Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected two days, both of you please go discuss at the article talk. Mia4121, consider whether details of the news about personal details of people associated with a single chapter belongs in this article about a national organization. Snuish2, consider whether various scandals-around-the-country are worth mentioning. IMO this is a content dispute, not a behavior issue. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Noted. For the record, this was brought up before at requests for page protection, where an administrator suggested this was a behavior issue. Snuish (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Snuish2, hahaha...okay, sorry for the runaround. Well, the page is temporarily protected, and I've removed that content as a BLP concern from the protected version. If @Mia4121 continues to refuse to discuss once the protection expires, ping me and I'll p-block from the article to force them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

SPAs on an AfD

WP:Articles for deletion/Tarsus American College has been focused on by SPAs who I presume are associated in some way with the school, and while their arguments are largely spurious I would prefer some more discussion from non-SPA accounts, since thus far we have only one or two arguments otherwise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid

I have now opened a new case regarding recent, persistent, widespread disruption at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Feel free to participate, the given list of participants is non-exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Woody Allen

Persistent long term WP:BLP violations regarding the obvious. This merits indefinite protection, and probably a lot of rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You can take care of this here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 03:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

DarthBotto, I'm very familiar with that noticeboard. Per the above explanation, since this also involves generous amounts of WP:BLP violations over a long period of time and a request of rev/deletion, it is a more complex situation than merely locking the article temporarily. ANI is a good place for administrative attention to just such occurrences. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:DisneyFan6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been racking up user warnings on television station pages in the last few weeks by actions including:

• Creation of articles on separate eras of some TV stations, ex. KFRE-TV (1956–1971), that are not in line with WP:TVS guidelines, and an unnecessary page, KABC Eyewitness News, that turned out to be a half copyvio.
• Addition of unsourced content to pages such as KVVU-TV.
• Creation of unnecessary and duplicative categories.

I've posted several times to try and get him to stop, but he's never posted on a single user talk including his own. What would be the next step? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• DisneyFan6 has been on my radar too. WCBW-TV was also a copyvio and unnecessary. Given the lack of response, I would support a site ban for multiple copyvios.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The Logopedia uploads are enough for a block for me. I really wish there was a way to stop an upload and warn the user whenever their image server is used as a 'source'. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bachovan

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

Nearly every one of Bachovan's 197 edits has been to add a "short description".

Short descriptions provide a summary of the article for those using a mobile device, and they are the "first impression" many readers have of an article. Accurate short descriptions are important, and need to be well-constructed and free of errors.

Nearly every one of Bachovan's edits has been low-quality, has not improved the article, and has not met the criteria outlined at WP:SHORTDES, because they are inaccurate, misspelled, or have awkward formatting or capitalization.

I have reached out to this user on their talk page, but no reply.

Today's edits:

• [1] - "French jurist Nobel prize winner"; the word "prize" should be capitalized.
• [2] - "Vice president of the USA 1925 -1929"; use of "USA" and spacing around dash.

Past edits:

• [3] - "Millitary officer".
• [4] - "Founding father".
• [5] - "American buissness official".

Visual metaphor for P.R.'s technique for contacting iOS editors

-EEng

• [6] - "Jacobite king disputed".
• [7] - "1804 - 1878 Us Senator".
• [8] - "indoor display of trains where I have been to".
• [9] - "Militia of New york Alexander Hamilton"
• [10] - "A millitary officer".
• [11] - "American physichian and Patriot".
• [12] - "3rd Governer of Pennsylvania".
• [13] - "Brother of John Trumbull".
• [14] - "Tv show".
• [15] - "Scotish peer and colonist".
• [16] - "American Anti federlist lawyer".
• [17] - "Holiday celabrating Abe Lincolns birthday".

Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. The user edits with the Wikipedia iOS app, which is not fit for purpose. —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit filter a while ago -- 1139 -- which can be used as a hack to send a message to a named iOS app user. I've only tested it on myself, but in theory it should work to forcefully guide someone onto their talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know if anyone has done anything here, but the user has now made some non-mobile edits and started the Wikipedia Adventure so we may not need to resort to ProcrastinatingReader's ingenious solution, but should remember it for the next case of iOS editing. —Kusma (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reporting this edit summary [18] today by Nicknack009 directly to this page simply because this experienced editor should know better. Others can reflect on the quality of his or her character but the reputation of Wikipedia is done no favours when comments like this in an edit summary, by long standing editors, are left unchallenged. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know, you're obligated to inform people you report about this thread. I've done it for you now.

That out of the way, that's a completely unacceptable edit summary. An editor of his tenure should know better. — Czello 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, that was unacceptable no matter how unnecessary the edit I was reverting was. I apologise. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we can consider this resolved. Next time this can be done on a user talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies: as far as I am concerned this is now done and dusted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Someone deleted tables on Marvel Cinematic Universe page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik0laX18 (talk • contribs)

As this is a content dispute it's something you should be discussing at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe, rather than here. This doesn't appear to be an admin issue. — Czello 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants at Self-referential humor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As if that weren't enough, the edit war is two-sided: ([19] [20]), and apparently Bilorv can interpret the questionable close however he likes, but I'm "not permitted" to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bilorv, I'll tell you definitively right now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been pondering what to do for the best for the last couple of hours this morning, since waking up and seeing the last couple of messages. I intend to respect Bilorv's request that nobody ping them, but I will expand on why I don't see this as an obviously one-sided case which can easily be resolved by applying sanctions to one party. Apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy post.

• Bilorv started the talkpage thread with an edit that suggested that EEng must have reverted them in error, and that expressed an unwillingness to discuss the matter. That was Bilorv's first ever edit to the talk page - it's not like they had been engaged in a long discussion that was going nowhere. 'Either it's my way, or we need an RfC' seems like a very confrontational way to start a talk page thread.
• EEng and MPants both responded fairly positively - they both agreed that a lot of the material that Bilorv wanted to remove should go, but they both believe very strongly that at least one piece of the content should remain. So far, so good - we have three editors who want to remove stuff, but they don't all agree on exactly what. This could have been a fruitful discussion.
• Bilorv's next response was again confrontational - to me, it reads as snarky - and again it says that everything must go, or it's straight to RfC.
• The thread then goes off the rails a bit, and Bilorv starts up an RfC, about 24 hours after the discussion started. That RfC was premature, and the way it was worded, Should the content re-added in this edit, which is partially unsourced and otherwise sourced variously to user-generated websites like Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress, be included in this article?, was completely inappropriate. It's a moot question - nobody was arguing that all of the content should be in the article, there was just disagreement over whether some parts should have been retained. The proper thing to have done would have been to get the discussion back on track, agree on which bits definitely needed to go, make a list of the bits that there was disagreement about, give time for people to look for better sourcing for those bits, and then, if agreement hadn't been reached, open an RfC about those particular bits.
• During the course of the RfC, MPants started cutting away at parts of the content that he agreed didn't belong on the page. While he was doing that, further discussion about one particular bit of content and its sourcing took place. The discussion had, by this point, become quite snarky, but it does cast further doubt on the wording of the RfC (there is disagreement over one of the sources is regular UGC, or whether it's an acceptable self-published source written by a subject-matter expert).
• Buidhe then came along and closed the discussion, finding consensus to remove the material. I don't really understand why the RfC was closed so soon after being opened when active discussion was ongoing, and I don't really understand why Buidhe wrote her close in the way she did: the question was simply 'should this material be included', but Buidhe's close went beyond that, and she appears not to have understood some of the comments that people were making. In my view, it was a bad close of a bad RfC. What then happened was people disagreeing about how to interpret the close, edit warring my multiple parties, accusations of bad faith editing from MPants, and the opening of this ANI thread. In short, to put it bluntly, a clusterfuck.

So, here we are. We have two excellent, productive editors at loggerheads over whether or not a particular example of a joke should be included in an article about jokes, we've wasted hours of time, and nobody has gained anything. I think that Bilorv could have been more collegiate in the way that they started that discussion, I think that everyone should have tried harder to keep the discussion on-track, I think that RfCs ought to be written much more carefully than that one was (and ideally discussed and agreed upon before being started), and I think that closes need to be done more carefully than that. Buidhe has self-reverted her close, which I thank her for, and MjolnirPants has accepted that he should be less confrontational in the way that he addresses what he perceives to be gaming of the system, which I thank him for (while believing that an apology for going overboard would be helpful).

My suggested solution for what to do now is this: trouts all round for getting into a fight about something so trivial; the reopened RfC should be closed as badly worded and largely moot; and for anyone who still cares about the disputed content to start a new, civilised discussion focussed specifically about whether or not the one particular joke that sparked all this is sufficiently well-sourced to be included as an example in an article about jokes. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, This is a pretty good breakdown of the situation.

I'd be willing to kiss and make up, as it were, but Bilorv's latest comment here makes me think any effort to reach out on my part (or on yours, on my behalf) would likely only make things worse.

P.S. I really appreciate your offer to mediate and your efforts to resolve this through discussion. It's a rare thing to see on this page, and I'm a little disappointed we weren't able to pursue that.

I won't ping Bilorv, but if they want to show up and engage in some productive discussion, my offer to act as if this tiff never took place stands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have only read this ANI thread and the only diffs I've looked at are the first four in @Girth Summit's summary above so I admit that I am far from well versed in this conflict. But reading that summary of events, I don't understand the conclusion that Mpants gets a trout. That summary lists nothing wrong they did, only battleground behavior by Bilorv. Now I think this thread suggests that isn't actually the case nor what GS believes. But it seems like there has been an unwillingness to actually take seriously Bilorv's (diff supported) claims, not even to say "I've looked at them and don't believe they're justified". Instead the focus from the very start seems to be "let's all have a pint" which I get to be a very British culturally appropriate way to defuse a tense situation and is perhaps a natural response to Bilorv's having have come into this article hot and heavy rather than collaboratively and to have escalated it (quick RfC, coming to ANI). By handling it this way, Mpants basically off the hook with no stated scrutiny because they agreed to have the pint. If Mpants is innocent here we should say that rather than both sides it with a double trout. And if Mpants isn't innocent, we should not just effectively tell Bilorv to chill but acknowledge that by a minimum acknowledging and naming it, and then find a way forward which in this case seems clear and already in progress which is great. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, apologies for not being clearer. My statement above was intended not to be a complete summary of the whole situation, rather an explanation of why I dont think the blame is one sided. I thought I'd been clear about that in the first paragraph, but if you didn't pick that up then obviously I wasn't clear enough. For the record, I think that MPants accusations of lying were uncalled for, I think that he was at least as responsible for the snark and the derailing of the discussion as Bilorv, and I have called on him to apologise. It is not, and has not been, my intention to vilify Bilorv. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that. Knowing you the way I do, I suspected that was your thinking all along. However I think (having now read this thread twice) that was the first time anyone who isn't Bilorv explicitly suggested that the accusations of lying by Mpants were uncalled for. I think this kind of conflict resolution, that is attempts to get two experienced and respected editors to move past past issues without ever seriously examining the past, is a common tendency at ANI isn't actually productive. There's a reason that in real life we have truth and reconciliation commissions rather than just reconciliation commissions. That and what I suspect to be a bit of American/British cultural differences in how to handle these situations is why I choose to comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'd like to push back on that slightly. If you read through all of my comments, I think you'll see the I've told MPants that I think the accusations of lying were uncalled for more than once; I've also asked him to retract them, and said that I think he should apologise. I've tried to do that in a reconciliatory manner, and I've indicated that I think there is some fault on both sides - but I have told him that I think that was out of line. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

​I should add that, while pushing back against that particular observation, I appreciate the other thoughts. As you know, we get no training in dispute resolution when we become admins, so I'm very much feeling my way in this area. Other people's perspectives are always worth listening to and reflecting on, and I'm always grateful to receive yours, so thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Barkeep's an arb so you have to say that. EEng 20:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

EEng, Barkeep took me through NPP school before he was an admin, he nominated me for RfA before he was an arb. He has given me reliable and consistently good counsel for almost all of my time here. To say that I trust his judgment would be an understatement, and that's got nothing to do with him being an arb. As you know, I have a high regard for you (and for everyone else in this thread), but that comment was beneath you. I hope you will retract it. I genuinely don't want any hard feelings between us.

I am pressed for time right now, but would like to make more comments on this thread tomorrow. This one stuck out as being important to address immediately. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Beneath me? I'd ask you, sir, to bear in mind just who it is you're addressing – nothing's beneath me! Now look, Summit, my comment was in the exact same spirit as the photo caption here [21] (for which I was briefly blocked, actually [22], but of course I never learn). Surely at a second look you can see it's a tease. Once you're an arb it's like being a movie star – you can't just go into a restaurant and be treated like a normal person. EEng 02:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I was talking with someone on the Wiki Discord yesterday and during that conversation they went out of their way to ping Oshwah to do something for them. It was great to not be recognized by someone and to simultaneously be in the presence of someone more wiki famous (at least on discord) than I. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies EEng, I was having a sense of humour outage there. Tease accepted. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us, and I've got the blocks to prove it. EEng 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@GS:, you're right that you did say at one point that calling Bilorv a liar over that is going too far which I had previously missed. I think you're suggesting that you reiterated that here where you ask everyone to step back from the accusations of lying and bad faith and for Mpants to revert. Though what you're asking to be reverted isn't clear to me as I originally read it that you were asking Mpants to revert their most recent comment where they wrote in bold that Bilorv needed to retract everything in order for things to move forward. I thought that's what you were asking to be reverted because it seemed consistent with the bulk of the comment about having this be water under the bridge. In your subsequent reply to Bilorv you say you don't agree with Mpants assessment while also suggesting there is no need for Mpants to stop because we're at ANI.

The next message is your summary that lead to my initial comment. Why does Bilorv get thousand of bytes pointed at them instead of Mpants? Seemingly because rather than saying they want to move on at the RfC (as Mpants does here right after saying they won't retract anything despite saying they went too far) they're saying they want to move on by leaving this whole dispute behind. Why is one of those acceptable and the other not, or at least not so acceptable that it requires a mammoth point by point detailing of what they did wrong? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Having now actually examined the diffs, I do think both editors were wrong. Bilorv was too quick to to launch an RfC. An RfC is a method of dispute resolution but it is a costly one and especially since there two editors in Mpants and Eeng who were willing to make changes which could have been discussed. Maybe there's history not presented here why that approach wasn't taken but not taking it comes with a cost. This is short of an ideal but is not, as an isolated incident, a violation of any policies or guidelines. MjolnirPants repeatedly calling Bilorv a liar, including here, and being unwilling to retract any of it is a violation of policies and guidelines. Saying they went too far in the abstract while defending every specific is no mitigation for me. Since Bilorv has indicated they're withdrawing from the topic area I don't think a block is justified as it would not be preventive but similar behavior in the future, or a pattern of this behavior, would certainly be sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I never once called Bilorv a liar. I called much of what they wrote dishonesty, and if you can't understand the difference between "you lied" and "you're a liar", then you've got no business weighing in here. Now, if you're done pointlessly dragging this out, I for one am more interested in working on this project than debating your opinion of me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mr Pants, try not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. EEng 19:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I certainly am not asking you to debate or even interact with me, which is why I did not address my comments to you MP. You wrote above Bilorv, you know, if you don't like being called a liar so at least in that moment you seemed to accept that was a fair characterization of what you did say. So I stand by what I wrote. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, Those were Bilorv's word being repeated back to them, a common rhetorical device with which most people have been familiar since childhood. If you're not familiar with these sorts of common turns of phrases, you'd do better to ask for clarification than to draw conclusions from your misunderstandings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  We're at ANI and I am an admin acting in an UNINVOLVED capacity so the content of these last two messages from MP to me are within community norms. However it is these kinds of messages, presented clearly in diffs by Bilorv, why I have come to the conclusion that future such behavior, when addressed in the moment, or a pattern of such behavior, presented at an appropriate conduct forum, would be sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, Not sure what you're hinting at with the comment about community norms, but if you're implying that there's some personal attacks in those messages, I'd strongly advise you to get a second opinion.

  As for the rest, well... The "pattern of behavior" you keep pointing to was me responding to blatant gaming and dishonesty by pointing it out. I've already acknowledged that the way I pointed it out was not ideal, and indicated my willingness to make nice with Bilorv. What more do you want? You want me to lie about what I believe about Bilorv's repeated refusals to discuss things that made their argument look bad? You want a pound of flesh and maybe my left pinkie as penance?

  And what do you think that's going to accomplish? I'll tell you something worth thinking about: Before you commented here, I was planning on asking Girth how best to approach Bilorv to get them to come back and discuss improving the article. I was eager to set this behind me, try to make up and start over with Bilorv and move on.

  But since you commented I'm pissy again, because I came here to see what Girth might have said in a closing statement, and instead got to read your comments complaining that I wasn't punished harshly enough to suit you. And now Bilorv's back, re-litigating things again.

  I sure hope for your sake that's what you were aiming for, and you've got a long game here. Because otherwise, your participation here has been nothing short of disruptive. You'd do better to take notes from Girth's handling of this than suggest they take notes from yours, because progress was being made right until you showed up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I will agree that this thread was headed towards a resolution before I showed up. That resolution was that your actions and Bilorv's actions were being labeled as equally disruptive, or Bilorv's as worse, and Bilorv had decided to leave the area. I found that resolution unsatisfactory from an initial glance and reading more deeply saw nothing to change my mind. So I did decide to say something rather than let that be the resolution, especially because I knew that the editor I would be addressing my remarks to, GS, was a friend of mine and so we'd be able to have a productive conversation about our thinking.

  What was I hoping for when I wrote that comment? I was hoping that the outcome of the thread would be to say that Bilorv's actions were less than ideal and that your actions violated our behavioral policies and guidelines which would hopefully cause you to not repeat those actions in the future with a different editor. I am pleased that Bilorv below gave an unreserved apology to Eeng; that was appropriate and Eeng deserved that, so that's a more positive outcome of this discussion than if I had said nothing. As for the rest, we'll see, but my hope is not for you to be punished - or at least not that you are punished in the WP:PUNISH sense - but to be warned appropriately. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I'll repeat what I said above: There's a difference between "you're a liar" and "you told a lie," and I've seen that difference get highlighted many, many times on this page and elsewhere by many, many editors. In fact, I see the difference between "you're a Nazi" and "Your edits look like Nazi edits" being pointed out to an IP in the very next thread below.

  In your view, those were personal attacks, but there's evidence all over the place that your view is outside the norm.

  And I'd like to remind you that accepting a resolution to a conflict which you find unsatisfactory is far more in keeping with our norms and policies than stirring shit up again in the hopes that you'll be satisfied by the outcome. In fact, I'm pretty sure that WP:STICK covers that exact situation, and I've never seen where any exception is carved out for admins. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't expecting or hoping for the kind of response you gave in reply to Bilorv below @MjolnirPants but would say that's a fine statement that is helpful in genuinely moving this towards a productive outcome. Credit to you for saying it. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, Just keep my last response to you in mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict on anything post-19:00) @Girth Summit and Barkeep49: I'll leave one more comment to describe things from my perspective that other people don't seem to have worked out. First, my initial message on the talk page was curt—because of every 100 I write of those, 75 people go "great, fine, restore your edit" so spending five times as long would simply be a waste of time in 75 cases. I thought the most likely option was, as I said, that EEng literally misread my edit and thought I edit warring over a different piece of content I had earlier tried to remove. (This is based on the fact that regularly, someone will revert me after misunderstanding what my edit did, or vice versa; this isn't an assumption of bad faith or stupidity because such mistakes are made by everyone.) However, I thought the second-most likely option was that EEng was stonewalling and aiming to make me a punching bag, and that mentioning escalation to RfC would prevent that. This was an unacceptable assumption of bad faith for which I apologise. Nonetheless, the next action taken was EEng using a pun to call me "confused" in this edit that triggered (to quote EEng) World War III (initiated by the other editor pinged, who seemingly agreed that we were being called "confused").
  Anyway, there was more horseplay but neither of the editors had removed any content they ostensibly agreed should go, and I assumed bad faith that they wouldn't, another mistake. I opened the RfC just to draw more attention to the discussion. (Such a thing could have been better achieved by a WikiProject or noticeboard message, perhaps.) I now agree that I attempted escalation too soon. As to the RfC wording, no-one had pointed to Gage as a case that had stronger sourcing (merely as something so "Not negotiable" as to not need a reason). The next mistake is that I replied with hostility when MjolnirPants engaged me in hostility. I should have stood back a lot more. The reason I didn't was because I thought they would conflate silence with consensus or use silence as an opportunity to misrepresent what I had said or believed. Anyone who has read this ANI thread has seen that they did do this the moment I stepped away. Still, there were other ways I could have acted.
  Anyway, that's several mistakes of mine: careless initial comments, assuming bad faith, reflecting back hostility and choosing the wrong way to bring further attention to the discussion. However, the situation on the table is that when I brought this matter to ANI, and during the discussion, an editor was making personal attacks about me and claiming I said things that I never said both to an admin on ANI and on other pages, after being asked to stop and retract such comments. No-one believes that I was, by my reading of the comments above, continuing to make disruptive actions, but MjolnirPants was. The situation remains that MjolnirPants has offered to "kiss and make up", but has still not said that they will stop saying to other editors that my actions were deliberately duplicitous or my beliefs on the subject matter so "nonsensical" that I must be lying. The only comment they have made that even touches on admitting wrongdoing is I may have been too confrontational in addressing [that Bilorv lied intentionally and behaved maliciously]. Their most recent comment at Talk:Self-referential humor, after I made it clear that I was not going to participate further there, is a fresh claim that I said something that I never said. Meanwhile, they are jovial when referring to every other editor in this conversation, and switch to extremely hostile when talking to or about me. Despite a large number of comments I typed out but didn't submit because they were too hostile, or a number of personal attacks that I refrained from making, and a number of other ways in which I chose not to level up the hostility, I'm being given the same trout that someone who is continuing to make personal attacks as of this comment is getting.
  I will not return to the discussion and engage in dispute resolution, as it is simply not worth the time, but I will apologise directly to you, MjolnirPants, and make sure no grudge is left behind if you describe the ways in which you believe you have acted wrongly, and I feel like that addresses the concerns me and others have raised with your actions. To EEng, I owe you an apology either way for assuming bad faith of you, and while I remain in disagreement with your "confused" page, there has been an MfD on that and this is not double jeopardy. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  For the record, I did not say or imply that anyone is confused, as explained -- not by me -- here [23]. EEng 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, I am sorry if this was not clear in my comments but I don't think you deserve the same trout as MP. Or more accurately I think you deserve a "was less than ideal" (maybe that's a trout) for the reasons you note above, while MP needs a warning. I'm pinging Bilorv in hopes that they at least read the edit summary where I am underlining the "not the same trout" message even if they choose to ignore the rest of this, which I write for other uninvolved editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, there's a lot wrong with what you've said here, but I'm ignoring that to address your last paragraph: you don't have to apologize. You don't have to make it up to me, to recriminate yourself or count your sins. None of the stuff either of us accused the other of is important. The bad news is, both of us could have handled that better. The good news is, we've still got the chance to go handle it better.

  At the beginning there, I was being playful, not hostile. I love joking around, especially when I can do so while simultaneously working on improving an article. I understand that it didn't come across that way, and I surely regret that. I'm not out to win fights or put anyone in their place or tear anyone down, and if anything I said came across that way, then it's on me for not being more clear. I also have a particular dislike for sneakiness and game-playing, so I tend to react strongly to anything that comes across that way, sometimes more strongly than is warranted.

  Now, it'd be nice if you were to look at the things I said you were lying about and try to understand why I saw dishonesty there, but like I said: I'm not out to put anyone in their place. If it rankles you too much to do that, then fine. The only thing I want from you is for you to come back to the page and work towards improving it. Or not. If you're burned out with talking to me, that's fine, we can go our separate ways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Now, it'd be nice if you were to look at the things I said you were lying about and try to understand why I saw dishonesty there – I address this at numerous points in my comments above, including descriptions of what I did wrong. However, it strikes me that you are still accusing me of lying and having malicious ulterior motives that would contradict what I described as my reasoning for such edits above. Anyone reading this discussion top to bottom (firstly, has my deepest sympathies, and secondly) should take note that this comment accusing me of "blatant gaming and dishonesty" comes after my comment above. Finally, my comment do not ping me again to this ANI discussion (etc.) still applies (and has nothing to do with whether I will or will not choose to respond further). — Bilorv (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Welp. I tried. Girth Summit this is what I meant when I said trying to reach out now wouldn't go over well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 You say you don't think a block is justified "... but similar behavior in the future, or a pattern of this behavior, would certainly be sanctionable" which may mean you're unaware what's gone on elsewhere, e.g. quotes of MjolnirPants on the the Nicholas Wade talk page: "That edit was not even close to a compromise, and in fact, resembles more the sort of edit I might expect from some random edgelord IP who decided to troll this discussion." ... "I literally have nothing more to say to editors who insist upon lying about policy and making WP:POINTy edits. I don't care what you think about any of this. The only proposal that's gotten any traction here was mine, so I'm implementing it, and ready to call in an admin when the inevitable edit war starts." ... "The continued arguments against it are not persuasive in the slightest, and do more to undermine my faith in the editors making them than anything else." ... "To call the quotes from actual scientists about Wade's misrepresentation of their work "attacks" is complete and utter bullshit." ... "It's not about what I believe, as I've said countless times thus far, and which should be obvious to anyone with the competence to work on this project, but what the actual experts in this subject believe." ... "Wait, strike that, you absolutely are suggesting that, what I mean to ask is if you've got the cajones to state it outright, so we can just get the WP:AE ball rolling on your impending topic ban right away." ... "Read the way I had to poke and prod to get them to contribute anything helpful for three fucking days." I'd appreciate it if TonyBallioni would say whether the removal of the indefinite block of MjolnirPants was per the common unblocking reason. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since I’ve been pinged multiple times: the {{OversightBlock}} had nothing to do with anything content related. All oversight blocks are immediately discussed after blocking on the list. There was even at the time of the block agreement that unblocking should happen relatively easily. Several months ago someone asked me about unblocking MPants and I raised the issue on the functionaries list. There was consensus to unblock if he wanted it, but he didn’t at the time based on his email communication to me. He emailed me the day I unblocked him, saying he wanted to be unblocked. As there was consensus amongst the group of individuals who had the ability to review the block reason for an unblock, I unblocked him at his request. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Barkeep49, I think your criticisms of the nature of some of my comments above are justified. In my mind, I thought I'd made my opinion clear that MPants' accusations of lying were unfair, unnecessary, and needed to stop; the much longer exposition of what I saw as being wrong about what Bilorv had done was intended to explain why I didn't simply click the block button - I didn't see it as a one-sided issue, and I wanted to explain why. I'm grateful to both editors for acknowledging that they could have done things better, and I hope that they will be able to move forward. I can see however that the sheer volume of commentary on one side, and not the other, does look imbalanced, so I apologise to Bilorv for that. (I'm going to continue to respect their wish not the be pinged, but I hope they see that.) I'll add that my 'trouts all round' suggestion was not meant to be a reflection on how far I thought each user had transgressed policies/guidelines/behavioural norms during the dispute, but about their mutual decision to get into a snarky content dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of a joke in an article about jokes. I can understand why someone might get emotional, and even jump to conclusions about bad faith, when they're editing about race and genetics, gender identity, political subjects, or similar such contentious areas: articles on subjects like that have great potential to offend, and the project does suffer from bad actors in those areas who wish to skew our coverage to align with their own POV. In this area though, I'd have thought that a great deal more GF could have been Aed all round right from the get-go, which is why I suggested the fish. If anyone wants to serve me with one for how I've handled this, I will find a home for it in my pond. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The score so far

In the past two weeks, this one article has spawned...

• One MfD
• One RfC
• One ANI thread

... all initiated by Bilorv. I think it's time he quit WP:Diffusing conflict and concentrated on working towards real consensus with other interested editors. EEng 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Correction: Just realized it was Bilcat who initiated the MfD. I get him confused with Bilorv. EEng 01:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

EEng, You should add them to that page. Might be helpful in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Ironic, isn't it?) Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of irony... EEng 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• The article is terrible. I can't tell from it whether any of the following is funny.
  1. In Soviet Russia, bar walks into Phineas Gage.
  2. In Soviet Russia, Phineas Gage walks into a bar.

I demand (DEMAND!) you improve the article to GA standard before I have to look at it again. And also, that it contains an answer to my questions —Kusma (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, the first is funny, the second is confused, per the principle of never breed a hybrid joke without careful scientific study of the product, lest you release an abomination upon the land.

But in all seriousness, I agree with you. Pages like this can be difficult to work on, as sources which directly address the subject are rare and esoteric, whereas sources which use the subject are so prolific that simply sorting out the wheat from the chaff is tedious work. I've got a promise from my local librarian to do a comprehensive search later this week for sources on the philosophy, psychology and history of comedy, with an emphasis on self-referential comedy, but there are no guarantees they will produce results (I was unable to find anything useful in the library, myself). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan that is better than my jokes. Good luck! —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bilorv that MjolnirPants may have engaged in edit warring and may have failed to accept consensus, and also may have been uncivil in discussions. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

66,892 characters in this section by my count (not including this comment). Is someone already slotted in to write the WP:LAME entry, or can I call dibs? jp×g

Likely sock and definitely WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Samlaxcs is dedicated to pushing their own interpretation of history, mainly focussing on reinterpreting history to focus on the Ghassanids [24] and the origins of groups in the Middle East. Samlaxcs goes about this in a very heavyhanded way, including "correcting" direct quotes [25], claiming that all academic sources are wrong [26] and that history is "manipulated [27]. All of this is already a problem as it's merely pushing OR relentlessly. However, the similarities between Samlaxcs and banned sock Kasaxu are staggering. Both Samlaxcs and Kasaxu perform almost identical edits on topics as varied as Spanish cuisine [28] and [29] (check the almost identical edit summaries), Early Middle Ages [30] and [31], and History of the ancient Levant [32] and [33]. As per WP:DUCK, this is the same user. Jeppiz (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: You're absolutely right. I had just reported them to SPI when I saw your thread here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User report

MinecrafterDE15

This user keeps adding some false information about the television channels. Administrators advised the others to report this user here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_Perez#Block_user --162.222.81.217 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that MinecrafterDE15 (talk · contribs) has had several edits reverted. However, please provide some details so people here, with no knowledge of the topic, can see what the false information is. Before posting here, someone should have posted at the user's talk explaining the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This user added some false details about the televisions channels broadcasting in Switzerland, but only in France. --162.222.83.108 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked through their latest edits since Tuesday...and I found nothing wrong. They're merely clearing up that Switzerland gets several versions of children's networks in different languages from different countries and domestically, which are easily confirmed by the CHE cable systems that carry them (Switzerland has four official languages, so this is all proper). The same edits in mid-May also clear up that systems in CHE carry German, French and Italian versions of the networks in each country. Basically...I'm not seeing a welcome message. Or a teahouse invite. I'm seeing someone looking at a certain name and immediately trying to block them on very shaky ground when they're being a quiet WP:SLOTH. There's no reason to block here, and at that, the May and April contribs are WP:STALE. Nate • (chatter) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand, Several televisions channels like Nickelodeon France are not broadcasting in Switzerland. In Switzerland, it's Nickelodeon Switzerland who is broadcasting, not Nickelodeon France, also for Disney Channel France and others. --162.222.83.108 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox shows it on Swiss cable and satellite systems and its easily confirmable on their site...it simply isn't vandalism. The only issue I found in any of their edits was likely a simple mis-translation of one of Nickelodeon's French competitors which I didn't even need to bother with a mention of. That's it. There's no vandalism here at all. Again...Switzerland has multiple languages and carries multiple language versions of networks, including the domestic French and Italian versions of those networks beyond their regular German versions. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I watched these channels but no commercial in Switzerland. --162.222.83.250 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You can talk to this user if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grasshalm3. --162.222.83.250 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've rolled back your edits...it's clear that you're not listening to my read on the situation that there is no vandalism here. Stop harassing this user, or you're going to end up with a WP:BOOMERANG block here. And Grasshalm3 has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

2601:405:4880:E200:0:0:0:0/48

The comedy of Special:Contributions/2601:405:4880:E200::/48 has to stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, pretty static IP range, seems to be just the one user, gave 'em three months. Lemme know if the show goes on after that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse by indef. blocked editor?

