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

Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio

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

---

I report the user Rafaelosornio. He reverts my contributions in the article Padre Pio. Although these have a clear source, he deletes content. He is acting from a Catholic fundamentalist understanding of the article on Padre Pio. The user has already been warned several times for his disruptive editing behavior. In particular, he alters religious and psychological topics according to his extreme Catholic POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. However, @Mr. bobby:, please do not refer to good-aith edits as vandalism, as you did here and here, even if you personally think that they did not improve the page. Doing so is uncivil and promotes a hostile editing environment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is both content and conduct dispute. I post facts here, give cleanly the source and the reported reverts that. The intention of this is clearly recognizable and consists in taking away the criticism of a canonized, extremely controversial person. On the talk page of the reported one can document his behavior and corresponding complaints exactly. His comments on his changes are not understandable. Simply any out of the air statements and assertions. Please take a closer look. The reported one uses permanently hagiographic sources, sources directly from the fundamentalist Catholic environment, worship websites etc...Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that Mr. Bobby has brought this to ANI twice before in the past 3 months, with neither report resulting in admin action.

I see a reasonable amount of back and forth at the article talk page, which is the appropriate place to resolve a content dispute. I do think Mr. Bobby should be advised to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks; aside from the accusations of vandalism presented by Red-tailed Hawk. Mr. Bobby has twice called Rafaelosornio a fundamentalist. He has also shown some battleground behavior by referring to the version he published as “the correct version”. None of this behavior seems to merit admin action, IMHO, but a firm warning to focus on the content, not the contributor, may be in order. Retracted per this post.

It looks like SanctumRosarium attempted dispute resolution at the end of October 2022, but it was closed as being premature. Perhaps it would be worth trying now? Or if the reliability of the sources involved are in question, WP:RSN seems like a better fit. Either way, this has not been shown by other resolution attempts to be either urgent or intractable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a rehash of the same issue Mr. Bobby reported back on December 30th. It's not even been a month, and you're dragging this back here again, because you didn't get the result you wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano

Of note, Mr. Bobby has been blocked from this article previously for edit warring over it, so I think we may be nearing a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I was told to bring this in to avoid an edit war. Now I'm being negatively interpreted as wanting to create publicity for simply reverting changes with clean citation of sources. Is anyone here also concerned with the disruptive changes to the one I reported? With its use of purely religious sources to seemingly prove alleged facts?Mr. bobby (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And I add the following:

1. I am not against moderation of change to this article.

2. sanctumrosarium is practically a one-purpose-account. He too has responded disruptively to my secular edits.

3. Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me and is based on clear sources. This article is about extreme issues, including that the saint is said to have flown. I ask all reasonable contributors to pay attention to reliable sources here after all. Therefore I cannot even begin to understand the idea of a topic ban: What are the edits to the article that are to be objected to here? From the reported, on the other hand, it was insinuated several times in the editing comments that I would not reproduce the sources correctly: A very serious accusation that is not substantiated anywhere.

4. And finally: what would be the correct side/place to which I can turn with this problem and this conflict? Mr. bobby (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby You cannot modify to your liking what the sources say. The German source in question clearly says: "Veratrine was once used as a paralyzing muscle insecticide, primarily against lice, but was also described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain."

And your modified version says:

Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted in insensitivity to wound pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly typical of Rafaelosornio's work. He himself distorts content and at the same time insinuates distortions to me. In this case (there are numerous others) the quote is: German:

„Veratrin hingegen fand einst als muskellähmendes Insektengift, vorzugsweise gegen Läuse, Verwendung, wird von der Pharmazie aber auch als „äußerlich wirkendes Reizmittel“, das gegen Schmerz unempfindlich macht, beschrieben.“

English translation: „Veratrine, on the other hand, was once used as a muscle paralyzing insecticide, preferably against lice, but is also described by pharmacists as an "externally acting irritant" that desensitizes to pain.“

Source:

The central part is Schürmer's reference to the pain effect. Pio ordered huge quantities of the preparation secretly and without prescription. I found this source and used it in the article.

In Revision as of 13:35, 21 January 2023 he simply deleted this important information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=1134918987

saying: „Luzzatto is not a chemist, this is not a chemical article, that goes on the corresponding page. And the other cannot be verified. Failed verification.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to put what veratrine is, that's what the link to the corresponding article is for, let the links do their job, one clicks on veratrine and it takes you to the article and tells you what it is.

And about the source in German, you had not placed the link to where the information was, so there was no way to corroborate what was said. Once you put the link I was able to corroborate that in the Wikipedia article you had put something different.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be written in a Neutral POV WP:NPOV WP:RNPOV

"Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources".

It may not be reliable to take Luzzato's Padre Pio book as a reliable reference to explain scientific explanations about events associated with Padre Pio since Luzzato is a Historian, not a scientist. Also, there is no need to describe what Veratridine is while a link can explain what it is. Exanx777 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

An extremely secular perspective? Secular is defined as the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion, so that is exactly what we should strive at. But it is true that this is not a question for admins. Rather, it belongs on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The article needs to be neutral, that is, secular. Extremely secular, if possible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The substance is said to be veratrine, not veratridine (which is obtained from veratrine). There isn't much about veratrine per se in the veratridine article; the information about how veratrine was ... described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain is not contained therein. I was notified by Mr. bobby of this discussion and I have a slight WP:INAPPNOTE concern. I feel that I am detached enough from these issues to be able to see things neutrally. —Alalch E. 16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost everything from the above contribution of Exanz 777 is to be judged critically:

1. of course everything in Wikipedia must be described from a neutral point of view. Religious belief cannot be presented as if physical facts were presented here. (Pio, according to his fans, flew for real and fought off bomber pilots...).

2. Luzzatto is a serious historian. He does not have to be a pharmacologist to be able to tell us seriously what Veratrine was used for in Pio's (!) time. (And as already said Veratrine is not the same as Veratridin).

3. An article has to explain certain facts to the reader, so that he understands the context. Blue links are not always enough. In the present case, everything is very meticulously documented with appropriate sources.

4. with the whole cast of catholic believers of these hand wounds, which are held for divine stigmata, the effect of a secretly ordered medicine is of course extremely important and of encyclopedic relevance.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Of note, NPOV does not mean we must throw out all the religious beliefs in an article. We do not treat them as factual happenings, but it also does not mean we must go to undue length to debunk them. That's not Wikipedia's purpose.

No, we do not need to go into excessive detail about a blue-linked topic. There's good faith arguments to be had about just how much detail needs to be given, but it is not necessary to go in-depth.

Frankly, it does sound like you're here to debunk religious beliefs, rather than simply documenting the facts surrounding them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say here consists of insinuations. As has been said twice now, Veratrine is not Veratridin. So it must be explained what it is about. Nowhere is it about debunking of religious beliefs. Please prove that to me. All it is about is distinguishing (!) a religious belief system and its assumptions from the accounts of secular scholars and historians. That is exactly what is being obstructed here. My work can be seen well in the article Miracle of Lanciano. There, a fantasy system had been compiled from the most obscure and largely falsified sources. Several contributors have worked with me to make the article now meet encyclopedic standards. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It comes across that way to me as well, and very emotional at that. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Hand That Feeds You" has managed to push the entire discussion here in one direction with his one-sided, distorted and unsubstantiated expression of opinion. Rafaelosornio has in both articles Padre Pio and Miracle of Lanciano my changes constantly reverted. In both articles he leaves in fake, invented, unreliable sources, the main thing is that the claimed miracles are proven by this extremely religious „sources“. In "Miracle of Lanciano" several editors have meticulously proved for years that most of the sources were falsified (see talk page). Nevertheless, for years a fringe theory could hold on in the article. And nevertheless absurdly "The hand" demands a topic ban for me. It would make sense to give him a topic ban for this discussion. Rafelosornio's posts aim to undermine, delay and keep extreme POV sources in the article. Just take a look at his posts for once.Mr. bobby (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statement that Mr. Bobby only needs a warning; I am now agnostic to that point. After being warned by multiple editors, they have attempted to canvas many different editors, characterizing this thread as a “slanted discussion”, and characatrizing Rafaelsosornio as “a religious user” who is distorting content based on a religious POV. This is after being cautioned to comment on content, not editors. He has referred to User:HandThatFeeds’s post above by claiming “everything you say here consists of insinuations”, particularly odd as HandThatFeeds has insinuated nothing, and outright stated how Mr. Bobby’s actions appear.

I wonder if there’s a language barrier at play. He has said that Rafaelsosornio’s comments are “not understandable”, but I find them easy enough to comprehend. In the disputed edit regarding veratrine above, Mr. Bobby’s preferred language “Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted…” makes it sound as if he’s saying in wikivoice that Padre Pio took the mixture, for which I do not see a reliable source. I could see him intending this to mean, “In that period, the alkaloid mixture could be used to…”, which would be accurately summarizing the source.

This could easily have been resolved on the article talk page, but Mr. Bobby’s conduct comes off as moderate battleground behavior, as seen in this thread, as well as what seems to be some ownership, as shown by statements like “Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me…”.

I remain agnostic on the content dispute; religion isn’t my field, and I don’t consider myself qualified to discuss the reliability of sources or what constitutes a neutral point of view on this matter. I will say that, from what I read of Rafaelsornio’s posts, he appears to be making a civil and good faith effort, and doesn’t seem to me to be engaging in battleground behavior. Which is another reason why Mr. Bobby might wish to, as suggested above by Hob Galding, go to the relevant noticeboard for discussing NPOV issues. Repeated restating of the content dispute at this venue reinforces my impression that Mr Bobby is here to win an argument, not to better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's appropriate to go to user's pages to enlist help in support of opposing "religious" users, as if their religion is in itself reason enough to oppose them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&oldid=1135215187#Padre_Pio YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Topic ban proposal

Given the above insistence that other editors are using fake, invented, unreliable sources, and constant aspersions against anyone who disagrees with his stance, I believe Mr. bobby is here to right great wrongs rather than productively edit the encyclopedia. As this is not restricted to a single article, I'm proposing a topic ban on religious articles, broadly construed, in the hopes that he can edit productively in other areas.

• Support as nominator. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have known Mr. bobby for a long time and he is a very reasonable editor. The key problem here is that the underlying editing pattern seems like a content dispute which it actually is not: Mr. bobby's edits are compliant with WP:RS and WP:V – they are being reverted because of that. Wikipedia is not a place for propagating conspiracy theories (e.g., that Padre Pio was able to fly or bilocate, or that he had other supernatural powers). Forcing a topic ban on an editor who removes nonsense from Wikipedia articles and edits according to Wikipedia's core content policies is unreasonable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. For a variety of reasons, including the extreme emotionality which he apparently approaches the subject, and the circular reasoning he uses. I'm afraid this won't result in a ban, but I definitely support. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per the below comment. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here I quote voices of editors on the talk page of "Miracle of Lanciano." No statement here is from me. But it clearly shows that even invented sources were used in the article.

1: „It says that there are 2 stories about the weight: Fella and Valsecca but that they don't contradict (even though they do). It mentions Linoli (and the blood claims) and a mysterious rapport from the WHO from 1976 (that no one has ever been able to show). ( )This source should be removed.“

2. „The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon." I have never seen a source for this, no scientific publications for this miracle that would be the proof that Catholicism is true. I don't think the Higher Council even exists. This source should be removed.“

3. „It is in Italian. I don't know whether it was peer reviewed and I don't know whether it is a prestigous journal. I don't care, it has never been cited in 50 years. (and would only proof Transsubstantiation to be real) It goes against MEDRS. This source should be removed.“

4. „Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.“

5. „I have found a copy of "source" 7 on the wayback machine: Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20. This is clearly an unreliable source. No author information. Not printed in a peer reviewed journal.“

Another user:

6. „I removed the paragraphs talking about the WHO study since it's been proven to be, in part, a fraud.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. While Mr. Bobby does seem to be on the right side of things in terms of content, the battleground behavior does not seem to have responded to warnings in this thread. Despite claims in this thread, I don’t see the other editors claiming Padre Pio could fly or bilocate; that seems to be an exaggeration. What I do see is escalating battleground behavior, WP:IDHT, WP:CANVAS, and incivility which Mr. Bobby has not acknowledged much less pledged to curtail. If I did see such an acknowledgment and understanding of what behaviors could be improved and how, I would change my !vote to oppose. In the absence of any such indicator, I would be very hesitant to edit anywhere I saw him active for fear of "crossing swords"; this behavior drives away editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=875252163

In the version from this time you can read:

„People who had started rebuilding their lives after World War I, began to see in Padre Pio a symbol of hope.[14] Those close to him attest that he began to manifest several spiritual gifts, including the gifts of healing, bilocation, levitation, prophecy, miracles, extraordinary abstinence from both sleep and nourishment (one account states that Padre Agostino recorded one instance in which Padre Pio was able to subsist for at least 20 days at Verafeno on only the Eucharist without any other nourishment), the ability to read hearts, the gift of tongues, the gift of conversions, and pleasant-smelling wounds.[15]“

You find bilokation and levitation. (Some say he flew throught the air against pilots, but I did not find that in the English Wikipedia.)Mr. bobby (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1) That diff doesn’t show what you claim it does. 2) It does not assert, in wikivoice, that Padre Pio did any of that. It asserts, in wikivoice, that his close acquaintances attested that, which is factually accurate; the acquaintances did, indeed, so attest, according to the sources. In an article about a canonized saint, I think presenting the factors that lead the church to its decision (especially identifying them as hearsay, i.e. as being by close acquaintances) is very relevant. 3) Even if it did assert supernatural powers in wikivoice, it was not by Rafaelosornio, and so is not relevant to this content dispute. 4) Even if it were to have been by Rafaelosornio, that content is still in the article now, so the argument that this dispute is because you’re trying to keep it out of the article has no weight.

