that may seem now), if they become a pagemover and want to do round-robin moves through their userspace, probably lots of other minor issues we haven't thought of. I'm in favour of changing the title blacklist instructions, too. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• A couple of observations. Firstly something should be done to stop userids being created for which the pages fall foul of the title blacklist. Secondly, and this would be my preference, userids should be in the script of the language of the project on which they are created, without any ornamentation. We get far too many of these threads about userids or signatures, which could be avoided if everyone would realise that this is an encyclopedia, not a social media site where such childish "self-expression" is accepted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Last time this happened (a couple of weeks ago) I suggested creating an edit filer to prevent creation of accounts with obscure ascii characters in them, but it was shot down as not being possible and it turned out the complaining user was a sock. I thought it would be possible to use a modified form of something like Special:AbuseFilter/890 to prevent account creation. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Some of the signatures here are no better, with small text or lack of contrast, but we don't disallow them. Peter James (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Phil Bridger: Yeah, I had a similar problem once before too but in a much more problematic way. An account was performing vandalism and I couldn't create their talk page to warn them as it was on the page blacklist. They ended up being indeffed as a vandalism-only account but it was still a problem. In this case, the user welcoming the subject just happened to be a sysop so it didn't come up. If a page can't be created with a specific name, I don't see why an account should be either. Naleksuh (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that it is imperative we find some way of preventing/warning against user accounts being created where the username would lead to title blacklist issues. I realise this issue is complex as the enwiki title blacklist almost certainly differs greatly from those at other projects and usernames are now 'global'. Nonetheless we must grasp the nettle and tackle it somehow as otherwise it will lead to issues such as this reoccurring, with a spectacularly bad first impression for the poor users concerned. firefly ( t · c ) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  An alternative would be to maintain the blacklist properly. If that is not possible then it should be deleted; the global blacklist can be used if necessary. Peter James (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  That particular entry could be adjusted so that it only applies to particular namespaces, which seems like it would solve the problem here. Also, checkuser data (if I remember right - I can't go looking for an example) shows when someone tries to create an account but is blocked by a filter, so I infer that it is possible to prevent creation of unsuitable account names. I don't think that's through edit filters though, I don't know how it works. I'm absolutely against trashing the local blacklist: it's very useful to counter abuse, and a title that's unsuitable here might be perfectly fine on another project, which would be a huge problem if we can only regex-mask titles globally.

  @Peter James: I'm terrible at regex but you seem to know what you're doing. Can you say how to adjust the mask so that it only prevents creations in reader-facing namespaces, or specifically excludes User: and User talk:? The new user posted the current entry up near the top of this subthread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Blocking creation of accounts is done through normal edit filters, e.g. 890 blocks random typing in usernames, 887 blocks excessive reppition in usernames, 102 blocks abusive usernames, 579 puts a limit on account creation rate from a specific IP address and 874 prevents account creation matching specific LTA phrases. A filter to block account creation using decorative asci characters along with a message explaining that usernames should be written in script would probably be the best way forward, as even if we allow these users to create their user page they're going to end up having to change their username anyway, and being allowed to create an account only to be instantly blocked and told that you need to change your username is not a good first experience. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Depends on the circumstances - if there is no consensus to disallow these globally, there could be users from other wikis unable to create an account here. A more appropriate response if not disallowed globally would be to warn and provide an opportunity to have their username changed first, and only to block if they continue to edit from the account without requesting a change. Filters 887 and 890 should be set to warn, not to disallow; there can be a new filter to disallow the names that are disruptively long. Peter James (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Peter James: The filters are already set up to account for this: createaccount and autocreateaccount are different filter conditions, so these do not run when an account is automatically created. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not certain but some entries have (?!(User|Wikipedia|File)( talk)?:|Talk:) which allows User, Wikipedia and File and associated talk namespaces, and article talk (but not article). I don't think the |File part would be useful here, as these shouldn't be used for files, and |Talk: is probably unnecessary as talk pages of single characters are on the whitelist. If it's possible to create a username, it should be possible to create user talk and project pages (SPI, MFD) containing the username. Peter James (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

   Done that seems to have done the trick. I get the admins' blacklist message when trying to create ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ, but not when trying to create User:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ or Wikipedia talk:ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵗᵉˣᵗⁱⁿ. Give it a try and see if you get the same result. We did already advise the user to abandon this account and start with a new one and for all we know they already did, so let's not actually create these pages, just see if you get a blacklist message on them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  ... but also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewcoolitback: our new user is a confirmed sockpuppet. I think bringing the title blacklist in line with the username policy is a good thing regardless, it at least means that the clerk didn't have to be an admin to tag this sock's userpage. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  That this turned out to be a sockpuppet must go near the top of the list of least surprising revelations ever, but, as you say, we should try, if it doesn't turn out to be just too difficult technically, to sort things out so that people don't create userids only to find soon afterwards that the pages that go along with them can't be created. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Emergency semi-protection of Eli Wiesel

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

---

User:Aeschylus and others (including ClueBot) are doing yeoman's work deleting BLP-violating IPv6 edits. I think temporary semi-protection would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NM, User:LuK3 took care of it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat on user talk page