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

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

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

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

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

I'd suggest just letting him get on with it. I don't know what the Hungarian wikipedia's rules are, but if he's breaking them they'll presumably do something about it. As it is, it's just another in a long series of bad choices. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a sad case. Some time before KIENGIR wound up here, they made a really good improvement to one of my articles. (I didn't know that under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, what is now Slovakia was called Upper Hungary.) I encouraged them in a friendly TP discussion to utilise their rare heritage of what became the Slovakian-speaking minority in Hungary after the 1920 Treaty of Trianon for the benefit of enwiki. However, it seems that was not to be. Narky Blert (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but were deceived about that by him. The borders of "Upper Hungary" were never set in stone, and in fact, originally referred to only parts of today's Eastern Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. Even shortly before 1920, Upper Hungary was understood as a much larger region than modern Slovakia, and included parts of the region of the Matra mountains. It was only after Trianon that Hungarian irredentists began claiming that Upper Hungary and Slovakia are the exact same region. Today, Upper Hungary is mostly used to refer only to Southern Slovakia, where a significant Hungarian minority lives. Azure94 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The mention was in an article about a guy who lived in the High Tatras in the mid-late 1800s (Klemens Bachleda), so I think the reference to that ill-defined region was most likely correct. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

69.126.57.216

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admins do not administer indef blocks on IPs in case of possible shared devices, unless in extreme special cases. See WP:IPBLENGTH. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

​​​Hi there, I came across the page as I wish to tell you that there's a similar IP address I suspect that that is done by the same user aforementioned because of the similar pattern of editing I noted about two weeks ago (69.126.206.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and I believe it was the same guy, but I had already left a message in the talk page and he won't reply. I worry that if the same user do that again but what you all guys think? Anyway, thanks for helping one out. TVSGuy (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Erasure of Sumgait pogrom by Grandmaster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Sumgait pogrom was part of a broader inter-ethnic conflict between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, in which up to 200 local Armenians were killed by Azerbaijanis. Aside from murder, rape and riot also took place.

Results on Google and Google Scholar are littered with mentions of the pogrom, which is sometimes referred to as a "massacre", while Soviet and international sources have called the designated the event a "genocide"; some sources call it a "riot". Yet it is mentioned wherever one looks. Let's take a quick look at the Encyclopædia Britannica, which is written by actual scholars, and not by opportunists on Wikipedia who pursue pushing their own POV:

Sumqayıt, formerly Sumgait, city, eastern Azerbaijan. Sumqayıt lies at the mouth of the Sumqayıt River as it enters the Caspian Sea, on the northern side of the Abşeron Peninsula. Founded in 1944 as a suburb of Baku and achieving city status in 1949, Sumqayıt grew rapidly as a major chemical and metallurgical centre, largely on the basis of petroleum from the peninsula. Its vast modern factories produce aluminum, steel pipes for the oil industry, synthetic rubber, fertilizers, detergents, and petrochemicals. In February 1988 riots in the city killed more than 30 people, wounded some 200, and produced thousands of refugees; most of the victims were Armenians, who constituted a large minority of the population. Pop. (2007 est.) 268,800.

Around a quarter of the article talks about the pogrom. It is evident that the massacre is a vital part of Sumgait's history. And still, Grandmaster, an established user on this platform, and an avid member of WikiProject Azerbaijan, has removed almost any and all mention of the pogrom on the page of Sumgait proper. ([34] and [35])

The respective pogroms against Azerbaijanis by Armenians are also discussed in the introductions of Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Gugark, Armenia, respectively.

There is no rational reason to omit mention of this gruesome massacre on the city's Wikipedia page; after all, it had a profound impact on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a whole, and thus, on the regional geo-political situation.

I sincerely hope this ridiculous attempt by Grandmaster to erase and whitewash history is resolved swiftly. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the two edits you linked to (here are diffs for those who prefer btw, #1 and #2) are the only recent edits to that page by Grandmaster. It doesn't appear that you have talked to Grandmaster on any talk page about the edits. Is this something that belongs at ANI? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I will attempt to discuss this with them, although I doubt that it will blossom into a fruitful discussion. And how exactly does this not belong on WP:ANI? Is cultural erasure not a big enough incident for a third party to weigh in? Please enlighten me. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

One should always attempt to resolve the issue directly with the other party before involving venues like ANI. zchrykng (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, ANI is not the place to ask for a third party to weigh in to content disputes. It's the place to seek administrative attention. If you need a third party to weigh in, there are several suggestions at WP:Dispute resolution. Note that third parties will often be less willing to weigh in if you haven't already made some attempt at resolving the dispute yourself. The point of third parties weighing in is to help resolve disputes when the existing parties cannot agree. In addition, while I appreciate that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict area is a tricky one to deal with with a lot of problematic parties this doesn't excuse making assumptions of bad faith. No matter how bad you may think an editor's edit was, most of the time especially with an established editor you need to give them the chance to correct that mistake by explaining why their edit was wrong. Failing to do so and instead assuming the editor won't correct their mistake isn't helping the tricky subject area, it's harming it. (To be clear, I make no judgment on any of the specific content changes. I'm simply pointing out that the way to try to solve this should start with discussion between involved parties, as it nearly always should.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand; in that case I will take this to WP:Dispute resolution should nothing come out of my discussion with the aforementioned user. Thank you for your response and have an excellent day. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@BaxçeyêReş, as it was noted above, this is not a place to discuss content disputes. It should be a part of a regular WP:BRD process. If your edit is reverted, it is advised to take it to the talk, and see why other editors do not find your edit acceptable. BaxçeyêReş made an extremely POV edit to an article about a large industrial city. I provided my opinion of his edit at talk, so I will not touch upon the content issues in order to not to waste space here. But what I do not find acceptable is the fact that BaxçeyêReş restored his edit that clearly raised objections from another editor, and instead of taking it to the talk, he took it here. It is not the way to find a consensus for your proposed edit. Grandmaster 18:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to create an article on an actor how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.120 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, although this isn't an admin issue, I can answer that. See WP:NEW or WP:1ST for information on how to create an article. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack, Esuyy, Aldan, and Slaoiuamn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

The draft that JAIC1120 was building on their talk page was also edited by Pomi112 and JESCaales, which suggests there's a connection between these groups. I don't have much more time today but running all these accounts through the editor interaction tool would be informative. If I have time I'll compile something at SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• Jeas116 and Jearbne went around removing the TfD notices from several of the nominated templates today, and Jeas116 has tried to remove this section repeatedly. I think this pushes them over the line into "disruptive sockpuppet" territory. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, even Jearbne is continuing this same TfD removal behavior, completely ignoring this ANI altogether. Definitely needs a block at this point. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I recall a very similar recent case, with a user who made thousands of edits to their sandbox to create a set of fake sports tournament results. They had little or no edits outside of their sandbox. The end result was the sandbox was deleted and the user blocked (WP:NOTHERE, IIRC). For the life of me, I can't recall the user, but that might jog someone's memory about it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Chiming in briefly. I noticed via watchlist some of this activity without noticing the ANI was open. I had asked @NinjaRobotPirate: if he'd take a look but looks like Drmies already has. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Mass-delete drafts and sandboxes?

• I've blocked the whole lot; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeas116; they have also started creating new accounts so expect that this is not the end of this. I think it is probably reasonable to mass-delete their sandboxes and userspace drafts, since they're not really contributing anything other than less-polished versions of articles we already have, but I'll leave that for consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Out of curiosity, has anyone worked out what "unE/unS" means? Narky Blert (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  from the edit summary: unExplained and unSourced. — Ched (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't have guessed that either. I'd have guessed unEncyclopedic because that's how "E" is often used on nlwiki. For example: Dat er eens per jaar een wielerwedstrijd overheen dendert maakt de wegen niet E. ("just having some cycling competition roll over them once a year doesn't make the roads E.") But on enwiki "E" means nothing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bad block Unsourced additions should be removed straight away. There is no excuse for addition of unsourced material in 2021. The job of the the admins is to protect the content creators. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Good block Unsourced additions should be removed straight away. There is no excuse for addition of unsourced material in 2021. The job of the the admins is to protect the content creators. ——Serial 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Is there an echo in here? Who's on first? EEng 08:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. These aren't "unsourced additions", the source is right there in the infobox, a few lines above these numbers: Youtube. The numbers given by the IP were correct and easily verifiable (the 4.57 million is visible stright from the Youtube link in the infobos, the number of views is one click further away, here). I've reverted the article to the IP version, and added this link for the hard-of-hearing who don't believe the link right above it is sufficient, and who prefer "unsourced" outdated or imprecise figures given by, uh, no idea who, to "unsourced" correct, precise figures given by an IP. And as Bishonen indicates, the block wasn't for the edit war or the obscure abbreviations, but because of the doubling down, the reaction given here. Fram (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fram, the ref is now added automatically by {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Fram (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

VukMNE revert warring, editing other users comments in talk pages

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

This would appear to come within the realm of the discretionary sanctions under WP:BALKANS, Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

No comment on the edits in question but this appears to be an WP:SPA, with:

• Strong nationalist opinions e.g [36],[37]
• Revert warring [38], [39]
• Editing other users comments at User talk:Drmies [40]

Requesting an admin look into this to prevent further disruption. WCM_email 11:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment by VukMNE: May I just add: "Bravo!". You are actually forbidding Montenegrins to write history about their country. This is going to be an issue, and it is already trending on Twitter...Go ahead, ban me, I regret donating for your website... This is a joke.

[41] I see Black Kite has partially blocked this editor whilst I compiled this report, so immediate problem may have gone away. WCM_email 11:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• VukMNE, any time someone is edit warring admins get wary. Any time someone removes chunks of apparently verified information from an article, admins get wary. Any time someone has a hobby horse, and edits one single article consistently in the same way for as long as they've been here and never seeks the talk page, admins get weary. You did all three--that Black Kite only blocked you from editing the article was an act of mercy AND an invitation to discuss your proposed edits. Black Kite could have simply blocked you indefinitely for edit warring, vandalism, disruptive editing, and just incompetence (since I just had to correct your unblock request). So, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, this is what you do: you stop cussing at people, you stop accusing people of whatever, you stop making silly and false statements like "you're forbidding Montenegrins etc.", and you start having a rational discussion on the article talk page, with other editors, whom you will treat with respect. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon, I have a feeling this will end in tears - revert warring less than an hour later on a related article. [42] WCM_email 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

IP resumed disruptive editing after block expired

74.221.181.213 (talk · contribs) has resumed disruptive editing after their temporary block expired. They disrupted at numerous articles and would continue to reinstate their edits without any justification despite reversions from myself and other users. Articles included Kim Yo-jong (diff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Kim Jung-sook (diff 1, 2), Mamie Eisenhower (diff 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6), Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (diff 1, 2, 3, 4) and more (you can see their contribution history is full of reverts). They received multiple warnings on their talk page.

They were blocked for 31 hours on 3 June. (I also suspect them of sockpuppetry and opened an investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/74.221.181.213.) The block has expired and they resumed their disruption at Kim Yo-jong (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The IP was reported by another user at the vandalism noticeboard and blocked for two weeks (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

86.27.177.114 and Abdul afghan

86.27.177.114

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

IP is pushing massive edit warring since 30 May, insisting to add a list of 'Pashtun' (some of them are not even Pashtun) rulers and generals onto articles which it has no relevance to.

[43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Abdul afghan

Abdul afghan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, who has a history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] just restored the IPs edit [64] and even added it to his own userpage [65], same person much? I did previously report the user [66], to no avail however. He has now renewed his previous disruption; [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Another editor just opened a report on Abdul afghan at WP:ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Question from an ANI perspective. Since the user is changing content about unrelated areas to refer to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and/or India, would this make their edits IPA-related, broadly construed, for the purposes of discretionary sanctions? —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• I just blocked the user for one week based on the report at ANEW. I was tempted to block indefinitely as it appears that all of their edits have been disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to create a article on actor please help i left a comment last time but i think it was removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.72 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Query answered in "Article creation" section. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank u but i tried to create article but it doesn't work it doesn't let me create one page help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.72 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Responded on the IP talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange spammer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP is spamming user talk pages with the word kids. 198.14.208.131 please block. --78.79.188.97 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stalking

User:Shencypeter (talk) has begun stalking my edits and also repeatedly restored a vandal's post that I deleted from my talk page. We've had many conflicts on Boeing 737 MAX groundings, but he is now engaging in stalking behavior on unrelated articles that I edit where he has no previous history of edits.

An IP vandal posted on my talk page: Special:Diff/1020635400

I deleted the post, but User:Shencypeter (talk) restored it, twice:

Special:Diff/1022580414

Special:Diff/1022609989

The IP vandal was blocked: Special:Diff/1020835243

I made an edit to Rent-seeking: Special:Diff/1024818249

User:Shencypeter (talk) reverted it: Special:Diff/1025509978

I made an edit to Space Shuttle Challenger: Special:Diff/1027111131

User:Shencypeter (talk) reverted it: Special:Diff/1027115593

He has no previous history of editing those articles. Our history at the Groundings article is poor, but this kind of stalking behavior must stop. DonFB (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, DonFB rejects my changes using the same editing summary. [[78]]Shencypeter (Special:Diff/1025512140) (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

DonFB's messages on my Talk hasn't been the friendliest either. [[79]] (Special:Diff/1025742883) Shencypeter (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Before the conflicts, I had little interest in checking his contribs, [80], which to me clearly shows a pattern of habitually reverting work by other editors with smug editing remarks, or forcing discussion for an article that has not been edited in several months. His contribution puts undue weight of the Challenger's demise, where it is already discussed in detail in paragraph 4 and has its own article. Its this kind of judgement DonFB imposes on others, particularly for lead sections. Now he is calling me out as edit-stalking when he is unable to cope with his work being undone on Wikipedia. Shencypeter (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Shencypeter's talk page comment to DonFB's ANI notification ("Doesn't feel good to have your painstaking keystrokes, actual contributions so brutally invalidated and revered, does it. I mirrored your judgements of my contributions and you're obviously not taking it well.") seems to admit making retaliatory reverts. And there is no justification for Shencypeter reverting DonFB's removal of a post from DonFB's own talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Retracted. I will refrain from making changes to his Talk page, but the editing disputes remain valid.Shencypeter (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient. Your remarks make it clear what was already obvious: you made childish tit-for-tat reverts. This is both hounding and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and it needs to stop immediately and permanently if you wish to remain welcome to edit here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Not here (but in the Philippines)

• 112.206.101.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jurisdrew2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP 112.206.101.69 has only been active for a few days. Their edits are, however, following a disruptive pattern that goes back some months. The edits are mostly removals of smaller or often larger chunks of content, often connected to flags, most often with the disingenious edit summary scobedos (which I have not managed to discover the meaning of). Earlier IPs in the same range and with the same edit pattern are:

• 112.206.102.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.206.110.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.206.107.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ultimately going back to the named accounts

• Jurisdrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juris Drew Del Rosario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

both of which are globally locked for disruptive editing (as is also one of the IPs). Today, the "new" account Jurisdrew2003 surfaced, completing the circle.

Looking at the history of the latest IP, it seems that they are gradually widening the scope of their disruptions to more articles, even targeting pages in User space. I think this needs to be stopped some way or other.

There is a wider problem beneath this. Looking at the global contributions of both the named accounts and the IPs, I see that they are targeting an increasing number of Wikis in other languages, mostly rather small languages where they may go unnoticed, but they are also trying to disrupt Commons and Wikidata. I am not familiar with the workings of global Wiki, so any help with or advice about how to report this globally would be appreciated. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion all the IPs listed above are the same guy, most likely the same person as User:Jurisdrew. I could not find a rangeblock that would do much. The best plan may be to block individual IPs who are recently active for at least two weeks, maybe longer. A place to request global locks is meta:Steward_requests/Global. You could also get an opinion from one of the stewards who did the other global locks such as m:User:Wiki13 or m:User:Ruslik0. Since User:ToBeFree issued some blocks, he might know something about this case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Courtesy link to IP range: 112.206.96.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Notice that most are dominated by the first IP, 112.206.101.69, with most other edits likely being unrelated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the edits from the IPs mentioned in my report (112.206.101.69 and three older with just a few edits), the 0/20 range seems to contain clean edits, so nothing more to achieve here. I'll try to keep an eye on the range, in case there are more disruptive 'scobedos' edits. --T*U (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

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

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

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

I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[81][82][83] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [84]. You have not provided one even today [85]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Adding to the report wrt User:Triggerhippie4:

Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [86]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [87] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).

Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [88] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [89] 'Nominator is a newbie', [90] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.

Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [91] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [92] 'unhelpful', [93] 'for a second time enters PAs'.

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

• Adding to the report wrt User:Gidonb:

Gidonb expressing PA [94] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [95] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [96] pretending not understanding.

Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [97] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [98] and elsewhere [99][100][101] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [102] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [103].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
>User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
I don't consider this ([104]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
>The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
>user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  Thus reminding us why you're under an editing restriction providing for "immediate sanction (including blocks) if [you make] any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". You've really gotta stop seeing dark motives all the time. See also WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression.

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

  Nice try. You write 'I can't even tell who the two editors are' as if they weren't linked. Now you changed into 'confusing report'. If something is unclear, why not ask clarification? Or, if you are unable to grasp the reoports and follow the talkflow, just walk by is an option. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Apparently no one else can can "follow the talkflow" either. You keep posting but no one takes the slightest notice. EEng 19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  No, your 'conclusion' by your 'resoning' that others 'cannot follow' this thread is wrong. ANI has more flaws. Anyway, you are still trolling not discussing. Bye. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  At least I notice you. EEng 00:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings,

In Jan 2021 on occasion of 20 Yrs anniversary year of Wikipedia I did open a discussion @ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) questioning continued use of honorifics in many cases being kind of compromising Wikimedia's policy of neutrality.

Many users gave many excuses, most of them logically refutable but let us keep that disagreement and debate aside for a while here.

A User:SMcCandlish, who was participant in the discussion abruptly gave non–administrative closure discussion. I don't know rules if a discussion participant can close discussion or not, I did not understand need of closing discussion which was not categorized by me as RfC.

Interestingly though I did not declare it as RfC; still User:SMcCandlish not only closed the discussion but on his own put words in my mouth, by co–relating some other RfC of mine, on his own! and awkwardly enough selectively mentioned closure text from other RfC elsewhere, effectively other reader will get dissuaded from reading the discussion again any time in future.

I remember I did promptly protest on his talk page but he did not change his closure statement.

The fact remains if I would have started VP Policy discussion (which was supposed to be coinciding occasion of 20 Yrs of Wikipedia) after my other RfC elsewhere still discussion started by me would have remained relevant.

Now the problem is I want to discuss some aspect of that discussion again at MoS Honorifics talk, but systemically biased and discomforting awkward closure putting words in my mouth is very much dissuading to any likely reader of the discussion. Why I am discussing six month old issue is I sincerely feel I need to take ahead incomplete discussions on relevant WP discussion pages again at some point of time.

My request is, either remove unrelated statement mentioning RfC of elsewhere made by User:SMcCandlish from his closure statement from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 162#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity if Wikipedia rules and customs allow WP admins to do that.

If not, please bear with me whenever I restart the incomplete discussions. I do not know procedures for restarting same but incomplete discussion on policy VP leaves me pained within my mind and heart whenever policy VP comes on my watch list.

I am not sending separate notice to User:SMcCandlish talk page since I am not personalizing the issue nor I am expecting any personal action against the user User:SMcCandlish, but I am expecting simple unbiased closure to previous discussion or freedom to start discussion whenever I wish to take up the incomplete discussion again.

Thanks and warm regards to all the admins

Bookku (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: You are required to notify SMcCandlish about this discussion on his talk page since you are discussing him at length in this post. DanCherek (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek:, Thanks, as suggested by you notified @ User talk:SMcCandlish#A request @ WP:ANI.

Rgds Bookku (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you really need to name them five times if you weren't personalising? The discussion you linked seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING in part. Most of your discussion seems like more of a vent than actually proposing anything actionable, and you even linked the discussion to your RfC in this discussion. In Stanton's close he mentions it is a procedural close as the original discussion now has an end. I'm not sure what you want here, as you mention that the RfC was unrelated, but you specifically mention it. If you have further comments to make on something, then feel free to do so, but don't be surprised if the results of an RfC are brought up if the discussion is too similar to the original topic.

I see nothing actionable here, and I would recommend (in general) keeping things a bit brief and concise if you start a topic - it makes it easier for old guys like me to read through! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not often that I am completely baffled, but here it is. What is SMcCandlish supposed to have done, besides repeating the words from an earlier closure? As SMcCandlish notes, "My closure note says nothing about you at all." Bookku this is starting to look a lot like badgering. Your lengthy and verbose complaints were addressed in the RfC, and you were asked to move on; you didn't, and for some reason you aim your displeasure at SMcCandlish. I am going to let this ride for a while to see if there's some other responses, but I warn you that this thread may result in sanctions for you, like a one-way interaction ban. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: what do you actually want to discuss that wasn't dealt with in the RfC? To be clear by RfC I mean Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not? not the discussion you started on VPP. And why is SMcCandlish's closure of your discussion stopping you from starting a discussion on these issues? It seems to me if you have some new issue which wasn't dealt with at the RfC there's nothing stopping you starting a discussion. There is no reason why it has to be part of the closed VPP discussion, which is after all almost 6 months old and also doesn't seem to clearly raise an issue not dealt with in the RfC. Actually a new focused discussion, where you clearly articulate whatever issue you feel wasn't dealt with at the RfC with a brief explanation why it wasn't dealt with at the RfC would be far better than trying to revive that old VPP discussion. As others have said, SMcCandlish did not comment on you in their closure which largely duplicated the RfC closure. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all the above responses. May be for people like me who fail to do Phd in rules and customs of Wikipedia, and fail in better self representation, Wikipedia need to have advocate services. I will prefer avail any such service than approaching here directly without knowing all nuances of each and every rule out there.

1) If I Wrote user's name 4 times then 2 out of that I wrote to explain there is nothing personal, So again I request please do not count those. If you feel I am absolutely wrong then I am absolutely sorry.

2) RfC discussion on honorifics 'Allama' was entirely different than VP policy discussion raised by me about words Swami, Mahatma, Mother and many more honorifics in usage, rather I made every attempt to dissociate other issues.

Even when 'Allama' discussion did not take place still I would have raised issue of continued usage of some honorifics which personally I find very inconsistent. Still If you feel I am absolutely wrong then I am absolutely sorry.

3) When I say 2 things are not directly related then why we can not request to apply good faith on our side too. As explained in point 2 I fellt troubled, I was not expecting somebody else presuming something on their own without even giving fair opportunity to me and using something on my behalf. But I did not ask any remedy against any user. I kept my request to the minimum that closure of discussion be simpler without comment or comment can be shifted below if your rules and custom permit. If even finding out possibility non personalized redress is an absolute crime then I am absolute sorry.

4) In one of above comment some one said I can discuss points that have further scope on respective forums and thanks for that. Please correct me if I read it wrong. If reading wrong is absolute mistake then I am absolute sorry.

5) My lengthy appeal wasted valuable time of very valuable people then too absolute sorry.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. Wikipedia is not a bureacuracy. Anyone can close any discussion as long as they do so sensibly. And any non-admin can revert another non-admin's closure. This is not a WP:AN matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RevDel needed

A revdel is needed under RD2: [1]. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib•Ping with {{u|Lomrjyo}})} 00:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Also: [105]. lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib•Ping with {{u|Lomrjyo}})} 00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't even see what this is, sorry, due to the giant red text. I've reverted in the interim. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a long list of places in Taiwan, without any spaces between them. It's extremely disruptive (and makes it nearly impossible to view the revision history) because it's enclosed in one hundred and sixty <big> tags, but the content itself doesn't seem that bad. jp×g 06:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah don't see how this fall's under RD2. Unattributed internal copying maybe. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ciyasto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

How to know your conceive date. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Not sure if obvious enough for WP:ANV. I suspect it's just a play on the "How is babby formed" meme. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I don't see anything in that message along that is suspect. Any indication that this is harassment of the targeted user? —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything here that justifies admin action, other than a few eyes on their future contributions. I have given the user a welcome and added their talk page to my watchlist.

This might be someone having fun, or it could just be someone going to the wrong page to ask a sincere question. The wikipedia interface is confusing to new users, and this is not that ignorant of a question like the heading suggests. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, not harassment, it just seems like nonsense to me. Anyone who registers here to ask a random user medical questions is either pulling their leg (WP:NOTHERE) or needs help from professionals (in what field would be TBD), which we are not. I'm okay with HighInBC's suggestion so I'll close this thread. For what it's worth, I'll change the title. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How is babby formed? jp×g 08:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article ownership etc.

Heads up, there's an edit war looming at De Berardinis; not quite three reverts yet but expected imminently. The page is (was) a surname dab, which someone (*) insists on turning into a family history, calling efforts to prevent that vandalism, etc. Moreover, the family history is at best poorly sourced, and likely POV OR. I've reverted the latest such addition, and issued warnings RE article ownership and harassment, but don't really want to wade deeper into the matter in case I've got this wrong somehow.

(*) There are two registered editors with similar names (De Berardinis M and Mark de Berardinis) involved, and two similar IPs; all are SPAs involved in only this article. How many humans are behind these, I've no idea, but my guess is fewer than four. (I'm not saying there's necessarily any puppetry involved, though; could be just account issues.)

Not quite sure what I'm asking for here, or whether this even warrants an ANI, but here I am all the same. Any advice or suggestions? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be the same person. The time period between the edits are two years off which could mean they lost their password and created a new account or something like that. VV 07:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The De Berardinis M account has retaliated by reverting 4 of my recent edits on unrelated articles, seemingly at random. Wire723 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked De Berardinis M for 48 hours for their retaliatory editing. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

Personal attack by user Köscher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is the link.[106][107] Please block him. This is probably a user that is harassing me also on Turkish Wikipedia. Also please remove the edit from my page history and protect my user page.--V. E. (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no real opinion, but I would like to point out this and the fact that all of the user's edits are on talk pages. aeschylus (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This might be a sockpuppet of Tarik289 Tarik298 Kizilokwave Kiziloksea and Hezars which are globally locked accounts. Because the user harassed me after I had made 2 sockpuppet accounts related to Tarik289 blocked in Turkish Wikipedia.--V. E. (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma, the user just got CheckUser blocked, which means that they were misusing multiple accounts. So yes, you may be right. Pinging ST47 as they may have more information on this. aeschylus (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not. I just opened my account. I don't even know who were they, I just saw this user's biased edits on some Turkish history-related pages. Can't I write what I feel about the other users? There is any bad words, harassment etc. He is complying with no logical reasons. I want this case to be dismissed. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kölscher (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you were CheckUser blocked, you must have some pretty big evidence of ties towards those other accounts on your head, hm? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruption

Recently, A weird pattern in recent changes caught my eyes. An IP-switching user has been vandalizing pages related to hurricanes (mainly Hurricane Dean) and persistently undoing reverts made by other users (see here). Examples: [108], [109], [110]. Necctaylor (chat) 17:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP's in your examples, including the /64 range 2600:1700:eff0:61f0::/64, for a few days, but I'm afraid that'll hardly cover all the bases. Hoping there's a smarter admin out there, who can do something smarter. Bishonen | tålk 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

Casting aspersions

Hi. Dani33Para and I have been working on Alin Stoica in the last couple of days and for the most part collaboration went fine. They seemed to feel the article was overly critical of the footballer which I understand to some extent. I tried to make sure content is in line with our guidelines and policies.

We discussed a few bits at their Talk page, User talk:Dani33Para. Unfortunately, Dani33Para couldn't do without repeated casting of aspersions and baseless accusations:

• Wikipedia is not a gossip website to denigrate a person like this. (3 June)
• I am sorry i cannot let you turnish or minimalize his achievements. (4 June)
• If you want your name to appear last on this article go ahead (5 June)

I've found these parts of our interactions really disappointing and they have made the last couple of days of editing much less enjoyable for me. I'd like an administrator to let Dani33Para know these kind of comments are out of line. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please deal with this? I tried to keep my report concise and to the point, it shouldn't take long to review. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Animalworlds314

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Animalworlds314 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Editor got into various troubles adding un-/badly sourced entries to various Lists of mammals by location - to stick with the main theaters, List of mammals of Iran, List of mammals of Turkey, List of mammals of Syria, and List of mammals of Israel. These were mostly sorted out by BhagyaMani with a little help from me. The result was some edit summaries that need to be seen to be believed ([111][112][113]...) and a few even more colourful talk page productions, e.g. [114]. A related discussion at Wikiproject Mammals, to which I invited them, was badgered with cheerful lack of coherence, then led to a dramatic departure in purple prose. That lasted for all of two days. Returning today, we get more of the same editing issues and some new expletives and execrations - oh, and I see I've earned some as well as I'm typing.