Mr. Bobby, I really wish you would stop doubling down on the narrative that you were right. Even if you were right about the content dispute, this thread is about your behavior. It’s clear that you can be a very productive editor with a dedication to venerability. If we knew that you understood that your behavior was wrong, why it was wrong, and wouldn’t be repeated, I don’t think a topic ban would be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the user is able to detach himself from his dislike of the article's subject sufficiently enough to write neutrally about it. He is consistently having the same circular edit wars with other users over and over again - for years now, and to a point where it gets really tedious.--Medusahead (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose.I regret that I got involved in arguments and can only assure that I will avoid that in the future. At the same time, I believe that I have improved the article through my contributions. Of course, I do not claim ownership of this article.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have already blocked them once for edit warring, have them advice on how to proceed, and warned them against making personal attacks. It doesn't seem to have made much of a dent in their behavior. At this point we're left with vanishingly few options. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're right to talk about "them" here. This is really about two Wikipedia editors. The discussion here is exclusively about my behavior. On your advice I have posted the recurring problems from my point of view here with the consequence that only I am criticized here. You had blocked both of us.Mr. bobby (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That's because by starting this section in the way that you did you have managed to stick a nice boomerang-shaped plank in your eye, while the speck in your brother's eye that is already a known quantity, doesn't seem like "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" business in comparison. May this canvassed intercession induce in you a transverberation, such that you may repent of self-righteous vainglory and wrath, and Divine Mercy might wash over you. —Alalch E. 02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per [1], in which OP complains that another version of the subject's photo should be used, in which he looks "demonic". Also see [2], my suggestion the last time OP was here: basically that this could be handled a lot less emotionally. As someone said above, it is one thing not to want hagiography, (which is admirable, even) but quite another to actively seek to disprove other people's religious beliefs as nonsense and to portray their saints as "demonic" and supporters of Mussolini. DUE. The miracles need to be discussed in the context of his canonization, and this can be done without all this dismissiveness. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel there's some language barrier issue there. He probably meant to say how the undoctored image didn't look saintly enough, so it was heavily retouched. On the actual merits, the proposal is pretty reasonable: He isn't really proposing to change the image to some negative image of the subject, it's only about changing from a doctored version to an undoctored photograph (which can be retouched reasonably in a way that does not create a religious icon -- example). —Alalch E. 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about a language gap. That's the same image he said was demonic though, and also the same as the one we are using now. The latter has been colorized, is all, and this one has had exposure or maybe shadows adjusted. But hey, I admire your skill at AGF. The image rant seemed fairly unreasonable to me, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. He does seem to want to debunk the miracles, which do need to be discussed --neutrally-- because Padre Pio is apparently notable for being canonized, for which miracles are a prerequisite. ::See Bijli Pasi for an example of legend/myth neutrally handled imho. I don't personally care about the padre either way, mind you. I just thought the thread was iconic of an attitude. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is iconic. But his objections are often reasonable; doesn't mean everyone is obligated to agree, however. If he would show that he understands what battleground behavior is and if he can see the irony in fixing alleged (and real) fringe religious POV while acting like an inquisitor, he should get one last chance to work in this topic area. —Alalch E. 23:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable editing those articles, but OTOH I have no real interest in doing so. Those diffs are obnoxious, however. When it comes to religious beliefs we don't share, shouldn't we make certain that these are neutrally presented *as beliefs*, without insisting on trying to prove that they are unscientific or even fringe, forsooth? I hope you are right in this case. That is all, except that I realized after my earlier post that quite a lot of admin enforcement had gone into my example of neutral presentation. Hmmm. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Scabab and box office figures

Scabab (talk · contribs · count) has been citing this single link in four different articles to support information regarding box office: Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Broly and Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero. The problem is that the information cannot be verified by the reader with that simple link. I already brought up the issue with this site here and here. However, I also noticed that it is not the first time that editors have issues with the edits of Scabab regarding box office stuff and sourcing; there are at least two previous discussions: [3] [4] Xexerss (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This just seems like a troll. Has not responded kindly to this criticisms in the past (as both these diffs show). This seems less like a dispute resolution issue and more a combo of failing to cite these apparent sources they speak of and inability to learn from mistakes.

One good thing is because of his specific focus, any socks this guy uses are gonna be easy to spot. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so. It's clear that the user doesn't care about policies and guidelines and just makes edits the way they deem correct. I would revert their edits myself in these articles, but they would probably do the same and I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. Xexerss (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I took the time to add (verifiable) sources to these four articles. I request some input on it if the user re-incurs in adding original research content to the articles. Xexerss (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They are verifiable as well as hugely outdated and incorrect. I'll only ever put the correct number. Scabab (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scabab: Ok, so it seems that you still don't get it. The objective of Wikipedia is to have reliable and verifiable sources that can confirm the info to which they are attached when someone accesses to them, not to keep updated figures just for the sake of keeping them updated and use any source available out there that you think that can work and you consider enough. What you deem "outdated and incorrect" and "correct" is totally irrelevant; you've insisted on adding ambiguous, self-published and generally poorly sourced links to articles, ignoring any guideline, policy and warning that have been told to you, keeping on making edits however you want. Xexerss (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I added the source. It's not my fault other people don't subscribe to see the information that's there on the site. Adding a source that can be confirmed means nothing when it's factually incorrect like the ones you're adding.Scabab (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you could add a different source that has the same information (if such source exists) and can be accessed for free. If it's reliable infomation, this source should exist. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scabab: If it's so important to you to keep the figures updated and use any unreliable source that you think is fine anyway, like Sportskeeda or Anime Hunch, then you could edit the Wikia of these films. It has been explained several times to you about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth with no understanding on your part. Xexerss (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Now this user insists on citing unreliable self-published websites and blogs like Anime Hunch; Erzat and Sportskeeda. The later is already listed as unreliable on two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

He also removed warnings from his talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This just needs to stop. Putting forward a TBAN on movies for Scabab. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This user's attitude clearly falls under WP:NOTHERE. They don't recognize their fault and don't even (at the very least) cite their sources in the right way, adding bare links with errors to articles. On top of that, they have the nerve to demand that other editors change their unreliable sources for better ones to support the content that they deem correct. As I pointed out above, Scabab has a long-term history of disruptive behavior, so I'm still wondering why they haven't received any sanction yet. Xexerss (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerted sockpuppeting/canvassing at the Vector 2022 RfC

Someone (or several someones) is trying to flood the RfC with oppose !votes from IPs and SPAs with extremely similar form and content, such as this trio: [5] [6] [7], and the successive entries from this editor, identifying himself as "James M", and this editor, identifying themselves as "JD M". I may be an admin myself, but I don't have any experience dealing with this, so I urgently ask you:

• What do we do to get this to stop? Should we semi-protect the page?
• If I had to guess, I'd blame this ip, who showed up to a discussion about this attack enraged about people !voting support and saying the whole RfC is a joke. Whether that guy or someone else is behind this, how do we get him to stop instead of carrying on with his grudge indefinitely?
• Should this issue be taken up elsewhere, too? Is opening a sockpuppet investigation called for? Reporting as ongoing vandalism?
• Should suspect !votes be deleted? Tagged? Moved to the talk page? Otherwise handled in a way that doesn't result in being deservedly flamed to a crisp for messing with other peoples' comments?
• My #¤%& computer's crashing like every 20 minutes, real sorry to pass the buck, but could someone whose isn't please step in on this? --Kizor 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cf. also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Strange pattern in recent opposes. Notice also that one of the newly created accounts attempted to delete tags appended by Avilich to said accounts' and IPs' comments to warn that they are suspicious. Æo (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of IP editors and new accounts showing up on both sides for this RfC. This is the problem with having anything on Wikipedia come down to a straw poll, especially something that's this widely publicized. That being said, it does look as though sockpuppetry might be going on, though semiprotecting the page or ECing it will damp participation even further. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think tagging is a productive use of time in this situation. Anyone who is going to be closing that RFC will be more than aware the situation. Additionally, most IPs are dynamic so it stands to reason that they would have made few edits outside of that discussion. Lastly, getting into the tagging game is going to lead to even more conflict, considering there are plenty of IPs and new users on both sides. We'd have to tag all or none. If we're going to try to tag only suspicious responses, just leave that to the closer to judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And more not-too-coherent ranting from an IP about how this is all the support side's fault. --Kizor 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything really to do here. The RfC has been publicized in a couple places outside wikipedia, a sizeable percentage of the comments on that RfC are saying it doesn't matter when any of us editors think, it should be what unregistered editors think, and then when unregistered editors show up we, what, ask for semiprotection or EC-confirmed? That seems silly. Closer will just have to evaluate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kizor, I disagree with your selective removal of SPA tags. Please either remove them all, or self revert and leave them all. You shouldn't be unilaterally making a decision between good and bad SPAs: either we tag all the SPAs, or we don't tag any of them. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• The topic of the RFC primarily concerns the appearance for IPs and non-regular users (because the logged-in regulars have a preference setting they can use). As such, it would make the RFC even less representative of the people it affects if we tried to prevent IPs and non-regular users from participating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• I believe this RFC needs a little supervision by Checkusers, there are a lot of accounts that appear to be Single purpose account or sockpuppetry. Yep, we all and always saying that RFC is not a vote, but... Lemonaka (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just saw this. Lemonaka, this change particularly impacts unregistered readers/editors, because they can't change their settings and can only toggle a few things in the particular screen they're looking at. Some of the single-issue accounts are openly explaining that they registered for that reason. Both they and those who participate as IPs should be allowed to have their say; it affects them more than us. In any case, whoever closes it should be trusted to appropriately weigh the arguments made. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir Yes, I've already found that. I have made a comment about such a situation, but if WMF treat it like a vote, some supervision will have to be done to prevent RFC from hijacking. Moreover, I believe there might be someone giving more than one !vote on that topic. I don't have access to the CU tools, but as topic getting heater and heater, you know, always... Lemonaka (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of WMF employee email outreach

Note that the WMF has disclosed that one of them (against company instructions) has canvassed people to vote in the RfC[8]. While the email makes a perfunctory bow to no canvassing, vote however you like, everything else in it screams please support our Vector22 and vote oppose! Fram (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram Oh, fucking shit, please archive it.... It may disappear soon and you may get banned if .... Lemonaka (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Relax, it was (like I said) disclosed by the WMF, not found by me. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Disclosure of email outreach. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines and some of the wording in the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation left me with a chilling feeling. FWIW, calling RFC a vote and something like that. At one time I dealt with the WMF and it saddens me to think that they may be not only incompetent, but intentional.
I think the arbitration committee needs to take action in this case. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the WMF should get its people to learn enwiki policy, if they're going to have any direct or indirect interaction with enwiki in their role as WMF employees. Here we see canvassing and ignorance of WP:NOT at minimum. CharredShorthand.talk; 04:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Mdggdj

Despite being already reported half year ago, this user continued to nominate software-related articles for deletion, actions already undone. already blocked at the Spansh Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Of their 5 AfD nominations on en-WP that have been closed, 4 were delete and 1 was merge/redirect. It appears as if they are nominating articles that lack notability. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

And considering how many articles you've created that have been subsequently deleted, it seems that you are the one who does not understand Wikipedia's notability requirements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Mdggdj's edits, and if you refer to them as an LTA or vandal again, without providing evidence, I'll block you myself. I suggest you read Wp:RS, WP:Notability, WP:VANDALISM and, very importantly, WP:CIR. Looking at your edits, I question your ability to edit Wikipedia competently. Looking at a lot of the articles you removed Prod requests from, those articles should be deleted as non-notable so I think I'll nominate them all myself. Canterbury Tail talk 23:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What should we do with this kind of disruptive users? User:Amitie 10g does not want to follow the rules and prefers personal attacks. Another Wikipedia editor blocked my Spanish Wikipedia account because he did not like my user handle. I do not know if there is a single sockpuppet account on the Spanish Wikipedia or many of the Spanish Wikipedia editors do not want to follow the rules. What do you recommend doing here? User:Amitie 10g has a long record of not following the rules. Mdggdj (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I asked the user who blocked Mdggdj on Spanish Wikipedia what their evidence was on sockpuppetry. See my talk page there to see what the response was. There might be some global lock evasion going on, however I'll leave that up to the admins to decide as from what I'm seeing it was simply just some WP:LOUT socking. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[9] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [10] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [11] [12] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [13] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [14] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [15]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [16] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Category spamming

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

---

112.204.162.11 (talk · contribs) is spamming Category:Philippines across every locally hosted file that relates to the Philippines, even though the majority are already in specific categories (WP:CATSPECIFIC), among other category-related disruption such as treating categories as articles and adding the Featured picture category to various files. This has persisted through a number of warnings from myself and another user ([17][18][19][20][21]). Disruption is currently ongoing. CMD (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours, though it looks like it's a reasonably static IP. Canterbury Tail talk 03:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

@Canterbury Tail: Does seem static, with the activity immediately reoccurring could a longer block be placed? CMD (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for two weeks, no further action is needed from this report. CMD (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Big baboon 272 - Do we check all edits?