Batir1410 (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat on their own talk page here: [[108]]. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty clear threat, blocked for it and advised they would need to rescind their comment to be unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This concerns Ralava Beboarimisa and there is an underlying BLP issue. The article stated that he was dismisssd in 2016 due to a controversy about redwood (actually rosewood) logs being exported from Madagascar to Singapore, for further transport to Hong Kong. The reference provided was a copy of an English language article in The Straits Times in Singapore, with a new headline added. The headline said he was dismissed but the actual article said no such thing, and indicated that his predecessor was responsible for the corrupt export of a protected species. This appears to be a badly written headline. Another red flag is that the BLP twice referred to redwood, which describes two California species instead of rosewood, which refers to many species of Dalbergia, several of which grow in Madagascar. This article in French indicates that he was not dismissed and continued as a government minister at least until 2018, at least as Google Translate indicates. It would be wonderful if an editor fluent in French could check over this article. I removed the language that seems most dubious to me, but I do not speak French and don't know much about Madagascar, although I know that California redwoods do not grow there, except perhaps in an ornamental garden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Inter&anthro was the editor who reverted twice, restoring what seems to me to be false information. I am sure that this was in good faith based on reading the misleading headline, but extra care is required for BLPs. If this man's biography falsely stated that he was fired, then that could have a negative impact on his career and reputation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have unblocked Batir1410 and invited them to join this conversation. They withdrew the legal threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that and I welcome them coming here to discuss as well. I am not close to fluent in French (heck if you heard my speak, you'd think I wasn't fluent in English), so unfortunately those articles I wouldn't be able to parse. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, when I read the source cited see here it seemed legitimate and the headline pretty clearly stated that Ralava was dismissed from his job. Given that the article came out in April 2016, and Ralava stopped working as environmental minister the same time, it seemed truthful. When Batir1410 removed the information the edit summaries and behavior led me to believe that this might be POV Pushing, hence why I reverted the edits and left the message on Batir1410's talk page. Doing a bit more research today after the whole drama, I found plenty more articles describing the seizure of the endangered tree species, but not much on whether if Ralava resigned or was fired over this. I would like to add that I am not fluent in French either. I apologize if I have committed any WP:BLP violations, and I apologize to Batir1410 if I was undoing corrective edits. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And yet he became transport minister. Is madagate.org a reliable source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 it seemed to me at the time yes, as the author, date, sources, etc. where all present. I am not fluent in Malagasy or French, so when working on the article this was one of the few English-language sources that came up. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

cullen328 I read French reasonably well. the French article says twice in its text that he was reappointed as the transport minister. (fr: "Alors que certains ont tout simplement gardé leur département comme Ralava Beboarimisa," en: Some simply kept their post, such as Ralava Beboarimisa). Regarding madagate.org, I discovered in a search that andriamananoro.org is another url to use to access their content. They list no physical or mailing addresses for madagate's offices. --- Possibly (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Beboarimisa seems to have been appointed Malagasy Minister of Transport and Meteorology in 2018 - link. (fr:Gouvernement Ntsay says so; but ref. 1 in that article, to an official site, is a dead link. My find looks like an authentic copy of Décret 2018-529.)

The sources are scant, but it's at least possible that Beboarimisa lost his job when Jean Ravelonarivo fell from power in April 2016 and was replaced by Olivier Mahafaly Solonandrasana (who was himself replaced by Christian Ntsay in June 2018). fr:Gouvernement Ravelonarivo is an article waiting to be written, and fr:Gouvernement Mahafaly does not mention him. I could find nothing relevant on Malagasy WP. Narky Blert (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for IP range block

These IP users continuously change the birth date of some professional wrestlers:

• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:76A5:5B00:707F:B98:556E:ACD0
• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:77B2:E200:2152:9B68:BA6E:8A94
• Special:Contributions/2001:7D0:8573:A380:8DFB:AEFE:221D:2519
• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:C002:75B:4D8A:D8A7:2A8D:1731
• Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:C0D7:40A:4582:2B43:212D:E132

If they are related to each other (same person), then IP range block would be helpful. Wario-Man ^talk 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The IP addresses in Saudi Arabia are probably a cross-wiki date vandal that I've been blocking for years. I can try some range blocks, but you might be better off posting what articles need semi-protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Is Special:Contributions/188.53.133.187 related to these IPs? It's from Saudi Arabia too and vandalized articles of same topic. Also AnnaLyna (talk · contribs) performs similar edits like these IP users (checkuser?); changing birth dates.[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]. He/She is WP:NOTHERE in my opinion. I'd suggest semi-protection for Maryse Ouellet which suffers from non-stop disruptive activity since 27 May. Wario-Man ^talk 04:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing such blatant vandalism before. It's usually just changing dates. But, yeah, that IP editor does seem like the same person. AnnaLyna is unrelated to this disruption. She doesn't seem to have edited since her last warning, but I agree it doesn't look good. I don't know, maybe wait until the next edit to see if she starts being more constructive. I'll semi-protect that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be some kind of obsession or stan behavior because they only target articles of female professional wrestlers and they try to make those wrestlers younger or older by changing the birth dates. I better add some of those articles to my watchlist. Wario-Man ^talk 05:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Klippenstein: Revision history

The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Klippenstein has been edited using reliable independent sources who called this person a "political troll" (he ran multiple stunts on social media in a deceptive manner to fool politicians and celebrities), some users (users @Brycehughes:, @Wugapodes:, @Novaredant:) constantly remove this information from the article! Isn't Wikipedia based on reliable independent sources??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Winele8: when you post at WP:ANI, you are required to notify the other users involved, which you have not yet done. Please do so - instructions are at the top of this page. Laplorfill (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have notified all mentioned users, I still don't understand why the basic Wikipedia rule of providing independent reliable sources is ignored in this case and those users reverts my edit over and over again and threatening actions against ME

Winele8 -- I explained my personal rationale in my edit summary. I don't think that source supports calling him a "troll" while it does support saying he engages in "trolling." I think that's a meaningful distinction. There's also the question of whether such information is reported enough to make it appropriate for the lead. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Winele8. I just looked at your edit [1], you've added "Ken Klippenstein is a left wing American journalist and political troll known for his deceptive social media stunts". This is not what the source says, what you did is a WP:OR, which is not allowed on wikipedia. There is no mention of "deceptive social media stunts" or him being "a left wing political troll", it's said that he's "...known for his Twitter trolling". That's a big difference from what you've added, hope you understand. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

They have reverted the article! When I referenced it they described him as the 'political troll'...