By my estimate there's about 5 years of socialization lacking before this (presumably pretty young) editor can function to any degree on Wikipedia. I would be obliged if they could be made to take some of that time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It was clear that a block was necessary. The only issue was how long. I decided on indefinite based on the egregiousness of the personal attacks (against two editors), plus the disruption caused by their edits, plus more than a dash of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast action!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor who can not stop edit warring

Alex Mili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Alex Mili has made a very large number of reverts recently on Kosovo War. 10 reverts in the last 3 days, including 6 in the last 24 hours. They did edit warring over the same content a month ago. They were blocked some time ago for edit warring, and warned again today by two editors, including admin @EdJohnston:. I could take this to the 3RR noticeboard, but I wonder whether this editor should be sanctioned for POV pushing too. Apart from the POV pushing on the Kosovo War article, other POV pushing edits include [115][116][117][118]. They were alerted some time ago about WP:ARBEE on the Balkans [119]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • For clarification, I am not involved in the content dispute with them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Can someone do sth as the reverting cycle continues [120]? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The user's been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. I would think if this continues after a block from the article itself may need to be issued. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• They've been reported to SPI here on suspicion of a duck. dudhhr_Contribs 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Their very first edit after the expiry of the above block was this, which isn't an improvement and which had been reverted previously. However, the SPI seems dubious, since there's no correlation in edited articles, and username links are not particularly obvious. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:S 0524 pushing a political agenda, clumsily merging many pages without discussion

I have done a fair bit of work beefing up the history of various Hong Kong immigration control points. User:S 0524 merging the articles on the Hong Kong border facilities into those in mainland China, example. The problem is that all the content (e.g. the history) is written with the context in mind. The article doesn't make much sense after the Hong Kong historical content has been plopped into an article about a Chinese subject. I have asked them to discuss first before making such mass changes but they have refused. Lastly, this mass merging campaign seems to be motivated by a political agenda (e.g. merging Hong Kong into China). This user's other recent edits revolve around asserting Chinese soverignty over Hong Kong (example), while they also maintain a bizarre user page in which they list the British as "colonizers that all learned their lessons or disappeared by 2000", China as a "tech innovator", and the USA as having a "dominance syndrome". WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not pushing for anything! This user has misunderstood! I asked the user to look into WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. It doesn't make sense to have 2 different pages for the same border checkpoint. Many such pages have already been merged between other jurisdictions. And I asked the used to discuss before reverting my constructive edits! My personal sandbox has nothing to do with it! Please also look at my talk page. Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't have multiple articles for the same facility. Each border crossing should have one article with information about two jurisdictions sharing it. A border crossing is A BORDER CROSSING, not two to have two pages. A border crossing has a history, not two histories. Look at List of Mexico–United States border crossings, San Ysidro Port of Entry, Malaysia–Singapore border, Johor–Singapore Causeway, Malaysia–Singapore Second Link, etc. This is why I merged Lo Wu Control Point into Luohu Port as one article for example. and similarly I have merged all mainland China-Hong Kong SAR checkpoints to one article for each border crossing. And not to have two separate articles for each side of the border crossing. My edits are indeed constructive and by WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING, Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Hong Kong and mainland Chinese facilities have different histories and completely different names from one another. They are not synonymous. And as I mentioned, the "merging" has been done in a very sloppy manner that has created a huge mess with tons of factual errors (e.g. the statement that "Huanggang Port" was built as part of the "New Territories Circular Road project"). All I have asked is that you discuss first (e.g. at WikiProject Hong Kong) before making such a dramatic change. And preferably not use Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Citobun (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Then why don't you start discussing and help edit/enhance these articles? Instead of wasting time here on admin-noticeboards? Please stard discussing and editing. However like I've repeated it a thousand times, look at all other border crossing articles - each border crossing has one article, not two. The same goes for mainland China-Hong Kong border crossings - one crossing = once article. In the article the contents would include the official names from both sides and each border crossing has A HISTORY, not two histories = so one article for one border crossing. Please check WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. Goog luck, looking forward to editing with you in a constructive manner. S 0524 (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Jamesmchel7‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jamesmchel7‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Blocked user continually spamming their own talk page.—Bruce1ee^talk 10:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Binary0101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Binary0101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On User talk:Binary0101 (diff): actions indicate an account trying to evade effects of a ban. This is a blocked sock that appears to be engaging in canvassing relating to Azov Battalion on their talk page by pinging editors who seem to have similar interest in the Azov group, and its representation on this website. The editor also made a veiled allegation that a living person is a "neo-nazi" and that certain editors are editing from a neo-nazi POV. The account seem to be trying to avoid their ban by using their talk page to talk with editors that they feel may be sympathetic towards them. In light of all of this, I'd request that their talk page access be removed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, there's no reason for them to use that talk page for obviously inappropriate stuff like that... @ST47:: blocking admin - mind doing the second half of the work? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam in edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These two edits — [121], [122] — appear to have been made only to promote an email address in their edit summaries.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You may have mispasted, as your diffs are both to the same edit. I think I found the other one, though. I've revision deleted the edit summaries. Thank you, NapoliRoma. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

Oops -- thanks for sorting out my goof.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPA IP engaging in WP:OR and interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources despite multiple warnings

• 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Contributions/2003:C0:6F22:6318::/64
• Special:Contributions/2003:C0:6F31:7E13::/64

The above has repeatedly, despite warnings, tried to use a WP:PRIMARY source to argue for their preferred point of view. Despite multiple warnings about our policies on original research, our preference for academic, peer-reviewed sources, our strict requirements for opinions to be those of reliable sources, not editors, and multiple reliable sources being shown to them that their selective reading of the primary source they write was lacking context and was inaccurate. @Bakkster Man, Hob Gadling, and Terjen: (editors who have made more than one comment about this subject at the relevant section of the talk page). They've been given warnings about GS/COVID (me being thorough, on the current one just to be sure, although I think I've already given it to them previously), and they are not stopping their disruptive, WP:IDHT-style arguments. I think it's time for some sanctions (recognising that this will likely only be a temporary solution before yet another one shows up). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The notice above refers to a vivid discussion with user RandomCanadian on the talk page (there was no edit on the main article) on whether there is anymore a scientific consensus on the origin of COVID-19, given a recent letter by the topmost scientific authorities at the Science magazine, where the scientists declare that a lab leak is a viable and serious hypothesis that must be investigated. In contrast, the above user decided to entirely ignore this stance of the elite segment of the scientific community, because in his intepretation the Science letter is a primary source, and as such, the opinion of these scientists does not change the consensus of the community they belong to. In other words, according to the user, the community has a consensus on the matter, despite the fact that the most elite segment of the community disagrees publicly on a consensus. For the rest, as you can also read, the impartial stance the user had on denying the lab leak as a viable hypothesis made it hard to communicate with him. I simply provided my polite and correct contribution on the talk page, and avoided insulting the user by not replying to multiple personal accusations, and his "bossy language". 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The Science letter is a primary source, that's not controversial (the footnote to WP:PRIMARY is quite clear and common-sense: "Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, [...]") , and it doesn't say anything about what the consensus of the scientific community is (just checked, the words "consensus" or even "majority" do not appear in it), so, yes, as the IP has been told many times, the above is about as clear of a textbook example of WP:OR and POVPUSHING (from an SPA) which is not compatible with what the sources, listed to the IP many times over, say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would leave to admins decide who is pushing a WP:OR by intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. As you see notice here, too, it is not easy to communicate with the above user as he immediately accuses others of POVPUSHING. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't require much interpretation when you have sources saying it explicitly, sources which you have deliberately chosen to ignore. AGF isn't a suicide pact, in either case, and all of your edits have been solely to push this POV which is not supported by the sources. I'm done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. This is the core of the dispute, potentially conflating "viability" with "likelihood". Specifically, can an explanation be "viable, but unlikely" according to mainstream sources, and if so what thresholds do we need to apply to such a determination? The additional policies generally referred to in the discussion include WP:FRINGE/ALT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, and WP:GEVAL, all relating to how we handle mainstream versus minority views.

I'm too close to the discussion (and it's gone on for so long) to know if this is a case of good-faith discussion surrounding a difficult to communicate topic being contentious, or otherwise, and I'll leave my thoughts on the topic itself out of this section. Ping @Stonkaments, Forich, and Horse Eye's Back: as additional editors who can provide additional context and perspective. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I vote that i) we lecture the accused user with the relevant Wikipolicies; ii) he creates an account; iii) Ask him if he has any motivation to push a POV in this topic; iv) If he acts on good faith, watch his edits so that they are not disruptive; and v) if he becomes obnoxious on talk pages, well, those get archived fast its not a big deal. Maybe advise him to take a break from talk pages. Forich (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant information regarding the user and an account.[123] Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there are plenty of secondary reliable sources reporting on the letter in Science that is the core of this dispute, such as the May 13 New York Times article by Carl Zimmer et al: "Researchers urge an open mind, saying lack of evidence leaves theories of natural spillover and laboratory leak both viable." Terjen (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The primary discussion thread involved, for those looking for a quicker way to view the dispute, is Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any behavior from IP that I would consider disruptive or worthy of sanctions. Frankly I'm surprised this was brought to ANI; it seems very premature and unnecessary. Until recently, the lab leak hypothesis was being characterized (on WP and elsewhere) as a fringe, racist conspiracy theory. Whether or not the hypothesis turns out to be true, it was clearly wrong to characterize it as a meritless conspiracy theory. I think we should learn from that, and be extra careful not to repeat the same mistake by being too quick to proclaim a scientific consensus. In light of these earlier missteps and premature declarations, some vigorous pushback and defense of the validity of the lab leak theory is understandable, and very welcome in my opinion. It's bound to be a contentious subject, and barring any egregious or blatant disruptive behavior, I believe the discussion will benefit by giving everyone enough WP:ROPE to make their case. Stonkaments (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Other

How'd you deal with this kind of aspersion casting? I've been personally harassed on my talk page by sockpuppets, meatpuppets and SPAs; I've been the subject of dubious complaints by the same; now this. I'm considering just fucking off, if this is as bad as it's gotten. That or dragging it upstairs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin should take action on this unacceptable comment linked in the diff. It would be a shame to lose RandomCanadian over this. starship.paint (exalt) 01:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. That's flat out not acceptable, and a statement needs to be made against it, irrespective of the recently-filed Arbitration case. I welcome a review of the block by the community; I will be away from my computer over the next 12-18 hours, so any administrator is free to alter the block if they wish. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, this post by Tinybubi is very suspicious. An account, created in 23 March 2021 [124] [125], says We have seen many accounts like yours before, and you almost always end up getting banned and never let back, and Tinybubi uses a diff from 1 March 2021 [126]. Smells like a sockpuppet. starship.paint (exalt) 07:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Tinybubi/sandbox is also suspicious, because I've seen that page before (and it's one of their very first edits; showing either that they're the same person; or colluding off-wiki). Now I can't remember (other similar tables pushed by sock-puppets include the first edits of this one) where exactly, but 100% this isn't the first time I've seen this. @Drmies: I might have contacted you previously about something similar (for BEANS reasons). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got nothing for you, but given the likely amount of meating that doesn't mean much. Daniel, thanks for the block. I think it's time for discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

My two cent opinion here on this matter, although I do not know the user Tinybubi, and I definitely condemn any type of harassment against the user RandomCanadian, despite our heated exchanges on the article above. On the other hand, RandomCanadian, although you seem to be a knowledgeable editor (and I believe a very fine person) I witnessed that you are rigid in accepting opinions or interpretations that differ from yours (or from what you believe to be the right way) and you aggressively attack newcomers who try to reason an opposing argument, by quickly accusing them as POV-pushers, SPAs, or by trying to end an ongoing discussion with ultimatums "do as I want or I sent you to ANI". Definitely, some of the IPs you have to deal with are likely trolls and perhaps quite annoying, but remember behind the IPs you have many proper human beings that are by no standard inferior in reasoning just because they are not senior WP editors. The world does not have only "good" editors and "annoying" trolls, there are billions of clever and proper individuals outside these two categories. I was once an editor at WP and quitted due to time management issues, but, you have to relax a bit and not take discussions with a hot-blooded attitude. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and WP:BOOMERANG

While efforts to investigate all hypotheses, and the lab leak hypothesis in particular, are ongoing [127] [128], it is too early to class it as fringe, and Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy should not apply here. I recall saying this to Bakkster Man, who I very much respect, in the previous ANI opened by RandomCanadian [129], but he did not respond, and it's not surprising for other editors to bring this up again. As for 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51, I haven't read all their posts, but I would encourage them to register an account again in order to be taken more seriously. As for RandomCanadian, I would caution him against filing further ANIs against other editors on the topic of the lab leak hypothesis with spurious claims of misconduct. This is now the third such ANI after [130] and [131] so WP:Boomerang applies. CutePeach (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

My position on WP:FRINGE remains much the same, but I don't think ANI is the right venue to resolve a dispute on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "unlikely" and "fringe". But no one editor should feel that keeping Wikipedia NPOV depends upon them only , and possibly RandomCanadian may have pushed too hard and too repeatedly and in too many places on this issue. But I can understand that they may well be feeling frustrated by the apparent inability of many editors to realize that consensus both in the scientific community and the general world opinion can change, especially when it leads them to apparently reject both academic and non-academic source that we normally regard as the very highest quality. I do not think a Boomerang is appropriate here, just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, DGG. I am indeed, as you describe, frustrated, which is why I went to ArbCom, seeing that there was no appetite for actual serious action elsewhere, nor too much respect for our usual content policies (when you have to repeat, time and time again, that opinion pieces in newspapers are not acceptable sources for much besides the opinion of their authors, and when you even take the time to provide reliable, peer-reviewed papers which methodically refute some of the claims made in newspapers; you'll understand that this gets incredibly frustrating). Couple that with harassment ([132], [133], [134], [135], [136]), aspersion casting ([137], as a recent example), and proven socking (1; 2), you'll understand why I've totally come to the conclusion that an IP, whose sole dubious edits are on one specific talk page, is suspicious.
  • As for the content dispute, note that recent scientific publications don't seem to show a pattern of a changing consensus (this recent review in Lancet Resp Med glances over the subject as though there were no controversy at all) amongst scientists [unlike the wild swing in media coverage], and that while I've been open to using non-scientific sources for non-scientific matters (compare [138] and [139]), these are not appropriate for actual scientific claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian please always WP:AGF and keep up to date with the latest news [140] [141]. CutePeach (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

AGF isn't a suicide pact. No reply to the rest since I'll AGF that you're not using newspapers as sources for serious science, and that any information from these about politics and the like can be proposed for inclusion at the relevant articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Pending ArbCom case request

It should be noted that the topic of this AN/I thread is also the subject of a WP:ARB case request here (permalink). jp×g 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Happy Shoes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mr Happy Shoes is posting long diatribes on how The Sun and Daily Mail should be used for sourcing pedophilia accusations. In his latest post he has attacked me ("your prejudice", "your sordid mind") and Wikipedia editors at large ("amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia editors"). Can someone stop this please?VikingDrummer (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And can someone ask this person to be factually accurate in their reports. I am categorically not asking for the Sun/Mail to "be used for sourcing pedophilia accusations", that was no doubt framed that way to trigger the very prejudices I am speaking about. I am asking for one specific exemption for use of two very obviously true reports of a mostly dry factual legal reporting flavour, which detail an actual criminal conviction, with quotes, not an accusation, and which have only a slight smattering of quite understandable tabloid style empotery on top. And yet which, on a point of fact, don't even mention the word pedophilia. That is indeed the sordid invention of VD.

There is a clear choice here for Wikipedia's amorphous blob of editors, which has admittedly thus far shown remarkable unanimity in their wish to hold the line and maintain the prejudice. Doesn't mean they are right. It can mean they have simply chosen not to acknowledge basic facts. It is very simple. Wikipedia can either let its anti-tabloid prejudices get in the way of protecting children, or not. There are no sound, logical or even remotely well thought out reasons to otherwise believe these reports are false, and believe me, I have given everyone enough opportunity to demonstrate they exist. Some of the arguments given have literary been absurd. Amanda Knox is guilty apparently, that is a tabloid report. An obvious lie, it was up for all of two minutes, but who cares, right? Nobody can provide any other examples, but who cares, right? It is straight up prejudice. That is the essence of my "diatribe", as briefly as it can be stated.

I would appreciate genuine engagement on the facts, not bluster and distortion to hide the fact that this is a prejudice. If asking these question is considered disruptive to Wikipedia, then so be it. If it goes south, in ways I have outlined elsewhere, do not say you weren't given ample opportunity to adequately explain the editorial decisions of the Wikipedia community. You need to own your decisions, just as I must now share blame for probably putting children at risk by not foreseeing how Wikipedia would prioritise their prejudice over other concerns. That biography is a lie, by omission. If that is a deliberate editorial choice, made on the facts, then you need to own it. Every single part of it. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer, I would advise you to simply ignore this SPA who tries to sound clever by writing long, complex sentences where they are unable to convey the right message through their quintuple negatives: "No credible reason is being offered as to why these specific reports, especially given the lack of any contradictory information, cannot be assumed to be inaccurate." (first line of their very first message). Policy is to exclude negative BLP claims made only in unreliable sources, and no amount of convoluted reasonings and demands by "new" editors will change this. Fram (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Policy is to consider context and circumstances in all cases, and no amount of blind assertion will change that. You are free to believe that withholding a negative in this scenario adds up to a positive for Wikipedia. If you have arrived at that conclusion without examining the facts and circumstances, then welcome to the unintended consequences of prejudice. Do not assume that just because you might be able to get away with treating me with such obvious disrespect, that I am not the sort of utter bastard who might take that very, very, personally. I helped to correct your obvious mistake of believing Mark Kukula was not notable according to your definition. I did so without knowing Wikipedia had this much of a blind prejudice against tabloids, such that the result would be a wholly misleading "biography". If you mean to repay that kindness with overt disrespect like this, then I for damn sure will make you pay for it. If there is anyone here who has any proof these reports are actually very likely to be false, show it now. Not blind assertion, not strongly held personal opinion, actual proof. A well constructed, evidence based, context specific argument. If there is anyone here who wants to take the chance that nobody out there, tabloids or broadsheets, never mind governments, will see your reluctance to do so for what it is, and will therefore appreciate the small but not negligeable risk to children your overt prejudice has created in this specific scenario, speak up now. Don't be acting later like you didn't have any idea I wasn't just some random mook who didn't know what he was talking about and was just randomly annoyed about some random scenario for some unfathomable reason. I can read a Wikipedia policy. I can construct an argument. I can pose relevant questions that do warrant an actual answer. And I can tell when people are bullshitting me. Don't test me. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's "dry and factual", then you can certainly find better sources than the Daily Fail. If the Daily Fail is the only one reporting on it, then both it's general unreliability, WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS suggest we don't use it. No amount of long diatribes is going to change it. End of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Daily Fail" aren't the only newspaper to report it, and other than this bogus idea that it might be wrong because it's in the tabloids (the two most widely read newspapers in Britain), if it were in a "reliable" source as you define it, even if it was word for word, you're actually not going to find any other Wikipedia policy that says not to include this highly pertinent information in this man's biography. I have looked. I am not stoooopid. But thank your for opening with a derogatory term like Daily Fail, and thus showing you have paid no real attention to the context beforehand, so as to determine which policies and principles might and might not be relevant. That helps a lot in showing that the roadblock here really is just simple prejudice against the tabloids. For some reason, the word Mail just triggers people here. Defies explanation, certainly in important edge cases like this, where they don't actually seem to have any evidence or experience to justify it either. Other than the obviously ridiculous Amanda Knox example. I mean, really. That was an example of people here thinking outsiders really are just that stoooooopid. I've asked for a specific explanation, all I am getting is this endless restatement of the underlying prejudice, like I somehow didn't get it the fifty previous times. Bizarre. But I guess that's what prejudice is. A thoughtless reactionary dogmatic response to certain trigger words. Simple as. A simple thing, for simple people, perhaps. I am for example, guessing that not one person I have spoken to here yet, is an actual honest to goodness trained journalist. And I am happy to define that as broadhseet journalist here, if it makes my meaning clearer. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And threats are even less likely to have any success here: "If you mean to repay that kindness with overt disrespect like this, then I for damn sure will make you pay for it.", coupled with the governments "will see your reluctance to do so for what it is, and will therefore appreciate the small but not negligeable risk to children your overt prejudice has created", comes very close to legal threats (as usual with such, hollow ones of course). Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No legal threats issued, or intended. Feel free to carry on picking and choosing which parts of my statements you take issue with though, while ignoring the rest. That will improve my inclination greatly. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As a note, not only is there the RS/N comments, but also one at BLP/N, and while those are not in the realm of attacking editors, yet, it contributes to the overall problem. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Marek Kukula. (Short issue is that we have a BLP that (assuming true) has been convicted on pedophila charges, something we'd absolutely include with RS sourcing, but no sources beyond the UK Daily Mail and Sun have reported on it. No one has found anything else, though we can see the impact of the charges through non-usable sources (no longer listed at the Royal Observatory, etc.), so its unlikely they fabricated it, but they are still fully unusable sources for BLP) --Masem (t) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's more than unlikely, it's downright preposterous. I have asked and asked for any concrete proof that this belief might be in error, given the circumstances. Any proof at all that British tabloids would act in this way, in this context. The silence speaks volumes. Tabloids just do not fabricate stories and quotes when it comes to basic and serious court reporting like this. You're talking about them knowingly fabricating the words of an actual criminal court judge, speaking about a man who held a high profile role in a beloved institution, and you're actually seriously asking people to believe the editors of the Sun or the Mail would not only see that as a profitable business model, that they would both do it together, using the same made up quotes. Beyond ridiculous. It would be suicide. It defies belief. Wikipedia editors are supposed to have brains. They're supposed to be able to figure out complex scenarios like this, and come to a sensible conclusion. Policies are advisory, and cannot cover every situation. The principle of not doing something stupid overrides them all. Instead, I have been met with nothing but the same rehashed and repeated prejudice, peppered with irrelevant issues, as if anyone here is really talking about celebrity tittle tattle, or mere "accusations". It's insulting. This is a report of a conviction. A factual report in the main, only slightly seasoned with emotive tabloidease. It either happened, or it didn't, and you don't need to be a mathematician to work out the probabilities involved, given the complete and total lack of any contrary indications. There is not a single one. This is an ugly parody of what an encyclopedia would and should do, when making editorial decisions. You wouldn't see this level of cut your nose off to spite your face sheer idiocy, even in an actual tabloid newsroom. All of you should be ashamed. It says a lot that not one of you are. Not one. You're actually bizarrely proud, some of you. Pretty sick. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment This editor has written 73,531 bytes across 7 pages about this matter in the past 9 days, and has made no other edits in any other area. This is in addition to a 7,712 byte expansion of the article in question, Marek Kukula (note that their article editing appears to be pretty good). On top of this, this editor has expressed emotional distress at the thought of not covering this (see edits here, as well as at WP:RSN#Very serious crime, but only deprecated sources and WP:BLPN#Marek Kukula). There might be some personal connection, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No connection here at all. Emotionally speaking, I feel sadness that I may have inadvertently helped Wikipedia pose a threat to children, anger that nobody else here seems to give a crap that this is a possible outcome of this ridiculous prejudice it wants to hold against tabloids despite all reason and their embarrassing inability to admit that the circumstances and context here certainly don't warrant it, and downright hatred of someone like Fram, for his open disrespect, like I'm just some know nothing idiot whose opinion doesn't count. Who the hell does he think he is, seriously. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy shoes have many socks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy shoes hide many tears! Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The Sun and Daily Mail are not considered reliable sources via WP:THESUN/WP:DAILYMAIL. Jerm (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Despite the many words that have been spent on this the issue is really very simple. Nobody has found any reliable sources that confirm or deny that the person in question here was convicted of an offence and received a 21-week suspended sentence, so Wikipedia should neither confirm nor deny it. It is perfectly normal for Wikipedia not to include information about crimes that attract such minor sentences, even if (or especially if) the nature of the crime disgusts many people. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you don't really understand the law here. The most serious part of the sentence, was the seven year control order. But also, if you want to claim that being told that for the next 21 weeks, if you do X, y or az, you will be sent straight to prison, and presumably into solitary confinement for your own safety, is a minor sentence, that's your lookout. People can see that level of reason for what it is. Traffic offence, this was not. A career ending crime, it was. With the surprise reveal that it actually occurred before the main part of his career, the part he said he loves because he gets to work with children. If it is perfectly normal for Wikipedia not to document the conviction that presumably ends a person's chosen career, especially in cases where they have not got one single iota of proof thet this isn't what has happened, and especially when it was a highly pertinent conviction, then you won't have any trouble for example, furnishing a few examples? Or even one, perhaps. This is just more of the same absurdity dressed up as logic. An actual biographer wouldn't omit this detail, and Wikipedia is as close to this man will ever get to having a biography, for which I am now profoundly sorry to him, because it is going to look to some as if this obvious whitewash is somehow his doing. You are the public record of his life. You and those tabloid reports. That's everything Google knows about this man, and it is front and centre. So that should be your actual starting point of any debate about whether you think Wikipedia should actually acknowledge their existence or not. Many more words can be written about this, and none of them paint Wikipedia in a very good light at all. This is irresponsibility, couched as responsibility. An almost perfect example of why Wikipedia might need professional editorial oversight, at least for special cases like this. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

London IPs targeting me with reversions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 51.9.50.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For the past few weeks I have been the target of someone in Greater London who always reverts a handful of my edits, no matter what those edits were. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/51.9.50.0/21? Other involved IPs include 86.187.166.173, 86.187.224.172, 86.187.230.211, 86.187.224.68, 143.159.171.74 and 143.159.171.46.

The problem started on 12 May with 143.159.171.127 reverting Bbb23, JalenFolf and myself, quickly getting blocked by Ponyo.

The targeting is so obvious that Notfrompedro came to my talk page to ask what this person was on about. I can't identify the original conflict. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like a legitimate edit by the IP. Why were you edit warring to remove a comma that looks like it should be there?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. Looks like I got swept up in WP:BANREVERT actions after sockpuppet AllenKirk hit a few articles.[142] So that suggests sockpuppeteer Brettandelle is behind the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    Ah, I see. OK then.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked 51.9.50.128/25, which is the usual size of these ranges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that's a relief. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone please close the discussion at Talk:Azov Battalion#POV pushing edit-a-thon by Azov members as WP:NOTAFORUM, before it gets completely out of hand? Not discussing the article, just acting as an attractor to get editors worked up while an RFC is in progress. Thanks. —Michael Z. 06:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and done this myself. —Michael Z. 13:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:103.134.130.144 refusing to adhere to guidelines.

GoodDay,
just wanted to bring this to the attention of Admins.
I am not sure if this belongs here or on WP:AN3
WP:ANI notification has been done on User_talk:103.134.130.144

IP USER User:103.134.130.144 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) first edited the page Shinde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by adding uncited additions[1] and [2] and removing wikilink to the page Dalit, which looked pretty prejudicial to me.
I then re added the wikilink for Dalit and also added Template:Citation_needed to the additions in 1,2 above - [3]. Following this User:103.134.130.144 again removed the aforementioned wikilink and used an old citation (which was used elsewhere on the Shinde page in lieu of the Template:Citation needed) [4].
However If you check the citation used - it points to a publication on google, which has a search function and by searching for the terms in question (Patil,deshmukh) [1] - it turns up blank, these terms are nowhere mentioned in the cited publications. So I reverted these changes, with an explanation[5]. I also left him a message on his talk page User_talk:103.134.130.144 and on Talk:Shinde.
Following this USER:103.134.130.144 once again repeated the same edits as [4] ->here [6]. User:103.134.130.144 also used a wikipedia article as reference to remove another Template:Citation needed in contravention to WP:CIRC. This again I reverted with advice that Wikipedia articles should not be used as a reference especially articles which themselves are tagged as in need of references[7], simultaneously leaving a message on User_talk:103.134.130.144.
User:103.134.130.144 has again gone ahead and removed the Template:Citation_needed and added citations to Wikipedia articles[8] which do not provide references to the additions initially made by said USER.

I have already done 3 reverts on the page and do not wish to continue anymore, lest I be penalized. I leave the rest to the knowledge and decision of the admins. STC1 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've slightly improved the page, and taking a look at the history, I think indef SP is likely a decent step considering how this list seems to be a persistent disruption magnet. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• The page has now been semi-protected by Chetsford for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I want to know where i can declare proxies and VPN.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I found some proxies vpn ip who do vandalism. user:193.228.99.5 193.228.99.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/193.228.99.5

user:213.162.73.160 213.162.73.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/213.162.73.160

user:213.162.80.225 213.162.80.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/213.162.80.225

Where can i declare these proxies?. Thank you. --112.172.112.143 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Legal threat by 106.203.145.225

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Diff. I think this is self-explanatory. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, though most likely this is a dynamic IP which would never come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at my talkpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here [143], from Salim567. Asking an admin to do what an admin should do. I put this at AIV earlier today, but it's been removed by a bot for being stale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've indef'd them for that. There's no call for that at all and even not a legal threat, that's a direct threat to you itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DrKay and Abbyjjjj96

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reporting DrKay (talk · contribs) for harassment. They commented on my talk page after I made it clear I didn't want them to and had even told them that I viewed them continuing to as harassment. Brief context is that we disagreed whether their comments on my talk page are misrepresentations (I say they are, they say they aren't). It was just going back and forth and became clear we weren't going to agree and I wanted to end the conversation, so I told them if they continued I would revert (at the end of my comment, diff). They replied (diff), I reverted (diff), they replied (diff), I reverted and made explicitly clear that I didn't want them to reply and viewed it as harassment by this point (diff), and they replied again (diff). (In that final diff, their reply ends with "If you do not wish me to respond here, do not ping me in edit summaries or make comments that require a response", 1) I was not pinging them (since when does reverting someone without removing their username (which is automatically generated) ping them? I have never received a ping alert when I've been reverted), and 2) "do not [...] make comments that require a response" speaks for itself.

I see this as harassment per WP:NOBAN. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I stopped posting to your talk page after you asked me not to. Since then, it's been you posting to my talk page[144][145] and pinging me to discussions at noticeboards.[146] As I said to you, if you want me to stop responding, don't ping me to discussions and make comments that require a response.[147] DrKay (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you replied again after I made it clear I didn't want you to and regarded it as harassment, as I have shown in the diffs above. The last diff I linked above was your last reply on my page. I reverted that (diff) and, because you were accusing me of pinging you, I responded at your talk page (as you linked, diff) instead of in the edit summary to explicitly ask you to leave me alone (to which you replied with more misrepresentations, just as you are doing here). When reporting a user here, you are required to notify them on their talk page, and I was under the impression you are supposed to link to them in your report. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was just about to say that this was a tempest in a teacup, and that I was confident DrKay wouldn't post to Abby's talk page anymore, but this response by DrKay is disingenuous. Abby, it's poor form to revert people with parting shots in the edit summaries like that. DrKay, it's poor form to post on someone's talk page when you know you're not welcome, whether or not they're taking parting shots at you, and misrepresenting it as "requiring a response". It's also misrepresentation to say you stopped posting to their talk page when they asked you to; "I'll revert you if you post to my talk page" is telling you not to post there. It's also misrepresentation to equate your posts with their posts to your talk page, one of which actually is required by policy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Struck. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, I'd say this is resolved; both users are highly unlikely to post to each others' talk pages now, or ping each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all that happens when you harass someone? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't DrKay an admin? I find that concerning given that they also repeatedly made misrepresentations. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Look, "harass" is a strong word for something that is (IMHO) 60% DrKay's fault and 40% yours. They posted 2-3 times to your talk page after you said not to in a rude way. That's not really harassment. They won't post there anymore. Are you looking to not have to deal with them on this issue anymore, or are you looking for them to get in trouble? And I'll pay you 43 quatloos not to use the word "misrepresentation" for the next 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN links to WP:HARASSMENT. I have never reported a user for harassment before, and am discouraged that the response is just 'okay, you won't do it anymore? All is well then!', especially given they repeatedly gaslit me with their denials on my talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, it says "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." The repeatedly part isn't there, but I would still push for an "I shouldn'ta done that" for the one post. I don't think most experienced users polled would feel that the automatic ping that happens when someone uses the Undo button is an invitation to further discussion, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to note: there is no "automatic ping" with the use of the undo button unless the editor has checked that box in the "Notifications" section of "Preferences". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't remember checking that box and just assumed it was the default. My bad. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm now not able to warn Abbyjjjj96 a second time about edit-warring on their talk page, I shall instead point out here that even though Abbyjjjj96 is no longer edit-warring at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, that doesn't mean that it is OK to do so at his sister's article: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, 5th revert. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was accidental. The first 2 reverts were for different users violating a guideline, and then the 3rd was because the second user claimed consensus had been reached on the talk page when a discussion was still taking place. With the 4th and 5th, a user had removed material citing original synthesis, and I reworded it thinking that resolved the issue. However, they reverted me saying it was still original synthesis, and so I replaced the sources with a better one. They sent me a thanks notification for that edit. It did not occur to me that those two edits were reverts; after checking over WP:3RR before replying here, I see that they count as partial reverts. WP:3RR says I should revert myself if I've mistakenly violated it, but that material was later removed by another user (diff). If I'm to receive a block or some other action is to be taken, I do not trust DrKay to be impartial given my recent encounters with them and it should be decided by another admin. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sixth revert, reverting [148]. DrKay (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Our initial dispute at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor involved DrKay reverting me and reincluding the middle name in the infobox's name parameter even though Template:Infobox person says not to and I had informed them of this (diff, diff). I explained it again on my talk page afterwards (diff, which they saw because they responded (diff)). Despite clearly now being aware of the style guideline, they added the middle name to that parameter at Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You call this disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing over time on many articles. All you've shown is a single edit, since corrected by another over 4 hours ago[149]. Perhaps you would care to provide a diff of me re-adding the middle name at Archie's article, or any other article in addition to Lili's, since our discussion? DrKay (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Amended 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I very much agree with what Floq says above. I also saw the reverts and PBlocked Abbyjjjj96 from the article for a couple days hoping it would provide some breathing room. Could the two of you just step away from the bickering, maybe even avoid each other for a while. There are plenty of other things to be accomplished out there, and I really hate IBans. — Ched (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected the sub-heading of this section to more accurately reflect the situation. I am happy to cease all contact, if such a stoppage is reciprocated. DrKay (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Making an edit which violates a guideline you were just repeatedly informed of is disruptive, even if it is occurring on a different article. I was going to step away after my last comment here but find that them repositioning this as two-way harassment misleading and offensive. It's appalling that an admin is being given a pass on this kind of behaviour. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate for a user who has been reported for harassment to change the sub-heading to two-way harassment, so I set it back. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 harassment

I am being harassed. I want it stopped. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two users engaged in a slow edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lukewon (talk · contribs) and Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk · contribs) have been engaged in a slow edit war since March at Miss_Universe_2017. While neither has hit the 3rr, there have been 39 edits and reversions by these two since March- arguing over who won most photogenic- and if a source from Indonesia is reliable. Nguyenquochieu calls Lukewon's edits vandalism, [[150]] repeatedly [[151]] [[152]] while Lukewon inserts a directive to not remove their change [[153]] repeatedly ..... [[154]] [[155]] and then Lukewon decides Nguyenquochieu is biased [[156]] and Lukewon accuses Nguyenquochieu of being a sock- but never bothers to report them as such [[157]]. Other users tried to engage them on the talk page to end this to no avail. [[158]]. The issue was then brought to the DRN where I closed it since no discussion had taken place between the involved editors on the talk page- only in menacing edit summaries. [[159]]. I advised both there and on the miss Universe talk page that they needed to quit edit warring and start working towards a compromise. Another DRN Volunteer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) did the same The result was another post from Lukewon making more accusations towards Nguyenquochieu [[160]]. In all of this Nguyenquochieu has continued editing other pages but has refused to engage with other editors at all. Their editing history shows very niche editing and a ton of reverting with questionable WP:AGF [[161]]. I am proposing either both editors step in, appologize, and start working together- or admins impose a break from editing anything Miss Universe related- broadly construed (maybe 30 days?). Nightenbelle (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Just noting this subject is under general sanctions: WP:GS/PAGEANT - Bri.public (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really in the way other subjects are. There is no {{GS/alert}} for this area either. The article is already extended-confirmed protected in response to sockpuppetry, and this protection already goes beyond the general sanction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the report.