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

---

Big baboon 272 (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

Big baboon 272 is discussed both here and on Commons. Here their "article" on Murexia xenochromus is being discussed in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murexia xenochromus and their image uploads on Commons are discussed not only at Commons Deletion Requests, but at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=728552248#image-manipulator Where they have received what is terms as a Ban, and all their edits have been deleted.

Their edits have been called into question here in the AfD. The reason I am bringing it here is for experineced parties to seel to deterim what action to take on their edits here. I will be notifying relevant participants here.

tl;dr Summary Uploaded hoax image to Commons and based at least one hoax article upon it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Excommunicado.

Delete all uploads, revert all other projects' edits unless they can be sourced immediately. Indef ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ban and check all edits - This edit (the first one I checked) fails verification. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Indef ban and check all edits I really got deceived when I just realized things about this. All of their edits should have checked. I'm going to request a global lock for them as soon as possible.MarioJump83 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to check all edits; the user's made less than 100, so it should not be terrible for a few folks to go through. They don't appear to have edited in the past six months though, so I'm not sure that banning them would actually be preventative in any way rather than serving as a form of punishment for bad behavior, and I'm not exactly on board with banning people as a form of punishment (even if they have harmed the encyclopedia in the past). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously if they come back and continue to do the same thing, it should be an instant indef, but this seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NOTPUNISH#4 at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk Your generosity does you credit. The point is moot since they are now globally locked, however, their "work" could easily have brought Wikipedia into disrepute, the more so had it been in a less obscure area.

If their edits were in good faith then they can tell "us" that in an appeal, and that will be listened to. I feel the action taken by the Stewards has been preventative of further foolishness rather than punitive. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk I've checked most edits and found them to be unsourced additions, thus I reverted most of them accordingly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Now globally locked. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• I think the global lock is appropriate, it was Cross Wiki Abuse, and I assume Stewards do not lock lightly. If they are contrite they can appeal, if they return. There is, with glorious hindsight, a huge clue about their editing in the (presumed) biblical quiite on their user page. They appear to have been a thistle providing figs!

With the work of LilianaUwU do we consider this matter to be closed? Or do we leave this open a decent while longer to allow other contributions? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent I would double check their contributions, as I may have missed a few. However, I'm not at my computer right now, so I can't really do so. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Good lock. Despicable behaviour. Deliberately faking content is one of the worst offences here, and those who do it should be firmly shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Rocafellla

User:Rocafellla has been avoiding leaving any edit summary in his edits or discussing any of his changes at talk pages.

I discovered this when he reverted my edits on Babylon (2022 film) twice here and here.

I decided to check his edits because he didn't leave any summary once and left him a message on his talk page after finding he has a habit of not leaving any edit summary [22], while also asking him to discuss the dispute he has over how to write the film's box office with me. He didn't respond.

I later contacted him on the article talk page by linking his name [23], but he didn't respond again. Then I finally decided to warn that I will complain to the admins [24]. There was still no response.

I've rechecked his edits and he very rarely responds. While I wouldn't have brought this if this was merely limited to a content dispute, Rocafellla doesn't seem to respond to me or anyone for that matter. Or provide explanation for his controversial changes and reverts. This is a violation of Wikipedia polices, especially WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:DISPUTE and WP:UNRESPONSIVE. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've given them the full edit summary warning; not an admin but months and months without an edit summary (or using canned one-word responses) isn't acceptable and they need to say something already. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I just checked to see if they responded here or addressed this, and there have been further non-summarized edits today. Final warning given. Enough. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Scratch that (slightly)...they did type a summary for this edit, which removed the subject's race, which is pretty much a hard no in BLP editing. Reverted and hopeful they don't do so again. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you MrSchimpf. But I see they still did not respond to you and besides that one article didn't post any summaries anywhere. Nor responded to me. I've warned them on their page that I'll request admins for a block if they don't start a discussion [25]. Hopefully it doesn't have to come to that and the user starts cooperating. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They did respond to you with an 'Ok', but that still isn't acceptable because they just think 'there I said a word close thread lol no longer in trouble'...then they post this, an unacceptable thing sourced to a forum, which they were again warned about by another user, then this; for a film editor they should definitely know what the difference between cinematography and visual style is. On their part, this is getting tenuous and @Rocafellla: needs to stop this, now. There are 108 keys on a keyboard and more than two of them should be used for an edit summary or to respond to an editor's concerns. Nate • (chatter) 22:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They seem to be happily engaged in solitary play. WP may be like a "knowledge game" for them. "OK" is the only thing they have ever put on a discussion page (their talk); no edit summaries; unresponsive; get reverted for unsourced additions. Could be WP:NOTHERE plus WP:CIR.-- Quisqualis (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruption, personal attacks by IP

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

---

2601:8C:97E:39B0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Previously blocked IP range in need of blocking, for attacking other editors, vandalising articles, referring to other editors as "classless leftist kkklowns" and "liberal scum" in edit summaries. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle

Hi. I want to discuss MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) editing history as they are clearly violating multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies for a long time and despite many warnings they continue to do this (as they keep no talk page archive to avoid scruitny).

• They have been draftifying reviewed articles (older than 90 days and sometimes six months old articles) despite numerous warnings. It seems like they are using it as a backdoor route to deletion which is not allowed per WP:DRAFTIFY. Per WP:ATD-I, older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb. but MrsSnoozyTurtle has done it dozens of time per their filter log and is continously violating it.
  • Warned by @Timtrent: on 31 May 2022 for draftifying a notable TV channel article, Draft:Colors TV ([26]).
  • Violations of WP:DRAFTIFY, warned by @David Eppstein:, [27].
  • kind reminder that they are violating WP:DRAFTIFY by @UnitedStatesian:.
  • Six months old article draftified and were warned by @Espresso Addict: [28] and they even didn't reply despite clearly violating.
• Their grasp of WP:GNG is so weak that recently they tried to PROD Tufts University and a defunct (but very notable) jewelry company, Michael C. Fina.
• Usually assumes bad faith and accusses users of stalking who disagree with them, e.g. User_talk:Jfire#WP:STALKING?, [29] and canvassing ([[30]]).
  • Deletes/removes sourced content without use of talkpage, for example, Sozo Water Park and Discover Pakistan TV were improved during AfDs, yet they still try to destroy the work done by good-faith editors.
• Previous warnings
  • September 2021: Edit warring warning by @Cullen328: [31].
  • November 2021: ARS comments and warning [32] and they replied take it to ANI.
  • December 2021: Warned for moving a six months old article were rightly warned by User:Espresso Addict [33].
  • January 2022: kind reminder that they are violating WP:DRAFTIFY by User:UnitedStatesian [34].
  • February 2022: violations of WP:DRAFTIFY, warned by sysop, David Eppstein, [35].
  • May 2022: Warned by User:Timtrent for draftifying a notable Draft:Colors TV ([36]).
  • July 2022: Warned by @GreenC: for disprutive behavior. [37]
  • August 2022: Warned by @Dolphin51: for deleting content without explanation. ([38])
    • August 2022: Warned about vandalising Manisha Ganguly by @Janedoe31:. [39]
  • ANI issue ([40]) with @Maddy from Celeste:.
  • November 2022: Accussing @CT55555: of canvassing without any evidence, again assuming bad faith. [41]
  • December 2022: Vanadalism-related warning, Sozo Water Park, [42] by @Lightburst:. Another related issue [43] with @Tryptofish:, @Dream Focus:.
    • Edit warring issue again! [44], this time with User:7&6=thirteen.
  • January 2023: Warning on disruptive editing and edit war [45], Tufts University by @ElKevbo:.
  • Trolling behavior here [46].
• Above warnings are already too much and still they haven't improved their behavior. They are doing more harm than good so, I propose some sort of topic ban to stop this, especially related to draftification issue. They have avoided scrutiny because there is as such no record of all these warnings (complained by User:David Eppstein and others). During the ban, they can learn about the guidelines, and possibly work on creating actual content that improves Wikipedia, rather just destroying/deleting notable content from Wikipedia.

82.45.23.31 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: I find it absurd that my quiet note and conversation pointing out an error can be characterised in any way as a warning. This is the conversation. MST accepts a genuine error. Every editor makes errors. By no means all admit them.

Having explained that conversation, I am not sure that I need to take any further part in this discussion, but will respond if asked. I can say that I encounter MST rarely and have always found them to be collegial and a decent editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This has made me look again at Colors TV. Interested parties may see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors TV. I should probably have followed through with that at the time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• IP, am I missing an explanation of who you are somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• ... tried to PROD the Tufts University article? What the pluperfect hell? That has to be either one of the most dramatic WP:POINT violations in Wikipedia history, or else the editor is profoundly clueless. That being said, I'd have to say that over eleven years after registration and 31,000 edits, MrsSnoozyTurtle has learned all the guidelines she cares to do, and can be trusted to follow them about as far as is practical to do. Which does not seem too bloody far. Ravenswing 17:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  (As a postscript, I just looked over both MST's talk page and the Tufts talk page, to see if there was some attempt at apology -- "oops, I hit a PROD button by mistake." Nope. What I did see was her slapping a maintenance tag on the article, it being removed with an exhortation to discuss her problems on the talk page, and her repeatedly restoring the tags while declining to respond to that and further requests. Doesn't look very collegial to me.) Ravenswing 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  How does one accidentally suggest TNTing an article on the basis that the article is Promotional and poorly referenced to the extent that WP:TNT is the best option for the encyclopedia? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the PROD rationale was basically WP:TNT. I don't think it's a particularly good rationale for an article on such an institution (surely converting the article into a stub or simply removing some promotional sections would be incredibly less disruptive than deleting the whole article), but that's something for AfD (where this would probably be SNOW kept fwiw) rather than through WP:PROD, which is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth is damn near nothing. Going straight for the TNT on the article for an institution of the prestige and impact of Tufts University is at level best profoundly blinkered. This diff represents the state of the article at the time the PROD was issued [47]; everyone here can judge for themselves whether the article needed extensive editing to meet our standards.