@Winele8: I would like to say that I have not been involved in the ‘political troll’ editing in any manner whatsoever. The only thing I did was report a false positive for an editing block when I was just making uncontroversial fixes to already existing references such as adding missing author names. You can see my report here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports. Since I have not been involved in the subject, I would like to be withdrawn from this conversation. Novaredant (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• OP is incorrect that I removed anything; I protected the page per a request for page protection and nothing else. It didn't even stop Winele8 since they're autoconfirmed, so I'm not sure why I'm tagged here. Anyway, I'm going to try and convince Winele8 to take off the spiderman suit and come down from the tower before this gets further out of hand, but I'd appreciate some other admin help as I'm busy this evening and won't be able to follow up until tomorrow. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For my piece, I didn't have time to go through the whole rigamarole today so I just reverted OP a couple times and then gave up. Page looks reasonably clean as of this writing. Brycehughes (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Unjustified warnings for "unconstructive edits" and "edit war"

Recently, I edited DJ Vlad. All I did was update subscribers and views stats, that were more than a year old. The stats have no references. Even though the updated stats were accurate, they were reverted with the edit summary "unE/unS". I had no idea what that meant. WP:E is editing policy, and WP:S is a help page about searching. Since my edit was constructive and "unE/unS" unclear, I undid the reversion, with the edit summary "What are you doing? What's wrong with my edit? And what does "unE/unS" mean?". My edit was once again reverted, with edit summary "entirely unsourced". This again, made no sense to me, because - yes, it's unsourced, but I'm merely updating unsourced content. Since when is that not allowed? I can now only update unsourced content when I find a source? So, if someone adds "grass is purple" without a source, I change that to "grass is green", then it gets reverted because I must first find a source? Either way, I decided to give in. If - apparently - I'm not allowed to improve unsourced content, let's start by marking it with "citation needed", so we can first get the ref. I marked it as such. Which was accepted! (The article has pending changes.) Although a log of this appears to have disappeared(!), since it was then reverted after all. With edit summary "Ur edit was unExplained and unSourced. Re-adding with cite needed tags is not how it works. Go find some refs". In other words, an editor who uses "Ur", now tells me to "Go find some refs". To add insult to injury, this editor then edited my talk page to first claim I'm making "unconstructive edits", and then immediately after that a second claim that I'm in an "edit war", and that I may get blocked. My opinion is that the behavior of User:Thewolfchild is entirely uncalled for. I did not make unconstructive edits, so I don't deserve that warning. And I'm not in an edit war either. I clearly gave in and refrained from re-adding the content, and decided to add the "citation needed" tags instead. To then have someone write "Go find some refs." really hurts. All I wanted to do is update some stats. To then to get all this poured over me, and the end-result being a Talk page with how bad of an editor I would be. I don't think I deserve this. Unjustified right? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, first of all, don't get your feelings hurt about this. It's nothing personal. When edits are made, especially if they're regarding statistics. Wikipedia requires sourcing when changes are made, and the one making the change is supposed to supply the sourcing. If you can supply inline sourcing at the time you make the changes, maybe they won't get reversed. If not, you could post the information on the article's talk page, rather than in the article, and explain where you got the information from. Also, I think the messages on your talk page were pre-worded templates, which a lot of people use. — Maile (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since these are outdated, inaccurate stats, which means Wikipedia is spreading misinformation, can I mark them as contentious material in an edit summary, with the edit itself removing the stats per WP:BLP + it being unsourced? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't sufficient to ping TheWolfChild from your talk page, you have to notify them at their talk page. P-K3 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Already did, they reverted that. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: your input is needed on this issue. Please respond here and engage in the discussion. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• To admins and others here. If no response is made by Thewolfchild here, I would suggest we revisit their block log history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. After years of temporary blocks for harassment, personal attacks, and edit warring, @Bishonen: applied an indef block for "Disruptive editing, newbie-biting, frightening people" in April 2019, and @Nosebagbear: unblocked them in October 2020. What is happening now appears to be a repeat of the behavior they were blocked for. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That is true. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@143.176.30.65 - First, you're complaining about the abbreviations I used in my edit summary, when you didn't even bother to add an summary at all with your first edit. Typically, (as per WP:BRD) when you're reverted, if you disagree, you should then start a discussion on the talk page. Had you done so, I would've been more than happy to explain the reasons for the revert, namely the WP:RS policy that you need to follow, and clairfy any abbreviations used, at that point. But you didn't, you instead just reverted again. You were then reverted by a different editor (Chicdat). You then made another edit to that content again, this time with a somewhat hostile summary, and still without any attempt at discussion on the article talk page. (I reverted, but have since self-reverted, as it was only tags being added, and no changes made to actual content.) Yes, I did add a disruptive editing notice, because I felt your editing was disruptive. I also added the edit warring notice because I felt you should be aware of the policy. These are just notices, they're not punitive, and you are free to delete or archive them (as you have done with the many other notices and warnings you've received). And finally, even though I posted to your talk page, you did not respond there, or post a comment on my talk page, or on the article talk page, or try dispute resolution, or contact an available admin... any of the alternatives clearly listed at the top of this page to try before posting an ANI. - wolf 00:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Related to WP:Discussion and IMO therefore not WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: you should use a differently styled signature. Per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, your current way of signing posts is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Its markup (with the "color: black" span) essentially hides the link to your Talk page. The link is only visible to those who hover over the word "wolf" on a desktop computer. You need an easily identified link to aid others in communicating with you; a signature that facilitates discussion by identifying you without the apparent requirement of navigating to the page history. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You mischaracterize my asking about your edit summary as "complaining about the abbreviations". Then you unjustifiably blame me for not using an edit summary for my first edit. Also, per WP:BRD, when reverting, you need to "be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed", which "unE/unS" - particularly without internal links - is not. As for WP:RS, in this particular context, it does not require me to "go find some refs". I am aware of 'the policy'. My editing was not disruptive. The reason I took this to WP:ANI is because you were steamrolling over me. In two consecutive edits, you added an orange tag and a red triangle warning, claiming I am respectively disruptive and edit warring, which are the first steps towards me getting banned - essentially out of nowhere. Other than the self-reversion, nothing about your response here indicates your willingness to view this experience from my perspective. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. I'm quite unimpressed by TWC's demeanour in this conflict, and even more with their defense above. Their statement that in these edits they "reverted, but have since self-reverted, as it was only tags being added, and no changes made to actual content" is technically correct but misleading. It looks more like you hastily/carelessly reverted the addition of tags, having misread it as edit warring. (Your edit summary shows that you misread it: "Re-adding with cite needed tags is not how it works." My italics. The IP had not re-added.) Then you posted an edit warring warning on them, though they had only reverted once to your own twice. Only then, when the IP had gone to ANI, and had (indeed) notified you on your page, and you had read their narrative here, then you self-reverted. I base this reading on the timestamps involved. This is poor treatment of an IP editor, and acknowledging your own mistake would have been more becoming. Your statement that "I also added the edit warring notice because I felt you should be aware of the policy" is also pretty misleading. That notice doesn't just make people aware of the policy, it accuses them of being "engaged in an edit war" and of "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree". Not true; they changed it once, not repeatedly. By the time you posted the above, you knew this; an apology for your mistake would have been more becoming than evasiveness. Of course you know you take responsibility, as a Twinkle user, for what Twinkle says; that's your business. And I suppose you're aware that Twinkle offers a "softer wording" edit warring notice. As for BRD, please note that it is optional, and that the typical use case it describes could hardly be more different from this case. Note also the section WP:BRD-NOT. Telling the IP that all would have been well if they had only gone to the talkpage to get your personal mystery abbreviations interpreted is again evasive. Next time you're trying to save time with nonce abbreviations, please consider how much time they have the potential to waste for other people.