• Special:Diff/1027731971 should prevent further violations of WP:ONUS.
• Special:Diff/1027733652 should prevent further personal attacks on article talk pages.
• Special:Diff/1027733257 will prevent further disruptive editing from Nguyenquochieu2107, who has disruptively ignored community concerns after many warnings.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated CSD tag deletion, meatpuppetry, et al.

• Rza835 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.244.124.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.172.93.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So User:Rza835 has created the pages Emil Shahin and Emil Şahin like 5 times at this point. There was an AfD regarding the first (here's the link). The article has since been nominated and deleted for CSD under G4 since it's essentially exact same copies. Where the issue comes in, however, is the after the CSD nomination occurs. A group of different IP ranges, those being 77.244.124.118 and 213.172.93.77, have come out of the woodwork when the articles are CSD nom'd and start delete the CSD tag. Most recently, this happened about 40 minutes before the writing of this ANI, but as User:DoubleGrazing noted in the original AfD from over 2 weeks ago, the tag deletion happened then too.

It's to my understanding that the IPs and Rza are different people. I'm judging this based off of the constant usage of the words us and we and our ([162] [163] [164]). Regardless this is a blatant meatpuppetry if that is the case.

And as Rza noted on my talk page ([165]), "our composer asked us to create an article for him and he is sent to be deleted every time", which also means this has a good chance to be undisclosed paid editing too.

This cabal has also created the same exact article on the same subject in both the Azerbaijani ([166]) and Russian ([167]) Wikipedias.

(Additionally pinging User:twotwofourtysix since they've posted on his talk page as well.)

Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

213.172.93.77} and Rza835 I forget to log in when I log in from different browsers. Please help to create my Emil Shahin article. We created it with a wrong title before. As Emil Şahin, we have now edited it so that it is titled Emil Shahin. help me now I'm not a bot or spam I just want my article to be published on wikipedia. If you can help me, we won't have any problems again.Rza835 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

They declared that the information on the article was "provided by the person himself." [168] Probably some conflict of interest going on. Also, while the articles may heve changed since the AfD, it seems to me that most of the references just point to external sites of galleries and likely don't verify the information or indicate notability of the subject. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Then could you please tell me what to do? Because the informations (references) are all true and came from reliable sources. Rza835 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm unable to speak to the other incarnations of this article, but the one I AfD'd 2+ weeks ago was virtually unreferenced, as mentioned in the nom.

I also can't help noting, WP:AGF etc. notwithstanding, that forgetting to log in when deleting speedy tags seems fortunate, if that's what's being offered as the explanation.

Finally, Rza835's contributions on Commons, all uploaded as 'own work', do strongly suggest COI (or else copyvio — something I queried on their talk page, but never received a response). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing The pictures are mine, what can I do for you to confirm it? help me with this. You're all making comments like I've committed a major crime instead of helpingRza835 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, what you could have done was respond when I asked about this earlier. But now that you have, you've also confirmed that you have a conflict of interest, because to have copyright of such photos clearly means you have a relationship of some sort with the article subject. A notice was posted by Deb on your talk page on 19 May asking you to declare and/or otherwise deal with this, but I'm not aware that you have? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing ok then help us to deal with our problems and let's deal with it. There's no point in raising small problems. We were new to Wikipedia, these problems happened, now we are working to fix it.Rza835 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Rza835 - Who is the "we" you keep talking about? Are you aware that a Wikipedia ID cannot be owned by a group or organisation? Deb (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DebWhen I say we, I keep myself on hand. I am not an Englishman, so there may be mistakes in my speech and writing.Rza835 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted the latest instance of the article pursuant to G4, and have left a note at User talk:Rza835. UninvitedCompany 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced OR additions by IP user

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

This IP user is constantly adding their own OR measurements from Google Earth, even changing data if it was supported by RS. Despite warnings on the talk page and clear instructions in the edit summary, this IP user just doesn't respond or alter their editing practices. A ban seems in order. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not an expert on this, obvs, but: could it be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? It seems the user in question is editing mainly/only on mobile (aka 'cellphone' to our American friends, I believe). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

They heard me: after I gave this warning on June 2 to add references, they started adding references to Google Earth, such as this edit. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Independent admin requested: personal attack from User:A21sauce warranting escalation of block?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• A21sauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• diff of personal attack in question

See WP:ANEW for history of user reporting editors on the other side of a disagreement at Dianne Morales. User made a personal attack against those other editors at Talk:Dianne Morales (diff). In the interval while I was blocking A21sauce for edit warring, user made a similar personal attack against me.

I feel too involved to escalate this block for WP:NPA. I request a second set of eyes to review the situation.

Be advised that the user is blocked and cannot comment here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Done; the block no longer has an automatic expiration date. As the user can't comment here, any questions or advice about this situation should be written at User talk:A21sauce. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTHERE editor casting aspersions and filing a frivolous Arbcom request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

What it says on the tin. Frivolous requests at ArbCom (from an account whose first edit is from April 29, and who hasn't edited much since then), broad-ranging aspersion casting ([169], [170]), what seems to my mostly uninvolved eyes as harassment of Genetics4good. The editor seems to have a WP:RGW attitude, on top of all else. @Primefac: If you feel uninvolved enough to act on this (and spare me having to go through the formality of giving them a notice). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have seen the deleted ArbCom request by the subject editor, and the spam that they dumped on multiple administrators. I agree with RandomCanadian that the subject editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Canadians opinion doesn't count, Canada is as socialist as France today, I pity the mind of those who live in these places, soon they will be the wife of an Islamic... the Social Punisher who lives on an ice block that will never see the Amazon wanting to know more than the Brazilian who lives in the place of interest. Go coward, ban my account. The poor guy who shows the truth of this contaminated waste has to be banned, right. Smart people bother the herd of trained monkeys, right. The German Wiki has no credibility because it is biased, the French Wiki is ridiculous because it only has leftist militants, the Portuguese Wiki is a dictatorial pot of little friends, the English Wiki is handed over to a 15-year-old mental group who live in a New York-California-London-Ottawa big cities bubble that believes in Greenpeace junkies that will die without seeing a forest in life. Do you really think that someone who is not a communist believes these rubbish articles about the Amazon written by communist party soldiers? Corbont (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The rant directly above is all the evidence needed for an indefinite NOTHERE block, which I have just applied. Oy vey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User(s) editing as unregistered (IP) after having their account blocked for harassment

• 2600:1004:B039:8C09:CDDF:95D0:2AB5:BDFE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:6080:2C05:DBD6:318C:7837:9B6:D354 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:6080:2C05:DBD6:811A:604C:6CB7:930C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Above IPs most likely evading a block of one or more of these accounts: JilleeLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Janjakim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or LilleeJeanCloutChasingFraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs: [171] [172] [173]

Context: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Harassed

Background: Recently there was a dispute at Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. regarding whether certain content should or should not be included in that article. Since it seemed that a number of users had registered accounts just to participate, I had them checked at SPI. The check revealed that they were different users, although still engaging in meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.

However, the users continued to harass the editor(s) on the opposite side of the dispute, and were blocked for that reason.

The new users seem to have learned that they can just edit unregistered and not be subject to an account block. They are most likely evading an account block by not logging in but continuing to harass.

A block is requested on each of these IPs for the harassment and likely block evasion. A range block may be needed since some of the IPs may be the same user.

✌️ The owner of all 🗸 04:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional context: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasDeku/Archive - the three accounts are unrelated from a technical point of view (although that might likely be MEAT, if their claims about off-wiki activities have even a remote basis in reality). This, however, is not acceptable (both as WP:ASPERSIONS and as, maybe technically, WP:OUTING), and combined with the previous harassment by Special:Contributions/Janjakim and Special:Contributions/JilleeLean, is rather obvious who they are. I'll go do some clean-up at the thread if it hasn't been archived yet, while I suggest an admin range-block the IPs for continued harassment and likely block evasion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's even more context: During a botched jewelry store robbery 25 years ago, a woman was shot and killed by her own husband while he was scuffling with one of the robbers and she was trying to intervene. Some relatives think the husband murdered his wife but the legal authorities concluded that it was accidental. The district attorney was corrupt and killed himself shortly afterwards. The two sides have been feuding ever since and the dispute has spilled over onto Wikipedia. I have blocked User: Cha20raca from editing Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., the current locus of the dispute, and I hope that will bring the dispute to an end, on Wikipedia at least. Hope springs eternal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No actually this is not a relative. This is a woman from twitter, who has nothing to do with my sister's murder. She has stalked my then 17 year old daughter for 3 years. We don't know how she tracks us, but anything we do on any platform she starts problems. This is an example. She has nothing to do with us, she doesn't know us, she is a troll that one day we woke up to and has ever since attempted to ruin my daughters name and reputation. This was not a fight spilled over. She literally came in and continued on purpose making edits. On two other cites she has vandalized and put up disgusting content. It has gone beyond a troll, she is a full on fatal attraction. On the other end, I do apologize, I read some more on your rules, and I meant nobody to get upset. I did not realize someone else has to write the wiki. It is a notable case, and one even to this day quite written about. I appreciate all your help and I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Cha20raca (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no connection between the shooting during the robbery and the corrpution charges/death of the district attorney; it's just a case that he processed in the course of his job, so the incident's inclusion in the article at all is inappropriate. The inclusion of the fact that some YouTuber was of a familial relation to someone involved in the incident is mind-bogglingly irrelevant. jp×g 02:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Well the content dispute was already resolved, it's the harassment that I am requesting an admin to block the IPs for. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnjoshua1 and user page blanking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:Johnjoshua1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Perhaps an administrator could try and explain that page blanking of user pages isn't really part of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. They have posted "Artice Create by me (DONT DELETE ME HARD WORKING ARTICE OR I WILL ERASE YOUR WIKIPEDIA PAGE!!)" which might be a violation of WP:POLEMIC, but isn't a huge issue. The bigger problem is that they're actually blanking user pages. The first one I saw was this, where they blanked the user page of an administrator named Diannaa; so, I added {{uw-disruptive1}} to their user talk page this edit. They blanked the warning which is OK, but I was in the process of posting this when they did and got an edit conflict; so, I decided to add it anyway to try and clarify why I added the level-1 warning. They blanked that as well, which again is OK. What isn't OK is that that they also blanked another user page (this time a bot) with this edit some time after I issued the first warning and was making my second post on their user talk page. Maybe the page blanking will stop now, but there was also a post like this made to someone who added a speedy-deletion notification to their user page the other day. Everyone gets frustrated and makes mistakes, and that's OK. Maybe an administrator could politely stress that this type of disruption shouldn't be continued because it will almost certainly lead to a block if another user page is blanked or more WP:NPAs are made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: just an FYI, your first diff link does not work. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Elli. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've left them a note. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks AcroterianAcroterion. They might be offline now since they haven't responded here or to your post, but at least now they won't be able to claim that nobody "warned" them to not do this thing again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly - You accidentally misspelled the name of User:Acroterion, and pinged a user ID that was blocked for being an intentional misspelling of the name of an administrator. Things happen. Carry on. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon. My apologies Acroterion. I guess I'm not the only one with a fan club (MarchjuIy). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it took me a minute to figure that one out. Sneaky. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't just the page blanking, though – there are the fairly trivial childish personal attacks (here, here), but also some serious copyvios, deleted as such (this, this). The user received a final warning for the behavioural problems from Drmies here. I was about to indef the account when I found further copyvio at Draft:Kelly Tshibaka, but it turned out that had been added by a different user; however, I'm still not sure that that isn't the right option here – I don't see any evidence that he's understood our copyright policy, or indeed understood that we have one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Justlettersandnumbers, I'm with you, and I think an indef is justified. That warning was a while ago--who goes around blanking other peoples' user pages?? Drmies (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. I've let this stew for a few hours in case any objections were raised, and have now indeffed the account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

D3FAULTX8 and non-notable BLPs (among other things)

D3FAULTX8 has created about 23 pages in mainspace, 17 of which (73.9%) have been deleted either via AFD or speedy deletion for a lack of notability and often promotional content. Currently, there are 3 remaining articles of which two are at AFD and a third is tagged for speedy deletion. I'm mulling nominating yet another (Jean Marie (DJ)) as well. It is evident to me that no amount of discussing or warnings to this user will get the point across - it's evident by the sheer number of deletions that they do not understand inclusion criteria, this was the talk page before it was blanked and their current talk page includes a number of discussions on this matter as well as deletion notices. They claim to "only write" about notable musicians here at this AFD and demonstrate a pretty spectacular ignorance of what sources say and what our policies say (specifically, xyz is signed to UMG, which is demonstrably untrue.) So I am bringing this here as I think the off and on disruption needs to come to an end, whether that's by a community imposed sanction such as a requirement to go through AFC, a block from namespace entirely (my preference, given they hijacked a redirect to promote a non-notable artist) or an outright block. And for clarity, I've included a list of the deletions below:

• G50X - deleted twice, speedied as a g11 and a7
• Viswabharathy Public School deleted via CSD 6 times
• JackEL (DJ) g4 of JackEL
• All1Equal a7d
• 22Bullets moved to draft and subsequently deleted as a copyvio
• FADNAudios a7d, vanity spam
• FADN Records, a7, twice
• Jonas Aden afd'd and g4d multiple times
• Flaremode (DJ) g4d after an afd under Flaremode and Flaremode (Italian duo)
• FADN Records (record label) afd
• EQRIC afd
• Alban Chela AFD
• FamPay AFD
• Luciano Barletta AFD
• EQRIC (musician), speedy g4 and g11
• Davemax AFD

BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

D3FAULTX8: Hi, I personally think you are professional Wikipedia admin and are aware of most or all rules, but as far I could understand, you are clearly not aware of most information externally of Wikipedia. On the page of 'MARMO', What I've mentioned is pretty accurate and researched. About the signing of artist in Universal Music Group, I could clearly understand that you are not aware of the contracts. I have attached 2 links as a proof that Marmo is working with Universal Music (co-produced an album). Can you clarify what really you meant by "Hijacking" a page? I have no idea what are you talking about and I just wrote a page normally as I usually do, but you just removed it and marked it as I'm hijacking a page. As per my opinions, I'm not requesting you to review pages which you're not aware about, or I'd suggest you should do a clear research about the article before you even mark it for deletion faster than other mods. At this moment, I'm not disagreeing with some of your decisions on the pages I wrote, but when you really mark it for deletion without any proper research, It's quite bad.

As you know, I currently only contribute to Wikipedia Music Categories, so I'm well aware of the WPMusicBio. On the recent article (MARMO), The artist meets 5+ criteria, but Prax says he is non-notable, which doesn't make any sense. I review before I write to check if the artist meets the criteria or not.

Prax has to assign or leave the page review to the particular mods who are aware of the article. At this case of mine, The pages I wrote (Guz Hardy & J Luke, MARMO), has been deleted without figuring about the artists' criteria deeply.

For other admins: I have been giving proofs about what I write to Prax on Talk Page, He leaves it without reviewing it properly. He clearly wants me to understand his policies but refuses to hear my citings and words. I've been waiting for his response on both of the page which got into AfD until now...FYI, Those pages were already approved by other moderators and also added fixes, categories etc. Later, Prax chooses to put it to deletion.

Most pages of mine which have been into AfD has been reviewed by 1 or 2 mods including Prax's opinion on the deletion.

+ Most pages I've wrote about is about famous brands or musicians..eg: Viswabharathy is a famous school in Neyyatinkara, JackEL is a vey famous artist in Las Vegas and is verified on instagram including he has awards, 22Bullets has released albums, lots of releases on major labels including Sony, Jonas Aden is a very famous artist in music industry, so is EQRIC. FamPay is another famous company in India. This is actually weird cuz my pages have been rejected for the reasons of non-notability. He doesn't review it properly as u can see from my reports.

Dear Mods & Admins, I'm requesting you to take a look at the MARMO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marmo_(musician)) and Guz Hardy & J Luke's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guz_Hardy_%26_J_Luke)....becuase Prax thinks those are fake information I've provided. If you guys need more proofs on what I write, you can put a notification on the talk pages too.

I'm also requesting Prax again to check it. D3FAULTX8 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the Guz Hardy AfD and article (and voted in it), and I have to agree with Praxidicae that it seems that you indeed included false information. Now, this false information can be found at some pages, so it is well posssible that you thought it to be correct and didn't have any malicious intentions; but it can't be verified at all from reliable sources (and the existence of some Billboard chart should be easy to verify, even if it may be harder to check individual entries on it). It looks to me, based on the above, that having you banned from creating more articles would be the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support mainspace topic ban it is clear from the editor's creations and comments above that they do not sufficiently understand music notability to be creating articles directly. While no one wants more in the AFC queue, that's the only solution possible here. Star Mississippi 17:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Grave accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report grave accusations, aggressive tone and insults on behalf of user Gandharraj towards several editors (me included) during a normal discussion at Talk:Hanna_Jaff. A handful of editors have been involved in the clean up of what appeared to be a PR piece, Hanna Jaff, which is now finally taking shape. Gandharraj joined in a day or so ago and began attempting to reverse the changes that were made by consensus over several months (all which were discussed in the talk page in question before editing). Over 24 hours Gandharraj proceeded to edit repeatedly without any regard for the talk page, to the point of starting an edit war between with all the editors involved in the talk page, which se continued to disregard in an attempt to include unreliably sourced claims - to the point of having the article fully protected by User:El_C. We then proceeded to review the sources presented by user Gandharraj, and after finding most had been dismissed as unreliable, Gandharraj accused @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself of having ulterior motives ("personal issue" with the subject), as well as being "sexists racists editors", when in fact we know neither the race or the gender of the editor, nor does the editor know our (three different editors) genders or ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, just a few moments ago Gandharraj admitted on the talk page to have had personal contact with the subject, having first met "the subject when she was 23 at a youth conference", and following the subject's life and career closely ever since. This personal COI is now evident, and explains the aggressive and personal behaviour of the editor Gandharraj towards the other editors. @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself have kept a strict encyclopaedic tone and pragmatic approach. I would like to continue a respectful dialogue until we reach a consensus on the article in question, but do not tolerate serious insults and grave, unfounded accusations during this process. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The user has indeed stated, at least twice, that the users they are disagreeing with are "racist and sexist" and also does appear to be (or have been) editing while clearly against the current talk page consensus. The edit warring would probably warrant a mainspace-page ban, but the personal attacks necessitate stronger action Nosebagbear (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for corroborating the information @Nosebagbear:. Unfortunately, only 40 minutes after you posted your response, user Gandharraj resumed the insults but now directly to me: "sexists or racist, I’m pointing at you @A.Val.sol" (22:57, 9 June 2021 UTC). I assume its because they saw that I reported the incident and has now decided to target me specifically. Intimidation seems to be the user's strategy to include unreliably sourced information, most of which had already been removed several months ago by general consensus between the editors involved (all documented in said talk page). I would appreciate if this resolved before further personal insults and attacks are fired. Serious editors cannot volunteer time to continue editing that page until we know the user is dealt with and we can proceed respectfully. I should not have to engage with that editor any further. Thank you for your help. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

While the first personal attack was more general and directed at all the other editors participating on that talk page (including me), the recent incident shows a blatant disregard for WP:NPA. Commenting on contributors, casting aspersions, making assumptions about gender and race, are completely unacceptable. I fully understand that Gandharraj is frustrated by the pushback from other editors, but that is not an excuse for immature behavior in discourse on a talk page. Especially if one has a COI, which Gadharraj has indirectly acknowledged, insulting those who are working in good faith on improvements is exactly the wrong approach to build consensus for changes to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the editor for repeated and now targeted personal attacks of a very high level. Given the potential "hot blood" aspect, it's possible there is a path for lesser sanctions. It does not factor in the non-PA aspects of this ANI discussion and any administrator is free to reduce or vacate my sanction without communicating with me beforehand Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lutesque

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I left a warning on this user's talkpage after unexplained content removals on Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Bucky Barnes. Other users seem to have shown concern over unexplained content removal on the user's talkpage. The user then reverted this and later reverted again after I restored the warning, both with WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries with WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. IronManCap (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

More accusations and explicitly stated assumed bad faith (You are acting on bad faith) IronManCap (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Further avoiding me then complaning more to the admins only strengthens my impression of you.--Lutesque (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to your message. Please start assuming good faith. IronManCap (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand and apologize. --Lutesque (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

IronManCap probably shouldn't have reverted Lutesque on their own talkpage (per WP:TPO), but there is a lot of edit summary and talkpage incivility. I don't think that Lutesque is WP:NOTHERE, but they definitely need to be formally warned about their behavior and language toward other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: The editor has seemingly calmed down and has expressed a willingness to move forward constructively both here and on my talkpage, so I will let this one go and move forward. IronManCap (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your close; please don't close discussions in which you are a party. That said, there are behavioral issues that are bigger than just your recent interaction. Edit summaries telling editors to "fuck off" and calling them a "jackass" are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I was viewing this as a WP:WITHDRAW of sorts, but anyways I apologize. I personally feel like the editor should be given a chance to act with more civility given the recent statements here and on my talkpage, although I would defer if others find this a persistent problem. IronManCap (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A formal civility warning doesn't prevent the editor from having a chance to act with more civility; in fact, it encourages it. The next time an edit summary (or talkpage edit) involves calling other editors names, Lutesque should be blocked. They've gotten more than one warning on their talkpage, and that hasn't curbed the behavior. WP:CIVIL is not optional. Grandpallama (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand and agree. I'm just hoping the editor can change now that they have acknowledged the issue for the first time. If they persist, of course they should be treated accordingly. IronManCap (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I get that I am on my second strike and third I'm out. If I get indefinitely blocked it will be no one's fault but my own. Not trying to excuse my behavior, but I will try to do better now that I'm on thin ice.--Lutesque (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP editing at Cannabis in Wisconsin

Hello. There has been a disruptive editor causing problems at Cannabis in Wisconsin for the past 18 months and I think that something needs to be done about it. This user has not explained a single one of their 40 edits in the edit summary or talk page, has been asked to stop many times by several different editors, and doesn't seem interested in following the rules / conventions of wikipedia editing. Basically this person keeps trying to insert editorializations into the page that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia and that include no sourcing. Here are some of the more recent edits that this person has been insisting on lately: [1][2][3] and also some edits from farther back: [4][5][6]. The user has edited the page with two different IP's: 199.199.246.211 and 199.199.240.231. Thank you for your time.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Every single one of the edits from those two IPs seems to be a mobile web edit suggesting they may be completely unaware of any talk page messages (see WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU or one of the previous discussions going back years if you're unaware of details). If their behaviour is disruptive enough then a block will still be justified and at least as it's a mobile web edit rather than an app eidt they should see block messages so could potentially be directed to talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks, I was not aware there is sometimes an issue with that but I think that this person is aware. I reverted their edits yesterday and included a link in the edit summary to my post here on the admin board. Still the person reverted again with no comment.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted again — I'd suggest blocking 199.199.246.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for chronic disruption, since the other IP last edited the article in April 2020 and no other editors in the 199.199.240.0/21 range have edited the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani and Elmidae reverting my edits thinking that is all an erroneous

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BhagyaMani (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Hi and good evening, i am problem with them, one of them kept on reverting Animalworlds314 edits to demonstrate each animal's presence in each country or region, he may be blocked but i believe that he was not always wrong and that he presumably knew what he was doing. So returning to today, @BhagyaMani: and @Elmidae: have caused many troubles too far. Before that, each list of mammals articles contained mammals that became extinct in each region 2000 years or so, but they have caused enough trouble by removing them even when people feel like that they need to include them. Their reverts to me are disruptive. Can you please in any way, block both BhagyaMani and Elmidae? -- Tahrzan2105 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else hear some deafening quacking? 192.76.8.73 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. It's kind of charming when people think they have just invented socking, but man I fear this guy is going to become a time sink. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And also thanks again, Bbb23, for quick action to block this guy. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At 2nd thought : I wonder whether it is possible to (semi-)protect the pages on Animalworlds314's watchlist? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

First, no one has access to a user's watchlist except the user. Second, it wouldn't make sense to semi-protect all the pages on a user's watchlist. Editors put pages on their watchlist for all sorts of reasons that wouldn't be useful for your purpose. For example, an editor may wish to watch a page that they don't edit simply because they want to monitor the activity on it. What would be more useful would be to look at the pages most frequently edited by a particular user, and those stats are available. However, an admin is not going to semi-protect a page based on the possibility that a sock may come alone and edit the article. Generally, articles are protected only if there is recent disruptive activity on the article. Best thing for you to do would be to put pages you think are vulnerable on your watchlist so that you can check to see if IPs or new users come along who behave similarly to Animalworlds314.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feeling intimidated by User:Rocknrollmancer

I had a message left on my talk page left by User Rocknrollmancer and it was as quoted:

"Echoing some of the sentiment above, please read this and try to understand what is explained in the second paragraph. You crossed the line here (in the third sentence) - I saw this a few days ago but hung-back to see if anyone would pick you up on it. I had that Talk page on my watchlist but will take off. There is a piped-link already provided there (in the second paragraph) which in turn links to the same aspect as I quoted above. You've already been soft-warned for disruptive editing when you went after Joe Roe, and I see you also went after Nick Moyes, so just hope no admin sees this .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

Now I do admit I did feel personally attacked by users Joe Roe and Nick Moyes for their views and contributions on the Heavy Woollen District and discussion on using the song It's Grim Up North by KLF to reference places in the song mentioned. Although they have apologized for what they said and I did too when I knew I was in the wrong. I felt this was unnecessary to be put on my talk page by user @Rocknrollmancer:. User @PamD: already explained what I was doing wrong and I have done my best to improve my editing but I have never personally attacked anyone and I feel this is WP:Hounding me on Rocknrollmancer's behalf as stated. He has had my page on his watchlist expecting someone to pick me up on it but he has not responded to me when I responded to him. So I did remove it but remembered wanting to ask for Admin to look. I do agree I have been sort of Canvass on Wiki a few times I am not innocent and pretending to be. But I feel this was uncalled for and my other edits have helped to add content to wiki with new station pages on the Brecon and Merthyr Junction Railway, Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway and Borough of Middlesbrough.

I admit my disability does sometimes hinder my ability to be accurate in my editing but if I mess up. I always ask for help...I also want to add my reply to Rocknrollmancer below:

":@Rocknrollmancer: I have to be honest, I have no idea about the part you mention about Joe Roe and Nick Moyes...I did not go after any of them...I only mentioned to admin that I felt Joe Roe was misinterpreting my discussion on the Heavy Wollen District talk and assuming I was trying to make it my favour when that is far from the truth. Nick Moyes on the otherhand, spoke out of line in terms of accusing me of being on wiki for disruptiveness over me mentioning the KLF song, Grim up North in music tabs for each town and city mentioned in it. He fairplay to him admitted he got a little over annoyed and apologised and I said I accepted it. He and me have not had any issues. Joe Roe apologised as well and I accepted it. Rocknrollmancer as I echoed to PamD."

"I don't come on here to disrupt or anger offend troll anything. I want to help create articles for stations, boroughs and anything to do with north england. Wales and Midlands, South england every so often. I do make sometimes errors like I did with Talgarth station and I agreed to make sure to follow PamD advise on the rules. Also me and Crouch aren't in cahoots or trying to overrule things but Crouch is an experienced wikipedian and has like Eopsid, you and other more insight. I ask him as he has helped me and I ask for his input. My whole hopefully comment was in regards to the Borough of Middlesbrough had been nominated for deletion and we discussed it on the Wikigeography page to keep it. But a AfD went ahead because of no improvements."

"I am sorry but the article can't be more improved on if it passes wikiscope and other checks. I make articles with sources. They pass they stay, they merge or get deleted. I accept the concensus but the one for recent AfD was keep and one merge. So to finish your points you mention were resolved civilly and without disruption. Nick Moyes and Joe Roe are valid editors and have helped me when I asked them to. So we all want to improve Wiki so lets not pick faults with past things. I have accepted my faults and won't do them again. But I am far from a disruptive editor you and me have spoken a few times and agreed to disagreed civilly...its perks of facts, questions and opinions...regards RailwayJG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

Now I want to link my posts to both Joe Roe and Nick Moyes below too:

Joe Roe on the Heavy Wollen District Deletion Category Discussion:

"Where did i say it doesn't exist? You need to re-read the whole comment. I said and I quote "why do we need a category for Heavy Woollen when the towns and villages are already categorised. I seriously think Wikipedia is in danger of misleading readers into believing it's a district like a city or town when it is in fact not and that is a true fact. It is a coined local term. Not a government recognised district of towns or villages". It is a local term not a government one and so the categories aren't needed. It isn't being denied to be existent and I never said it doesn't so your misinformed on that one and two the term applies to a cloth making district. Its not a district like Wakefield or Selby district. That's my point a district is two things. Either a government recognised district like Selby Wakefield Hambleton etc or a part of a town or district like Meadowhall in Sheffield or Batley Carr in Kirklees. That's is a district term for UK use and this was for a cloth that was made with some towns. As I've said which you missed I'm not against the district article being kept but it shouldn't have categories too and it says North Kirklees area in it then actually mentioning Wakefield and Leeds so that is misinformed and the article up until now was lazily written and half dead links.

I think editors like you and a few others have gotten personal towards me by calling my comments vile condescending and someone with bad geography and history. I find those comments offensive but don't say nothing for fear of being banned for being personal towards editors so I bite my tongue and as someone who is disabled I feel vulnerable when people attack me for my edits articles and the challenges I bring up like I had with the whole Built up areas and Middlesbrough Borough authentications. They were challenged and still are being. So I don't know. I'm contributing but it seems I'm not needed to be even though I fix mistakes made or ask for reliability on things. Sorry I'm offensive and a terrible editor. As a Batley lad I'll take my cloth and leave this discussion...RailwayJG (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Got nothing to add (talk)? Exactly don't misinterpret my comments as your own assumption and use falseness because you clearly did."

"I don't have anything personal against you. I appreciate the work you are doing on the geography of Yorkshire and elsewhere. But please remember that when you propose that an article, category, etc. should be deleted, that is someone's work too. There's a fair expectation that you do some research before suggesting that another editor's contributions be undone. In the case of the AfD, that's looking for sources; for this CfD, it's familiarising yourself with our categorisation guidelines. At the AfD and elsewhere, many have people have pointed out to you that this is a notable concept (I quoted the part of your comment I was responding to before—"if it exists"—so apologies if I misunderstood that but I don't think it needs repeating). Here and elsewhere, many people have told you that our categories don't have to follow official classifications, and that there is no problem with parallel, overlapping categorisation schemes. When someone repeats the same points after being made aware that they're not accurate or relevant, it can be seen as disruptive behaviour. I understand that it's not pleasant to hear that, or generally have people opposing your nominations, but please understand that it is motivated by a good faith instinct to preserve other editor's work, not any malice directed at you personally. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)"

I did not respond but hold no grudge with Joe Roe or anything nor does he...