  Not, mind, that MST attempted to do so. That PROD was her first edit to the article in at least five years. She has never put in an appearance on its talk page. If she's indeed one of those rare editors who will admit error, this is a fine place to start. Ravenswing 18:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm mentioned in one part of the filing above, and I have, indeed, been watching at least some of what has been going on. Although I've been a long-time critic of the WP:ARS, I also think that fair is fair, and I do believe that there are some significant issues here. If you look at this sequence of two edits: [48], [49], you will see the most recent single incidence of something that has been happening repeatedly, to the point where it's difficult to conclude anything other than that MrsSnoozyTurtle is knowingly trying to annoy the other editors at the project, without particularly compensating for it with anything constructive. There have been a couple of times prior to that where I reverted her: [50], [51] during edit warring over whether or not to include the closer's name. I also observed an incident where she falsely and hurtfully accused another editor of canvassing: [52]. I'll add that there has been inappropriate conduct going the other way: [53], but that was an isolated incident, whereas here we are dealing with a lengthy pattern. I'd support a topic ban from anything having to do with ARS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The notion that deleting Tufts University would be uncontroversial is simply mind-boggling, and certainly calls this editor's competence into question. This is a serious problem and I am not sure what the best solution should be, but we need to find one. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Tufts University article is horribly promotional in parts, with significant amounts of it being very close paraphrasing of the university promo material (with no citations, naturally), but that could easily be fixed by taking an axe to those sections. It's not even close to being in TNT territory. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The best solution is easy to find. It would simply be to block this editor to prevent any further disruption. We seem to be reluctant to block disruptive editors when they are prolific, but that's even more reason to block them because they prolifically make disruptive edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yet this editor has a clean block log, so no admin appears to have found any of their 31,000 edits before this report particularly problematic. A solution such as that discussed below is perfectly adequate. Meanwhile, like HEB above, I would also like to know the actual identity of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference between "problematic" and "block-worthy". I have certainly found their edits problematic before, and have said so on ANI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  This ANI discussion from October 2022 concerned actions by MST [[54]]. This includes @David Eppstein highlighting a long term pattern of bad draftications. ResonantDis_tortion 08:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Another example: 4 days ago MST sent to draft this article: Draft:Sergei Mirkin. This is nearly 13 years old and the article creator is no longer active. This very much appears to be backdoor deletion and the warnings referenced above have not worked. ResonantDis_tortion 19:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• MrsSnoozyTurtle: this would be a really good time for you to show up here and say something along the lines of 'Yikes, OK I get it, I will never again use draftification in cases like this.' Seriously, draftification is a valid outcome of an NPP review, but it's not OK for long-standing articles. If you think an article that has existed for years is chock full of promotional crap (lots of them are), then you should (a) look for a better version to revert back to, (b) improve it yourself, (c) cut away the rubbish, even if that means stubifying it or (d) nominate at AfD. Please indicate that you understand this, or suggest other options if you can think of them. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Girth Summit. Thank you for the advice. Yes, I understand that draftification is not suitable for long-standing articles. That was a mistake and I will be careful not to do that again. (Just to clarify, I haven't read this thread fully, but will do this soon when I have time). Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  You have promised to pay more attention to the rules of draftification more carefully before, for instance in this February 2022 thread where you professed to be ignorant of the rules against draftifying the same article more than once. And yet as recently as December 2022 we find you repeat-draftifying an article three hours after a previous draftification was objected to. What reason is there to believe that this time, your promises to actually obey the draftification rules will be kept? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Upon a brief look at the move log, while many are valid, there seems to be many other such invalid draftifications in the recent days as well 1 Jan 2023 after a de-prod, 25 Jan, 29 Jan. One thing in common, it appears, is that she tags the articles with COI/Advert/POI maintenance tags and then moves to draft. I also see edit warring [55], [56] (including a bizarre failed verification tag) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• At minimum, it feels like a ban on draftifying should be enacted here, since that appears to be the primary disruptive activity being done (though there are several others too, that Tufts action is just ridiculous). Silverseren^C 19:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would support a ban on draftification. I think that would eliminate the worst of the problems. The mistake of prodding Tufts University is more spectacular, but the inappropriate prods and maintenance banners are more easily dealt with, and draftification can easily turn into stealth deletion with fewer checks and balances. (One might hope that whoever reviews the speedy deletion six months later would notice the problem, but I don't trust that to happen in all cases.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I’d support a ban on draftification, PROD, and speedy deletion. — Jacona (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that I have just warned MrsSnoozyTurtle about edit warring with respect to WP:BLAR at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Élodie Chabrol. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  That goes beyond drafts, PROD, and CSD. I noted earlier that there are also problems with ARS. It really might be best to ban from all deletion-related activities, broadly construed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm starting to lean towards an all deletion activity ban as well, since all of their editing seems to revolve around trying to delete articles and remove whatever content they can get away with, regardless of the appropriateness of such an action. Silverseren^C 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm mentioned by the OP here as one of the users that has been accused of stalking by MST. My first encounter with this user was on Sam Wasson, where I contested MST's prod (rationale: Promotional article) because the article was salvageable and the subject is notable. The article got draftified by another user, I cleaned it up and moved it back to the mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and MST and two other users edit-warred over draftification [57] [58] [59] [60]. Subsequently MST edit-warred to remove the bibliography, which included not only the books Wasson has written, but review citations that help establish the subject's notability [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. So I concur that the issues go beyond draft and deletion activities. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've re-added in the bibliography with some minor changes. The edits by MrsSnoozyTurtle there are a bit bizarre. It almost seems like they are purposefully mixing together proper removals of content with improper removals on purpose, in order for the former to obscure the latter. Stealth vandalism, if you will. Silverseren^C 21:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to attribute actual malicious intent. I think it's more likely an overzealous anti-WP:PROMO attitude combined with a miscalibration on what constitutes promotional content and how to best deal with it (e.g. reaching for TNT rather than cleanup as we see with Tufts). The edit-warring is of course not acceptable. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The problem I have with that -- and why I'm leaning to Cullen328's and Phil Bridger's side of things -- is that we're not dealing with a rookie here. These antics, coming from someone with a few hundred edits and three months' tenure, would be (hopefully) correctable by a trout slap and sitting the newbie down for some home truths. MST, by contrast, has been on Wikipedia for approaching twelve years, and she has over 31,000 edits. There is no bloody excuse in the world for "miscalibrations" and such a shaky grasp of the standards and practices regarding deletions and deletion policies. Sooner or later, editors need to demonstrate that they get it, and this is far past the sell-by date on that. Ravenswing 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW If one were to investigate into the articles acted upon by MST with draftification/deletion, I'm confident we will defo find one or more UPE rings — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that many of their draftifications are of UPE. I also believe that many of their draftifications WP:BITE good-faith new editors by falsely accusing them of UPE. Once they have guessed that something is promotional they are very tenacious at fighting to wipe it from the encyclopedia, rather than allowing our processes to play out according to their rules. That is the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've just withdrawn the proposal below, but I want to express my personal opinion that we really do have a problem, and that the brief reply from MrsSnoozyTurtle in this discussion (followed by this: [67]) is not enough to put my concerns at rest. So I hope that no one will take my closing of the subsection as being a reason to close the discussion as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• At minimum, I'm going to keep an eye on their editing when they get back from their vacation. If they continue the same draftification, PRODing, and edit warring activity they have been, then I suspect we'll be back here again soon enough. If they stop doing that sort of disruptive editing, then mission accomplished. Silverseren^C 21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also just like to say that this user has been nuking huge amounts of content in various automobile articles, such as Transmission (mechanical device), glow plug, automatic transmission, and straight-eight engine. I haven't pored over the edits in the detail, however, at a quick glance they've removed the mention of a continuously variable transmission (which is an alternative to fixed-gear transmissions) for no good reason. They've also removed huge sections of unsourced text, which could be easily sourced but I do not wish to revert to a previous version on the basis of taking out good intermediate edits. They also moved Turbine-electric transmission on the basis that they "thinked" that powertrain was the more common term. Aren't moves without discussion supposed to be non-controversial? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban

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

---

Proposal: MrsSnoozyTurtle is banned by the community from page blanking, draftification, and all deletion-related actions and discussions, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. It seems to me that the discussion so far has demonstrated that there is likely to be consensus for some sort of action to be taken. In my opinion, we are short of what would justify a site ban, but there does need to be a significant restriction. I believe that the discussion has shown that the problems center around deletion, in multiple forms, and that something like the language I propose will capture what we want to achieve. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per Tryptofish's reasoning. ResonantDis_tortion 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be the locus of the ongoing problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Question. What is the evidence that the user has abused AfDs? Is there am specific reason why their commenting at AfD or their nominating of articles for AfD has been a problem? Their AfD stats look fine on my end, so I'd want a bit more evidence of AfD-specific disruption before considering a topic ban that includes AfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not so much a matter of their keep/delete metrics, as their conduct related to those discussions. For starters, please see the evidence from the OP and from me about things like asserting bad faith on the part of other editors who participate in AfD discussions with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW - there does appear to be a tendency to push articles to AfD as an escalation of edit warring - see for example this nom [68] which happened straight after this diff pointing out her edit warring [69]. Also this AfD nom appears to be an escalated edit war [70] per the talk page [71] and history. ResonantDis_tortion 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Little evidence of them abusing AfD, as RTH has mentioned just above. Topic ban from page blanking and draftification - fine, yes, but this is an overreach. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  How about CSD, PROD, and ARS? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose CSD and PROD maybe, but this is overly broad. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Question. Based on feedback so far, I'm receptive to withdrawing this version of the proposal and replacing it with one that's worded differently. At the same time, I think it's important to frame any restriction on an editor in a sufficiently clear and simple way that it leaves no room for confusion about the boundaries. I am wondering about: "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", although I also feel like that might get to be too long a list. Also, should it include WP:ARS? (I tend to think it should, although maybe some editors feel that it's not worth worrying about.) I'd like to get some editor feedback on that, before I take any action about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on "page blanking, draftification, speedy deletion, and proposed deletion, broadly construed", if others feel deletion-related activities is too broad. But the misuse of draftification and CSD/PRODs is the main problem here and clearly needs to be addressed. Silverseren^C 05:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment I find it highly irregular that an IP materializes out of the blue after an apparent UPE has begun stalking MST, in the wake of a pretty contentious Afd which an apparent UPE sock farm lost. I advised on MST's Talk to go to AN/I, advice which the UPE apparently took. I'd guess that a sock farm keeps an AN/I specialist on board for the purpose of avenging their defeats. The above AfD was, for me, a tutorial in UPE socks in action, as every !KEEP came from yet another blind apologist. If anyone would like to look into that bunch, you should find a nice web of 'coincidences'.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Not quite - check the timelines - the IP submitted this AN/I 5 hours before your comment on MSTs talk page [72] ResonantDis_tortion 06:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    @ResonantDistortion, wow and thanks; the utter irony for MST. I stand by my accusation otherwise. Losing Biotique, however justifiably, has upset them greatly and they're out for blood. My initial impression of MST was as someone to avoid, but when I saw they were sniping with one of the suspected UPEs, I looked at the AfD and perceived a factory-made piece of unambiguous UPE. These parasites may be Wikipedia's undoing. Now to grab some diffs.-- Quisqualis (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Quisqualis your allegation against of sockpuppetry is unsubstantiated. You are free to to run or request SPI against me. I am writing this because I am not a sock. I stand with my confidence. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Quisqualis: These are pretty big accusations to be backed up with as little as you've provided. In lieu of a breakdown of this mess of a comment, I'll ask: do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Because I don't think you actually checked the diffs you point to as stalking, and Twinkle1990 being a UPE isn't terribly "apparent" to me. You're also clearly alleging bad faith. I'd strongly suggest either ponying up some pretty diffs, or striking the greater portion of that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    The Biotique AfD has been discussed at SPI, fyi. Beccaynr (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per they have Bludgeoning here, here, here, here and repetitively badgering the articles and editors without having WP:CIR about WP:NTV and MOS:TV . I wonder to see their edit history if they are WP:NOTHERE or not. Let's admins to decide. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Additionally they have admitted that they are not "I am not very familiar with copyright issues, so am erring on the side of caution." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candy_(web_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1136151323but never stooped Bludgeoning the Web series]] and Film, television articles. Henceforth I appeal to the administrators yo decide if they are for WP:NOTHERE or really constructing Wiki as per guidance, as Wiki clearly states "notable things shouldn't be deleted." Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    • None of those examples are bludgeoning and they're clearly not NOTHERE. Please stop using phrasing you don't understand. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

      @Black Kite please correct me where I am wrong. I am not an user to redact my mistakes. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

      First, don't call Wikipedia "Wiki". XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

      That essay isn't very civil, and seems to be explicitly there to bite newcomers, I don't think it should be targeted at other users. Wikipedia:Don't_abbreviate_"Wikipedia"_as_"Wiki"! is much more neutrally worded and explicitly 'humourous.' JeffUK 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't much in the way of evidence at scale as a consistant habit. It seems overbroad for a productive editor. scope_creep^Talk 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose ban as currently worded--I think there is potentially a case for a ban from draftifying and BLAR-ing (and maybe PROD, although despite the very POINT-y Tufts example it's not clear that there's a continuous problem relating to that procedure), but I'm not seeing clear evidence of issues with CSD or at AfD, and note that the latter, in particular, is typically the correct venue for moving towards consensus when there's an impasse over whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The OP's complaint is about MrsSnoozyTurtle's actions. A sanction that, as worded, prevents her from even expressing an opinion, is way heavy-handed. Further, no one should be draftifying a long-standing article without AfD so there's no point in banning one individual from doing it. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Draftification seems to be the main issues, and MST's response has been contrite, and as sanctions should be preventative not punitive, I see no evidence one is required at this time. This section will serve as notification that they need to slow down a little on the other decisions. JeffUK 16:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• support ban on "page blanking, draftification" and would consider supporting ban on starting PRODS and AFDS. I see no reason to ban from deletion-related "discussions" -- invovlement in discussions could help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed ban is too broad as currently worded. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks at Talk:Chinese Communist Party

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

---

The incredibly boring, yet never-ending title discussion at the CCP article has reached the point where editors in favour of the CPC moniker are calling their opponents 'clowns' and the idiomatic English title 'racist' and 'derogatory' (see the Just move the page and end it section). These absurd comments constitute a flagrant violation of both NPA and CIVIL. The targeted users (Khajidha and an equally patient IP editor) should be excused from these types of frivolous invective. Nutez (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Glaug-Eldare (talk · contribs) for 48 hours and one IP (not the patient one). If the attacks recur, it may become a much longer block. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe user talk page access ought to be revoked as well. User:Glaug-Eldare seems intent on doubling down on the PAs and racism accusations [73] Nutez (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Jodmar

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

---

I reported Jodmar here around two weeks back: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#User:Jodmar. Now they have again started to create the same BLP violation by replacing the well-sourced content with their unsourced/made-up detail: [74]. There's a need to either topic-ban them from caste-related details or block them to stop this continuous disruption. Note that they have been given multiple final warnings already. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Topic banned from castes and social groups. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC).

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

TEND, NPA, COMPETENCE, possibly IDIDNTHEARTHAT and HARASS

User:User10281129 has been warned multiple times for 3RR over the past year including one 48 hour block for pushing content on pages related to Korea. Most recently the user has been pushing for a specific change at Joseon on two separate occasions, in August 2022 (rv by 3 separate users [75][76][77]) and January 2023.

In their rv edit summary they accused me of being a Chinese nationalist, an accusation they launched against another user in their unblock request in August 2022. After being warned for their behaviour, they blanked their talk page, and put me on their user page as part of an "important user list" ([78] [79]). After 20 minutes they added in parenthesis "conversation" [80] [81]. These were their immediate actions after I had given my input on their behaviour at their talk page. I'm not sure if this qualifies as WP:HARASS but it seems hostile considering they just accused me of being a Chinese nationalist, blanked all discussion about the topic at their talk, and now have me as the sole user link on their user page.