This is a poor show so far, but hardly rises to a sanction. However, your attempt to poison the well by mentioning the IP's deleting or archiving of "the many other notices and warnings you've received", is just shameless, and pushes me over the edge to a block. The IP has archived their page once, yes. I invite other admins and editors to look for the non-existent "many other notices and warnings" that thereby disappeared from the page. Hint: the only trace of anything like that I found were some polite message from XLinkBot about external links. Barnstars, kittens and constructive discussions do not qualify as "warnings". Did you fall into the trap of thinking there must be something nefarious hidden by the archiving because the user is an IP? I have blocked you for 48 hours for disrespect and lack of candor. And please read WP:IPs are human too. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Thewolfchild I remember speaking out in favour of unblocking you last October, and I'm glad you're back to editing. I just edit conflicted with Bish here - I was going to go with a warning and some advice rather than a block, but I essentially agree with her assessment. I appreciate that, when patrolling recent changes, you see lots of IP editors tinkering about with statistics without touching sources - many of those changes are vandalism, but many of them are just people trying to keep our content up to date. I don't see any reason to revert a change to an unsourced figure unless the new figure is obviously impossible - if it's the sourcing you're worried about, then the version you're reverting to is no better than the new one. On top of the questionable revert, you then went overboard with warning templates; what was really needed was a quick note on talk saying 'where is this info coming from?', or even just checking for a source yourself quickly. And now we're here - we all make mistakes, but when that happens you need to recognise it quickly, and offer an apology. Please take time to reflect on how you could have handled this better, and come back stronger. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bad block in my opinion, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Block duration change. I've been mulling over this, and changed my mind about the 48 hours. Changed to 31 hours (from now). Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC).
• Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned by anyone but the IP at least on this page, can I say "unE/unS" is a terrible edit summary? I've been here for many years, and I would have great trouble figuring out what it meant. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  +1 I hope Thewolfchild stops using it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed, and I did complain about "your personal mystery abbreviations" above. "Next time you're trying to save time with nonce abbreviations, please consider how much time they have the potential to waste for other people." Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

Personal attack

I tried to revert a personal attack [118], but an administrator, who was siding against me in a polemic article content discussion, reverted it. Here's the sentence from that post that had me concerned: "That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." It states that my user dislikes Muslims, which isn't true. Can I appeal the decision not to revert the personal attack here? Benevolent human (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The statement "dislikes Muslims" appears to be referring to Donald Trump, not to you. ST47 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron's not an administrator either. And you haven't notified them, as is required by the big red notice. Clarified now.Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, that wasn't a personal attack, it was a discussion about the situation. One might argue Trump is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I guess, but deleting the entire comment was inappropriate. Why did you go straight to AN/I to report this rather than reply in the thread or ask me about it on my talk page? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's a fuller quote that makes clear it's directed at me: "Could it be that the real issue for them is not anti-semitism, but rather Israel? That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." Moboshgu is the administrator who reverted my revert: [119]. I gave both Moboshgu and NightHeron a notice, sorry for being slow, this is my first time posting to ANI. Moboshgu, I went here because it didn't ochttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48cur to me that there was any room for misinterpretation, I thought it was pretty clearly a personal attack accusing me of bigotry towards Muslims. Benevolent human (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw it purely as a comment about Trump disliking Muslims, which could be a BLP issue on its own, but not a personal attack on you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I reminded NightHeron to abstain from the polemic BLP comments.[120] – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, I'm just trying to get the attack against me removed since it's defamatory. Benevolent human (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, you have a nice username but you seem to be incorrect here. I have read that comment over and over again, and it is not a personal attack against you and it is in no way defamatory. It was a criticism of Trump and not directed at you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment at least. I'll certainly need to let the matter drop if the ANI folk don't see an issue. Just to defend my intentions here, my interpretation was that I was giving Trump "a pass because he...dislikes Muslims", which to me implied that I wasn't editing Trump's biography because I like people who dislike Muslims, which seems to imply that I dislike Muslims. Benevolent human (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a real stretch. Every editor chooses which of our millions of articles to edit. I read it as a critique of the way that some people in general apply standards inconsistently when discussing Trump and Omar. It is a bit "forumy" but not directed at you personally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for carelessly violating WP:BLP in one of my comments on Trump; I've struck that phrase. Concerning WP:FORUM, I don't think that applies to my comment. Another editor had commented that WP:ARBPIA should apply to the RfC in question, but its OP is not an extended confirmed user. My comment made a case that the broad context for the fervent efforts to focus on alleged anti-semitism in the Ilhan Omar article is really Israel, not the question of whether or not a congressperson from Minnesota is anti-semitic. Applicability of ARBPIA is supposed to be "broadly interpreted". So I don't think my comment was irrelevant to the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yay, thank you! Also, thank you for bringing up the scope of WP:ARBPIA, I was also hoping to get that clarified. My mindset at the time of opening the RFC is that it didn't have to do with Israel/Palestine, it had to do with allegations that Omar was using anti-Semitic canards that predated the conflict. But yes, the dual loyalty charges are related to dual loyalty to Israel, so there's some connection to Israel, albeit indirect. My reading of WP:ARBPIA is that it doesn't apply to things about Israel that don't involve the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm happy do whatever the folk here think I should do going forward if that interpretation of the relevant rules isn't correct. Benevolent human (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When people say "criticism of Israel" by Omar or anyone else, as far as I'm aware you can assume they're talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israel has some great scientists and (in my opinion) makes the best feta cheese in the world; people are not criticizing Israel for that. When criticism of Israel for its treatment of Palestinians is the context for an issue discussed on Wikipedia, it seems to me that ARBPIA applies. NightHeron (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I hear you (and feel free to share that feta cheese recommendation on my talk page, I'd be willing to give it a try). I could see why you would think that, I appreciate your outlining your thought process. Mine is that dual loyalty implies people doing nice things for Israel because they have dual loyalty for Israel, but the US has done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Palestinians (such as massive, massive economic aid, recognition of the Golan Heights annexation, Operation Nickel Grass, some of the Iran stuff, etc.) Benevolent human (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Capitalismation stating that they will use socks after being indeffed