Nick Moyes on my talk page:

"Just following up on your post at the Teahouse. You were right - my amazement and sarcasm - having seen the edits your were asking about - did lead me to to go too far and I'd like to repeat my apology for coming across as rude and/or insulting to you. We all of us make bigger and smaller contributions here (I hadn't checked your other contributions, either). Some of our edits others inevitably regard as valuable - and 'thankworthy', whilst others are deemed quite unnecessary. My view on the pointlessness and irrelevancy of those particular edit still stands, but it was not fair of me to denigrate your contributions or how you spend your time. Sorry again, Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted...thank you...RailwayJG (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)"

So I do admit my wording can look a bit insulting but there was no personal attacks to these two editors...I just question reliability and ask for help. Something gets deleted, merged, kept or discussed. I always take part and have helped with all due respect to complete many of the missing Great Central Main Line, South Yorkshire Junction Railway and Swansea Vale Railway stations and halts. I also have helped make the articles for Aliens: Fireteam, Almighty: Kill Your Gods, Override Mech City Brawl, M.A.S.S Builder and Borough of Chesterfield to name a few more...I am not asking for recognition god no...just that I want to prove I am far from a troll or disruptive editor. I have made mistakes since being on here and crossed swords with some editors and developed a working editorship with some...I just want to ask Admin on here to have a look at Rocknrollmancer text above and tell me if this is hounding? RailwayJG (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is not WP:HOUNDING, but a civil-enough expression of opinion that you are welcome to engage with (or not) to whatever extent you wish, on your or their talk page. I suggest not trying to drama-monger this up. BTW, you are required to notify Rocknrollmancer as per the fat red message on top of the page; please do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elmidae: with all due respect, there was no just cause reason for them to put this on my page and accuse me of personal attacking two editors...surely Wikipedia does not allow Intimidating of editors? Also I have put it on their talk page the link to here. RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• As always, it's better if editors focus the discussions with other WPedians on specific issues, rather than on their general pattern of behavior. It helps both maintain good relations, and make progress in resolving problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And I have tried those steps but I still get accused of being disruptive and i guess cynical. It is hard as one of many with a disability to tell the difference between good and bad intentions...it felt intimidating in the term "hope no admin see this". It makes me feel one admin sees it and instant ban or block...I am sure you can see my pov? RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have been off-Wiki; no-one wants to see a text screed (as above) at AN/I, and I have not looked through in any detail, excepting the comments. I was trying to be helpful by notifying in a low-key way that blatant canvassing woud be regarded as poor editing conduct; any good wikipedian could make such an observation, in the hope that it would be beneficial and correctly received. I didn't anticipate a knee-jerk over-reaction. As I have written elsewhere recently, WP has become highly-structured and takes lengthy involvement to appreciate the various aspects. No-one expects a comprehensive knowledge after two years, so guidance was offered.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Rocknrollmancer while you may have been helpful and trying to advice you got to understand the way you wrote it out made it feel like an intimidation when you used phrases like "You've already been soft-warned for disruptive editing when you went after Joe Roe, and I see you also went after Nick Moyes, so just hope no admin sees this ". That sends to me a feeling of oh you carry on disagreeing and feeling misinterpreted and asking for clarity is nearly seen as WP:Abuse or WP:Bullying.

If you had said say "Your recent actions against Joe Roe and Nick Moyes appear to be disruptive. Just hope admin don't see it as abusive or bullying. Regards" then that would be more in my opinion formal. Then assuming I went after them which I did not do and spoke on each concensus or discussion to them. Nick Moyes apologized to me and I accepted it. Joe Roe apologized on the Heavy Woollen District page deletion but yes I did not reply but I did not go after him. You need to be careful when assuming I go after people when in fact I call them out for assuming I am here to disrupt. That is a bad way to look at it when it is not that at all. And as I said. @Crouch, Swale: is an experience wiki editor and has helped me with requests and ideas for articles. You last spoke to me over the photo for Mansfield Central railway station I uploaded and a few times on Middlesbrough and Borough of Middlesbrough. That whole sentiment of me saying hopefully was because it took a long while to remove the AfD and there was one last time. If an article gets put up for AfD more then once and a concensus was reached on another discussion. Then it makes zero sense to get rid of it when many say keep and few say delete merge or unsure.

I have contributed a lot to Wiki in the time I am here and if I am not perfect at referencing, structuring or knowledge, I ask for help I don't just create and leave it. Some editors do and some don't. So all I want to finish with saying is while you were offering guidance. You made it feel like a make sure you don't do this and you are disrupting. What did not help was me and Pam D were briefly at odds with my recent edits and sourcing and you put that up. It felt like WP:Hounding when two editors go at me and accuse me. It is very intimidating and even another editor pointed it out on a AfD page for one of the new articles I made. RailwayJG (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG It was only your attempt to elicit another editor to interfere with a due process that I wanted to alert you to; perhaps you failed to understand that both your approach and moreover choice of words would be frowned upon? I tried to keep it low-key, without using obvious link shortcuts. I waited, but no-one else tried to advise as I'd hoped for, so it was down to me to be cast as the villain of the piece for trying to do 'the right thing'. Please try to WP:AGF in that my motivations were to help to prevent any further indiscretion. You were given good advice above here not to make a drama; ironically, you have now boomeranged yourself by exposing it to several-to-many admins at this portal. Not that bad, though, because most would see the text-wall and dismiss it as tl;dr.

Lastly, I haven't contributed to Middlesbrough or Borough of Middlesbrough, neither have I interacted with you on those, as you assert above.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

While you might have had good intentions, if you felt I was "eliciting" another editor to interfere. Then I would not have been bothered but then you bring up the last bit which you have failed to clarify on about Joe Roe and Nick Moyes and me "Going after them". You made it appear to be a WP:Personal attack on me for requesting them to apologize or elaborate on their meaning. Also the text wall was to show your comment and my reply to you which you then ignored. So instead I took your section down and felt hounded as I was threatened to be banned from editing and you then going at me for both speaking to Crouch, Swale and bringing up admin and the two aforementioned editors. I felt hounded. Two editors threatening me with my edits and discussions. Making a possible scenario out of nothing. But without clogging this...it still doesn't change the last part of accusing me of WP:Bullying and WP:Abuse towards Joe and Nick. When I had not. I don't look for drama or exposing myself but you made me with that last paragraph on my page feel hounded. RailwayJG (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

PamD is not admin - no chance of a block on that basis of someone clearly trying to help with advice. No-one has asserted bullying or abuse; your attitude is to lash out at anyone who doesn't fit into your perception of what is normal for you. To elucidate further, you overstepped the mark by canvassing someone already involved "...if you would be able to or encourage the AfD to be removed". That exact suggestion is unacceptable; can you accept it was fair comment on my part, intended to prevent you repeating the situation in future? That was preceded by (at another discussion) ...and making this pointy nomination on his behalf was not wise. (read the edit summary). Buddying-up with the same editor; that's how it linked-in, historically.

The post above was supposed to be my last here; will you please now WP:DROPTHESTICK, or do you intend to keep it going? Reminiscent of —apart from the multiple deletion nominations of the article, he has tried to remove links to it from pages—at this point this is just classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Time to move on. from 12 April.

You now have an admin offering to de facto mentor you: "Happy to assist with guiding editors who are willing to learn in order to improve the project.". I hope this works out for you. I have now removed all of the Talk pages from my Watchlist; no doubt you will continue to change the lede at geographic localities - often controversially (as here, when you were trying to delete the linked article, mentioned in Joe Roe's 12 April Talk quote above) - which I shall try to ignore. I hope you are satisfied with this. Please do not ping me in future.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for your fair comment after reading it again and seeing likely what you intended to do. I disagree with you on the lash out part completely but that's my opinion and okay it's dropped. I won't ping you in future... This ain't Facebook and editors will still likely join in on discussions. Your talk page isn't on my watchlist anyway and my edits are not always controversial. But that's my opinion. Case closed no more beating a dead horse. Have a nice day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Editors aren't normally banned unless they have a history of serious problems on the project as opposed to small disagreements. Also individual editors can't generally impose a ban themselves, see WP:Ban authority but editors can be blocked by an individual admin but the user will normally have to be warned about the behavour first unless its obvious that the editor is editing in bad faith. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Obvious trolling by Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:0:0:0:0/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I happened to notice an anonymous user using multiple IPs on this Dynamic range persistently overwriting the redirect above with a poorly sourced personal essay. Every attempt to revert this anonymous user has been met with reversal, with edit summaries like I'm going to continue reporting anyone who deletes the content of my page for vandalism. This to me looks like obvious trolling, and I also notice at least one violation of WP:3RR in the history as well. I have not reverted yet as I do not wish to be the subject of a troll report, as one of the IPs in the range has actually done to Onel5969 a few days ago. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably worth a month or longer block or partial block as they quickly came back after the last 2 day block #IP user edit warring, aspersions, refusing to discuss, reinstating problematic material at Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis. Also there's an older CU block and comments from the range suggesting this has been going on for months perhaps on a deleted page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disney Junior logo (again)

Rodney Araujo (talk · contribs) is warring on Disney Junior about switching the infobox logo from the properly-licensed File:Disney Junior.svg to File:Disney Jr. logo.png on commons, which not only isn't transparent, but does not state the source of where it's coming from beyond 'Disney' (no URL), and despite several warnings, has persisted on adding this oversized logo to the infobox with the justification that 'they the channel uses more the 2d version that the 3d version', which for our purposes, 'what I see' isn't confirmable (and we prefer SVG images over PNG images). They've also tried to 'delete' the SVG even though it's clearly in use. I just want to make sure I've been proper in reverting the changes; I had this same dispute with another editor a few months ago. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerns from User:ChrisCalif

I was blocked for more than 30 hours because I was criticizing the editors arguments and their behavior that want delete the quantized inertia page. One does not block other editors (that are not here frequent that they have less privilege) for discussing well inside the rules of Wikipedia. One can of course try to twist the rules of Wikipedia to cancel and block people pointing out weakness in arguments. While I was blocked we can for example see XOR'easter have been buys on top of the discussion page on deletion of quantized inertia. He has over and over accused QI for pseudoscience. The only sources we can find for this is a popular blog article on the Forbes platform + journalist article citing anonymous physicist. XOR'easter now has stated see his amendum comments close to top of the page, where he states

"Wow, this page has been busy! And no, getting a grant does not imply wiki-notability." Well the grant is just one of a long series of lists of reasons the article imply wiki-notability, please read the whole discussion on and all the references and points given by other editors etc.

XOR'easter second point "we could have a long and entertaining discussion about the demarcation problem, and how one might draw a distinction between pseudoscience (e.g., creationism) and shoddy science (e.g., N-rays). However, that is largely beside the point here. The problem is the paltry state of the available references, and the fact that the sources that do exist fail to support more than a mention in another article. "

What is XOR'easter relabel sources for pseudoscience or shoddy science? The theory has like 25 peer review published papers or so. Ten papers or so have at least one more co-author or are written by others than Dr. McCulloch (the inventor of the theory). A peer reviewed papers is indeed peer reviewed that means independent referees and editor(s) have endorsed the paper for publication after going carefully through it and their comments have been addressed or fixed. XOR'easter and Tercers only sources for their claim of pseudoscience and now perhaps switched to claim of shoddy science is a popular blog article on the platform forbes, and some journalist article with reference to what some anonymous physicists said. It is XOR'easter that here has a huge problem in his argumentation and documentation. He must either think he stands above scientific journals editors and referee, that is above the whole scientific process, or perhaps he indeed has an agenda.

This is close to full censorship, not only of an idea, but also of editors pointing out the weakness in the arguments given by these editors that work hard to censor quantized inertia.ChrisCalif (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that as a private entity, Wikipedia can determine what appears on its computers, just as you can determine what is said and done within the four walls of your residence. There are no rights to posting any idea on Wikipedia and Wikipedia does not have to provide equal time to all points of view. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

ChrisCalif Also note that you are required to notify any other editors you are talking about of the existence of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Censorship is when someone tells you what you can't put on your website, it is not when a website that is not yours tells you that they won't publish something for you. Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want in your venue, but it also makes sure that nobody else's venue is required to publish it if they don't want to. In short, you are not being censored here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that N-rays haven't been completely forgotten. For a similar case in organic chemistry, see Talk:Tetrahedrane#Fantasy island. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

" it is not when a website that is not yours tells you that they won't publish something for you. " and it is when one are blocked from discussions on a page that is meant for discussion on arguments for or against deletion. To block someone then discussing well inside wikipedia guidelines is censorship. Wikipedia can must also have a profile outside that reflect how they operate, a few editors seems to destroy for wikipedia. I have warned against it, but it is ignored.ChrisCalif (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Again nobody has a right to edit here, or to publish specific information. We have behavioral standards that you violated and that is why you were blocked. We have editorial standards that must be met or content is removed. If you don't like it you can contact a hosting company and put up your own encyclopedia, but you are not entitled to decide what goes here.

I am going to warn you now that if you continue to accuse other editors of this nonsense it will result if further blocking and most likely longer than 31 hours which was very lenient. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted a few of your postings of this exact same message in multiple places. You are getting attention here, you should not be copy/pasting the same thing in irrelevant places. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see you have returned your extensive copy/paste back into the AfD after me asking you not to on your talk page[174]. I have participated in that AfD so I will leave this to another administrator to resolve. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked ChrisCalif from editing the AfD for the remainder of its duration. In my opinion, he has said his point of view loudly and clearly, and now needs to sit back, let other people give their views, and let consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Their edits, now on the talk page of the affected article, are also disruptive. I've removed a recent personal attack, and if this wasn't already here I'd have given them a warning, but as it stands a full block for the duration of the discussion might be the only solution here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • They left an angry note at my talk page, accusing me (or maybe the community as a whole) of having a vendetta against quantized inertia (that would require me to care much more than I really do) and continuing not to get the notability-established-by-secondary-sources idea. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Ritchie333: They're now resorting to using edit summaries to post their rants. Mind redacting their edit summaries as harassment (WP:RD3) and giving them a permanent whack with the banhammer? They've obviously not heeded any warnings whatsoever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

        RandomCanadian, I'd really rather another administrator took action. If every sanction comes from a completely different and completely uninvolved admin, it makes it harder for the conspiracy theories to stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • I have blocked to coincide with your duration, Ritchie333, although I was tempted to indef as NOT HERE. Anyone is welcome to adjust if needed. Clearly the disruption needed to stop. Star Mississippi 17:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

IP SPAs at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantized inertia has also attracted several IP editors, such as 47.55.230.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have edited exclusively in relation to this AfD. XOR'easter at an FTN discussion suggested that these users are being attracted from the the social media page of inventor Mike McCulloch. I'd like to know if I am required to notify any of these users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• For proof of the Twitter canvassing (I assume this is correct under WP:OUTING since the inventor himself doesn't appear to be here), see this. Of course, as you noted, already solved for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • He's been tweeting about it since the 8th, saying I've been told by someone who should know that these negative wikipedia editors are probably being paid. If only! XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

    Being paid is an option!? /s SamStrongTalks (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

    The last time I got an email from a brand-new account asking me, as an experienced editor, to improve an article, the cheapskate didn't even offer me any money. ARBCOM sympathised, and courteously told me the Wikiname of the sockmaster. Narky Blert (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

    I think we can just humour them with WP:FLAT, as usual for fringe theories. That and politely send-off any which keep being utter jerks by engaging in the good ol' name calling and ad hominems tactics. As if that ever produced anything positive... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is all part of my master plan. Join Wikipedia in 2006, edit for 15 years, then finally when the moment is right get my huge cash payout by arguing to remove fringe nonsense from the encyclopedia. Private island here I come! (sarcasm) HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring warnings, not using edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Young English Actor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits without providing edit summaries almost all of the time. They have been notified about the importance of summaries by four users, all of whom were ignored.[175][176][177][178] These diffs make up only a small portion of the plethora of warnings they have received (and ignored), as seen on their talk page. KyleJoan^talk 07:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to thank KyleJoan for bringing up this issue. Often times, the editor's behavior escalates to disruptive editing. They have been warned multiple times about edit summaries but have yet to address any of the concerns on their talk page; often they use the practice quietly unreverting their unexplained edits, again without initiating discussion or providing an explanation. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and necessitates the collaboration of other editors to build a fruitful encyclopedia.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

While editors are strongly encouraged to use edit summaries, it is not required by policy. — Ched (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to be a mobile editor. They have only ever posted on talk pages around six times, and have never posted on a user talkpage ever. It is entirely possible that they have no idea they have a user talk page, and that this is related to Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs. CMD (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the mobile interface allow users to see others' edit summaries? Young English Actor has repeatedly linked 12th Academy Awards in Timothée Chalamet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) even though each revert had been accompanied by a MoS guideline that outlines why including the link had been inappropriate.[179][180][181] If they are able to read others' summaries but choose to ignore them and we can't reach them through their talk page, then how are we supposed to work with this user? KyleJoan^talk 08:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question, perhaps Suffusion of Yellow might know. I remember in a previous similar situation an administrator blocked a mobile user for a short time with a notice linking back to the talkpage. If that route is taken, then perhaps the large number of generic warnings on their talkpage can be removed and replaced with a custom message covering what they should be aware of, in case they do finally realise they have a talkpage. CMD (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

For the most part, edit summaries appear to be visible in the same places they are on the desktop version, i.e. the page history, revert notifications, and the watchlist. But if they don't look at any of those places, they won't see them. If they opened their revert notifications, they'd also see their user talk notifications. As for contacting them short of using block messages, User:Rummskartoffel/payattention.js (see there for usage instructions) or custom edit filters targeting this specific user might also be worth a shot. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that looks useful. I wonder if we could develop a more friendly one, and perhaps a more final one, similar to the different levels of twinkle warnings. CMD (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The exact message can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis, but I don't really see the need for warning levels with this – it's not aimed at editors who are wilfully ignoring messages, but at those unaware somebody wants to talk to them. It's a last resort to avoid having to block them. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've little experience with scripts but Young English Actor has only continued to ignore edit summaries (both theirs and other editor's) since this discussion began and I'd say it's best for a warning to be put in place as soon as possible.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on this interaction, it appears that they are able to see others' edit summaries, which means they have just chosen to ignore them, so I hope an administrator takes action and uses the user script Rummskartoffel suggested. In the meantime, I'm going to link their user page and their user talk page in the summary for this edit as a final attempt to reach them. KyleJoan^talk 02:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Sanjay from Bangkok

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Wiki Friends,

I am new to Wikipedia. Learning. I love Wikipedia and trying to make best use of it. I have done nothing wrong except not providing enough published references. Unfortunately your personalized comments about contributors is quiet aggressive. I am willing to talk further on this issue. Please let me know a convenient way to discuss this further.

Many thanks.

Sanjay Kumar Bangkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjayunv (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This refers to this incident, now archived, in which it was complained that Sanjayunv was repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles after being requested on their talk page not to. An admin placed another warning of the talk page in response to the complaint.[182]

I do not see anything particularly WP:BITEy about the initial warnings or the admin's warning, nor are they "aggressive". They merely point out that adding unsourced information to articles is not allowed, and that if the editor continues to add unsourced information they could be blocked for doing so.

I fail to see what there is to discuss. Sanjayunv should simply stop adding unsourced information to articles and familiarize themselves with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing disruptive editing in violation of WP:ENDORSE despite multiple warnings

Hello, and happy weekend! My report involves multiple instances of edits by User:02rufus02 that are inappropriately sourced. While there are other forms of disruptive editing noted on their [page], I am limiting this report to additions of political endorsements to 2021 New York City Council election and 2021 New York City mayoral election that violate WP:ENDORSE.

The user frequently sources endorsements using campaign social media accounts and even unverified personal social media accounts. Below are examples, all from today:

• [183]
• [184]
• [185] here using unverified Twitter accounts
• [186] MANY examples, even where reputable sources are replaced with inappropriate sources without explanation
• [187]

Another editor and I have made repeated attempts to notify the user of their disruptive edits on their talk page and in our own revert edit summaries. Below are notifications left:

• [188] initial notice (at least regarding this specific issue) on June 8
• [189] warning today
• [190] final warning today
• [191] final warning #2 today
• [192] final warning #3 today (although this is really just a follow-up comment to #2, using a ping for good measure)

As of the writing of this report, the user has not made another edit. That said, not much time has passed since the final warning, and the user has already demonstrated disregard for policies, even after being warned multiple times. This is not a new user, and they don't edit infrequently, so they really should know by now what the expectations are, especially after being notified. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: On the positive side, the user added a section to my talk page in which they addressed the issue, citing ignorance (which I would characterize as borderline willful). I am assuming good faith and have no reason to think the editor is being dishonest. However, the user, after acknowledging both the issue and that they had seen notifications directing them to policies they are breaking, they made this edit, again against Wikipedia policy. While I still assume good faith, I believe now more than before that their contributions hurt the Wikipedia community and lead to a waste of their time, the time of other editors, that of admins (see: this post). Thank you. Shoestringnomad (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've given this editor a six month block on editing one article, 2021 New York City mayoral election, for repeatedly adding poorly sourced content despite several previous warnings. The block length extends past election day. The editor is free to make well-referenced edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Stonewalling a merge 6 months after AfD

In December 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 was closed as a merge of the two nominated articles to one other article. Most of the content of the two articles (Structure of the Italian Army in 1974, 123953 bytes, and Structure of the Italian Army in 1977, 155230 bytes) is already present in Italian Army 1975 reform (280035 bytes), compare e.g. a section on the infantry brigade Friuli which became the motorized brigade Friuli in 1975[193]; the info from 1974[194] and 1977[195] is nicely contained in the 1975 article.

So after waiting 6 months, I redirected both articles to the merge target, as no further merge was in my view necessary. Noclador, the sole "keep" voice at the AfD, has undone the redirects, insists that I must perform the merge to his liking somehow, and has then posted a "warning" on my talk page that further attempts to redirect this will get me blocked.

I have, after the severe personal attacks in the AfD and previous revenge edits by Noclador, no interest in prolonging discussion with them any longer (I tried discussion at Talk:Structure of the Italian Army in 1977, but have little interest in continuing it after the block warning), and would ask someone uninvolved to deal with this. They are free to improve the 1975 article with further info from the 1974 and 1977 ones of course, but claiming that the current version isn't merged enough ("please merge these two pages line by line"), while refusing to do what they judge is necessary themselves (thereby neatly maintaining the status quo they nearly alone supported at the AfD) is just making a mockery of the AfD process. Fram (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have literally just redirected the article again before seeing this. As I said on the talkpage, if any information hasn't been merged by now (6 months later), then IMO it's not important to include anyway. Further, if the result of a "Merge" AfD could be obviated by the editors with suitable knowledge simply refusing to do it, then we clearly have a problem. Regardless, all of the information is available in the history if Noclador or anyone else wants to merge more of it. If they want to edit-war to keep restoring the original article, well actions have consequences. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have just reverted his reversion of the redirect on the 1974 page and have removed them from the see also of the Italian Army 1975 reform to stop circular redirects. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you both. If these edits stick, I guess this can be considered resolved. Fram (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• A question, though: why did User:Buckshot06 remove the merge-AFD tag? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

User PurpleSwivel and WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:PurpleSwivel is has only edited Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, or userspace and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring in issues related to same. They were blocked for 31h following an edit-warring report, and since coming off the block have proceeded to attack editors on the edit-warring board (link), post a tirade against editors on the talk page of the above article (link), and then edit-warred when others have removed them. This is probably prime for an indefinite suspension, but if some wish to consider a politics topic ban to see if they can co-exist in other topic areas, that would be fine too. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I had come across the post at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation which was nothing but soapboxing and personal attacks this morning, but got distracted by something else. I came back to see they've reposted it and are also making snide comments in the thread at ANEW where they were already blocked and then socked logged out to take parting shots at other editors, and blocked them for a week. I hadn't seen this post yet. The editor is aware of the AP2 discretionary sanctions, and I suggest at least a topic ban from anything to do with Joe Biden is in order here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In fact, based on this unnecessary grandstanding, I'm going ahead and doing it. They're topic-banned under the AC DS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undisclosed Paid Editing by Nnadigoodluck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I was going to leave this until the ongoing RFA was completed but I figured this was quite urgent and needed addressing. The editor Nnadigoodluck was first nabbed by Yunshui in 2019, where Nnadigoodluck was advertising their Wiki-services on Twitter, in a tweet that was swiftly deleted and Yunshui immediately revoked their Autopatrol rights for possible paid editing see here. It was later reinstated by Rosguill who assumed good faith two months after. Fast forward to yesterday when @DGG nominated one of their most recent articles for deletion see here. I was pinged to the discussion by Alexandermcnabb as a nudge to investigate possible undisclosed paid editing and whilst I found the ping to be mischievous, it turned out to be of great help to the collaborative project. Immediately digging into the history of this editor, i immediately discovered this article: Alex Nwankwo which had the image in it as his “own work” After leaving UPE template warnings on their userpage, which I should not have done since they were an experienced editor here. I decided to sort this out by discussing this with them not as a robot but as person to person, i went to their tp to ask how they obtained the image, they implied that it was in an award ceremony and by chance they took a picture of him see here, I found it to be too convenient but was fairly okay with the response, but then again I came across the article on a non notable businessman; Godwin Maduka with the image in it as it’s “own work” this time it was a major red flag as the picture was shot/taken up close, they again implied that it was a “by chance photo” at this point, I know this is covert upe. I do a thorough digging and I uncovered a mixture of creating good articles and including UPE articles every now and again. I unearthed a plethora of articles on very non notable “businessmen” “Entrepreneurs” “Philanthropists” most of which are currently at AFD with delete !votes. See here, here here and here for example, there are a plethora I’m still unearthing. Their two most recent articles where so dubious, @DGG had to come confirm the notability status of the articles of which I frankly told them that both articles were non notable possible covert UPE written by a brilliant editor who knew the art of WP:ADMASQ'ing. For full transparency I have suspected them of UPE in the past and shared my concerns with Drmies and MER-C but chiefly hadn’t acted because I have been in and out of hospitals. It is either they are not competent enough as per notability(GNG) policy wise, to hold Autopatrol rights or they are engaging in undisclosed paid editing of which they should be indefinitely blocked for either way they aren’t eligible to hold Autopatrol and by extension should not hold NPR rights. During our discussion they made a blunder by going “off topic”(classic deflection technique) and said I had an agenda to chase away Nigerian editors, which wasn’t true because I am a Nigerian and secondly is a brazen lie. This is me yesterday literally begging an editor to join WP:NIGERIA. Nnadigoodluck has asked me not to ping them ever again and I have respected that. Lastly perhaps a lexical error on their part, here they say they have “tolerated me all these years” which I find rather strange, perhaps just an error or an indication of a prior account. Should a Checkuser be optimized? Perhaps unnecessary, why I think they can’t hold the Autopatrol rights and should be removed is not necessarily because they create articles on non notable persons but because they are Promotional in nature, so what we have here is an editor with Autopatrol who creates promotional articles for non notable “businessmen” and “entrepreneurs” had DGG not put it upon himself to patrol the works of editors with Autopatrol we would have a covert UPE editor roaming free. I am hereby proposing both the immediate removal of their Autopatrol rights and NPR rights, because if you can’t yourself tell “promotional non notable” from “notable” you shouldn’t be patrolling the works of others, or in the very least, an indefinite T-BAN from creating BLP’s. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are proposing to have User:Nnadigoodluck's Autopatrol/NPR rights removed? Why isn't this a WP:COIN matter? BD2412 T 23:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412, yes indeed I am proposing that, I’m sorry if this is wrong venue, I was unsure of what venue and had that discussion here, is it possible for me to still move it to COIN at this juncture? I am willing to. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that this is a wrong venue per se, just that COIN is specialized to deal with this sort of thing. BD2412 T 02:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412, thank you, I haven’t much experience in the appropriate venue when it comes to reporting an “established editor” engaging in UPE, but now that I know better I would be keeping that in mind moving forward. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear I am proposing that both Autopatrol and NPR rights be revoked until they can demonstrate they understand WP:GNG and are competent enough to tell notable from non notable, allow me also say once more that if they were just creating articles on non notable individuals I wouldn’t be too bothered, but what is happening here is they are creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen and entrepreneurs which is the archetypal modus operandi of an undisclosed paid editor thus I am bothered they aren’t eligible to hold both aforementioned perms. Celestina007 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• Per the comment that SamHolt6 dropped here. In my early days of editing i.e from August 2019 when I joined Wikipedia for the first time, every article I create, I'll announce it on Twitter. See this Archive link. That was how Yunshui removed my autopatrolled rights because he saw the Twitter posts and assumed I was advertising, but instead I was elated for finding out that someone can really edit Wikipedia even from Nigeria, while also sharing my Wikipedia experiences on both Facebook and Twitter. I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event even without knowing what Conflict of Interest was and also announced on my Twitter page as usual. He commented on the Twitter post and suggested some names that might be notable. Among the 5 names that he suggested, it was Krystal Okeke that looks like she was notable and I created the article three months after. I'm just seeing the Modern Ghana post for the first time today. If he claimed that he was the one that got the article to be setup, it might be because he was the one who suggested the names for me. I didn't receive any payment or compensation for the article on Krystal Okeke or have I ever received any payment for all the articles I've created. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That doesn’t explain a whole lot of concerns raised, you have not explained in a plausible manner how you have an up close photo of Godwin Maduka as your “own work” neither have you explained the reason for creating promotional articles for non notable entities? as recent as 7 days ago, What part of GNG or what part of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT do you not understand? Of course, you understand GNG because I have seen you create very decent articles, showing a clear grasp of GNG, making covert UPE the only plausible reason for creating promotional articles on non notable businessmen, that you are intentionally being deceptive and insulting our intelligence here isn’t doing you any favors. Celestina007 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've already answered the question as regards taking Godwin Maduka's photo in an award ceremony here. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck: Out of curiosity, do you have an uncropped version of that photo? jp×g 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, Thanks for asking. It's been quite long I took the picture and sadly, I don't have the uncropped version anymore. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the answers appear to be too convenient. You haven’t still explained how two of your last four articles are promotional articles do you not understand what is written in WP:NOT? and for one with Autopatrol it is a serous concern. Celestina007 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

JPxG There's a less cropped version of the image available at www.nairaland.com/5266349/phil-robert-juliet-ekehs-wedding, but it's from an event several months before the date on Nnadigoodluck's picture so there must be some mistake. Pack My Box (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any relation between the OP of this thread and Nnadigoodluck? jp×g 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pack My Box That was the event in Abuja, Nigeria I was talking about. I was the one that took most of the pictures in the occasion. As I said above, I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia and didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time, since I created the article just around 4 months after joining Wikipedia. And the date on the picture was the date I uploaded the picture and also the date I cropped it. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck: I'm confused here. Above you said "I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event". So you first met Alex Nwankwo at this wedding? How come you were also the one who took the photos at the wedding which Alexreports aka Alex Nwankwo used in the PR post? Did Alex Nwankwo pay you so they could use your photos in their PR piece after this chance meeting? Finally, you say you "didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time". But you should have known COI for a while by now. When did you first declare your conflict of interest? Because from what I see only ~2 days ago a bit before this ANI, in the discussion you linked above [196] that all you said was "Celestina007, Of course, I took the photo in an event I attended and he was present too" which doesn't seem to make clear you became friends after this chance meeting at that event, sufficient that you let them use your photos in their PR piece and he suggested articles for you to create via Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Thanks for asking. I've known Alex Nwankwo for a while, before the event and the meeting was not by chance and yes, I sent some of the pictures I took to them. And of course, I didn't really know what COI was at that time and didn't declare any. My mistake was I didn't declare the connection later when I knew. The prior in an event was a wrong English, what I meant to say was I've known him before the event and not just on that event, which is prior to an event and I did clarify above when I said I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck I'm sorry but I am very confused by this. The picture of Alex Nwanko was taken at a wedding in June 2019 and posted to nairaland.com on 26 June 2019. The picture you uploaded to Commons (File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg) has metadata which says it was taken 12 December 2019. How could your photo be taken 6 months after the event? Pack My Box (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Pack My Box, I cropped the photo before posting it. It's possible it recorded the date of the cropping. I don't really know how it works. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pack My Box: I think your looking for the wrong image. AFAICT, User:JPxG was asking for less cropped version of File:Godwin Maduka in 2019.jpg, but I don't see that image anywhere on the page you linked to. There is another version of File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Yes, you're right. The picture in question, is that of Godwin Maduka. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne Whilst there explanations seem to be contradictory and improbable & even if they were able to explain “away” how they got the images as their own work (they definitely have not thus far), how come they have been creating articles (very recently) on non notable persons, for example the one on Jennifer Etito which DGG nominated of deletion on June 3) I have asked that them that question and they seem to be evasive about it. To say it’s failure of comprehending WP:GNG is also improbable as Xtools show they know very much how to create good articles, the only plausible rationale appears to be covert upe. Which i can’t decide and only the community can. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• While Jennifer Etito's article should likely be deleted for failing WP:GNG, I don't actually see it as a particularly egregious article to have started - she has been written about by major Nigerian publications, there may even be a single article there that passes WP:GNG, someone who would think interviews count towards WP:GNG may have thought the subject notable, and it's not so bad to be WP:G11 eligible. The biggest red flag to me is the tweet, but that's long since been dealt with. Basically, it's possible, but I can't support this at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — A prerogative I very much respect, in fact precisely why I created WP:DBY. The problem is it’s Not so much the Jennifer Etito article, but in entirety, it’s the history of the article creator, and their articles, Yunshui made a case of possible UPE in 2019 and in 2021, the edit pattern is still a major concern. Mixing shady articles with very decent ones, is bad faith gaming and the most problematic is creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen a subject area flooded with undisclosed paid editing in Nigeria. Thank you for your concern and input. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I think one of the biggest issues here has to do with the reliability of Nigerian sources. For instance I've used Vanguard a lot in the past to support football articles, where reliability really shouldn't be an issue. The Vanguard article cited at Olakunle Jamiu Azeez is clearly promotional as it's reprinted word for word in other papers - that's probably the clearest "worst" article I've reviewed listed here. My concern really stems from the fact that some Nigerian businesspeople will be notable - Etito's actually a very interesting example, because she's not notable, but I also like to view notability as a sliding scale, and she's not clearly non-notable, not to a point where sanctions would be necessary. She's an example because I thin she'd be similarly sourced to a notable businessperson. That being said, the fact there have been some recent notability misses do demonstrate a need to remove auto-patrol, even without needing to make a determination on UPE. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about the editing without regard to discrepancies in the dates of the photos. It can be difficult to distinguish at first between a UPE and a non-coi volunteer who writes promotional articles because that's what they see here and assume is our general style, and because of personal interests writes on borderline subjects. Usually the good faith editor improves once their errors in style are pointed out to them, and they are guided towards more clearly notable subjects. Usually the UPE does not improve much, because they have to work on the topics they are being paid for, most people who are willing to pay for articles are. at best of borderline notability, and the type of article they are willing to pay for is invariably promotional. I cannot by myself easily distinguish in many fields between people from Nigeria who are or are not notable, because I am only beginning to become familiar with the reliability of the sources there. It is very important that we have skilled editors from that country, such as Celestina007 who do know the fields of interest and do know the sources, and are willing to work here on the endless task of keeping spam out of the encyclopedia. The indications of promotional editing by Nnadigoodluck are so great that I would normally unhesitatingly remove autopatrolled and NPR, and also page mover, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, except that other admins have removed and then restored the rights before. A number --perhaps most--of that editor's articles have been listed at AfD, and it seems from the !votes there, that they are going to be deleted. It is not just a question of the article on Jennifer Etito. Unless there's objections from another admin, I'm going to remove those rights, on the basis of low quality promotional editing. Possibly the user should also be blocked as a UPE. but that's just a little harder to determine. If another admin thinks the evidence sufficient, I certainly have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than an objection, I support DGG's planned course of action. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DGG, I'm willing to accept the admins decision on this matter and thank you for your worthy input. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal on TBAN for User:Nnadigoodluck on creating BLPs, removal of my Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights

I don't know if this proposal will be accepted by the general community, but I'll give it a try. I've accepted my mistakes in my early editing days, creating an article for Alex Nwankwo that I'm close with and not declaring a COI and even failing to disclose the COI after I have known what it means, for creating promotional articles on some subjects. From henceforth, I'm proposing a TBAN upon myself from creating BLPs broadly construed, subject to review after a period of one year. My Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights should be removed as I don't need it to demonstrate that I can be trusted again. I don't need to leave Wikipedia as my experience over the years will really be needed in Nigerian related contents which still need lots of work. Pinging Celestina007, BD2412, SportingFlyer, Nil Einne, JPxG, 78.26, DGG, Nil Einne and Pack My Box who previously commented on this thread. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a reasonable solution that addresses the primary concerns brought up (the advanced rights and questionable notability of BLPs), while allowing Nnadigoodluck to edit in other areas to demonstrate over time that community concerns have been taken onboard. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support if the TBAN is extended to editing BLPs. Whether this editor is engaged in COIN editing is unclear on the evidence presented, but a total ban on BLP editing for a year would prevent shenanigans in that area. BD2412 T 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Possessing Autopatrol and creating promotional articles for non notable entities is a major red flag. Furthermore, and for clarity purposes, let the record reflect that, this is not about Nnadigoodluck’s “early days” of editing as they are trying to put the narrative as such neither is it because of the Alex Nwankwo article, this is about their very recent articles being promotional and on non notable entities. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support provided it is also broadened to include articles on organizations, andf provided w do not rule out the possibility of further action if it becomes possible to show they are in fact a UPE, or engaged in sockpuppetttry. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support with the restrictions mentioned by BD2412 and DGG above. While the voluntary ban is likely being requested to avoid scrutiny, the editor seems nonetheless capable of positive contribution outside of the COI issues mentioned here. jp×g 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I do not think a full ban on editing BLPs or organisations is necessary. Even if you take a cynical view, this proposal shows self-awareness and Nnadigoodluck will certainly know that any promotional editing will end up back here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Cheese editor on Fire engine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Disruptively editing Fire engine to, among other things, change the name against consensus to "Fire truck". Warned on their talkpage multiple times to no avail, has moved the article falsely claiming to have a consensus, accuses others of vandalism and asks them to discuss on talk while himself refusing to engage in good faith. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• • Just an observation: this sounds like a kid. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked, but that's probably why they're not getting the point. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A perfect illustration of this editor's behaviour is the justification given for the page move "had a discussion on talk page and majority of people agreed that i should/ can" - in truth two people (including myself) responded and nobody agreed at all. I think Rockstone35's observation has it nailed. Simply stop this editor making any further edits in this one article. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for one month from Fire engine and its talkpage, as they have disrupted both, and also warned them to stop referring to good faith edits as "vandalism". Bishonen | tålk 08:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC).

i disagree it is fire truck im not backing down -cheese editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese editor (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And therein lies one of the disruptive problems which has caused your partial block: refusal to accept consensus. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you will find that "not backing down" does not work well here. It will only end in your account getting blocked sitewide permanently. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hotwiki

Hotwiki (talk · contribs) – Editor keeps reverting my edits. Claims that I keep adding red links when I was linking to a page I recently started. He delinked every page I linked, undoing most of my work today. Apparently, the guy just reverts without reading. Now he has the gall to warn me for disruptive editing. This guys trolling needs to stop.

See:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

Carl Francis (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have changed the title of the section from TheHotwiki to Hotwiki and inserted the {{User}}-template at the beginning of your message in order to clarify which user you have this issue with. As per guidelines, I have also left an ANI notification on Hotwiki's talk page. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

CarlFrancis was reverted earlier by me because the editor added a red link to at least two articles. When the editor added the same Wikipedia link again, I didn't realize it was no longer a red link. Also the edits of CarlFrancis in those articles were unexplained to begin with. No edit summary was given. Had he explained his edits when he reverted my edits, I would have known the link that was added by him, was no longer a red link. I apologize for any misunderstanding. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

69.126.206.17 (and that same user) vandalizing The Voice, again

I wish to report on an ongoing edit vandalism and disruptive behavior by this IP address for its repeated, persisted vandalism relating to The Voice (American TV series) articles, both this, its violation of WP:MOS, and MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. I know it share the same group of IP address so I believe it falls under the same guy, doing the same thing as judged by his pattern (some even trip filter edits). I have spoke to him on his talk page but he did not reply or look at it. Courtesy ping for @JalenFolf: who reported this matter last week. TVSGuy (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. You many need to investigate the IP group 69.126.0.0/16 because I suspect that falls under the same group of addresses and the same user may have used multiple addresses to abuse it. I suspect it could be Sockpuppet.

To save admin's time on looking up userlinks:

• 69.126.206.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.126.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jalen Folf (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

/16 is a broad range. Do you have a list of IPs? I see only two: 69.126.57.216 and 69.126.206.17 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

​I checked through and read and I came this conclusion; only two users did the vandalism and checked through the backlog accordingly. It all began with an edit by this user (24.190.47.94) but some users (including myself) revert the format due to quality. This surfaced since 2020 and so far, these two users did the same thing. Right now, please take action from that IP user, and inform the editors who did The Voice to beef up security protocols. Thanks. TVSGuy (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked 69.126.206.17 for the same length of time as 69.126.57.216, who is already blocked - this is straightforward block evasion. I’m not sure what you mean by 'inform the editors who did The Voice to beef up security protocols' but if there is any further disruption, do let us know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocking, but what I meant is for the editors to keep aware on such edits and reverts. Hope to clarify.TVSGuy (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

More eyes on those pages would certainly be useful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.198.29.193

Please block this racist.[197][198] Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible paid editing and disruption by Dineshs01102000

User:Dineshs01102000 is trying hard to remove cited info he does not like in J. Jayalalithaa and filled it with promotional info about her in the article which makes it suspicious about paid edit or conflict of interest with her.

Possible paid editing

His most edits are only in this page [199]. He has filled it with promotional info of her.[200][201][202]. He has also had a userbox before in his main page showing his conflict of interest with another person of same political ideology.[203].

disruptive editing

He removes her cited birth name "Komalavalli" from her starting paragraph claiming that it is in the infobox and should not be in the beginning and calls it as vandalism. [204][205]. Before he removed it claiming "defaming and vandalising" [206]. He also socks with a IP address with the same edit summary.[207].

He also adds lock template and good article template to the article and calls it vandalism. [208][209]. He removed my complaint in User:Arjayay page.[210] and he was also warned for it by User:Arjayay[211]

Requesting admins to do something urgently before he filled promotions on every pages related to the political party AIADMK.

157.49.192.56 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Brand-new account conducting mass reverts and gross incompetence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user @DestroyerTr:—with an account name already containing both a violent threat and national chauvinism—is targeting my edits specifically on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles.

The account obviously knows how to use Wikipedia; it utilizes the revert, user pinging, and infobox modification functions like an experienced user, leading me to believe that DestroyerTr might be the sockpuppet of another user I may have had disagreements with in the past.

Irrespectively, this 20-hour-old account has so far only reverted edits carried out by me, which is bizarre, and violated the three-revert rule on several occasions already. Special:Contributions/DestroyerTr. Some examples:

[212], [213], [214], [215], [216]], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221]

Providing the Arabic direct translation of the name of an Arab-majority province in Turkey, or restoring alternative names for villages is seemingly such a huge issue for this user that they belittle me directly, with a seemingly meaningless message: "Have your edits been based on consensus on Wikipedia?! You change the pages to your liking! You edit the pages without any consent." (from the user's talk page)

This accusation alone indicates gross incompetence, yet edit summaries of DestroyerTr display an enormous knowledge of Wikipedia unattainable by a new user: "Aligning infobox name format with that of the Stepanakert article" or "WP:COMMONNAME".

I believe this user needs to be temporarily or permanently banned not only for repeatedly violating consensus, but also an indecent username, absolute incompetence, and possible sockpuppeting. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This user edits pages without any consent. Examples: [222] This village was Azerbaijani inhabited village and it's located in Azerbaijan. However, this user added an Armenian name before the Azerbaijani name without discussion.

[223] If we look at the page's name, it's Karakend. However, this user added an Armenian name before the Azerbaijani name without discussion again. Thank you DestroyerTr (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your words make no sense whatsoever. There is consent, and that consent is that the pages you vandalized had a certain layout for literal months. If you don't like an edit, discuss it on the article's talk page. You act as though you're some sort of supreme authority on Wikipedia; please familiarize yourself with this encyclopedia's guidelines first before you act unwisely. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• comment : only editing names -like their life depends on it- the username and the WP:CIR issues remind me of one particular sockmaster. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kevo327: Hello. I'm new here. What's sockpuppet? BaxçeyeReş does unreal editings. That's why I joined Wikipedia. He edits pages without discussions as I said. DestroyerTr (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

DestroyerTr he doesn't have to discuss everything, other experienced editors can see his edits and can change them it they are bad edits. discussing every single edit would take impossibly long amounts of time. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@DestroyerTr: If you truly think I "do unreal editings", take your concerns to my talk page instead of reverting my edits 3–4 times. That is not how this website works. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The user DestroyerTr has seemingly been banned for sockpuppeteering. I am glad that this tiring issue is finally resolved once and for all. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack and death threat by editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jaroldramsey (talk · contribs) - here on the user's talk page in response to a template warning. SK2242 (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

And this [224] isn't much better. Time for a break. Meters (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I indef'd. I see no redeeming qualities here. --Golbez (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Investigative journalism'

Could someone please take a look at these article creations? I first came across the Aigul Nuryieva one, where I deleted content that I didn't feel was relevant (extensive details about UK-registered companies she is director of), then took it to AfD. The other articles are written in similar style, but the creator isn't happy for me to delete things (see here) so I've left them for now. I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow these seem inappropriate to me, esp. as they're BLPs. Views? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me they're pretty much the definition of negative BLPs. The articles exist to cast shade Russian involvement in Tory politics. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've culled some of those pages just from a summary glance. I haven't checked if remaining cites actually verify the remaining content, and much of it is probably UNDUE. As created, they seem like borderline attack pages. The editor should probably talk to a reliable media outlet to get their work published, rather than writing it here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks both; I guess I wasn't completely off the mark, then, with my vaguely queasy feeling. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggest cross-post to BLPN, as I think these need closer attention still. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have dispute with Mztourist so I need admin's help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a big problem with this user at south korean military page. This user continues to display the coordinates (military unit/base's detailed location and coordinates are sensitive classified information) that should not be disclosed at public and when I delete it, this user keeps reverting, including my other edits. The page with the dispute, and the user who caused all problem when inserting classified info in the first place:

• 3rd Infantry Division (South Korea): user:Kowikimilitaribuls 1
• 7th Infantry Division (South Korea): user:Willoween (global locked) 2
• Capital Mechanized Infantry Division: Kowikimilitaribuls 3
• Busan Naval Base: Mztourist (Inserted by this user while creating the page) 4
• Command Post Tango: user:Lom Konkreta (TOP SECRET facility) 5

These are not officially disclose to the public. Generally, the location of military units/bases should be marked as an approximate location for security reasons. However, only these pages have detailed locations with coordinates, and pages of other military units/bases do not. Mztourist must ask these users who first inserted the coordinates on these pages first, but still ignores my message, keeps reverting my edits. Also, this user left a false block request on WP:AIV with vandalism. report (My username before change is user talk:*ss) So, I debated with Mztourist and other users at my talk page, talk:Busan Naval Base, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#User:*ss continued deletion of Korean military coordinates, user talk:Mztourist#Command Post Tango, user talk:Mztourist#reverted, and user talk:Mztourist#stop reverting my edits, but not solved.

Recklessly disclosing hidden classified info is a threat to national security and an international crime. This is the same for other countries. It can also be an attack target for enemy(North Korea), spy, or terrorist. This can cause international legal•diplomatic problems, and the responsibility lies with the user who inserted it, not Wikipedia. So these must be deleted and hidden from the web.

Mztourist left a strange claim that the enemy already knew the information without sufficient evidence. Mztourist also said that the coordinates were displayed via Google Maps, but Google Maps has many errors, is not reliable and unknown unless go to check it. If Google Maps displays military bases or classified facilities, it's a serious security problem. And user:Adakiko mentioned WP:NOTCENSORED, but something is wrong with this part. I reverted the edit back to before the problem occurred on those pages. This problem cannot be easily solved, so I need help from the admins. Goondae (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As it says at the top of this page, you must notify the users in question on their user talk pages. You can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've notified Mztourist this time. In the future please remember to do the above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say national security be damned, we aren't the French government, and if the coordinates are publicly available, we can use them. The question seems to be, are they publicly available? I'm getting the impression that just picking coords from Google Maps is both condoned and encouraged for, e.g, shopping malls, but applying that approach to military installations without any other source of validation seems very dodgy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone seriously believe that if a bunch of Internet users can find the locations of these "secret" bases, that any possible enemy doesn't already know where they are? The question of "classified information" is a red herring, the only concern here is whether the information is reliably sourced or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"A threat to national security and an international crime" is a legal threat, so you probably want to withdraw those points sharpish. However, there is a point you have over them: the coordinates are not reliably sourced - those adding them have a duty to provide a source showing that someone else has given those coordinates. If they won't do so, a trip to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard will like as not get you help. (Non-administrator comment) ◦ Trey Maturin 19:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC) (I EC'd with you here, Elmidae. My apologies for repeating your points. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC))

I'd have thought that if one actually considers anything published on Wikipedia to be a 'threat to national security', drawing attention to it on WP:ANI would seem unwise. As for the coordinates, as has already been said, without a source they shouldn't be there, regardless of whether the DPRK has access to Google Maps or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What is considered a reliable source for coordinates? I imagine the vast majority of coordinates on Wikipedia have been picked off of Google, Bing, or some other online map. {{coord}} docs has an example of a citation. I see few obvious references in articles. Should a team be put together to {{citation needed}} bomb all those articles? Adakiko (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR is WP:OR, regardless of the format it is presented in. A reliable source for coordinates would be a WP:RS-compliant source that stated what they were. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. South Koreas or any other countries national security is not the concern of Wikipedia, see the controversy about the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station on French Wikipedia. That said, these co-ordinates absolutely must be reliably sourced should they be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Generally, the location of military units/bases should be marked as an approximate location for security reasons is your opinion and not a policy, far as I know. As long as the coordinates can be reliably sourced (in which case the info is already out there, so classification be damned) they can be in the article. Wikipedia is not a national security branch. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Ever heard of the Streisand effect? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Goondae (formerly *ss) seems to believe that WP is subject to South Korean national security laws which simply is not the case and his/her legal threats are unacceptable. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Though had you taken note of the fact that the coordinates in question were unsourced, and almost certainly WP:OR, all this nonsense about 'national security' need not have arisen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the Korean military locations, like the vast majority of the locations on WP, are WP:BLUE clear to anyone who can see. For example Busan Naval Base, plainly visible on Google Earth or when you drive round the nearby area, lots of military ships etc. Does that make it OR? No its BLUE. Do we have RS for the coordinates of 10 Downing Street or Area 51 or the Eiffel Tower? Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of WP:BLUE. It refers to 'common knowledge', not to things only known to people 'driving around' a specific area. That is personal knowledge. Not WP:RS. And yes, one can pick ridiculous examples where coordinates (or at least approximate ones) are unlikely to be in dispute, but how exactly is anyone to verify that the coordinates given for say Capital Mechanized Infantry Division are correct? One can look at a satellite image from Google maps, and verify that the coordinates relate to something that could well be a barracks, but how the heck can you tell if that specific Division is based there? One cannot possibly do this, without either local knowledge (which isn't WP:RS), or without a source which says where they are based. And if you have that, it should be cited.

I've seen far too many coordinates in Wikipedia articles which are clearly guesswork, or self-evidently wrong. I've seen coordinates given for an 'unincorporated community' in West Virginia which would have located the community in Ohio. Which indeed, on the map shown in the article actually did place it there, quite obviously outside West Virginia entirely. Many such coordinates are unsourced, and derived from nothing but contributors own (often misinformed or mistyped) 'research'. There is nothing in WP:OR that says it doesn't apply to contributors using Google and guesswork, whether they have access to local knowledge or not. Misinformation is worse than no information at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The counterpoint is that sources need not be accessible to be verifiable sources. Driving past a sign that says "Home of XXX Division" is no different to a sign that says "Eifel Tower". It may require local access to verify but this is no different from a document or monograph only available for viewing at the John Oxley Library - and both are subject to misquoting. In at least two instances, Google maps specifically notes a "military base" in the immediate vicinity of the coordinates given - one of these being Busan. The "incident" though, is essentially a legal threat and the location of Busan naval base is hardly a state secret - its the place where all the grey boats are parked (or are they really elephants in disguise). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources have to be cited to be sources. Otherwise, nobody can verify where the information came from. Can you state for a fact that the coordinates given for Capital Mechanized Infantry Division were derived from a sign outside that specific installation? The person who added them only ever made two edits, and gives no indication at all as to where they were derived from. WP:V is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No misunderstanding of WP:BLUE here, the location of Busan Naval Base is common knowledge just like 10 Downing Street or the Eiffel Tower. How many of the coordinates on WP whether of military bases or anything else are actually based on RS? As Adakiko notes we would probably need to cntag most pages where coordinates are used. Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERORIGINALRESEARCHEXISTS isn't policy. And please address the actual example I discussed. How can the coordinate given for the Capital Mechanized Infantry Division be verified? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The coordinates thing is a major problem on Wikipedia and most of it is indeed original research and should be struck. I once had a discussion with a user involving interpretation of a Google satellite photo as evidence that an Egyptian airport was still being used as a military airbase based off the supposed presence of military aircraft in the photo... it was textbook WP:SYNTH of primary sources and should be discouraged. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with an account that is possibly a factory of propaganda editor(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to ANI from AN.

The account is [User:Jingiby]. If you see the account edit history you will see that he (they) edit for 10 or more hours non stop each day. Last 24 hours alone, they made 40 edits. Going on like this, each day, for years. Something borderline impossible for a single human to do. So the suspect is they are a collective account, possibly paid for this. Second they have an agenda. It is a hitman account aimed exclusively at Macedonia related pages. With occasional article edits about nationalist issues with other Bulgarian neighbours. Editing them towards a Bulgarian propaganda worldview. And this is in plain sight. Even from their main page the Bulgarian nationalist narrative is clear (photo of Bulgarian warriors). We have had issues with this account for years. He/they were already banned before. You can read at comments from Macedonian reddit about this from today. Everyone finds this account suspiscious and problematic. https://www.reddit.com/r/mkd/comments/nvs8t7/англиски_артикли_на_википедија_за_македонија/ This account is well known to all Macedonian wikipedia editors and even on the Macedonian language wikipedia page. Most od the mods there know about this issue, you can ask for confirmation. It is a constant plague. We are against an organised and paid structure, so it is exausting for "hobby" editors to keep track and re-do the damage, only for them to re-do it some time down the line.

250k euros each year were exposed that the Bulgarian Gov, and under supervision of the ultranationalist Karakachanov, were allocated for "promotion of Bulgarian propaganda, especially in relation to Macedonia" https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/30967858.html https://english.republika.mk/news/macedonia/karakachanovs-institute-uses-government-money-to-expose-the-bulgarian-character-of-macedonia/ And though this does not count as evidence, it is very possible and likely that part of this money goes to some structured team of editors under this account. As someone suggested in the article, many of the sources linked by them quote some obscure google drive scanned files, that are not commonly available and accessible on the internet, and are by the same research institute "MNI" https://www.reddit.com/r/mkd/comments/nvs8t7/англиски_артикли_на_википедија_за_македонија/h15rhp1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Can can someone help us? Can something be done about this? thank you FrankSupra (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• @FrankSupra: you've failed to notify the subject on their talk page as indicated in the box at the top in bold. I've notified them for you Nosebagbear (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • thank you.

I want to add to the issue that most if not all the main Macedonia-related articles are dominated by Jingby edits(!) You see this name all ove the place.

History of edits on North Macedonia, Macedonian language, Macedonians (ethnic_group), History of North Macedonia, Macedonian nationalism, Macedonian alphabet, Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, Macedonians in Albania.. up to bogus propaganda articles like this Historiography in North Macedonia that the account created and 99% od the contributes is only theirs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the extent of the edits of this single account. This in itself is a red flag, if one account manages to tailor edit all the main pages of an entire country. Foreigner to the country none the least. FrankSupra (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe FrankSupra's comments constitute an over-the-top personal attack, which is unsupported by any on-wiki evidence (I really don't care what Reddit users think about much of anything, let alone Wikipedia activity) that is not wholly speculative, e.g., Jingiby makes too many edits to be just one person. There are many editors who make far more edits than Jingiby. I recommend an indefinite block of FrankSupra.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestion. Ban me if I did something bannable. I am not using personal attacks. I am aware I have no real hard evidence. My request is for the Admins to look into this matter. Perhaps they have some tools that would provide evidence. Like check if there are multiple IP's this account logs from simultaneously. Or other ways to check and verify this. Or if there are some policies on this kind of "focused" editors. FrankSupra (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    • To accuse an editor of something without evidence is a personal attack. It is disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise. Nor will Wikipedia investigate a user based on unsupported allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @FrankSupra: even if you don't have hard evidence for proving socking, your primary complaint is that they are a "propaganda editor" and "hitman account". What are the edits that show this? If they are substantiated that would suffice for a block, and should be provable through no more than on-wiki evidence, but must be supplied or would count indeed count as personal attacks Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Nosebagbear: I can link every single edit of this account and point that it is from an undoubtedly pro-bulgarian narrative. That would account as "propaganda". The fact alone that is a monothematic Macedonia obsessed account makes it a "hitman". On top of that there is the 10 hour daily edits, 24/7/365. If this things are not problematic, or are issues that only I am seeing, and are permitted by Wikipedia guidelines, I apologise. That was the main point, for me to ask if there are some issues here worth looking into. I cannot prove socking, Admins can check with IP and other tools. Thank you FrankSupra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

      Bbb23, Sorry to pester you again so soon after my comment on your talk page, but I took a very quick look at Special:Contributions/FrankSupra and I wholeheartedly concur with a WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW based indef, for whatever my opinion is worth. Even if they do prove their complaints, getting this account blocked is their sole purpose here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

      • @Bbb23: You have used personal attacks against me. No need to. All I am saying is look into this account. If there is something problematic there or not. Me not editing much on wikipedia is not a crime. Last edit there were also issues with user Jungby. He posted fake news articles as evidence on Macedonia related pages (as usual). I asked an admin support and his edits were reverted. FrankSupra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• While I empathize with a sense of frustration one might feel if they believe state funds are being appropriated to retain undisclosed paid editors to push a specific worldview, per Bbb23's point, the mere existence of such an effort is not proof that any specific editor is party to it. We should self-police our accusations against other editors in the absence of clear evidence. That someone doesn't have much in the way of hobbies or interests outside WP is not, itself, evidence of paid editing. If it were, we'd have to block all the WP:TROP regulars. Chetsford (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, i understand. Thank you for your contribution. FrankSupra (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • Support, Indef block of FrankSupra per Bbb23. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Nice one, kill the messenger. Thank you for your contribution any way. FrankSupra (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) "he (they) edit for 10 or more hours non stop each day. Last 24 hours alone, they made 40 edits." That is basis for neither complaint nor praise. Narky Blert (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is a really unconvincing argument for somebody being multiple people. 40 edits over 24 hours is not that many.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  I've made more than a thousand edits in the last 24 hours, and I'm certainly not being paid to do so. jp×g 02:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  So June 8, Jingiby edited from 00:00 to 09:47 and made about 36 edits by my quick count, but they didn't edit for that entire 9 hours and 47 minutes, their total time in editing was more on the order of 2:45 - 3:30, on again and off again and on again. This is a perfectly normal and reasonable pattern of editing, and is in no way indicative of collective use of the account. As for the user being a a pro-Bulgarian NPOV editor, FrankSupra needs to provide something more than "look at all their edits", some specific evidence in the way of diffs. If they don't come up with that, then I think a block for making and personal attack, and doubling down on it, is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  I went back and forth on whether to post this. I looked through several weeks worth of Jingiby's contributions, doing random spot checks, and didn't see anything untoward. There's some clear conflict in the archives of their talk page, though, which made me curious. Looking at contributions specifically related to some of the recent conflicts brought up this edit, where Jingiby changed the nationality of the citizens in a 1900 census/statistical review from Macedonian to Bulgarian and even changed their religion from Macedonian to Bulgarian. I can't access the source, which is Bulgarian, and it's completely possible this was a correct edit to make (not the part of the Balkans I know much about) but hopefully it sheds some light on why there might be conflict here. I do find the personal attacks unsubstantiated and unwarranted. SportingFlyer T·C 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block for FrankSupra fro unsubstantiated (and easily refuted) personal attacks. They claim that they "can link every single edit of this account and point that it is from an undoubtedly pro-bulgarian narrative." I looked at the most recent substantial edit at North Macedonia[225], and this is a perfectly neutral, factual edit (would have been better it is was sourced, but no actual problem). Fram (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Farm:1 gives made up reasons of why Bulgaria vetoed Macedonia in 2020. article referenced that nowhere mentions "state-supported hate speech, minority claims, ongoing nation-building, historical negationism of the Bulgarian identity" as he claims. 2 Tries to push "Macedonia name was invented/introduced after 19th century" quoting selected sources. Easily disapproven. by Roman Macedonia, Macedonia in the bible, medieval maps of Macedonia, Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi 1650 manuscripts..3 changes a perfectly valid Pirin Macedonia to a more Bulgarian inclined term - "Bulgarian Macedonia"4 Adds an image and a note about literally pro-Bulgarian-nationalists- group activities, as the few more important information for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia paragraph. Just a few edits, from a single article Republic of North Macedonia, tip of the iceberg. Is it a pattern of a nationalist bias? I am no expert in Wiki policies and protocols. If i do/did something bannable, ban me. Some possible issues I see are listed here and above. I ask the admins If there is something not conforming with the Wiki standards. Thank you FrankSupra (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Somehow, I don't think Farm is going to respond ... @Fram:--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
      • :-D Fram (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the example 2, "Tries to push "Macedonia name was invented/introduced after 19th century" quoting selected sources.": no, they didn't. They claim that Macedonia as a name for the region was largely forgotten / in disuse until the early 19th century, a century when in all of Europe nationalism and romanticism lead to a revival of "old" names, certainly those with a major history. Nowhere do they claim that "Macedonia name" was invented after the 19th century, that would be an exceedingly stupid claim to make and is completely absent from the edit you linked. Fram (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No it is not he is just editing nonsense to articles that are Macedonian to Bulgarian a lot of people attack FrankSupra you need to look the evidence is his contributions according to WPMAC Wikipedia once dealt with similar problems with the article North Macedonia before and the editor Jigby is a known example of pushing POV article but no one is doing a thing to block him again he needs to be blocked there is enough evidence to confirm that Jigby is a bulagria editor who pushes POV article and he needs to be stopped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.224.236 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone. So far, I have refrained from commenting, but these IPs and newly registered users have gone too far. There are special trainings and online webinars on how to be eliminated in order to be blocked on Wikipedia. Systematic IP-attacks are organized against Wikipedia articles related to Macedonia. I have been declared a paid troll. There are calls to organize extreme elements from North Macedonia and to come and beat me in Bulgaria, etc. Slander, lies, fabrications, insults. I think that goes beyond all bounds. This has been dragging on for years. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just like FrankSupra, you have made claims against other editors which you need to support with evidence, or you too will be guilty of WP:Casting aspersions. Please post diffs or outside links which point to "special trainings and online webinars on how to be eliminated in order to be blocked on Wikipedia," etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have done it several times here, but here you are: WIKIPEDIA WARRIORS: THE NEW FRONT LINES IN THE BATTLE FOR MACEDONIA. And read on Reddit, p;≥ease: Jingiby is a paid troll, for which a Macedonian Wikipedia army must be created and paid for. Freelancers stand no chance. Also: Let's go to Bulgaria to beat him. There are also calls for me to be tried in Strasbourg. Jingiby (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby edits in the fraught WP:ARBMAC area, and has been dealing with brigading by new editors for many years now. It is quite clear from the contribution history that this is another such case, and it is surprising that it has been allowed to take up so much time here. If anyone has issues with the potential POV leanings of specific edits, they should raise it on the relevant talk pages. CMD (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• I watched part of the anti-Jingiby YouTube (it's almost an hour long), and some of the comments by the narrator were eerily similar to those made by FrankSupra in this thread, e.g., how many edits Jingiby makes each day and how he works with a group of editors on articles to effectively shut down other users (FrankSupra's comment about a "collective account"). I have therefore indefinitely blocked FrankSupra, as really should have been done a while ago. It is true that FS stopped editing over 24 hours ago, but it is also true that there was a 3-month gap between his first edits and the edits here, so I had little confidence that he might not return.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sadly from the comment from this user per WP:Bully is an attack towards other editors and IP users who want to constructively edit pages WP Civility as well the links he mentioned WP no personal attacks I think what is being said here there is a rule per the Paid editing guidlines that we all need to look at this problem per Wikipedia conflict of interest page as well for the users and others who suspect the user of braking the rules here admins have a lot of tools to check and I think this user should be checked for this that way he may be cleared or not or if the user has broken or didn't broke the rules and settle this dispute that way and also inform you all that per WP:ARBMAC we are obliged to follow this rule as well thank you 37.25.85.206 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daps166 on Tom Brown (chef)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Daps166 has added contentious material on Tom Brown (chef) (see here) which I removed based on WP:BLP as the sources were WP:DEPRECATED. I explained this to Daps166 here but they added it a couple more times while calling me "a fucking idiot" as well as a "scum cunt" who covers up domestic abuse. They have added this information four times today and various IPs have over the past couple of days. They may or may not be related. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The rudeness displayed by the user in question makes it clear they are WP:NOTHERE. To any admins reading this, I suggest blocking said user for the time being. --KingErikII (Talk page) 13:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added relevant information in the public interest which Pedro keeps deleting.