Behaviour at Talk:Joseon#Status shows lack of WP:COMPETENCE and possibly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Grammar mistakes are consistent and sentences are malformed while publishing multiple times consecutively, making it consistently difficult to understand or respond to. Their logical follow through is often so obtuse that it sometimes bares no relevance to the preceding argument, and is repeated after a response, perhaps indicating they may simply be IDIDNTHEARTHAT. When disagreement is apparent, their response is either belligerence (you can't tell me what to do) or to restate their viewpoint in negation to the other. It does not feel as though they are in a conversation but rather listing off bullet points that they had already prepared, indicating WP:TENDENTIOUS.

In one instance, their rv edit summary had no relation to the reason given for the change in the first place. An IP changed the link text in the language box of Joseon to show Classical Chinese instead of Hanmun based on MOS:EGG. User10281129 responded by reverting with an edit summary about how Hanmun is just letters and is not a language. Not only is that wrong because Classical Chinese is a language and not the same as Chinese characters, it is an argument completely divorced from the reason given for why it was changed in the first place. User10281129's argumentation is full of these logical fallacies such as "it cannot be spoken" (false) therefore "it cannot be a language" (false) that do not follow the original argument. Whether or not this is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:COMPETENCE issue I am not sure. Qiushufang (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

When did i personal attack?? It meant you are not a nationalist.[82]User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't personal attack. I've always respected you. I was trying to humor you.[83]User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You said there is no such articles in other pages, so you told me not to restore it. You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that. And u said u don't want a redundant. This can't be reason. What is wrong with u? I just wanted to write concisely and specifically for those who lack understanding of the system, but you continued to oppose it because the years overlapped. we need to include both tributary relations and the period of being independent. If such explanations are omitted, it's insufficient of explanations. Tributary state means it has no freedom and ruling by foreign powers. To be honest, if i was someome who dont know about the system, i would think that Joseon was just colony of China.User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say "You can't tell me what to do" lolUser10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The diff associated has you claiming that You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that. To me, this reads like a blatant disrespect for Wikipedia's consensus building, and while it may not be verbatim what was stated, the point still stands Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of that comment is that User:User10281129 was simply re-stating Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#What_about_other_content?. That other articles of tributary states do not call them 'independent states' IS entirely irrelevant. JeffUK 07:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be more likely if the user showed an understanding of how WP:CONSENSUS or WP:BOLD worked. The reason why other pages were brought up in the first place was because another user presented it as an argument in a previous talk discussion where three users (including myself) voiced their views. I have reiterated those same views which go beyond the precedence of other articles in the talk discussion with this user but they either do not understand or wilfully ignore this aspect of the discussion.
Calling it a discussion is an overstatement. See User_talk:Qiushufang#Hi where I mentioned the existence of the previous discussion, which they ignored while making multiple edits to illicit a response. At Joseon's talk page, User10281129 made seven consecutive replies within the span of 15 minutes before making another new section at my user talk page just to tell me to respond a mere 15 minutes after my last reply. None of the replies seem to engage with what the other side is saying. In their initial reply they mentioned Didn't Song dynasty already gone? and then repeated the same statement again] further on. As far as I am aware the Song dynasty did not exist during Joseon's existence, nobody in the talk discussion besides the user had ever mentioned it, it was not part of the edited material, and had never been mentioned in any edit summary of the article. They never expanded on what they meant. At another point they just replied okay three times in a row. I am not sure if there is a WP to describe this kind of behaviour (is badgering a thing?), but even given my full attention, it is inconceivable to expect any user to produce a coherent response beyond disengagement.
Not to mention the accusation of Chinese nationalism in August in an unban request yet I am supposed to believe that this time such an aspersion was made in good faith? Their response to comments about their behaviour was a page blanking without comment and in this incident report they also responded with a What is wrong with u?. The low quality replies, their frequency, insulting comments, and seemingly wilfull ignorance make productive exchanges with this user impossible. Qiushufang (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are making personal attack on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack? Tails Wx 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I felt insulted, but on second thought, I think it was not a personal attack...User10281129 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to humor you. [84]User10281129 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned about Goryeo and Song dynasty. Because you wrote that Goryeo was a tributary state of Song dynasty even though Song was no exist at that time. Lying to accuse me, disregarding the context of what I said, is very insulting. It's unfairUser10281129 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

When did i personal attack? It meant you are not a nationalist. I didn't personal attack to anyone. And you were the one who blocked the editing with a contradictory logic[85].

I consistently insisted that "We should write in a way that others can easily understand. Leaving it out can be misleading, especially to those who don't know the system.".User10281129 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, this edit? Furthermore, It's just common sense that hanbok is Korean culture, but how can it be an edit warring? He is just a Chinese nationalist. Is this a case of WP:IDHT? Tails Wx 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? I didn't do anything wrong this time. I said he is not a nationalist. User10281129 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pointing out about the personal attack and providing the diff. I strongly recommend you read WP:CIR. Tails Wx 01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

okUser10281129 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User10281129, what-the-what? I would also suggest reading WP:IDHT. I said he is not a nationalist... check again. Tails Wx 01:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

uh...im sorry?User10281129 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It meant he wasn't nationalist[86]User10281129 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I had already explained more than once that the logic behind not including "independent state", the part the user wishes to include and had tried to push for back in May ([12][13][14]), was based on more than just not being included in other articles. I mentioned this here, here, and here. Another mention of a pre-existing discussion where more details are given. Their reply on me not being able to restrict what they can edit based on what other articles do is IDIDNTHEARTHAT because I clearly disagreed with the independent status in specific to the subject as well. At this point it would have just been a content dispute, but then they took it upon themselves to revert again without consensus while casting aspersions which in the context of their prior history would have clearly been seen as an insult (and even without prior history), plus listing my name on their user page after comments on their behaviour (ignored and blanked). Obviously they don't believe they need my permission because they went ahead to revert anyways despite portraying it as a matter of whether or not I would allow it, nor did they care about the points I brought up or consensus. Their most recent comments in talk were only after they were reverted again by someone else.

As for the discussion about Goryeo and Song, it would have made sense in the context of a discussion about those articles, but in a discussion about Joseon it makes no sense. Even in context, their replies and meaning are hard to discern due to lack of competence in English. Their first comment was to say they want to restore the content and that it is confusing because people might confuse Joseon or Goryeo as part of China because it is listed as a tributary member. Why then did they revert to a version where it says that it is both an independent state as well as a tributary member? I mentioned the amount of mental gymnastics required to confuse being a tributary of China with being a part of China. Here they say that being a tribute state means not being independent but here they say China had no control over its tributary states. Here they say that Song did not exist in x period of time. I have no idea what relevance this has but I'm guessing they meant that if it did not exist for a part of time during which Goryeo existed, then there were no tributary relations, and that would also apply Ming and Qing for Joseon. Obviously this is not the case and it's possible that I'm mistaken as to their meaning, but that is itself a problem. I don't know what they're saying half the time. Here they accuse me of saying they said Qing had control over Joseon prior to x year. I did not say this and have no idea where this assumption comes from. Regardless of their words, their goal is to diminish the existence of tributary relations, in any form, whether it existed or not, which they eventually did by putting it in notes.

All of their replies are a straight path to instate the change they wish to be made which reeks of tendentious. It could be "Song no exist" therefore "Goryeo not tributary of Song" or "this confusing nobody knows what tributary means" therefore "list as independent state" or "you have no right to tell me what to do" therefore "I can make the change". See my initial comment on their logic around Classical Chinese and Hanmun for another example where it didn't matter what the original argument was. They invent an argument where none existed in the first place. At Goryeo they reverted once based on one argument and then revert again based on another argument (what does Song and Liao didn't exist mean?).

They also don't compromise when they believe things are in their favour. For example I made the exact same compromise that they did back in May 2022 when he was being reverted. He reverted this just as he was reverted himself back in May. Qiushufang (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The unblock request you made declaring that Qiushufang is a "Chinese nationalist" still stands as a personal attack. Tails Wx 01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

i am talking about today. I didn't say he is nationalist this timeUser10281129 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That was not towards me but another user. Qiushufang (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Regardless, however, it stands as a personal attack. Tails Wx 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

i am talking about present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think, IMO, per the evidence/data collected above and WP:IDHT concerns, a WP:CIR or a WP:DE block is needed. Tails Wx 01:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I said i didn't make a personal attack this time, but You misunderstood.User10281129 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

How did I misunderstand? You not making a personal attack "this time" doesn't mean you didn't commit personal attacks. Please stop with the failure to get the point or else being at risk to be blocked. Tails Wx 02:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

u did misunderstand. then what is this? U replied "User10281129, what-the-what? I would also suggest reading WP:IDHT. "I said he is not a nationalist"... check again. You must have thought that I had claimed that I was not making personal attacks in the past.User10281129 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The initial unban request rationale is also in line with their current behaviour: Furthermore, It's just common sense that hanbok is Korean culture, but how can it be an edit warring? He is just a Chinese nationalist. With emphasis on the how. I take it to mean that he thought it was not edit warring either because Hanbok is Korean culture or because he believed the other side was a Chinese nationalist. Given that they put the Chinese nationalism part as part of their current edit summary, their logic seems consistent on what they consider to be edit warring vs. not. Qiushufang (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I dont think like that. Absolutely NOTUser10281129 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please. Do not bringing the past. Thats irrelevant with this.User10281129 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

How is just bringing past edits irrelevant with this discussion? Tails Wx 14:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I didnt anything wrong this time.User10281129 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

please i strongly recommend you to read this. [87] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

he keep insisted that there is no such articles in other pages, so i cannot restore it. That is against to the Wikipedia policy[88]. And he said he don't want a redundant. This can't be reason. At first place, He was the one who making discussion impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I consistently insisted that "We should write in a way that others can easily understand. Leaving it out can be misleading, especially to those who don't know the system."User10281129 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please I do not think like that.User10281129 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Do you guys think i did something wrong this time?User10281129 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC) If I didn't do anything wrong this time, I have no reason to get blocked. If I did anything wrong this time, I will accept the punishment. Please don't bringing the past and assume me that i will think like a bad guy.User10281129 (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Pinging Bbb23 who imposed the previous block and Yamla, who declined the unblock request. IMO a WP:CIR block is needed at this point. Tails Wx 14:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User keeps restoring my deleted talk page comment

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

---

I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022 and deleted it before anyone had replied, as is permitted under WP:REDACT. Another user, User:2600:1003:b854:c3f4:98e:f450:6fd7:de6a, keeps restoring it without my permission.[89][90][91][92] Can something be done about this user? Largoplazo (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment in question appears intended for me and I was in the process of responding when the revert was made. The OP of this thread has engaged in edit warring to remove the comment. 2600:1003:B854:C3F4:98E:F450:6FD7:DE6A (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You had no business restoring it in the first place. It was removed, there was nothing to respond to by the time you tried. You weren't entitled to roll back time just because you would have responded if my remark had remained. Your insistence on restoring it was edit warring. Note that the last edit was yours. Largoplazo (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The civility (telling me to calm down) and the inaccuracy of the content are also in question which the OP seems somewhat intent on attempting to hide after making the statement public for me and others to see. 2600:1003:B854:C3F4:98E:F450:6FD7:DE6A (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You are both edit warring and it's a particularly inane edit war at that. IP, let Largoplazo remove his comment. You hadn't replied yet and by attempting to remove it, he's showing that he realises what he said was inaccurate. There is no point in requiring the comment to stay (and/or be struck through), as a sort of badge of shame. And you can say your piece, but simply have to do so without referencing Largoplazo's comment. Salvio ^giuliano 08:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1003:B854:C3F4:98E:F450:6FD7:DE6A, per civility, can you agree that User:Largoplazo's comment and your comment together cancel each other out and add nothing to the conversation (they made a comment which you fully refuted) and agree that removing both will be acceptable to you, per WP:MUTUAL it would be better for all involved if you were to remove both comments and move on. JeffUK 08:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why, yes, by writing in my edit summary precisely that "I guess non-registered users don't have this option", I was "hiding" the fact that I was removing something that I'd written previously and the reason why I was removing it. Hiding in plain sight. Largoplazo (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

After all but my last comment above had been written, and after another editor had removed the comment of mine that's in contention at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, this user restored it again. [93] Largoplazo (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. Well, can't say he wasn't warned... Salvio ^giuliano 09:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Yes, it's mildly irritating if we spend time composing a reply only to find that a comment has been removed by the time we post it, but we have to put up with mildly irratating things. Largoplazo clearly recognised the mistake and removed the comment. The matter should have rested there. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(nods) I'd certainly rather put up with such a mild irritation than to discourage editors from thinking "Huh, y'know, the comment I just made was less than civil, and I'd better reconsider it being posted." There've been a few times I've looked at something I've just posted to a talk page, thought exactly that, and redacted my own comment. Ravenswing 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Round 2