On User talk:Capitalismation, Capitalismation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated that they will use an alt (socking), and again called other editors racists. They have triggered the LTA 1053 edit filter twice, so they should probably get put on that LTA's SPI and checkuser'd. Same account that was reported to ANI yesterday for making personal attacks in serbo-croatian. dudhhr_Contribs 06:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note I have removed talk page access from them as they are using it to continue making personal attacks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Abuse likely in need of revdel

Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anon being rather abusive with their edit summaries. Adakiko (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: anon's IP has a partial range / article block. Adakiko (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit summaries remind me of WP:LTA/NS but the articles are different from the usual group they target. MarnetteD|Talk 09:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP to stop the immediate disruption. I will leave it to another admin to determine which if any edits need to have their summaries removed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also left abusive ES on Fam (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Adakiko (talk)
• Revdels performed, pages protected, IP ranges blocked. I think this is wrapped up, unless anyone wants to look at the LTA angle and update anything there. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel legal threat

I've noticed that @67.167.223.47: appears to be making a legal threat on The Kiffness. Can this be revdeled and dealt with accordingly please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat persay, however it is unsourced info on a BLP. I don't see a need to revdel or sanction the IP over this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a legal threat (as in, the IP is not threatening to take legal action) but a pretty serious BLP violation - they're essentially accusing someone of having committed a criminal act with nothing to back it up. I've hidden it. I've also blocked the IP for a month for a long pattern of adding their opinions and other unsourced derogatory content to mostly films but also some other BLPs, and it's pretty clearly the same user on the IP that was blocked a year ago for the same reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Jack, Esuyy, Aldan, and Slaoiuamn

• Jeas116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JESCaales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jearbne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jab Arne1120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Recent related discussion, courtesy ping JalenFolf and ToBeFree

These are a series of obviously connected accounts (the header is taken from the first account's first edit, "Jeas116 is the meaning of Jack, Esuyy, Aldan, and Slaoiuamn") which for the past five years have been drafting articles on their user pages and sometimes user talk pages. When other users have intervened to move these pages to more appropriate locations (like Draft: space, or their sandboxes), they respond by copying & pasting the content back to the original location, creating a split history. There are numerous such splits in the four accounts' histories, including deleted contribs, and it's possible there are more accounts. The drafts also commonly duplicate existing articles, for example User:JESCaales/sandbox1 is the same topic as 2021 FIVB Volleyball Women's Nations League; two of the accounts have contributed to the sandbox (which has no sources at all) and none have contributed to the existing article. Also, I'm less concerned about this but they are all clearly meatpuppets. I came across this situation via TfD where JalenFolf has nominated a pretty long list of templates they've created which are only used in their drafts.

Combined, the four accounts have 3,733 edits (as of this edit), of which only 360 are in article namespace, and (anecdotally; we don't have a tool for this) a large percentage of those were edits to drafts and sandboxes prior to being promoted to articles.

This appears to me to be a giant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, in that the users are creating a walled garden for their own sub-project which would be more appropriate on a site like Fandom, although there are a handful of good-faith article edits, and a handful of edits which were eventually incorporated into articles without the users' involvement. There is at least a large task here to find and merge page histories, but what else if anything should we do about it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Thanks for this. My first encounter with this series of accounts was with an IP edit in Recent changes under the "mw-removed-redirect" tag, though at the time I didn't take notice of Jab Arne1120 and the Template edits. I took notice of the Template editing when Jeas started editing one of the group's templates again on 31 May. Just checked back on the group's contributions just now, and digging deeper, have also found similar edits from 2016–2018 by Pomi112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yuyu333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Evyang132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JAIC1120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Bashman1120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With this discovery, I will also courtesy ping Berean Hunter as blocking admin for JAIC for input. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Jeas116, JESCaales, and Jearbne are identical from a CU perspective, whether that's as socks or meat (you know, brothers/neighbors/cousins). As far as I can see, the balance between playing around in user space and making article edits is way off, and that suggests NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed gaming by User:Epiphyta

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

---

Epiphyta (talk · contribs) made 100+ dummy edits to their user page [121] until they became extended-confirmed. They immediately began editing extended-confirmed-protected pages, including multiple undos of others' reverts of their additions to Pakistan [122][123] and Mexico [124][125], with no attempt to discuss any of these edits on the article's talk pages, and have ignored a question about their gaming of permissions on their talk page [126]. Should their EC status should be manually revoked until they perform 500 legitimate edits and demonstrate an understanding of WP:BRD? DanCherek (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, I would support manually revocation. It's clearly attempting to game the system. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've revoked. No objection to anyone else giving back when they see fit. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to Pyoderma (talk · contribs), a suspected sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputbhatti.  Blocked and tagged. I think it ought to go without saying that nobody should give this account back their EC permission. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

MjolnirPants at Self-referential humor

I'll keep this as short as I can. The TL;DR is that MjolnirPants is edit warring to prevent an RfC closure from being implemented, which is a conduct issue, not a content one, as they have refused the suggestions I've made that they dispute the closure at a proper forum.