Abuse allegations from Tom Browns wife are not defamation and are not contentious.

It is a fact that they have split up and a fact that he was arrested for common assault and false imprisonment.

This information is in the public interest as the #metoo movement has shown.

You are deleting relevant information that is very serious and should not be covered up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daps166 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats, but you could probably pile on some other reasons as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have turned off talk page access as they are continuing to be abusive, and have given them advice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this - I have nominated Tom Brown (chef) for AfD. The "abuse allegations" mentioned by Daps166 are corroborated .... in The Sun and the Daily Mail. I am happy to believe what Julieanne Brown has reported on her Instagram account is true, but that does not mean we ignore WP:BLP and paint Tom Brown as a criminal without at least both sides of the story reported in reliable broadsheet sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

With the focus on refs from the Sun and Daily Mail on abuse allegations, is this another sock of Brian K Horton? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Personally I doubt it, from a behavioural standpoint they don't seem to match at all. Notably:

• Brian K Horton tends to write enormous, often 1000 byte plus rants when engaged in conversations, this account mostly answered talk page messages with single sentences.
• Upon being told that the Daily Mail and Sun are unusable as sources Brian K Horton typically starts running round all the various noticeboards insisting that we need to make an exception and that they should allowed to use them as sources, this account stopped using them and started trying to source the information to other (still terrible) sources, e.g. instagram.
• This account makes a lot of wiki-markup errors that suggest they are a genuine newcomer, errors that I've never seen Brian do before, e.g. formatting references as external links, putting signatures on new lines so they end up in code markup, stray bits of markup in comments (e.g. there's some random asterisks on their talk page).
• This account has been editing here intermittently since 2017, and hasn't got caught up in any of the previous checkuser searches or tried to source stuff to the daily mail in that time.

CaptainEek blocked Mr Happy Shoes as a sockpuppet of Brian a couple of days ago, an account which does match the typical behaviour, but this account seems to just be an extremely inexperienced editor who didn't understand the sourcing requirements when adding information on crimes to BLPs. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

..... or that screaming the "C" word in ALL CAPS is not an effective dispute resolution method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And the "C" word is... civility? EEng 21:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Cauliflower, obviously. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought is was cantaloupe... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I wish it was capybara—blindlynx (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christian Eriksen

I have fully protected this page given the level of attention/disruption it was getting. More eyes would be welcome to deal with the inevitable edit requests etc. GiantSnowman 18:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Reduced to auto. GiantSnowman 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

IP user edit warring, aspersions, refusing to discuss, reinstating problematic material at Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Three editors, User:Þjarkur, User:Onel5969, and myself so far have concluded that the newly-created page Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis is better replaced by a redirect to the more substantial and better-sourced parent article Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. The newer smaller article (which seems to be a possible WP:POVFORK) consists of a source already in the parent article, in addition to several problematic/problematically used sources: a controversial source misleadingly used, a non-WP:RS source also used misleadingly, and a source whose inclusion/use is WP:OR (since it does not at all mention the subject of Khazars).

We each have replaced the article with a redirect to the parent article. But after each edit by the other editors, an IP user (2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:EC43:F0CC:270D:C902 [[226]]) calls said edit vandalism, threatens to file a vandalism report, and restores the disputed material. After one of my edits, the IP stated that the article contained information not in the parent article (though some of my previous edits had explained why most of those sources were problematic). After the IP reverted my edit, I started a topic on the Talk page but the IP did not engage there and instead has kept edit warring (against User:Onel5969 whom the IP continued to ignore and threaten) without properly explaining their reasons for restoring the contested material.

Here ([[227]] is the topic on the article's Talk page where I tried to explain the problems with the material in the page, explaining various Wikipedia policies (in case the IP user was not aware of them). It may be significant that, some of the material the IP favors, as I explain there in the Talk page, is identical to material added by the blocked User:Ultrabomb and periodically re-added by their many socks over time.

Recently, after Onel5969 asked the IP to use the Talkpage and left a link explaining WP:BRD. The IP simply reverted Onel5969 and reported them for vandalism (ignoring their link, their and my edit summaries, and refusing to engage).

The IP continues to edit war and refuse to engage/explain their edits despite attempts by myself User:Onel5969 to get them to stop edit warring and engage in Talk.

Here is the article's edit history for reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Genetic_Studies_and_the_Khazar_Hypothesis

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked the IP-range for 48 hours for edit warring. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: Hello. And thank you. But I am afraid (after being reverted by three or four users) the IP has still continued edit warring (they just again re-added the disputed material), has completely ignored all edit summaries and Talk page discussions, and is again threatening to report anyone who reverts them for "vandalism".

See the page's history here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Genetic_Studies_and_the_Khazar_Hypothesis

It seems more may need to be done. Skllagyook (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Skllagyook, the page has been semi-protected and the IP range blocked for 3 months by other admins. No further action is needed. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile Yes. I see that now. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Two Users from editing anywhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two horrible editors @BhagyaMani: and @Elmidae: have relentlessly kept reverting on each editors on List of mammals of Israel, List of mammals of Syria, List of mammals of Turkey, and as well as other list of mammals articles, but also kept inappropriately took out mammals that went extinct each region before 1500 AD and kept replacing it with IUCN refs and replaced the original ones, various example you should look at is this [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], and [233]. @BhagyaMani: also put the saudi gazelle on the locally extinct section at that list [234], which is extinct globally. These two editors have caused various troubles and they shall be blocked as said. Whenever an editor puts an animal that regionally became in each region before 1500 AD and put refs that demonstrate of any animals or in this case the former presence of any mammal species, they just remove it without full explantation. In fact, @Elmidae: started an unnecessary discussion at [235]. That serves no purpose at all. So either @Bbb23: or @NinjaRobotPirate:, for my own favor i want you to block both of them for causing bad contributions at each article they have caused so far. -- Elephantboy221 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Obvious sock of Animalworlds314 (talk · contribs) blocked. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hassantaleb123

Hassantaleb123 has uploaded copyrighted works, as well as copy-and-paste copyrighted material, despite numerous warnings.

• Articles:
  • August 2019: Wikipedia:Sandbox. This is understandable, as they were a new user.
  • December 2020: Guilty Gear -Strive-. Article was deleted due to copyright infringement.
• Media
  • June 12–13: I tagged 9 files for speedy deletion due to copyright infringement, as Hassantaleb123 uploaded the work non-free and claimed that they were the copyright holder.
  • June 13: After those files were deleted, Hassantaleb123 deleted all content on their talk page (so they certainly saw the notices), and then proceeded to upload File:GGXRD Dizzy.png released under {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}.

— Pbrks (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't ban me, I swear I'll not upload any more copyrighted works. Hassantaleb123 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• The user has changed their username and put up a retired banner. And asked for their talk page to be deleted, but we can't do that— Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/84.243.238.160

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

Very likely another instance of long-running and fast editing sockpuppeteer Legende Legende Legende. Seems to follow on from recently used 5.172.218.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), itself also likely another instance.

Tried raising an SPI for the last batch of instances starting in April 2021, but SPI was not fast enough to address the rapid proliferation of IP accounts; see the latest SPI entry. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Dusrapehelu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

WP:NOTHERE and personal attacks towards other editors in edit summaries. The user is now impersonating my RFPP requests. Special:Diff/1028395314 -- DaxServer (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that the user is now blocked. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing issues with aesthetic realism: COI and POV editing

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

Braxton7248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Nathan43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is my first time posting to AN/I, so if I've made any procedural errors, please let me know.

I was alerted to Aesthetic Realism by another user on Discord. My immediate thought was that the article had to be improved, and I was willing to put in the time to remove the large volume of primary sources. It has become clear that my immediate thought was a bit naive. Many editors directly connected to the article are deeply involved with the subject. The subject in question is, itself, mixed, because the article is so muddled. It at once is about an ostensible philosophy called aesthetic realism and its administering body—widely described to be a cult: [236], [237], [238], [239].

As many have written in Talk:Aesthetic Realism, the article's current state is more or less "soft enforced" by a group of editors. Some edit exclusively on this article and its related topics (eg. Eli Siegel, the organisation's founder). The article is almost exclusively sourced to either:

• primary or self-published sources;
• offline sources which have, thus far, proven impossible for me to track down (through legitimate or illegitimate means).

The primary editor involved is LoreMariano, who consistently writes misleading edit summaries and marks non-minor edits as minor; frequently, these involve the removal of information that looks bad for the organisation: [240] [241] [242]

LoreMariano has previously removed content about the organisation's history of gay conversion therapy. Although I will provide a diff here, it is very hard to read in source mode because the reference tags are filled with quotations; consider viewing both sides in visual mode. Note the removal of detailed information about men who signed up with the organisation from mainstream outlets and about Siegel's personal involvement: [243].

Today, Berrely cleaved a large amount of content that was over-quoted from AestheticRealism.net. Within a few minutes, LoreMariano reverted the edit: [244] This is not the first time LoreMariano has restored removed content despite policy-based arguments against it: [245] (Berrely re-implemented his edits, which have yet to be reverted.) Other edits by LoreMariano include attempts to deceive about reliability: "the largest selling daily in North India, publishes news and views without any bias or prejudice of any kind. Restraint and moderation, rather than agitational language and partisanship, are the hallmarks of the paper. It is an independent newspaper in the real sense of the term": [246]

Braxton7248 has admitted their connection: [247]. They have also been involved in the removal of content which looks bad for them: [248]. That last edit includes classic homophobic dog-whistles: gay people may marry whoever they 'choose', but that is neither here nor there.

Another editor, one called Trouver, has a long history of disputes with this page. See, for example, an entire page that was archived by LoreMariano: [249]. One edit summary by Trouver reads "this article has been re-written: extensive revision & cuts addressing npov". The change in question changes only a few characters, including fixing a typo on one of the foundation's URLs, and removing a POV maintenance banner: [250]. Funnily, this is a minor edit, incorrectly tagged and deceptively summarised.

One other editor has a pattern of reverting attempts that attempt to clarify that gay conversion is archaic—Nathan43. See: [251] [252].

Open to any and all suggestions about the outcome of this case. My gut feeling is that the article cannot be improved in its current state because of involved parties. That said, I think what little reliable sourcing there is would be better-served as a section in Eli Siegel's article rather than one on its own. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalism of trans BLPs, and block evasions

At the suggestion of El C, I'm here to report ongoing vandalism and misgendering of trans subjects from what appears to be a single block-evading vandal in the IP subnet 147.161.

• June 2: 147.161.13.177
• June 3: 147.161.13.196
• June 5: 147.161.12.28
• June 6: 147.161.8.123
• June 7: 147.161.8.59
• June 8: 147.161.9.144
• June 9: 147.161.8.96
• June 10: 147.161.9.237 (see taunt)
• June 12: 147.161.12.150
• June 13: 147.161.12.242 (see taunt)

Per the noted taunts, there might be more of these. Funcrunch (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/147.161.8.0/21 blocked for a month. It's probably an LTA troll. Some interesting people are on this IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by AzərbaycanTürküAze

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user does nothing more than fill talk pages with ethno-nationalistic rants and pseudo theories. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

[253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Another one [263] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

[264] [265] --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grave BLP violation by VarneyTrevor129 despite many warnings

VarneyTrevor1296 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly warned about their editing. They have made an addition to List of serial killers by number of victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) claiming that a living person is a serial killer with 146 confirmed victims, with a claimed source of www.theguardian.com. Even if we ignore citing the home page of a major newspaper isn't particularly helpful, the Hu Wanlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article says his only conviction was for practising medicine without a license, he was not convicted of killing 146 people. When you compare the text of the two articles, you even see exactly how VarneyTrevor1296 has copied text from the original article while deliberately leaving out important details to smear a living person:

Hu Wanlin article; Hu was arrested on January 18, 1999 in Shangqiu, aged 50, on suspicion of causing nearly 150 deaths. He was convicted of practising medicine without a license on October 1, 2000, receiving 15 years imprisonment, suspension of voting rights for five years and a 150,000 yuan fine. In 2014, shortly after Hu received an early release from imprisonment, state-run media reported that he had been responsible for another death: a 22-year-old college student attending another one of his "health retreats"

Addition to serial killer article; Hu was arrested on January 18, 1999 on suspicion of causing 150 deaths. In 2014, shortly after Hu received an early release from imprisonment, state run media reported that he was responsible for another death: a 22 year old college student attending another one of his “health retreats.”

The Hu Wanlin article's text makes it clear what he was convicted of, yet this text is deliberately left out. It is difficult to imagine a more grave BLP violation than a claim someone is a serial killer with 146 confirmed victims when they were never convicted of the deaths, so could something be done about this disruptive editor please? 178.108.190.119 (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

How to report abusive emails?

I am getting abuse emails from some troll account. How do I report them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, is it via the "email this user" feature, or directly? (You will know if it is, as you will get an on-wiki notification for it - "X sent you an email.".) Daniel (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Daniel, The user in question send me a non-offensive, just confusing email first through Wiki system, to which I replied with my regular email. Then they started sending problematic emails, but for the most offensive ones switched to their own email. The offensive emails still quote the original "send from Wikipedia/username" part. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, because the user now has your email address, not much from a technical point of view that can be done to stop them emailing. (If they didn't have your actual email address, we could have blocked them from sending email if they were blocked.) If their account isn't blocked/banned, I'd recommend emailing the Arbitration Committee with the emails, and they may look to take action? Daniel (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Daniel My email address is hardly secret (since I am publicly disclosing who I am on my userpage anyway). I know they can keep spamming me, what I wanted to know is whether the troll can be pro format blocked on Wikipedia for their email harassment (right now they are unblocked, not that they are very active - they made one edit total). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If they are a single purpose account, I am happy to block them myself for harassment once I sight the emails. I'll send you an email so you have my email address, and please send me the email chain. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You should forward them to ArbCom or WMF Trust & Safety, Piotrus. @Daniel: I appreciate that you're just trying to help but individual admins shouldn't place blocks based on nonpublic evidence. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: fine with me. Seems like a massive amount of overkill for an account that has made one edit, but that's bureaucracy for you! Piotrus, sorry I couldn't help further. Daniel (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that everyone has a right to appeal a block, which is difficult if only one admin knows the information used to justify it. ArbCom has the means to archive that information. Piotrus could also send it to an individual functionary (like me, if you want) but they should then copy the information to ArbCom anyway, so it doesn't really reduce the bureaucracy. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe and Daniel - I understand. I contacted ArbCom and User:Maxim has blocked the account. Thank you.

Resolved

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fake film credits

I stumbled on an editor or editors who put the same wall of fake credits into numerous articles. So far I have found:

• 74.14.22.204
• 74.14.50.221
• 74.14.73.208
• 74.14.75.135
• 76.66.129.110
• 76.66.129.236
• 76.66.140.105
• 76.66.141.118
• 76.66.141.232
• 76.66.142.78
• 76.66.143.143
• 174.95.46.176

Examples of the edits:

• This on Pure Country 2: The Gift
• this on Mantervention
• this also on Mantervention
• this on Dark Night (2016 film)
• this also on Dark Night
• this also on Dark Night
• this on Bad Golf Made Easier
• this on Plump Fiction
• this on The Assault (2010 film)
• this on Transporter: The Series
• this on Sniper: Special Ops
• this on Pawn (2013 film)
• this on Tattoo (2002 film)
• this on Amish in the City

There may be more. I am slowly working my way through by using one of the names in their list and seeing what articles it is linked in. It is a very slow process. Can anyone help or figure out how to stop this? Notfrompedro (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm still finding more. Some of this vandalism goes back to 2018 at the least. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

These are not very recent, but they look like the habitual edits of WP:LTA/VCV. I note that these IP's all geolocate to various towns in Southern Ontario. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps to identify them but they seem to like to put fake filming locations in the articles along with the fake credits. They also use certain actors and directors repeatedly. That helped me track down a lot of the vandalism. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've come across some editors that do this before, I can't recall their accounts though. Let me see if I can find them. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Herald008

User:Herald008 has been making numerous disruptive edits - meaningless or nonsensical wording changes and a half dozen copyright violations. Nearly 100% of edits are disruptive and contribute nothing to the encyclopedia. Seven warnings have been issued. MarconiCheese (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 24 hours. Clearly disruption in good faith, but poor grammar and lots of copyright violations. Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The article of Pritam Mhatre is a famous person and respected in panvel municipal corporation. So please remove the deletion template.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Sir,

We are requesting you to please remove the deletion template that you applied on Mr. Pritam Mhatre's articles. He is currently serving as opposition leader in panvel municipal corporation. He is famous politician and social worker as well. So we would request you again to please remove the deletion template that you applied on his page article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat1312pawar (talk • contribs) 02:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Bharat1312pawar::

Go pound sand. Unless the deletion template is grossly inappropriate, it will not be removed until it is acted upon, whether by an admin (speedy deletion tag) or by consensus (Deletion debate). In addition, if you are making this edit as part of your job and/or are connected to Mhatre in any professional fashion, you are REQUIRED to disclose this information, publicly, on your userpage. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

There is probably a nicer way to say that than starting out with "Go pound sand". I am not seeing an ownership issue here. It is a request and a claim of notability. I have not looked at the article and have no opinion on its notability or the deletion template, but this post is not a behavioral issue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article's sourcing. For a BLP it's well under-par. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless this account is shared (and/or) by a UPE group ("we") and Propritam is its sock. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Article had previously been deleted via AfD under a different title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pritam Janardan Mhatre0. Not a single keep at the most recent Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pritam Mhatre), so I've deleted the article and salted both titles. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violation + legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2600:1700:1421:C1D0:6461:264A:C4B4:60CB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Various IPs have been adding to Steve Donahue saying "It was later revealed that the 2009-10 Cornell players directed racial slurs towards Jeremy Lin as a teamwide strategy to gain a competitive advantage over Harvard." Two sources were added to support this: a YouTube video, and a text source which does not mention Steve Donahue. I reverted the edits as an unsourced BLP violation, and the IPs reverted me. The IP then left this message on my talk page: "Between me and you, I'm the actual attorney buddy. Might want to stop with the ignorant statements and vandalism of pages based on facts you don't like." Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked one week for BLP & NLT, and edits reverted. Awful sourcing for such a scurrilous claim. Daniel (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:90.255.231.53 - Not here to build an encyclopedia ...

... since his only edits have been to post multiple independent WP:NPOV and questionably sourced paragraphs to one person's biography. See here. He's also on the verge of WP:EW but I assert is more notable for WP:NOTHERE. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Complaint withdrawn. Johnnie Bob (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

User calls me a Mleccha

User:Prof.Krishnamoorthy is adding opinions in Sambandam without source. When I reverted calls me a meleccha.[266] 2402:3A80:53D:7E3E:0:46:D395:9001 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that Prof.Krishnamoorthy just removed this report with the edit summary "Fixed typo". Woodroar (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have sent the reply to Mister 2402:3A80:53D:7E3E:0:46:D395:9001 in Talk section, Mr User:Woodroar. I have given the necessary sources there too. And as I mentioned, I was searching online copies of documents so that our wikipedia readers can read the fact directly from the source. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Krishnamoorthy (talk • contribs)

@Prof.Krishnamoorthy: Have you also apologized for what has been reported as a personal attach? —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes User:C.Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Krishnamoorthy (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, that's a big typo for sure. Please don't disrupt ANI by removing reports, Prof.Krishnamoorthy. Especially not with deceptive edit summaries. Bishonen | tålk 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC).

Threat on my talk page over one edit

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, so please advise me if this is the wrong venue...

I have made 1 edit on the Pierre Kory page in 18 hours. Furthermore, I discussed the edit EXTENSIVELY in the talk page before making it. My edit was neutral, and aligned with the view of many other editors. I received this threat on my talk page as a result of my edit: "You seem intent on repeated reversions of edits by other editors. You know what the consequences can be; it strikes me as likely that you will soon experience more of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)".

I have never interacted with this user before, but this extremely menacing and out of the blue. MsSMarie (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

As it says on the top of the page, you must notify all users involved about the discussion. Please do so. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 16:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They did notify five minutes after the post, however I suspect a curved piece of wood shall be flying back at this report shortly.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The notification was done after my original comment above, they hadn't done anything so I just thought I would let them know. My apologies for any mix ups or confusion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made 1 edit on the Pierre Kory page in 18 hours. Looking at the edit history of the article, that may be technically true, but it is not the whole story; I count at least three other edits just in the first page of the edit history where you make a similar edit. You were warned for your entire edit history on that article, not for one edit. My edit was neutral, and aligned with the view of many other editors.^{[citation needed]}; looking at the talk page discussion, I don't see any other editors agreeing with you, and several editors who disagree with you. So, no, that warning is fair, although perhaps a bit ominously-worded. Allow me to reword it:

Please do not continue to insert your preferred language into the article before a talk page discussion has come to a close with a consensus in favor of them. What you're doing now is referred to as a slow-moving edit war, and while you might not have crossed the bright line of three reverts in 24 hours, it is no less against the rules about edit-warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. HTH, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Are there any defined rules on over-editing? For future reference. I believed my conduct was completely reasonable, seeing as several other users edit the same page each and every day. If you could point me to some policy, I would have clarity, and especially I could bring to the attention of two other users that they are over editing (The other users are: Notfrompedro and Alexbrns, who edit the page each day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"looking at the talk page discussion, I don't see any other editors agreeing with you, and several editors who disagree with you. So, no, that warning is fair, although perhaps a bit ominously-worded.":

This editor agrees with me: "Regarding Kory's claims concerning ivermectin, the Wikipedia article Ivermectin#COVID-19 misinformation cites the response to a rejected paper on ivermectin authored by Kory. Said paper was rejected as containing "“a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.” [8]. This is arguably more relevant to this article than a debate about whether Kory's hyperbolae about 'wonder drugs' can be described as 'erroneous', since it concerns the scientific response to his actual claims themselves, rather than meaningless waffle. Science and medicine don't work via 'wonder drugs' or 'miracles'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)"

This editor agrees with me: "The reference from associated press is being used in a way more authoritative manner than is called for, it makes no attempt at disclosing why his critics opinions are valued higher than his. Their places of employment are listed which are universities, but Pierre Kory himself worked at a university, so it really seems nothing but bad faith unfounded bashing from the reporters side. If it is solely an opinion piece the intro of this article is nothing but a trolling campaign against a licensed medical professional. ColourScreen"

In the passed 50 posts on that page there have been only 7 editors commenting on the talk page, including myself, and three of them are one side four on the other, so it still seems pretty controversial. MsSMarie (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

If you are going to quote me, please have the common decency not to cherry-pick a single comment in an ongoing discussion. As for ColourScreen's comment, you have likewise engaged in cherry-picking, since you omitted to also quote his/her following comment: "I've posted it on the admin board for defamation, hopefully they can ban some users". [267] I'm inclined to think that some people might consider that "extremely menacing". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I was selecting two comments from the thread that felt showed a lack of consensus. I can't quote the whole talk thread here, so I don't know how else I could make my point. I apologize if you feel I misrepresented your opinion, that was not my intention. As for ColourScreen's comments regarding banning people, I don't know why that is relevant here? I never advocated for banning people... MsSMarie (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

@MsSMarie: did you forgot what you yourself wrote? You came to ANI to complain about "extremely menacing" posts on your talk page. You then ignore worse posts from other editors who's views you support. Either "extremely menacing" posts are something which need to be dealt with at ANI or they aren't. If they aren't then don't come here to complain. If they are, then you should report other "extremely menacing" posts your come across. (Frankly, if you didn't think there may be justification for a block or topic banned, I'm not sure I'm not sure it even made sense to open an ANI complaint anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. MsMarie received a warning about edit warring on June 10 — our usual quite explanatory edit war warning — which they promptly removed. Then they were taken to AN3 for the same edit warring — with a notification on their page, naturally — and blocked for it for 48 hours by User:Bbb23. After all that information about edit warring, it's very difficult to take their innocent "Are there any defined rules on over-editing?" above in good faith. Or to take their claim of "agreement" by AndyTheGrump (of all people) in good faith either. I have blocked MsMarie for 24 hours for abuse of our processes. Bishonen | tålk 20:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC).

• I believe that MsSMarie and User:ColourScreen are either sock puppets or meat puppets and should be blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's any socking, it's WP:MEAT; there's no technical connection.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Socks? Highly unlikely, I'd say, based on their very different editing styles. As for meatpuppetry, there's little question that outside commentary regarding the Kory biography has led to a slew of partisan edits, but that doesn't necessarily indicate any prior coordination between these two individuals. Kory's claims regarding COVID-19 treatment have been taken up by people with all sorts of different views on the issue, from those convinced he hasn't been given a fair chance because he didn't agree with medical consensus, to outright conspiracy theorists pushing all the usual COVID-19-related nonsense. Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to deal with such situations that don't depend on assuming meatpuppetry is taking place. If MsSMarie can't be convinced that Wikipedia doesn't work the way they desire, and keeps up with the repetitive stonewalling behaviour, it may ultimately be necessary to impose a block - but on the basis of their own behaviour rather than on unverified assumptions about links with others. That can come across as looking a little too much like a conspiracy theory itself, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Threats of legal action by User:2600:2B00:9A89:F600:19E8:744C:811:935D

User:2600:2B00:9A89:F600:19E8:744C:811:935D in his edit summary on Nick Carter (musician) here. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP range, and posted a message to the IP talk page explaining how to request an unblock if the threat of legal action is no longer in force. JBW (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no issue with the block for NLT, obviously that's black and white. And on the face of it, I agree that removal of sourced information is generally revertable with minimum thought. But let's take a step back here and think about this. I think it's fair to say that this person is either the subject, or someone associated with the subject. The sentence they are trying to remove is sourced, so agree that it has the right to be included. But is it a fair representation of the sources and situation (WP:NPOV)? For me, no. It doesn't mention that he denied the claims. It doesn't mention any of his viewpoint. Right now, that paragraph reads to someone who doesn't click thru to the source as if the only thing that 'saved' him was the statute of limitations, and does not even touch on the fact that he denied the claims. In my view, I can just about understand the removal of content by a person closely associated with the subject, given the emotion they would feel reading it presented the way it is. I feel like we can make some changes here to benefit the presentation of the information, and improve the content around this paragraph to make it more reflective of the situation (and hence, neutral). Thoughts? (Pinging those who have edited the article recently @Vedbas:, @Johnnie Bob:, @CodeTalker:, and blocking administrator @JBW:.) Daniel (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am largely inclined to agree, Daniel. In fact on reflection I wonder whether a friendly explanation and warning might have been better than an immediate block. I will look again at the disputed content, and if I find I am substantially in agreement with your view I shall remove it, and I suggest that if anyone thinks it should be restored they seek consensus before doing so. In dealing with negative statements about a living person we should err on the side of excluding material if in doubt. JBW (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have removed disputed material, and created a section about it on the article's talk page, asking for it to not be restored without consensus. I have copied the comment above from Daniel, and my reply to him above, into that section. JBW (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dokabutts6, disruptive SPA

Dokabutts6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits other than to the Darren Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and two previous blocks for edit-warring haven't stopped them turning up and repeatedly reverting to their preferred version. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: indefinitely blocked from editing the article. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Rapid bot (or meat-bot)-like edits by relatively new user

• Red King 0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what's going on, but this editor is making plenty of repetitive edits across multiple articles (including this, which is kinda implausibly large - except if they're copy-pasting at a rapid rate - given their last edit before that was just 1 minute before). They don't seem to have any edits beside this, so I see no evidence that this mass editing was discussed anywhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

They appear to be one of two users adding "mobile-friendly" they're referring to as hubs to military history articles as the existing navboxes don't appear on mobile view. Except these "hubs" are inferior in formatting, presentation, etc. and look god-awful on desktop view because they are duplicative to the existing (IMO superior) ones. Personally, I think these additions should be reverted for now and then discussed as to if they should be added back. It looks like the better situation would just be to let navboxes show up on mobile view, instead of making this mess. Hog Farm _Talk 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Any useful tool to waste less time doing mass rollback (i.e. based on the above)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Since it's a mixture of edits from two editors, any form of mass rollback would probably be ineffective. Hog Farm _Talk 14:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm loathe to suggest this, but given the nature of these edits and mostly their quantity, a short block from mainspace to get them to discuss this here might avoid more trouble. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Roje Vala

Roje Vala (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The editor has been warned more than once (March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, June 2021) for going against WP:NICH on North American ice hockey pages and MOS in general. The editor does not use edit summaries and does not react to messages on its talk page. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Looking at some random reverted edits of theirs, they look well-intentioned. I agree that many of their edits are disruptive, but they seem HERE to me. – Rummskartoffel 17:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Bobo192

I have asked User:Bobo192 nicely to leave me alone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Allen (cricketer), and he is still continuing to harass me. I don't feel a block is necessary at this point, but I would appreciate some admin backup. I'm finding this distressing. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A block, for indenting conversations so they are easier to read? When indentations are left in chronological order rather than thread of conversation, it makes them very hard to read. Bobo. 17:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I were either you or Bobo192 at this point I would disengage from the conversation. But that's just me. That conversation does give me the feel though that Bobo192 seems like one of those people who just has to have the last word, and you seem determined not to let Bobo192 have the last word. Both of you have said what you need to say and at this point are just repeating yourselves. It would probably be best if both of you just stop replying. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. That’s why I didn’t reply to any of the final comments made yesterday. But then he started a new discussion today directed at me after I didn’t engage. He won’t stop when I asked him to blatantly. 4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A good way to end a conversation .... is to stop participating in it. ;-) If you don't engage, they can't continue. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Block Evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Back in the February another Admin (EvergreenFir) blocked User:Tevin21 infinite for block evasion, then a month later the same person that created User:Tevin21 came back and was using multiple ip's to add incorrect information to articles, as a result the ip's were blocked by Admin (EvergreenFir) for block evasion, Now fast foward to June now he (User:Tevin21) is using multiple ip's to add false information to these articles and here is the ip's that he is using .

Ip's right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:69EA:B3E4:6D68:AEF8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:FC38:3B6D:8293:98DD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:C0B0:998D:5CBC:7DFB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:8800:4003:ED00:99E:5BD0:15BF:9053

Articles that he is adding false information to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SummerSlam_(2021)&oldid=1028576814 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_TakeOver&oldid=1028374637 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SummerSlam_(2021)&oldid=1028225337 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_TakeOver&oldid=1028374637 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bash_at_the_Beach_(2000)&oldid=1028069805 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_American_Bash&oldid=1027727477 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SummerSlam_(2021)&oldid=1027726059

I can confirm that another editor (JDC808) said that Warnings are completely useless because the person that uses the ip's is ignoring all warnings that on all ip's talk page that other editors have given him and it is a direct block evasion of User:Tevin21. Chip3004 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I can confer. The above editor (identified as Tevin21) has used multiple IPs for several months to continue to try and add false information, despite talk page posts, warnings, etc., for why the information they're trying to add is false. We believe it is in fact the same editor as they have made the exact same, or very similar, edits across all of these IPs. Having seen them do this multiple times now, the warnings have become useless as they just continue to make the same edits from different IPs. --JDC808 ♫ 21:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Those IPs are covered by range Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ed00::/64 which I blocked for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40

• 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As far as I understand, IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is still topic banned from Race & Intelligence for pushing a conspiracy theory related to the topic area (per [268]). Their continued pushing of this conspiracy theory was discussed here last October, though apparently no additional action was taken: [269].

This IP user has now reappeared once again, pushing the same conspiracy theory over at a user talk page, with the apparent approval of other like-minded editors. Some of the chatter on that talk page is clearly inappropriate (aspersions, etc.), but the only actionable item I'm going to suggest at this point is a longer-term range block for the IP to enforce the t-ban. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request that an admin action this request, and broadly. The R&I subject area was a terrible quagmire until an ArbCom case cleaned it up somewhat, but if sanctions are not enforced, it's likely to become one again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a large range with a large number of edits. Previous blocks were partial page blocks - the Race & Intelligence page and an Arbcom page. What is being proposed here, and can we have a few more diffs? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The relevant background diffs are in the two discussions I linked above, here and here, and then the most recent t-ban violation is here. With regard to the best way to handle the situation, I will defer to others, though I certainly agree with what Beyond My Ken has stated above. It seems to me that there should be some way to enforce a well-earned topic ban. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I can only give you my observations the way I see it. There's some diffs from the previous year, and thousands of edits from the range since (presumably many different people, but obvious collateral), and who knows how many legitimate account creations. This doesn't look like a productive full block situation to me. Maybe a partial block against the one user's talk page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory being discussed at that talk page is ridiculous beyond belief: the earliest reference I can recall off the top of my head (and I guarantee I could find earlier ones if I looked into it) to there being an establishment of scientific racism within psychometry was in a letter written by Richard Lewontin in 1970. Somehow, I don't think he was inspired by some trolling at RationaWiki in 2018. I know for a fact that in the late 90's, people were discussing it in the context of The Bell Curve and it's failings.