@Salvio giuliano: The user appears to be back on a new IP.[94] I think a range block is required; this is being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive, now. — Czello 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As well as another IP with their tact Boolean set to 0. (Also fascinated at the choice of the IP linked by Czello above to un-close this discussion and telegraph their intentions) GabberFlasted (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's now starting to become tedious... 2600:1003:b840:0:0:0:0:0/42 rangeblocked for a day. Salvio ^giuliano 15:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the fellow took a swing swings at me too [95] [96]. I'm thinking the over-under on this charming chap earning progressively longer range blocks is pretty good. Ravenswing 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming quite the tantrum. As proud as I am of the even more alliterative closure I dreamt up I suppose I'm now involved so I'll leave it up to someone else when the dust finally does settle and this person does finally move on with their day. Although I'm leaning more and more into placing Ravenswing's bet that this person will be back tomorrow. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I appreciated your amazing alliterative approach to amicable admin actions. — Czello 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked ChatGPT to alliteratively summarize this case: Boldly blocking the disruptive user's deeds. OK, but not as good as yours. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

MarshallWT

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

---

Non-responsive editor keeps reverting on Template:Manly Warringah Sea Eagles current squad. The template was protected, the editor partial blocked but it does not seem to help at all. The editor is restoring flags contrary to the manual of style, keeps adding the same links to disambiguation pages and ingnores all discussions about why adding flags to navigation templates is not a good idea. No response whatsoever. Rougher measures are needed. The Banner talk 14:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The editor has already violated WP:3RR and still no communication despite being reverted, should be indef per WP:NOTHERE reasons. Jerium (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have blocked MarshallWT for two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:SurfingOrca2045 Bludgeoning and forum shopping at FT/N

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

---

So there's currently a kB, 85 diff thread over at the Fringe Thoery Noticeboard started by User:SurfingOrca2045. The user is an advocate of cryonics and after getting page blocked from Cryonics on the relavent talk page popped over to FT/N hoping to find sympathisers. Despite being refuted pretty hard, the user just refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK despite 13 (by my current county) other editors telling him off. A timeout or at least a warning seems warranted. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:38BA:9EC8:F884:8AB0 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've requested closure of the discussion and have moved on, until the scientific community catches up and/or the first patient is reanimated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1136563045 SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a TBAN is probably warranted, given the attitude of the user towards the scientific evidence and WP:CIR concerns with regard to our policies about WP:FRINGE content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referred to the noticeboard as the correct venue by another user at the cryonics talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACryonics&diff=1136455345&oldid=1136454064 SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Not quite; you were referred to a section currently open at WP:FT/N as the correct venue. I don't understand why you ignored that open section, with its appropriately neutral header ("Cryonics again"), and instead started a section of your own which you much less appropriately named "Cryonics is not a fringe theory". When I asked you directly about it there, you ignored that also, while continuing to post just below. Your discussion page "communication, courtesy, and consideration" could do with some attention. However, since you state unequivocally that you "have moved on", I don't see a topic ban as needed as this time. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

"Cryonics again" was not a neutral header; "again" carries a connotation of animosity towards edits and changes to the article. "Cryonics is not a fringe theory" is a neutral title that doesn't violate WP:NPOV and does not imply bias towards one side or the other. As I was asked to stop "bludgeoning", I didn't reply to your comment. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion at FT/N has been closed, and I don't see further bludgeoning or forum shopping since then. I think this report can be closed as the immediate issue has been resolved; if editors are concerned with SurfingOrca2045's ability to edit pseudoscience topics, an WP:AE report to that end would be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. While I would encourage SurfingOrca2045 to consider dropping the stick a bit quicker, I don't believe anything further is required here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Carolina Mahadewi Malin moving articles without discussion (again)

• Carolina Mahadewi Malin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked a few days ago for moving articles en masse without discussion, explanation, or otherwise obvious reasons. (The discussion was recently archived here.) Since their block expired they've already arbitrarily moved no less than 8 articles (some of the same and some new), once again with no discussion or explanation (see their 30 January edits). They've shown zero engagement with the many warnings and reverts thus far. They also added prose in what seems to be Indonesian in this edit, so English fluency could also be an issue here.

PS: I opened this discussion at WP:AN yesterday by mistake. I removed my comments there (there was no response yet) and re-wrote them here. I've added a new comment on the Carolina Mahadewi Malin's talk page that includes a link to this. Apologies for any confusion. R Prazeres (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we just block/remove the ability to move pages? That would seem appropriate here. She(?) also doesn't do the moves properly, removing all mention of the old name. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be the obvious solution, if technically possible. It should be a permission. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no technical means of blocking someone just from moving pages at the moment (although I remember hearing that that might change in the future). In some cases we've topic-banned people from page moves, but that'd probably be more trouble than it's worth in this case, especially since there seem to be general competence/communicativeness concerns that extend beyond that particular area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a pity they won't just engage with policy a bit more and leave proper edit summaries. Not all of the moves are objectively terrible, and some are actually the right choice. They just need to get with the program and engage with others. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the sentiments above. But if they continue to do what they do with no communication, after many attempts to get them to respond, I don't see how they can contribute productively. Even if some moves might be ultimately reasonable, it's not reasonable to be vetting the half-dozen unexplained page moves they make per day. R Prazeres (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, they continue to make small but disruptive/unsourced edits across multiple article leads (the latest: [97], [98], [99]). R Prazeres (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ineedahouse persistently overcategorizing pages and misrepresenting their edit summaries

Ineedahouse consistently adds large numbers of categories to pages despite them being told to stop doing so if the pages are already in subcategories, and posts misleading edit summaries to disguise their activity. Examples:

• David Marr, claimed to be adding biographical information
• Plato, added several categories (many breaking WP:COPSEP) while claiming only to be adding "aphorists"
• Martin Gardner, included an accurate edit summary, proving they know how to do this, but added a truly ludicrous number of them.
• Matthew Corbett, claimed to be adding info to a different section
• Lawrence English, claimed to be removing categories (!), but added several as well.

User received warnings in september 2021 for overcategorization: 1, 2, 3

• Recieved more feedback in April 2022 to stop overcategorizing, and May 2022
• Told to stop using inaccurate edit summaries Sept 2022, Oct 2022, Jan 2023.

When this editor receives feedback that they should stop their behavior, they stop editing entirely for a while and then resume adding many categories to pages such as this example in october. WP:BLUDGEONING for the ludicrous volume of categories added at one time, WP:GAME for their breaks in editing before resuming the same pattern, on top of apparent WP:CIR and failure to learn WP:categorization guidelines,. I only provided a small number of examples but almost all of their edits are like this, they seemingly do not edit wikipedia for any other purpose. - car chasm (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:BLUDGEONING quite applies here, although the other ones certainly do. Bludgeoning doesn't really refer to the amount of disruptive editing. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misread that page before. I'll strikethrough that to not cause confusion. Thank you! - car chasm (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The paleontological advocate/troll is back on 2023 in archosaur paleontology

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

I never thought I'd say this, but the troll I reported here ten months ago appears to be back. These two IPs have engaged in engregious trolling on the 2023 in archosaur paleontology page since the middle of January. Their crimes include shouting in edit summaries, calling paleontologists "b*ms" adding personal comments to mainspace, deleting information because they personally find it boring, and making up fake taxa with trolling author names and sources (which are of course unrelated). The fake taxon names they mentioned were originally added to 2022 in archosaur paleontology by various IPs (see [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]), which makes me think all of these additions were made by a single user. I have suspicions that they are related to another paleontology-related troll, but in the spirit of WP:BEANS I will not name them nor disclose the hints I used to make that connection (although you are free to email me if you want to know). Atlantis536 (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Stalking from a blocked user

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

---

For about a year I have been stalked by a blocked user Belteshazzar (current SPI) [105] and archive [106] who is now using hundreds of proxy IPs. The user reads my latest editing history then will then immediately edit an article I have edited directly after me within minutes claiming to improve grammar. Two admins in previous SPI's have described his behaviour as creepy and harassment. The user in question Belteshazzar has been blocked on many accounts.

The user is currently using an open proxy 61.220.170.133 [107] which has not been blocked. Can an admin please block their latest IP. I am getting a bit tired of this blocked user following me around on Wikipedia every few days, editing articles I have edited. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Sorry that you have to endure this nonsense. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Global ban for disruptive user "Ben Bilal"

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

---

User:Ben Bilal was banned on the English Wikipedia for disruptive editing and edit warring but he has also been doing such disruptive editing and POV pushing on various different Wikipedia projects, he has already been banned on 12 separate Wikipedia projects for his disruptive edits but many Wikipedia projects he edits on are small and his edits often go unnoticed.

His disruptive behaviour has already been already been proved by this discussion over a year.

He also seems to be ban evading as I am 90% sure that this is his IP as it does the same edits as him on the same articles as him, also on various Wikipedia projects.

He also extensively uses machine translations which causes difficulty for readers to read and leaves other users to clean up his mess. The machine translations are often not good and are not up to par with the quality standards of Wikipedia.

I propose a global ban on his account as well as his IP which seems to have not been banned alongside his English Wikipedia account and to revert all his edits.

Also not sure why this topic was reverted Unfortunately9018M (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Unfortunately9018M: I see merit in your complaint, but this is not the place to request global bans. You'd need to create a request for comment on Meta by following this procedure. Since you have less than 250 edits across all Wikimedia projects, you would need to request assistance at meta:Stewards' noticeboard first. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

For more information and edit-revert statistics: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/tr.wikipedia.org/Ben%20Bilal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Bilal (talk • contribs) 11:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

AlphaDenied623 and Apeholder

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

---

• AlphaDenied623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apeholder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In an exchange on KrakatoaKatie's user talk page ([108]), AlphaDenied623 requested that Apeholder be blocked for LTA, copyvio, and an edit war a year ago. This user's account is 2 days old and smells of used footwear. That said, I cannot determine who the sockmaster might be, though Philip Cross seems like a good candidate based on an edit war in 2021 with Apeholder on Abby Martin. I'm bringing this here instead of SPI as it seems likely this is an LTA I am just unfamiliar with and one of you fine people will be able to identify it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Heavy Chaos

This user claims to be a new user and and is leaving extremely WP:BATTLEGROUND comments such as [109] [110] [111] [112]. Attitude is not compatible with collaboration and user seems to believe discussion is not necessary for them. They also misrepresented their edits and claimed they were simply reorganizing the material when they were actually removing content, then said it was "Small potatoes" and let's move on[113]. I tried to tell them they need to discuss their edits and they claimed discussion already happened prior to their arrival so that they do not need to. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years [114] I'm more stating what I intend to do, and a lot less asking for comment. [115] Andre🚐 20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your participation hasn't been honest. You should answer those charges. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? You accused me of obstructing the page for years when my first edits to the page were in October 2022. [116] What exactly am I dishonest about? Andre🚐 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And now this is third page that you have redirected attention. My user talk page, The NPOV message board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Trickle-down_economics), and this. You explicitly say you won't answer the direct questions put toward you on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trickle-down_economics), then start making noise anywhere else. This is grossly dishonest. You are playing an attrition game to get what you want. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This thread is to flag your behavioral issue to admins. The NPOV noticeboard is to flag the discussion on the talk page of the article. And yes, you also have your own talk page where I have warned you. This is not dishonest or forumshopping. Andre🚐 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well if Andrevan didn't have a convincing argument before they certainly do now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please see more indication of battlegrounding, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and an intention to edit war on the related NPOVN thread that I started prior to this one[117] Andre🚐 01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the effort of about six contributors who decided it was time to start making edits instead of keeping talking about it, it is now an objectively better article, especially in the lead in. Compare the current version, to the version that I first saw. And this came from editing, not rehashing months and years old arguments. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. A volley of edits after that much talk will produce much more than any further talk ever could. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  There are a bunch of edits being made now that are productive due to the post that I made on the NPOV noticeboard. Which you accused me of dishonesty and forumshopping. Do you withdraw those accusations? Andre🚐 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I steadfastly claim still that your history on that page shows a general unwillingness to make any improvements for nebulous reasons. An strongarming me as you did appeared desperate almost. Like some terrible harm would happen to you if I edited the page. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a personal attack and is forbidden here. Also violates WP:AGF and in general incompatible with collaboration. Andre🚐 21:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not given this? Andre🚐 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs

"I don't f-ing care", "This website's notability rules have become a load of **** since that wrongly-closed WP:NSPORTS2022|discussion from a few months back", "Are you kidding me?", "ridiculous" (the closing non-admin re-opened), canvassing Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see how any of that is an issue at all. And again, that was not canvassing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Boomerang. None of given diffs are disruptive. BeanieFan11 was asked to provide AfDs, so it's not canvassing, and it seems Therapyisgood was told exactly that by an admin before posting this. Filer should be reminded that ANI is a last resort and not to be used for trivial disputes. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Wikiproject editors violating notability rules I think the bigger issue being presented here is Wikiproject NFL members appear to be actively trying to circumvent GNG notability requirements for sports biographies (as determined by community consensus months ago) by canvassing each other to vote Keep en masse in these AfDs. Some of the AfDs have resulted in editors like BeanieFan11 presenting proper sourcing to meet notability requirements, but many others have NFL editors actively ignoring notability requirements and voting keep "per IAR". This is a much bigger issue than just what was presented by Therapyisgood above. Silverseren^C 01:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Commenting on the wikiproject talk page is not canvassing, and IAR is a policy, so I see no problem. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • IAR is not a policy to circumvent notability requirements for articles. The fact that you are even suggesting as such shows just how out of line said Wikiproject members are acting. Silverseren^C 01:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Per IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I know as an NFL editor that in several of these cases, deletion would not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
        • You darn well know that IAR is not to be used but in only exceptional circumstances, and generally requires post facto sanction from the community (I recall an emergency desysop a bureaucrat did to stop a rogue admin). It does not permit us to ignore rules and policies whenever we feel like it. You're refusal to accept a very largely-attended RfC outcome sounds more like WP:IDHT behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
          • You darn well know that IAR is not to be used but in only exceptional circumstances – these are exceptional circumstances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
            • How? Mere personal disagreement with the decision of the community does not constitute an exceptional circumstance. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
              • Several are more than a "mere personal disagreement" – a few of these are in fact "exceptional circumstances" (one in particular especially). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
                • Please explain how they are exceptional. If not, why can't I use IAR to declare myself God of the 'Pedia and then just unilaterally decide which article should be kept and which ones should be deleted according to my own ideas about what is best for the content? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
                  • The statement that "these are exceptional circumstances" might be made by a Zalophus californianus in someone's apartment. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Honestly, at this point, since NFL project members have their own list on their talk page where they are making sure to all together vote Keep on said AfDs, I think it's only appropriate to include said list here for the community at large to weigh in. And I will point out now that several of these are discussions where significant coverage has been presented and I myself voted Keep in the ones where that has occurred. So this isn't an all one way or the other sort of list.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Quan McMillian
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (guard)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Robb
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Flattery

But, yeah, I think there needs to be a broader set of editor eyes on the proceedings going on here and the flagrant abuse of IAR claims. Silverseren^C 02:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that these are "flagrant abuse of IAR claims" – for a few of them (one in particular especially), IAR is a perfectly valid argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

While the IAR claims are not substantially all that great due to interactions with WP:CONLEVEL, they're being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. That being said, I do think that adding a note in the AfDs themselves regarding the fact that they were mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League would be warranted, and could look something like those deletion sorting messages. The notifications appears to be neutral in tone, but it might be warranted to slap {{notavote}} on each of the AfDs if we want to indicate that canvassing may have occurred. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green, Silverseren advised that the closer actively ignore any Keep arguments made above that are based on claims of "number of games played", which is not a notability requirement. BeanieFan's response: No, they should not be discounted, as IAR is a policy. This is blatant WP:GAMING (specifically WP:STONEWALL) in an attempt to subvert notability requirements which were created after extensive discussion in 2022 and after the community scrapped many number-of-games-played-type notability standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'm involved in the discussion and have made several of the IAR arguments. What specifically is the violation being considered here at ANI? Is it just some civility comments, or is it because editors are in disagreement on the weight of one argument vs another?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'd argue that you're the one that's going against the spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's relevant to the discussion that this issue started with Therapyisgood nominating 9 NFL player articles in a short period of time.

Beanie cares, they're one of the best that I've seen at improving articles so that they survive AfD. There's been numerous times I've seen NFL topics nominated, look back at the page the next day, and the article has been significantly improved. They're frustrated that you've nominated a number of articles at the same time, as are others.

They approached you on your talk page, asking you nicely to stop nominating NFL articles so that they could improve the ones that you nominated. You removed it 7 minutes after they reached out without responding to them.

You were approached by an admin regarding the mass nominations, and you dismissed their recommendation.

@Lepricavark commented on the thread on your talk page, recommending that you listen to what others are telling you. You removed it with an edit summary of Stay off my talk page.

You also issued a template warning to BeanieFan11 and proceeded to accuse them of canvassing at a number of different AfD discussions. There was then a reply to you from an admin, posted on all of the discussions that you made the accusation on, recommending that you strike your accusation of canvassing.

Frankly, I think you've been very hard headed and difficult to work with in this whole situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

To the nominator's credit, the nom didn't bundle all of them, so each of the discussions can proceed on their individual merits. That being said, some of the noms were for athletes that were very quickly shown to have received SIGCOV, so I would urge the nom to conduct a stronger WP:BEFORE before nominating these sorts of articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• NFL Wikiproject members canvassed here I thought everyone should know that and why Paulmcdonald, Hey man im josh, and I'm sure others will likely soon be here arguing for IAR to overrule GNG notability requirements. Silverseren^C 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • That is not canvassing to let the NFL editors know about this, considering this is about the NFL editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I voted in all of the deletion discussions and not once did I mention IAR, which you can review and search through here. I believe these players meet GNG, but I acknowledge that I may have a different view of what GNG is than others do. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• I went through the AfDs listed above and recommended keeping four articles and deleting four articles. One appears heading to a snow close so I refrained from that. So, I am neutral on the underlying NFL player dispute. It seems several editors here are taking dogmatic stances that result in unnecessary confrontation and that includes editors on both sides. As for invoking IAR as if that wins disputes, gimme a break. Others can holler IAR as well. IAR should be used sparingly and only in unusual circumstances. As an administrator, I could cite IAR to block editors who rub me the wrong way, but I think I would be desysoppped pretty quickly if I persisted with that. Draw your own conclusions from that obvious fact. Trouts all around. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Thank you--more commenting from uninvolved editors is likely the best solution and would yield the best outcome than all the arguing in the world here. More input, involvement, and discussion is good, but I don't see any real reason for this to be at ANI and I suggest this be closed here.-- Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here. My impression is that Therapyisgood could have done more to try to resolve the dispute before taking it to ANI, but they have identified legitimate WP:CIVILITY issues. Silverseren is definitely correct that there is a much bigger issue here of users at WikiProject NFL attempting to WP:Game the system. The former might have been resolved with a simple discussion, the latter is not going away without serious community involvement. I would have been willing to believe that this was a misunderstanding, but the invocations of WP:IAR are quite damning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  The canvassing of an AN/I discussion is particularly troublesome. CMD (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, I don’t think that’s the problem. This ANI was questioning some project members MO as using IAR as a trump card to do whatever they wanted, so them coming to the discussion probably would’ve happened anyway. The bald use of IAR is what troubles me. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a separate problem. People probably coming to discussions is not an excuse for canvassing (it somewhat flies in the spirit of it). CMD (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, it is not canvassing to let editors know of an ANI discussion relating to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that we have a Gridiron Article Rescue Squadron creating controversy similar to the Article Rescue Squadron. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that it is an issue that me and a few others try to save notable player articles from deletion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • After reading through some of this, I would say that your rather antagonistic efforts are the issue here, yes. Just because you claim notability does not automatically cement that as fact. That is why we have deletion discussions, because the matter is up for debate. ValarianB (talk)

• Comment - I thought, in the ArbCom case on behavior in deletion discussions, that one of the factors was that some editors behaved disruptively and stubbornly, both to support and to oppose deletion, and that Discretionary Sanctions should be imposed. I don't want to say "I told you so", and so I won't now, but .... Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: While I'm in broad agreement with Silverseren about the notability of these players, and while I agree that a lot of people have been trying to subvert, ignore or defy the consensus deprecating participation criteria, and while I firmly believe that citing IAR in a deletion discussion is almost always the last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their "I know what I like" stances, there's nothing sinister in Wikiprojects being notified of deletion discussions. It happens routinely across the board. Ravenswing 07:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• No, IAR is not a "last refuge of editors without actual arguments to buttress their 'I know what I like' stances." It is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Frank Anchor 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• The exception is if the WikiProject is a biased audience; from reading this discussion, WikiProject NFL is a biased audience and shouldn't be notified. BilledMammal (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's silly to say that the NFL WikiProject (or any relevant WikiProject) shouldn't be notified of articles that are up for deletion. There are users who genuinely improve articles to the point that they're worth keeping and I think that's something that should be encouraged. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  It should be encouraged, but in a way that complies with WP:CANVASS. The consensus system only works if the editors involved in a discussion are representative of the broader community; notifying biased groups subverts that. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  So you're saying that NFL editors should not be notified when their articles get AFDd, and we should just silently delete all of them without anyone being aware? That's ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, transcluding a deletion sorting list at a project is totally fine; editors notifying the project of specific AfDs/discussions that they are involved in or have a clear opinion on should be disallowed if the project's stated or practical focus includes increasing wikipedia's coverage (=# of standalones) of their subject. This would be in contrast to those projects primarily concerned with moderating the quality of coverage under their purview. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect most WikiProjects are composed of editors "biased" in favor of the articles they maintain. If individual editors reject core policies and guidelines then that's a different matter, but you can't solve this by attempting to keep people at arm's length. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  The rejection of consensus is a separate issue from the subversion of consensus through canvassing. I believe the first is more important, but the second is also a violation of policy and needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Intentionally not notifying the most relevant project because you claim it will bias the discussion is itself biasing the discussion. Frankly, it's not assuming good faith and is attempting to create an fait accompli. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The National Football League and as a corollary, its players in that competition is, in short, a globally watched thing. In my opinion, any one of of those players linked above will now and will always continue to pass any number of tests for notability. That said, <Shirt58's odd sense of humour> I take a day off work each February to watch the Super Bowl, though I really don't understand why that American Football game starts about 10 am on a Monday </Shirt58's odd sense of humour>--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Reading the AfDs, I agree that some of these votes are disruptive. Editors are required to accept consensus, even if they disagree with it, and consistently voting in a manner that rejects consensus is disruptive. I agree with red-tailed hawk that these votes are being made in good faith and appear to express a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia, but that is often the case with editors who reject consensus and doesn't justify it. I think a minor warning would be sufficient at this time, but further action would need to be taken if they continue to reject consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I want to amplify something Cullen and Ravenswing said above. If you find yourself citing IAR during a deletion debate, you're almost certainly in the wrong and you should reconsider. It's the opposite of a strong argument. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. IAR is a Wikipedia policy that recognizes that the rules are not perfect for every case and that the spirit of the rules (i.e. building and maintaining an encyclopedia) is more important than following the exact rules in every case. Citing IAR most certainly does not mean the editor is in the wrong. Frank Anchor 15:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that IAR claims of this sort have no objective merit beyond "Well, I think I'm right and the community is wrong and they can shove it". So why can't I just say say we should ignore all rules and delete all sports bios without further discussion? What if I'm a racist so I think we should IAR and just be racist against others? What if I'm biased in favor of a political party and say IAR Wikipedia would be better if we treat my party favorably and not the others? The strength of such arguments are exactly the same as yours. I feel like this is analogous to Hitchens's razor: "That which can be defended by ignoring all rules can be dismissed by ignoring all rules." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• The RfC used as a basis for these nominations is and was a shitstorm and needs to be redone in simple form, and I've never sworn on Wikipedia before excepting a couple times on a user's talk page. An RfC with 13 sections and sub-sections, each argued over and then decided in an extremely close "consensus", and now some editors are using that to delete articles about football and baseball players who are officially credited with playing professional games in their sport, some of them many games. Nonsense. The RfC needs redoing with just one question, for example, "If a professional ballplayer is officially credited with playing professionally at the highest-levels of their sport can they have an article on Wikipedia?" No sub-sections, no wiki-lawyering, no complicated question after question. Just yes or no, with some discussion. This is one of the most, as Beanie says, bullshit RfC results, responses, and deletion-excuses in Wikipedia history, and calls for a re-do before any further articles are deleted because of it. A hold on these nominations and future nominations should be applied until the question is actually fairly resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• All the RfC determined is that presumed notability doesn't apply to sports biographies, as there's been too many cases where that presumed notability was questioned and no one was able to find proper source coverage. Because of that, all sports biographies taken to AfD must now meet the GNG, because their inherent notability is questioned. So, no, number of games doesn't apply here. If the subject is notable, then your presumption of notability from number of games should mean there's a bunch of sources with significant coverage on the person. All you have to do is supply those sources. Silverseren^C 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: If you would like to challenge the closure of the RfC as not reflecting the consensus attained at the discussion, please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Official stats provide enough evidence and reputable sources that an athlete has played at the top level of their profession. Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. One which is now being used to delete perfectly fine pages and thus is hurting and does not maintain the encyclopedia, or maintain the encyclopedia anywhere in the vicinity of common sense application. The RfC as regards to this one question should be thrown out, with or without the bathwater, sort of like holding due to an appeal to the higher court, and a new and simplfied RfC should commence and apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence: WP:VPP is that-a-way. Curbon7 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not interested in challenging the close because the RfC, in-total, was far too complicated and too closely decided to wade through and comment on, in agreement with the IAR assertion that it thus does not, and did not, provide a fair accounting of community opinion on the simple question stated above. This reads to me: "The RfC did not go the way I wanted, therefore I will assert it is illegitimate and unfair without actually trying to prove why except for the fact that I personally dislike the outcome." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Accept the RFC or challenge not at the appropriate location, anything else is disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There was one single proposal - the one I made - that said that game participation metrics should be stripped from NSPORTS, which got consensus. That's what seems to be triggering the AFDs on these articles and what those from the NFL wikiproject appear to be getting upset over. There were lots of other proposals, but that one was simple and easily seen through. Masem (t) 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Cbl's proposal requiring at least one GNG source be cited in athlete bios at all times also passed, with very strong support. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment the only editor creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND is User:Therapyisgood, by making dubious accusations of canvassing, and refusing to acknowledge this mistake by striking the accusation when it was proven that canvassing did not take place. Frank Anchor 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I mean... giving an editor a list of discussions that's close enough to comment on seems a bit like helping a user to WP:VOTESTACK. Granted, the list was requested by the user who was given the list, but dubious accusations of canvassing seems a bit harsh. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is obvious that the user in question should have been pinged to this discussion to explain why they asked for a listing, probably, if I may guess that users intent, to wade through the bludgeoning occurring at AfD'ing by a spate of time-sink nominations occurring at once. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  One editor asking for other editors in their group to link them to active discussions that the group thinks "need help" ought to be considered canvassing as well. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Was there any attempt to deal with this one-on-one before escalating to a noticeboard?—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, I asked Therapyisgood politely to stop with the noms, he immediately reverted me ... then he accused me of canvassing ... and when it was shown that's not the case, he sent me to ANI. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was approached via email to handle the situation, however I recommended ANI because I didn't feel it was appropriate for users to hand pick their admins when they want a situation resolved. If there's a conflict that needs an admin to handle it, all admins should be involved. The discussion was likely started because I directed the OP here. Other than providing historical context, I am otherwise deliberately staying out of this conflict given the way it was attempted to bring me into it via email in a way that I was not comfortable. Perhaps I would have had more to say about the matter had it just come here first, but given the prior inappropriate attempt to cherry pick me as an admin to respond, I am recusing myself from any further involvement. --Jayron32 16:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I received an email from a party to this discussion and I'm not sure why. If they would disclose who else they reached out to, it would help assess whether this discussion has been canvassed. No comment on merit as I have not reviewed this discussion. Star Mississippi 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Star Mississippi: only to you and Jayron. I saw you were on vacation according to your talkpage after I sent your email so I decided to email another admin. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you! I am still mostly offline so unfortunately unable to look into your query. If it's still outstanding when I return, happy to weigh in once I've been able to assess what the issue is. Star Mississippi 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Place edits relating to the notability of sportspersons and deletion discusssions relating to the notability of sportspersons, both WP:broadly construed, under general sanctions.