This RfC on whether to include any of the material in this edit was closed by Buidhe with a summary that began There's consensus to remove the disputed material. MjolnirPants (same user as MPants at work) is arguing that part of the edit, sourced to WordPress, is not covered by the RfC statement, which read in full: Should the content re-added in this edit, which is partially unsourced and otherwise sourced variously to user-generated websites like Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress, be included in this article?

MjolnirPants engaged in edit warring to prevent the result from being implemented by myself here and here, and no doubt would continue to revert further if anyone engaged them in the edit war, based on the intent expressed here. The user claims here that the closure is invalid, but they are of course involved and have refused to follow my suggestion here that they dispute the closure at WP:AN, the proper location per Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions#Addressing objections.

Throughout discussion, the user has made a steady stream of hostile comments that I can only presume are intended to fall just slightly below the WP:NPA threshold, which you can read at their talk, pre-RfC discussion, the RfC and my talk. They include some of the Top 40 Greatest Hits of ANI: "go find something better to do", implying my talents are better suited to the Simple English Wikipedia, confidently asserting I hadn't read a source when I had and How long did you spend typing that big ole hunk of text? 2, 3 minutes? Did it ever occur to you [to do something I had done]. Most persistent is the claim that I am deliberately lying (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), which is a comment on contributor, not content. There's also a lot of stuff like this, in which my comment "We have some confusion here about whether your comment is meant to refer to ..." is misread as an assertion that "there is 'some confusion'" as to reliability of a source. I understand that the user has a history of personal attacks and edit warring, and was only unblocked in April this year after a February 2019 oversight block by TonyBallioni, the context of which I'm unaware of.

Some actions that could be taken here: re-open the RfC; overturn it with a different outcome; establish consensus that MjolnirPants is not permitted to edit war indefinitely to prevent the implementation of an RfC result; or enact editing sanctions against some subset of myself, MjolnirPants and Buidhe for reasons of conduct. The action I support is the third, consensus that the RfC res7ult must be implemented (which could be enforced by a partial block of MjolnirPants from Self-referential humor).

By reading the associated pages with this conflict, you will be able to pre-empt MjolnirPants's inevitable response about why the above summary (already too long, for which I apologise) misrepresents the situation—and I urge you all to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just note that the RfC Bilorv opened was done after both EEng and I indicated our willingness to remove much of the material, and that three editors pointed this out in the RfC. It was also me who actually removed most of them. And I'm also not alone in pointing out that this example is different. I'll further note that Bilorv has explicitly refused to discuss this particular issue after asserting without evidence that the source is am imposter and rejecting evidence that contradicted him out of hand, and has been otherwise misrepresenting not only the RfC but the discussion thus far.

As if that weren't enough, the edit war is two-sided: ([127] [128]), and apparently Bilorv can interpret the questionable close however he likes, but I'm "not permitted" to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I explained in full the reason why the WordPress source is not reliable, and that you persistently ignored and misrepresented my comments is not a refusal to discuss on my part. You continue to do this, as my position is not and never has been that "the source is am [sic] imposter". We received clarification from the closer that your claims about the other RfC participants' comments and the scope of the RfC were not correct and I did not edit war, but reverted once, after new information became available about the closer's intention. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• An edit war over a disputed RfC ending up at ANI - all concerning the page Self-referential humor? Is this some sort of performance art? If so, I'd like to be the first to buy y'all a drink and congratulate you. Can we all meet up somewhere and unwind? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, There's a little bar behind my house that serves a local microbrew that'll blow your mind. Plus there's karaoke! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  MPants at work, sounds great! Please invite EEng and Bilorv too - you're all good people, I'd love to have a drink with any/all of you. Can't understand how it's come to this. Perhaps everyone take a deep breath, remember that all the content is in the history so can be easily retrieved, and head back to the talk page in a few days to focus on what should stay in, and what should come out? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: Four editors walk into a bar. But the last thing we need is more discussion. We need implementation of the results of the first three discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: well just after I wrote below you came along to prove MPants isn't the only problem..... Given the limited discussion that has taken place thus far, it's very hard to say WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to further discussion. I think it's unfortunate that MPants doesn't agree with the developing consensus especially since they were one of the ones objecting to the RFC in the first place. But they are entitled that to that view. So no Wikipedian should be demanding that discussion must end. As I said below, if a clearer consensus does develop then yes Mpants has to accept that. In other words, if you are demanding discussion must end, then yes you are part of the problem. Note that discussion continuing doesn't mean you have to be part of it. IMO there is close enough to consensus already that it's perfectly possible the views of others will either convince MPants they are wrong, or at least convince them consensus is against them. In the even no one else is willing to contribute to the discussion or try to convince Mpants, well meh is gets complicated but let's just see what happens. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I am in favour of further input, hence why I raised this at ANI. I would be delighted if the RfC was re-opened and we got further opinions for proper clarity. I support the suggestion you made. My comment above, too hastily written to be clear I guess, refers to further discussion amongst the same small set of users (which is what the comment I replied to suggested). — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe the RFC should be reopened? I don't fault User:Buidhe for closing it, there seemed to be a consensus of sorts and several editors had said there was no need for an RfC. But since it was only open for about 10 days and the las reply was about 3 days before closing, it may be better to just reopen it and hope a clearer consensus is achieved. I don't understand why User:MPants at work claimed there was no need for an RfC but then seems to be acting as the sole barrier against consensus but whatever even given their history, I'm not sure this is enough for action against them so probably best to just make it clear, or not, that consensus is against them rather than wasting time on an ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why User:MPants at work claimed there was no need for an RfC but then seems to be acting as the sole barrier against consensus It's this particular joke. One of the jokes was well-sourced, but Bilorv decided (after EEng and I had expressed fondness for it) that it must go because of reasons they literally made up from whole cloth. As for the rest of the examples; as seen in my comment above, it was me who removed them from the article. Hell, I'm not even as opposed as EEng to removing this joke, I just find it well sourced, and Bilorv won't discuss the sourcing since I proved him wrong about it being an imposter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You chose not to remove the content during the period I was waiting for one of the two of you to make the removal, and only did so after I opened the RfC that I said would be my next step, and then attempted to argue the RfC redundant because some of the content in scope had been removed, without making clear in your comment that you had chosen not to remove all of the material. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to reopen the RfC if that's the best way to resolve this situation. (t · c) buidhe 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think reopening the RfC and continuing discussion would be a good thing. I'd also beg everyone to have a beverage of choice and chill out - we do not need to be at each others' throats over this. MPants and Bilorv seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with each other. I've seen you both at work in other parts of the project though, and I know you're both Good Peoples. Is there a reset button I can press anywhere? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be delighted for a reopened RfC with further input from uninvolved users, and no further badgering and repeated accusations that I am lying by MjolnirPants. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, you know, if you don't like being called a liar, maybe you shouldn't make an argument that the blog is run by an imposter and then turn around and claim that you never made that argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have misread the first comment you link to. I did not argue that the blog is run by an imposter. (My personal opinion is that it is quite likely that Stamp does run the blog.) I argued that the evidence you presented does not prove to the standard required on Wikipedia that it is run by Stamp. Stop making personal attacks like the above and please re-read my comments so as to avoid further assertions of falsehoods about me. — Bilorv (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, in fairness, your initial diff isn't Bilorv saying that they think the site is run by an imposter, it's Bilorv saying that it might be, and the onus is on the person wanting to use a self-published source to prove that it's not. Now, one could argue the toss about whether there was ever a reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (per WP:ABOUTSELF criterion 4), but calling Bilorv a liar over that is going too far. There has been too much snark in that talk page discussion and the RfC already - any chance we could draw a line under that sort of thing now? (I'll buy the first round.) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Arguing that "it might be" and then dismissing out of hand the evidence that it's not is no difference than arguing that it is. See "Just asking questions". Given the deceptiveness of the RfC (pretending there was a disagreement over all of these examples when there very clearly was not), my ability to trust Bilorv's integrity was rightfully diminished.