• Per Robert McClenon, I'm increasingly thinking that having this be under a community DS would allow for more civilized discussions and would allow administrators to better ensure good behavior in this area more broadly. In that light, I would like to propose the following community-authorized discretionary sanctions regime for this perennially contentious topic area:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing within a general sanctions area when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. Prior to any editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) being imposed, the editor must be made aware of the existence of these community general sanctions and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve their editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Administrators must add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator, at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
  • Editors may make good-faith requests for an uninvolved administrator to enforce these general sanctions by posting their concerns to the administrator's noticeboard or to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

I believe that the existence of these sanctions would help to keep the area calmer and would be an improvement to the current situation in this topic area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Still prefer my idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• So admins can revert my edits to deletion discussions and ban me just because they don't like my comments? Oppose. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Opposing out of fear of sanctions is... bold. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposing out of a "fear of sanctions," but because I think its truly ridiculous what this would allow. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it fear that individual administrators would misuse the existence of these general sanctions to win content disputes? There's a place to deal with that, as that would be desysoppable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as an incomplete remedy. The underlying issue appears to be with wikiprojects brigading AfD not with sportspersons per say... Perhaps we need to be more clear about whether wikiprojects are meant to be fan clubs and begin taking action against those who are members of a wikiproject first and wikipedia second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Would you be in favor, then, of general sanctions on notability and deletion, each broadly construed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think I would be, the current system seems to do a good job of eliminating individual editors who create issues at AfD... Where it breaks down is in addressing groups of them (especially when the edits on their own are not sanctionable but the group conduct is). I would be in favor of a sanctions regime for fanboy wikiprojects (perhaps progressive page locks?) though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I believe we should let Wikiepdians be free to be enthusiastic about any topic they desire.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Could you present some evidence that these sanctions are needed? My experience of AfD discussions is that the problem (if it exists) is too small, but my experience may not be typical, as I usually ignore discussions about sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ok. I've read the discussion above and it seems that this is just about one sport, and that there are two issues with it - one editor's behaviour and canvassing at the Wikiproject. Surely admins have enough tools to deal with those without using additional sanctions? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Brigading in the more general sense absolutely happens at other wikiprojects, and not just the sports ones. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As unneeded bureaucracy, ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (I'm invovled in the discussions in quesiton) As long as it is WP:CIVIL, editors are free to WP:DISAGREE in discussions. Consensus can change, and the only way to change it is to discuss it. Editors are even free to speak against a policy if they like--even policies change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - utterly disproportionate to the problem and unnecessary bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This feels like it would raise rather than lower the temperature. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Mike Novikoff removing links without good reason

User:Mike Novikoff is removing links and information from the infobox of the Vladimir Putin article.[118][119][120][121]

The stated reason for removal of links and article content was WP:OVERLINKING. I believe this does not apply here. With other articles concerning world leaders, such as Joe Biden, Chris Hipkins, or Justin Trudeau, their birthplace does contain a link, and also the region they were born in. Additionally, there is not a link to Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg, present in the lead of the article.

User:Mike Novikoff also has a history of removing links and content without good reason from other articles, as seen in the following diffs: [122][123][124][125][126][][127][128][129]

There are more examples, but to keep this ANI report short, I won't include them all.

When I added the links and removed content back to the infobox, User:Mike Novikoff threatened to report me here for edit warring, despite never violating WP:3RR.[130]

Michael60634 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please show him WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 05:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, his accusations are so stupid that he deserves to be punished prevented himself for that, doesn't he? — Mike Novikoff 05:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: Please see WP:NOTPUNISH. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to correct it. Of course, the right word is "prevent". :-)) — Mike Novikoff 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahem. No, the accusation is not "stupid" -- it is certainly a content dispute, and I'm curious to hear from you why someone else restoring such material constitutes edit warring and worthy of an ANI complaint, while you removing such material doesn't. You want to explain that? Ravenswing 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as a content dispute. Such a closure would be too weak. We have some rules described in the MoS, and we have a user who wouldn't obey. So it's about his behaviour. And since he had started this topic himself, it's about him getting a boomerang between his eyes. — Mike Novikoff 07:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is largely a content dispute. On the one hand, I can see why Mike Novikoff wants to remove some of those links, as overlinking is an issue I, at least, am often guilty of. Easter-egging is also a thing we should watch out for, although I would argue some degree of it is almost unavoidable given the nature of this encyclopaedia. Mike [Novikoff]'s contribution in tidying up articles in this fashion is therefore very useful, as not many people take the trouble of checking these 'technical' issues. At the same time, I believe he is operating from too literal (and too strict) an interpretation of policy - some of the links (as well as some of the elements, such as references to the RSFSR) he's removing strike me as useful enough to warrant keeping, something that is subjective and on which some sort of compromise or consensus could be reached. His language in edit summaries, as well as here, is also perhaps too confrontative (I'm not judging, sometimes frustration gets the best of us), and given that he threatened to bring the OP before ANI it is also understandable that this ended up here one way or the other.

TL;DR - I think this could be solved by civil discussion/through mediation without the need for disciplinary sanctions for either party. Ostalgia (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is a content dispute, and should the issue with the links should be discussed. I only made a report here because Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR, which I did not do. And I would prefer to not defend myself against something I didn't do. I find Mike Novikoff's repeated attempts to boomerang me ([131][132][133]) quite strange and petty, as I feel I haven't done anything to warrant it. My worst offences are most likely not providing enough detail in my changeset comments and/or not discussing a reversion of a content removal. And these ([134][135]) changeset comments in responses to this ANI report are neither helpful nor appropriate. Michael60634 (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree this is a content dispute – but I don't. "A content dispute" means "just close it", and I hope you'll not get away just like that. Mike Novikoff threatened to report me for violating the 3RR – I've never mentioned 3RR, I've said that I'll report you if you don't stop, and you have shot yourself in the foot. Now face the music. — Mike Novikoff 11:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

May be blocking Mike Novikoff for continuous trolling and refusal to discuss anything (communication via edit summaries is not really a valid dispute resolution avenue) during many years would be not such a bad idea. May be they should once face the music themselves. Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this sort of pugilistic rhetoric on his part does nothing except inflame further interactions, when we all should be working to try and de-escalate. He's not quite at a block yet, but both parties ought to take a step back since ANI does not resolve content disputes and no further good can come from continuing to beat the war drum. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed. This is a content dispute, and the MOS is not a rule or policy, it is simply a guideline - which can often be irrelevant or even incorrect. Mike Novikoff needs to dial back the passive-aggressiveness quite a bit, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Question the OP and the accused both seem to be Russian/Russian-born/native Russian speakers, and Ymblanter seems to be suggesting there seems to be a long history of similar behaviour by the accused. It might be the ultimate coincidence, but is there some previous issue porting over from Russian Wiki that we should be aware of, or am I reading too much into it? Ostalgia (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to provide some clarification, I am not Russian, nor do I speak Russian. I'm from the US, and I natively speak English. Maybe you made this assumption after reading my userpage. The Russian language quote at the top is from the TV show Chernobyl. I just liked the sound of the quote so I used it. I am trying, with limited success, to learn Russian. At first, it was out of interest, but now it's mostly because it's my girlfriend's native language. My only experience with editing the Russian wiki was updating the name of the De Havilland Canada Dash 8, an airplane I am quite interested in, and creating a move request to change the name of the article for said airplane. Michael60634 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Guilty as charged - read the quote, quickly scrolled down and saw a userbox with ru, and just made a quick assumption (and a false one at that!) without even checking the level of Russian in the userbox. Just to clarify, I was asking not out of any national prejudice but because not long ago (2-3 weeks ago?) there was a dispute here between two users who, as it turned out, had been duking it out at the Spanish wiki (a language I do speak!) for a while and both had gotten blocked for their troubles. It was important context. The dispute here, luckily, was in the end solved to everyone's satisfaction through mediation. Anyway, my apologies.Ostalgia (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't assume you were asking out of national prejudice. And no offence taken. Michael60634 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a native Russian speaker, and as far as I remember Mike Novikoff is blocked indef on the Russian Wikipedia, but I do not think this is relevant for this dispute. They demonstrated similar behavior here for a long time, making edits which are probably mainly good but having very poor communication style, sometimes going to clear trolling. When they get called out, and, especially, when they get dragged to ANI, they typically disappear to under radar, wait until the case gets closed as stale, to reappear and continue in a few weeks. I will try to get some examples later, the ANI notices should be on their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[[

This is an ANI thread about the user I opened a year ago. They narrowly escaped a block then, and, apparently, did not learn much.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You see, my discussion with OP goes like this: I'm making a lot of effort to describe the rules, then our frined just dismisses it. Please defend me from such style of discussion. — Mike Novikoff 08:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not discussion. That's edit summaries. Use a talk page for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@9ine line: possible sockpuppet of Douglas the Master

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

---

This account keeps making WP: Disruptive edits and their edits appear to be similar to Douglas the Master.

There edits on articles such as:

• Leeds Castle
• Bruton
• Guildford Cathedral

And

• Welwyn Garden City

Seem similar to the other users edits. I believe they are a sockpuppet for the blocked user.

DragonofBatley (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: a ping does not satisfy the requirement (expressed in a big red box) that you notify users you name here; and that goes double for a failed ping. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on page Edward M. De Robertis

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

---

Hello, I am disclosing my COI with the subject above and reporting this on his behalf. I did a bit of research to figure out where to post this, so if this is not the correct place, please guide me on what to do. Please check the latest edit by @UCLAendowed. She has posted info that is not well supported and accuses him of being homophobic. The source she provided does not have any mention of Edward M. De Robertis, but is apparently from a woman with the same last name, that may be his daughter, but if we must follow Wikipedia guidelines, then we cannot assume just by the last name alone this is his daughter. Plus I think there are many other policies broken.

1) UCLAendowed has probably a COI and has some insider knowledge to know some things about the daughter or could be the daughter posting

2) The article itself could be considered a primary source as such info can only have come from the daughter or family

3) There is only one citation about this, so it could be considered unreliable or not notable enough to post this info

4) She also posted some stuff about the Doctor using paid editors within the article, which is not allowed per policy. EDIT: It seems a paid editor was used to create and edit the page, but he has disclosed it.

5) Such info should not be posted in the intro

6) The information is defamatory and not from a neutral point of view and violates some Wikipedia policies.

We ask that you remove the info and also lock the page so that only experienced editors and admins may edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravemess (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(UTC)

(edit conflict) You're not the first user who has edited that article with a COI. What's your relationship to User:Pinku1104? I've reverted and warned UCLAendowed. Are you seriously challenging, though, that Carolina de Robertis Is not Edward's daughter?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment - there is a sourced link between Carolina de Robertis and her father at Carolina de Robertis so UCLAendowed only needs to have read her books to have been able to post this information.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:52, 1 February 2023

@Velella: Wouldn't that be considered primary info and unreliable? Gravemess (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Draft: Mike Afolarin

Moved to Draft talk:Mike Afolarin

 – FormalDude