I would also note that his claim to have been arguing about "the evidence I presented" is demonstrably false: I presented evidence in response to this, not prior to this comment.

That being said, I'd be happy to discuss this particular case and come to an agreement on whether to keep it. But it's Bilorv who needs to engage here: either by accepting that the blog is Stamp's, or presenting some other rationale for exclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I pointed to five instances in my initial statement where MjolnirPants has made a similar comment about me deliberately lying, three of which claimed that I believe something I never said, but the user won't stop, and literally accused me again of lying in the response this comment edit conflicted on. You told me above, take a deep breath ... and head back to the talk page in a few days, which I tried twice already before bringing it to ANI. I want a specific and clear answer: how can I get MjolnirPants to stop making personal attacks like the above and misrepresenting my opinions to other users? — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I'll tell you definitively right now:

Stop trying to defend your earlier comments. You got heated during the discussion just like me. You stretched the truth a bit, something I don't do, but lots of other people do. It happens.

It's not worth me commenting on once it stops.

As I just said above, either accept that this is a well-sourced example, or give me a good reason to exclude it that isn't about the quality of the sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work - I think there are things you could both have done differently in that discussion. I'd be happy to talk to both of you, individually or together, about my views on what those are, if you like. Right now though, it would be brilliant if everyone stepped back from accusations of lying and other bad faith editing, and focused on moving forward, letting water flow under the bridge, etc. Please would you be willing to retract that, accept that Bilorv was acting in good faith (while continuing to believe they were wrong), so we can try and get this back on track? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I respect and appreciate your efforts here, and I respect your opinion on Bilorv.

But we've gotten to this point because Bilorv has been stonewalling the discussion about this source with repeated, unjustified (and frankly, unjustifiable) claims that the ownership of the blog is in dispute, while refusing to even acknowledge the evidence that it isn't.

If Bilorv will drop that nonsensical position, then there's no problem left to deal with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: was that comment meant to be a reply to I want a specific and clear answer: how can I get MjolnirPants to stop making personal attacks like the above and misrepresenting my opinions to other users?? I am not seeing an answer here as to the simple question of by what means WP:NPA will be enforced for a user who is continuing to call me a liar here and elsewhere, misrepresent my position, and is specifically refusing to retract any of these comments when asked by an admin. Point me to a comment I've made that you think is a personal attack and I'll be willing to engage with you and retract it if I agree. But has MjolnirPants not made it clear several times over now that they have no intention of voluntarily stopping the clear personal attacks? — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, briefly, because I'm making dinner: I do not assert that you have made any personal attacks towards MP - I thank you for that. However, MP's statements are supported by diffs, and if there is a venue where it is permissible to make accusations of bad faith editing of another user with supporting diffs, this is it. I don't agree with his assessment, but he is permitted to voice it in defense of his own conduct and in response to your accusations.

As I've already said, from where I'm sitting you are both fantastic contributors, and I'm perplexed about how we got to this position. I am not going to unilaterally impose any sanctions here, and I would be very keen to try to mediate this between you, if you are both willing to proceed like that. Other admins might feel differently, and they may well do so before I come back online again tomorrow. All I can do is reiterate that I hold you both in very high esteem, that I think this has come about because of some sort of personality clash, that you could both have done things better, and that I hope that we will be able to find a way through the woods that does not result in anyone being hit with any hammers. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, For the record, my last comment should be read as an implicit yes that moving on is ideal.

I don't think I can, in good faith, retract anything because I just don't buy that Bilorv honestly believed that the RfC was necessary, or that, for example "you can't be serious" somehow refutes the evidence I showed them, or that they're permitted to interpret that close however they like, but I'm not.

I am, however, more than willing to drop the matter and not bring it up again if we can just move on from it. And I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have been too confrontational in addressing that behavior.

If you'd like to come to the talk page and help suss it out, that'd be great. Schazjmd has joined in with a question, which is much more helpful than it might appear, as it's moving things forward. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46 , 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I have pointed to six diffs throughout this discussion to where MjolnirPants said I was being dishonest and/or lying on pages other than ANI, and such comments were, in context, a personal attack. I don't understand why you are communicating the implication that the situation is equal parts hostility from me and MjolnirPants when you do not think I have made any personal attacks. I'm glad that this thread has raised further scrutiny and action at Talk:Self-referential humor, but I won't continue contributing in a venue where I am expected to tolerate persistent personal attacks and avoid making any personal attacks myself, only to be told that I should be more collegiate to the person attacking me.

No doubt MjolnirPants is delighted to hear that their persistent rudeness has succeeded in its desired effect, but it is clear that there will be no action taken to prevent continued incivility. You are, apparently, permitted to keep misrepresenting my opinion and accusing me of lying, acting in bad faith, and being so stupid that no reasonable human could have the views I hold, with no consequences. Have some fun with it. To Girth Summit: since you think my conduct was imperfect, if you want to email me with descriptions of what you think I did wrong and what I could have done differently then I'll read that and consider it for future content disputes. The following applies to everyone: do not ping me again to this ANI discussion or to Self-referential humor or Talk:Self-referential humor in edit summaries or in comments. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu accused me of being a 'nazi vandal' and threatened to block my edit.

User:tgeorgescu left a notice on my talk page with a link to a 'no nazis' essay claiming I was vandalising. My edit was to undo the adding of 'antisemitic conspiracy theorist' to the lead of the Julius Evola page. I am not a wikipedia editor or anything. I am Jewish so the accusation is definitely done in bad faith. I checked his/her page and saw that they have this immediately to welcome you: 'A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk • contribs)

You were not accused of being a nazi vandal. You were indeed accused of vandalism and pointed to an essay, but that's not the same thing. You also failed to notify tgeorgescu as required; I will do so. The correct course of action here is to obtain consensus for your suggested change on the article's talk page; I see you've already started the discussion. I don't think there's anything more to be done here. --Yamla (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Arguably, notification happened right around the time I posted this. Regardless, tgeorgescu has been notified. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, you seem to be edit warring at the article on behalf of Editorofthegods. Are you related to that user? Do you have an account at all? If not, I'm very impressed that you found your way to this noticeboard. Bishonen | tålk 17:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC).

• Just to note, the presence of "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" in the article is a favorite complaint among Evola's fans, however it is well supported by citations, and its removal has been rejected in talk page discussions numerous times [129], [130], [131], [132], and possibly other times I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Likely sock and definitely WP:NOTHERE

User Samlaxcs is dedicated to pushing their own interpretation of history, mainly focussing on reinterpreting history to focus on the Ghassanids [133] and the origins of groups in the Middle East. Samlaxcs goes about this in a very heavyhanded way, including "correcting" direct quotes [134], claiming that all academic sources are wrong [135] and that history is "manipulated [136]. All of this is already a problem as it's merely pushing OR relentlessly. However, the similarities between Samlaxcs and banned sock Kasaxu are staggering. Both Samlaxcs and Kasaxu perform almost identical edits on topics as varied as Spanish cuisine [137] and [138] (check the almost identical edit summaries), Early Middle Ages [139] and [140], and History of the ancient Levant [141] and [142]. As per WP:DUCK, this is the same user. Jeppiz (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Mia4121 (talk · contribs) at Council on American-Islamic Relations

Mia4121 (talk · contribs) inserted a large amount of material that was either poorly sourced or only loosely related to the subject of the article at Council on American-Islamic Relations. I removed most of the material while retaining a small amount that was constructive, immediately beginning a discussion on the talk page five days ago. Another user also partially reverted to remove poorly sourced material. Despite several requests on User_talk:Mia4121 and in edit summaries, Mia4121 has only continued to reintroduce the material with reverts and has refused to engage in any discussion:

• First revert
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert
• Fifth revert

Snuish (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

[[User:Snuish2|Snuish2] (talk · Snuish2 has repeatedly deleted the entire section on Internal Controversies at the Council on American-Islamic Relations page, despite repeat warnings. He has a history of deleting content that is unfavorable to the Council on American Islamic Relations. The section was edited by a third editor and the poorly sourced and loosely related material was removed. There is no reason to remove the current content under Internal Controversies, other than Snuish2's bias and favorable opinion of the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia4121 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I had a look at this and must say neither Snuish nor Mia4121 comes out looking good; both users very actively edit war with each other. Jeppiz (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What would have been a better course of action on my part in addition to requesting the user's attention on his talk page and the article's talk page? Even after requests on the user's talk page, (s)he would do a fly-by revert and ignore any requests for discussion. I waited a day after this request to see if the user would engage in discussion. There was nothing and I reverted after waiting. I also waited at least a day after this notice and, after noticing no effort to engage in discussion, I reverted. Snuish (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Except you're insisting on retaining a large amount of material concerning an employee's personal life and this is the first time you've bothered to make a post about it. Snuish (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

69.126.57.216

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

IP has resumed the same disruptive behavior that got them blocked for 6 months, which now includes linking to draftspace in violation of MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. Courtesy ping Scottywong for this one as previous blocking admin. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

IP continues to be persistent in their disruptive efforts that now the edit filter is tripping from their edits. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm they are literally disruptive editing faster than I can revert. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 1 year. —valereee (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, when the person gets unblocked, if he resumes his disruptive editing, will he get blocked permantly? 107.146.244.150 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)