Honestly, I truly believe anyone at that talk page involved in that discussion could benefit from a TBAN, because the simple fact that they're taking those claims seriously evinces a grave lack of competence to work in this subject. In at least one case, this would be the re-imposition of such a ban. As for the IP, TonyBallioni said it in the discussion in which the IP's topic ban was imposed: range blocks on these IPs usually have very low collateral damage. I say go for it, and if anyone else in that range wants to edit, they can create an account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that -- as opposed to range full blocks -- range topic bans, in the form of partial blocks, have much less chance of collateral damage and would seem to be a good way to handle the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not what I had in mind, but yes, page blocks from the talk pages of the involved editors, as well as the article in question would likely get the job done. Honestly, I'm still unfamiliar with the concept of partial blocks. It seems alien and strange and I want to squint at it and tell it to pull up its pants and get a real job, then go mutter about kids not knowing what respect is to myself while I sit on my porch in a rocking chair and whittle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting in the hopes this edit will show up on an admin's watchlist. There's a literal cabal of editors plotting ways to get around the community consensus and inventing excuses to engage in POV pushing, led by an IP editor who's been topic-banned from this subject. I'd like to repeat that I wholeheartedly encourage an admin to topic-ban the whole group of them, to avoid the future disruptions that this sort of behavior makes clear is inevitable, if nothing is done about it. If evidence of a long- term pattern of disruption is necessary, I will gather and provide it upon request. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think it should be clear that it isn't possible to topic ban a big group of people in a report at a noticeboard. That's only possible in an arbitration case. Also, it seems admins are showing little interest in this report, so probably no one will be blocked or topic banned here. tickle me 12:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have seen multiple ANI threads result in more than one topic ban being handed out. Pinging zzuuzz to see if they'll follow through with at least the partial block they suggested on that IP range. If we're not going to enforce existing topic bans, then there's little point in having them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes we can't even enforce the fullest of full site bans, so don't get your hopes up. Topic bans are not one of my specialties, and this subject certainly isn't, so if anyone else needs a topic ban then that's a different discussion. However, I've renewed the partial block on the IP range since their topic ban is still in place and this block is cheap. I've added the user talk page, which has been edited twice in the past year. Talk:Race and intelligence is currently EC-protected for some time, but I've also added that to the block mainly for its symbolism. Other admins should feel free to add to the block as they see fit - I believe the limit for partial blocks is currently 10 pages if anyone has any better suggestions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm aware that not all actions can be enforced, but it's certainly in the best interest of the project that we at least try. This article has been a shitshow for years thanks to editors like these, constantly plotting ways to advance their cause without ever once stopping to consider that if they can't make their case with reliable sources, they don't have a case to make. It's especially concerning to see an admin falling for this obvious bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If you really think all of our behavior is that bad, you should request an arbitration case. The fact that you haven't requested one yet suggests you're aware that if you do, the case wouldn't necessarily go in your (and NightHeron and Generalrelative's) favor. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is going to help make a great evidence diff when this does eventually end up at ArbCom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You and the others have been threatening an arbitration case for over a month. If you intend to request an arbitration case, please just do it instead of trying to scare us with empty threats. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANIME and WP:TV issues again

I noticed IJBall, Netoholic, and an anonymous IP have been having an isolated consensus for certain Requested moves. Those are Talk:List of KonoSuba episodes and Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes into articles for the sake of naming conventions.

Personally, I find the timing a little too coincidental for two WP:TV editors to quickly intercept a requested move for WP:ANIME. I won't hold too much into that theory. However, instead of informing the appropriate Wikiprojects, IJBall opted to canvas to other like-minded editors. [270].

User:IJBall, in the past was part of a group of editors to having WP:ANIME become a subproject to WP:TV's and in turn nullify WP:ANIME's MOS guidelines. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 63#The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TV. So IJBall is completely aware that the attempt to nullify WP:ANIME's guidelines were not successful and also proved WP:ANIME doesn't have guidelines that contradict WP:TV's. only that WP:TV have different editing practices. I only bring this up only to prove that IJBall is aware of the current consensus and is actively attempting to sideline it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: You must notify the editors you are discussing on their talk page, per the information at the top of this page. I've gone ahead and done so. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you SamStrongTalks. Wow, what a pathetic ANI filing. This should be closed as WP:POINTy, and involving no violation of anything whatsoever. I will ignore Blue Pumpkin Pie baldfaced mischaracterization of what's going on here, but would urge that they be reprimanded for casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm only providing what can be observed. iknow you're the accused, but it would be good to at least attempt to approach this civilly?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well thats about as blatant a canvass as you can get. Despite having a very clear consensus that no, WP:ANIME does not have to do everything the way WP:TV does. This crap over article structure has been going on since 2013 when Ryulong and Lucia Black were the most disruptive users and caused headaches for many others. Nip this in the bud early this time and just topic ban the offenders from creating move requests, moving or otherwise dicking around with anime articles or its just going to go downhill. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • One: I didn't open these RM's, I have only commented. Two: Topic banning people for expressing opinions is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear of. Three: The closing of that RfC doesn't say anything that you people are claiming – "interconnected" means there is overlap. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:Canvass doesnt require you to have started the discussion. What it does is prohibit Campaigning (Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner) and vote-stacking (Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions). Only an idiot would claim your message was neutral, and it was to someone you knew shared your views because you participated in a discussion about exactly this issue with them. So no, I am not suggesting you are topic banned for expressing an opinion. I am suggesting you are topic banned from Anime-related moves because you engage in blatant canvassing and then are being deceptive about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • OK, my bad – I'll admit that I probably shouldn't have done that. (Self-WP:TROUT.) (Not that it matters – Gonnym has not commented, and I honestly don't expect him to either, because he's shown no interest in getting back into this petty squabble...) One mistake does not justify a "topic ban". Why don't you admit that what you are really after is silencing all critics of current WP:ANIME practices? – because that's exactly how this comes off. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• For my part, this aspersion against me is ridiculous. Even a cursory look at my contributions shows that I am a frequent participant in a variety of move requests, and I particularly frequent those related to TV and film as a broad area of interest. I was never canvassed nor have I coordinated with IJBall or 184.146.38.122. These two RMs were simply present on my patrol of recent RM discussions. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • And also, this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't want anyone to be topic-banned over this and felt the punishment too harsh, I just wanted this to be brought up so that WP:TV and WP:ANIME can really just work together without discourse. If anything, I want more people working on Anime-related articles, not less. I'm personally apologizing for assuming bad faith. I only observed two RMs that were very isolated with no mention to other wikiprojects and the previous comment to be interpreted as admittance or refusal to work with WP:ANIME, and sideline the current consensus, and within 24hrs, only the same editors responded. If you weren't aware of the current consensus, then I'm even more sorry. But it should be noted that it is disruptive still to not try to work with an actively involved wikiproject. WP:TV and WP:ANIME share 90% of the same guidelines except for article hierarchy. And right now, what hurts WP:ANIME's reputation isn't article structure, it is lack of accessible sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you, BPB. Let me just say that "article structure" potentially does hurt the WP – if people are looking for KonoSuba (TV series) (i.e. searching), and can't find it because it's at List of KonoSuba episodes, that's not good. (That may not happen often, but I bet it happens.) And WP:TV have laid out a process here – treat the "main" (manga) articles like "franchise" articles (e.g. both WP:FILM and WP:TV have articles like this), and then treat the anime series articles like "TV series" articles (which puts them under MOS:TV and WP:NCTV). I get that this could involve moving hundreds of articles, but we've done stuff like that before with bots... Now, this is veering out of ANI territory, but the point is there is a discussion that can be had, but WP:ANIME has in general "preferred to keep doing things the way they've always been done", and what WP:TV feels like it has seen is a lot of heels-digging-in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

        I don't see anything in the previous closed RFC that would indicate that WP:ANIME has to, or even should, bring their article naming conventions into line with WP:TV. Correct me if I'm wrong on that count.

        They have an argument for why it makes sense to do things the way they currently are, and the primary argument I've seen for changing it is that it isn't consistent with how it is done in a related but distinct area and that possibly some people (who would have to be pretty experienced Wikipedia users) might get confused by searching for "<franchise name> (TV Series)" and not finding it. It is theoretically possible people make this mistake, but I would be shocked if it was anywhere close to a significant number of people. If there is a different argument for changing things, I'm open to the idea, but this entire discussion probably belongs in another RFC if the sides can't come to an agreement. Either way, not an ANI topic, in my opinion. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

      • What I don't understand is why I was lumped in as a "WP:TV editors". IJBall identifies as part of the WikiProject, but I don't and I don't think the IP user is. My interest and interaction with the WikiProject is at best in regards to article naming/move requests... not authorship. I think I see Blue Pumpkin Pie's fault in this report as WP:FACTIONing - in his mind dividing (wrongly) people into ANIME vs TV and ascribing ill-intent, rather than addressing the merits of the actual move request and the best interests of the article. For example, if a list of episodes also includes a lot of detail on the production, cast, broadcast history, home media, etc., then its no longer appropriate as just a list but should be formatted and named as a TV series article. I think most ANIME participants think of the anime as an extension of the manga, where TV participants probably view an anime series from the perspective of a separate production in the franchise. The debate isn't about which WikiProject you are part of -- its about whether there is enough content beyond the simple listing of episodes to warrant expansion to cover the other production details of the series. Surely, both ANIME and TV participants want the articles to be as broadly scoped and information packed as possible, so if we can avoid limiting the content to just an episode listing, that's good for everyone. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Production and reception are the main factors of splitting anime and manga apart. And there are examples of good splits. In an ideal world, we had all the substantial information to split them off. And this is why I say accessible sources hurt more than structure. Because WP:ANIME's philosophy is trying to keep all the content as tied together as possible if there's not enough substantial information to create solid articles. And this is also to avoid the stigma of having low-quality articles. I'll bring this up in WP:ANIME in hopes of a compromise that will encourage editing from more WP:TV editors.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• As a member of WP:ANIME, I feel like IJBall has committed canvassing here, despite the consensus having been drawn clearly in the past. I Support topic banning IJBall from participating in or starting requested moves relating to "List of (anime) episodes" articles. I really don't like to support this kind of action, but this just makes me angry. I would like to add that List of Re:Zero − Starting Life in Another World episodes and List of Overlord episodes have also had similar requests done by the same IP address. Link20XX (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Since Link20XX has chosen to comment here, I'll point out that I find his factionalism and WP:BLUDGEONing is far more egregious than anything else mentioned about the these recent discussions. This is apparent at Talk:List of KonoSuba episodes, Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes, and now Talk:List of Overlord episodes where he has been replying to every supporter of the page moves, repeating the same arguments and attempting to use the RfC as a hammer in the discussions, when the the result of the RfC actually shows there is much overlap and interaction between ANIME and TV MOS guidelines (ie not one overriding the other). And now trying to get one participant topic banned (even from "starting requested moves" which IJBall hasn't done here) shows Link20XX's factional mentality. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I did not mean to do bludgeoning-related actions. I was mad after realizing everything, and I would like to apologize for my conduct. That being said, I do still oppose all of the requested moves that have been made. I also think that IJBall has done clear canvassing-related actions, and should at least get some repercussions. Now that I think about it, however, what I said earlier was too harsh and a stern warning is likely all that is needed. After this is over, if you wish to block me for a bit, fine, I will take it (and probably deserve it). Link20XX (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• I want to make one more statement on the matter of this case before it gets closed. I am not a fan of the the IJBall has not once, but twice generalized anime and manga editors to sound like they are against standard, when RfC's have gone against that, the first was at Talk:List of The Saga of Tanya the Evil episodes, where they stated !Vote above is the typical one to expected from some WP:ANIME members, thinking that they can flout naming conventions and the second on User talk:Gonnym, where IJBall stated we still have WP:ANIME editors who think they can do whatever the heck they want. You are welcome to ignore this or write this off as me being too sensitive; I just wanted to make thoughts on the matter known. I am probably going to take a wikibreak soon because frankly I am done putting up with them. Link20XX (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War Dispute (again)

Sri Lankan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is another topic area that is the subject of battleground editing because it was a real battleground. The issue appears to be a dispute about how many people were killed. (One answer is too many, but that is obvious and says nothing.) Another dispute has been filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War But it appears to be a re-litigating of a dispute that User:Nightenbelle appeared to have resolved successfully in March 2021, in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

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

Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

At this point, I think that we have either or both of two alternatives:

• We can topic-ban some or all of the users. I haven't reviewed the case in enough detail to know who is the problem, and am inclined to the draconian solution of banning them all.
• We can impose Community General Sanctions for the topic of the Sri Lankan Civil War, which doesn't fall within the scope of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (because Sri Lanka is not one of the nations listed).

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

just a comment- this exact issue was solved, agreed on, the sixth version of a paragraph that we debated every nuance of for almost a month was inserted in the article and in 24 hours the involved editors threw the agreement out and went back to editing and reverting and arguing. This was “solved” for 24 hours and is a battle that has been raging for 4-5 months at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• From the previous WP:DRN: "At this point- I'm going to throw the infobox out of this disagreement- because you have changed your mind twice now. So- ya'll will need to discuss that back at the talk page, this DRN was about the paragraph, and that is the only topic I am going to agree to mediate at this point. Does anyone have any further problems with the paragraph or are we good to close? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)"

• The second WP:DRN is only regarding the Infobox. Namely, can Oz346, Obi2canibe and 84.209.141.236 please provide a WP:RS to support their edits/reverts listed below that claim 276,000 casualties? Like last time, the discussion has descended into accusations/incivility and stalled. Can the WP:DRN process please elicit WP:RS to support their text in the Infobox?

• @84.209.141.236: On 15th Feb 2021, the user made edit 1006891705 with no WP:RS.

• @Obi2canibe: On 28th Feb 2021, the user made edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS.

• @Obi2canibe: On 9th May 2021, the user made edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS.

• @Oz346: On 12th May 2021, the user made edit 1022832126 with no WP:RS.

• @84.209.141.236: Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, the user made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.

WP:Verifiability clearly states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with both User:Robert_McClenon and User:Nightenbelle that non-intervention does not appear to be an option anymore. User:Oz346, in edit 1015417372 modified the compromise text less than 24 hours after the WP:DRN process was completed, and refused to self-revert when requested by the mediator. I have not modified nor added to the compromise text. If I have transgressed the Wikipedia rules then, yes, there should be consequences. Please let me know which rules I have transgressed and what the proportionate consequences are. A Collective_punishment based on the actions of others or association would be very disappointing. --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That edit that I did above was a non controversial edit, and it was just a clarification on the exact period the 40,000 deaths figure referred to (the last phase of the war). Without that clarification it would be misleading to the readers, who would take it to mean the whole period of the war (1983-2009). I explicitly asked moderator Nightenbelle about this oversight at the end of the first dispute resolution, but she did not reply to me. I would please ask everyone to read through the first dispute resolution. Those paragraphs agreed upon have actually remained stable for the last couple of weeks (apart from that oversight which I edited).Oz346 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It was immediately contested on the talk page- so... it was a contested change. You did not revert. You did not discuss. I had already addressed that concern in a previous version and your insistence on changing away from what was agreed on was yet another tactic to obstruct the process that I did not choose to acknowledge for another time. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not true. My concern was not addressed at all. You closed the discussion before addressing it. May be you missed my comment? Please read the discussion, I quote:

//Discussion about 6th version

The 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous. The way Obi2canibe worded it below seems fine to me:

"However, in 2011 the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths."//

The only reason it was contested by Jayingeneva is because he wanted to score some points that I had the changed your final rendition of the paragraphs. But he did not contest the accuracy of the statement during the dispute resolution.Oz346 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that was the only WP:DRN that I have participated in and thought I shouldn't comment directly on the text of other participants. I tried to focus my comments on the mediator's compromise text and replying to any questions I was posed. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. Are you saying that you dispute the fact that the 40,000 dead refers only to the final phase of the war? Because if you are not disputing that, the only reason you made it an issue was to score some points.Oz346 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: There is another instance (not involving me) where User:Robert_McClenon had to deal with User:Oz346, | "The reporting party at WP:ANI apparently didn't like the answer that I gave at Third Opinion." In addition to that, User:Oz346 has made some preposterous accusations. --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That allegation should be removed as RD2, and is in itself sufficient reason to topic-ban User:Oz346. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it is not preposterous, it is pretty obvious that some Sinhalese editors want to cover up the crimes of the Sinhalese dominated government, and by banning Tamil editors, it will allow them to censor and distort the facts in Wikipedia as well. I think the non-Sri Lankan wikipedia editors can see that it is only Sinhalese and Tamil editors who are heavily invested in this topic.Oz346 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And regarding when User:Robert_McClenon had to 'deal' with me. That was an accident on his part, he missed the timings of my submissions to the admin board. He explicitly said at the close of that, that I had not done any violations of wikipedia policies during that discussion, and he can corroborate that here. I see you are trying your best to censor prominent Tamil editors on wikipedia.Oz346 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Are these the only users that are disputing? If they are, I'd say topic ban them. General sanctions seem too extreme so far for something that appears localised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The four listed here are the ones that are WP:BATTLEGROUND disputing. Other editors are involved with the article but have not had major issues I'm aware of. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am saddened by this jump to topic ban people. There are users here who I have reported for using sockpuppets to abuse me, who never got banned. But editors who generally do not cause any problems are being banned right off the bat without people even reading the full dispute. How is this fair? Oz346 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jayingeneva (talk · contribs) has accused the other parties of vandalism on multiple occasions [271], mostly against Obi2canibe (talk · contribs). I don't think this is 100% accurate, as for instance the two edits at Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka show that Obi2canibe allegedly conflated a higher death toll estimate from a different panel (full page history). And this diff at Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War seems to be an attempt to clarify a discussion by changing the indent. I can't talk further at the moment, but the summary search should tell us more. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment-User:LaundryPizza03 Where is the allegation of vandalism? If they did that, they should be topicbanned. McClenon mobile (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: The first link in my above comment goes to a list of edit summaries that contain accusations of vandalism, under the shortcut WP:VD. Here's the list:

1. Special:Diff/1010862789, on a clearly good-faith, but perhaps poorly worded edit by Obi2canibe that attempted to compare two different death toll estimates.

• Comment: @LaundryPizza03: and @Robert McClenon:: Can we please clarify this? My understanding is that it is WP:VD because I gave an exact quote in edit 1010727776 with the summary "Add the quote from the report to replace the inaccurate paraphrasing" to correct the inaccurate summary by an IP Address. Obi2canibe immediately reverted back to the inaccurate summary from an IP Address. It's not obi2canibe's words, it's by an IP Address. And he reverted back to the inaccurate summary by the IP address multiple times even though I gave the page number of the quote. If that is not WP:VD, clearly I don't understand what WP:VD is and would sincerely appreciate some assistance. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Special:Diff/1010869138, which undid an attempt by Obi2canibe to change the indenting in a discussion.
2. Special:Diff/1010871871, similar to 1010862789.
3. Special:Diff/1012728317, similar to 1010862789.
4. Special:Diff/1012729459, similar to 1010869138.
5. Special:Diff/1012731607, which undid another attempt by Obi2canibe to change the indenting in a discussion.
6. Special:Diff/1021091438, which corrected the death toll to 80K–100K and described edits 1006891705 and 1009458455 as vandalism.
7. Special:Diff/1022689241, which undid Obi2canibe's reinstatement of the 100K–276K death toll.
8. Special:Diff/1027593935, which undid an attempt by Oz346 to reinstate the 100K–276K death toll.

They dropped the same accusation several times at Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War, first in reference to the (initially unsourced) change by the 84 IP (from here on "1006891705") that changed the estimated death toll from 80K–100K to 100K–276K, then in reference to the same edit, then in response to an edit by Obi2canibe, then making the same accusation again towards Obi2canibe and the 84 IP and further accusing the former of acting in bad faith for not correcting their own edit, and finally this accusation directed at both. Based on the edit summary, 1006891705 seems to have been WP:SYNTH and not vandalism, so neither the 80 IP nor Obi2canibe definitely acted in bad faith. In conclusion, I think this may call for an interaction ban as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs) Yes, I have referred to WP:VD by User:Obi2canibe. I hope my usage of the term was correct. Since the WP:DRN that completed at the end of March, I have realised that WP:EW and WP:VD did not necessarily mean the same thing. I'm fairly confident I have used the term correctly since that time. If I have used the term incorrectly in some instances, I apologise to User:Obi2canibe for those instances. Would you consider these to be valid examples of WP:VD by User:Obi2canibe?.

• On 28th Feb 2021, edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address.

• On 9th May 2021, edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address.

• On 7th Mar 2021, 1010845835 reverted an exact quote from the document that the Article was about to an inaccurate summary created by an IP Address. Talk:Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka

• Again on 7th Mar 2021, 1010865972 reverted an exact quote from the document that the Article was about to an inaccurate summary created by an IP Address. Talk:Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka

Any advice on how you would recommend reacting to the aforementioned four examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Also, is extensively changing the formatting of other user's comments, multiple times even when asked not to, acceptable? --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment to User:Jayingeneva and anyone else - Content disputes are almost never vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Vandalism does not mean edits that you disagree with. Vandalism does not mean edit-warring. Vandalism does not even mean disruptive editing. You had been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that there is a definition to vandalism. You were yelling vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute. That is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks! I was completely unaware that the use of the term WP:VD is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. I apologise to anyone that was offended and I agree to not use the term WP:VD in relation to content disputes. Regrettably, I was using WP:VD as a shorthand umbrella term to describe content that had no citations, had no WP:RS, text and citation mismatch, instant reverts without discussion, etc. I will use more specific terminology to describe content in the future. Having said that, I will accept any consequences that are proportionate and consistent with my unwittingly incorrect use of the term WP:VD. --Jayingeneva (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe

• Obi2canibe's use of the phrase vand 190+ times. WP:VAND is a synonym for WP:VD.

• Obi2canibe apparently racially vilified an entire racial/ethnic/language group by calling them "forces of evil" according to April 2018 WP:ANI and Obi2canibe's Talk Page Archive .

• From June 2018 WP:ANI "Obi2canibe is reminded that personal commentary is prohibited, and that includes good faith behavioral complaints.". However, I witnessed this year, "This is clear sign that you are here to make a POV, not build encyclopedic content.", "I'm afraid you're twisting the outcome of WP:DRN to suit your agenda" and "shows a clear agenda on your part". This creates a hostile environment unsuitable for new editors, like myself, by setting poor precedents on behavioural expectations. I am also at fault for engaging.

• On 28th Feb 2021, edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address. On 9th May 2021, edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS reverting to text created by an IP Address. On 7th Mar 2021, 1010845835 reverted an exact quote from the document that the Article was about to an inaccurate summary created by an IP Address. Talk:Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka. Again on 7th Mar 2021, 1010865972 reverted an exact quote from the document that the Article was about to an inaccurate summary created by an IP Address.

• On 2 May 2021, I opened a new section on the Article Talk Page and concluded with "As long as the official UN estimate remains, you are welcome to add a second estimate clearly indicating the source.". The response was "Your attempt to add only the 80,000 figure in the infobox, excluding all other reliably sourced figures, and pass it off as the final, official death toll shows a clear agenda on your part.". Though I opened this in WP:DRN, I appreciate why this was moved to WP:ANI. I hope we can please get back to content and elicit a WP:RS to support the 276,000 number. Thank you all for your time. --Jayingeneva (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Oz346

The allegation, made on 16 May 2021, against another editor, violates the assumption of good faith, and is a personal attack, but is too outrageous to be repeated here, and is, in my view, sufficient reason at a minimum to topic-ban User:Oz346 from all articles and talk pages related to the Sri Lankan Civil War.

• Support topic-ban, as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not outrageous, now that I'm going to be banned. The Sri Lankan government runs IT wings for this purpose. There are groups where Sinhalese youth are being recruited for this purposes, to fight a propaganda war online:

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/gotas-envoy-to-germany-wants-lankan-anti-terror-task-force-to-monitor-instagram-in-europe/

The Sri Lankan government has spent millions on official lobbyists:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16051177

Assuming good faith, is one thing, but when an Wikipedia user's sole existence is to cover up and downplay the final massacre, it becomes near impossible to assume good faith. Even the moderator Nightenbelle noted Jayingeneva zeal to downplay the atrocities committed by the Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan army on the first dispute discussion.

I will remove that accusation, but removing me only aids the evil people trying to cover up the full extent of the final massacre:

https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone

And atrocities like this, they are trying to hide:

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18447

Oz346 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

To further add to this, the said user 'Jay in Geneva' only started editing this page in the run up to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March, where the Sri Lankan government is trying hard to escape censure. Oz346 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe the UN relies on Wikipedia for information on who to censure? Honestly? Cause- I know we are big and important and widely used- but that's a bit of a strech bud. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The UN Human Rights Council is attended by multiple NGOs, Unfortunately many of them are not well versed with this topic, and this might surprise you, but Wikipedia is the first port of call for most lay people regarding an unfamiliar subject. It is not as unbelievable as you think. Members of the Norwegian Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission even described certain policy decisions re: the Sri Lanka conflict being made in the EU for example, being made at coffee shops! It sounds unbelievable, but this is the low priority and lack of care that was given to this issue by many international bodies.Oz346 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A general overview is NOT what they use to make decisions. They read briefings, reports, primary documents. the things we summarize. ANd this confirms you are trying to use WP as a persuasive essay to push your point of view- that is NOT what we are here for and makes you as dangerous as those you are trying to warn us of. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The whole argument here is on the numbers of people killed. It is not a persuasive essay. My contention is that the accurate figures of the death toll should be on wikipedia, and not be covered up, like how the tens of thousands of dead bodies were in 2009. I am not pushing any view. Facts are sacred, and Wikipedia should aim to be accurate, not a mouth piece for the Sri Lankan government and its apologists. Oz346 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to say it, Wikipedia is more concerned about providing information from what can be verified from reliable sources than whatever is purported to be the truth. On the plus side, if your additions are considered acceptable by consensus after RSes report them as such, you can tell everyone "I told you so". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I am fully aware that governments engage in various sorts of propaganda and disinformation activities. In Wikipedia, if an editor disagrees with you, the good-faith assumption is that they disagree with you, and that neutral point of view is a corrective to disinformation, rather than that editors who disagree with you are engaged in disinformation. Also, see First Law of Holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support I understand there are agents of misinformation on Wikipedia, however users like this actually enable those agents to pass more false information because of their battleground npov behavior which distracts from more subtle attempts to push NPOV. And the accusations, lies, ignoring consensus, ignoring agreements, and just general rudeness turns other good editors away from these topics. People disagree.... doesn't make one person a hero and another a villain- just means they have different perspectives. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a villain is immature, and not conducive to creating a better encyclopedia- which should be all of our goals. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Long discussion with long posts collapsed for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"lies, ignoring consensus". Are you accusing me of lying? I have clearly pointed out where I asked you on the first dispute resolution regarding the problem I had with the wording of the final paragraph. Can you please point out the lie. Because I find that very offensive and a baseless accusation. Oz346 (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Why did you not reply to my concern on the first dispute resolution? It was a genuine concern and of a non controversial point in reality. You are punishing me for ignoring consensus, but the first consensus was not a real 100% consensus, because I had a problem with that minor wording oversight which I made very clear from the outset. But you ignored me. Why are you ignoring this? And now you are making a false claim of lying? Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC) "Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a villain is immature". Well for you this may be a distant topic, because it's not your family members who were buried in mass graves with no whimper of justice. I do regard these anti-Tamil racists who are trying their best to cover up the final massacre as despicable, immoral people. If that is not villainous I don't know what is. They are even destroying monuments made in memory of the dead. https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/protest-jaffna-university-authorities-destroy-mullivaikkal-memorial They want to erase the massacre from the history books. Oz346 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) You are lying when you say I didn't address your questions. I addressed your questions over and over and over during the DRN. In your last post- and only in your last post- I ignored the ones I had already addressed multiple times that you refused to drop- repeating why they were against WP policy for the 3rd or 4th time was not going to help the process. And these comments above- the insistence that you are the only person to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS this is why you need to walk away from this particular area of WP. You would make a great activist.... but not a good encyclopedist for this particular area. And do not assume that because I am not from Sri Lanka I don't give a damn. That is rude and just plain wrong. You don't know me, my history, or my feelings on issues. You don't know these things because this site is a place for neutrality. So I take my opinions elsewhere. So I suggest you strike that part of your comment. You don't get to tell me how I feel about any of this. And you don't get to assume I don't care. You need to check your emotions at the door before you edit here again. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC) I genuinely think you are confused and are mixing up the details of the first DRN. I am Oz346, NOT Jayingeneva. I was agreeing with most of the iterations of the paragraphs that you had wrote at each stage. Please read that whole discussion again. It was Jayingeneva who was constantly disagreeing with you! "I ignored the ones I had already addressed multiple times that you refused to drop" This is patently false. You never answered this one question multiple times, because this was the first time i even raised it in that whole long discussion! Please actually read the old discussion properly before making accusations of lying. It was Jayingeneva who you were having the repeated back and forth with during the DRN. I think you are referring to the exchanges with him. I'm copying and pasting both your versions of the 5th and 6th iterations of those paragraphs. In the 6th version you removed the mention of the 40,000 dead figure being only for the final phase of the war (for god knows what reason), and this is what led to my final question which you ignored: Fifth Draft of Paragraph The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.[112][113][114] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. [49][50] In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[115] The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[116] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[117] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[118] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[119][120] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[121][122] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[123][124] 6th Draft The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006.[127][128][129] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.[130] [49][50]However, in 2011, The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[131] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[132] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" while some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[133] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[134][135] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[136][137] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[138][139] Oz346 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support the battleground behaviour isn't showing much signs of abetting (including accusations of lying, casting of aspersions, ...), despite concerns expressed in this very thread. Allowing calmer heads to prevail seems like a wise move to prevent further disruption. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Cool_editing (despite the Wikiproject now being defunct) seems to offer some wise advice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The accusations of lying was made by a moderator, not by me or the other editors who are currently being considered for banning. Oz346 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Accusations of government conspiracy are unacceptable behavior, plus the cited diff. I note that this user has had the most involvement so far, except possibly Jayingeneva. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the content dispute is generic not restricted to one user and the user is major contributor in this area.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with User:Pharaoh of the Wizards that the content dispute is generic not restricted to one user.Lustead (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• comment by Oz364

In my defence, I note that the description of this board says the following:

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I do not think I fit that criteria. Yes I should not have made that accusation, as I do not have 100% evidence. And I will never do it again. However, it is far from a 'chronic' or 'intractable' problem.

And to add to this:

"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia"

Where have my contributions to the actual topic been disruptive? Oz346 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As one of the editors who has edited Sri Lanka civil war related articles for many years and as a person who has worked very hard to maintain a civil environment for all to edit peacefully, I feel a life time ban is too excessive, but given the particularities of the issues raised, I think a 3 month ban is appropriate. If after the cooling off period, the editor(s) come back with the same attitude, then a life time ban is appropriate. Kanatonian (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, the Srilankan civil war topic area is usually very chaotic, I have seen many users from both sides accusing each other of many things and new users come up only to push their POV. This user must be warned as I'm not sure if they are aware of WP:AGF. This topic area needs an Arbitration enforcement. SUN EYE 1 18:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Evidence of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems":

• Preceding my Talk Page discussion there were personal attacks by Oz346 against Dilshanheimler (talk · contribs). The mediator stated, "That's right, Oz346, you've overstepped just about enough for my liking with all of the personal comments (age, really?) and unsupported exclamations about some sort of a big lie. If you have actual proof that supports what you're saying, what is delaying you? - El_C 01:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)"

• Recently, the Talk Page behaviour spilled over to the Article Page in edit 1022832126 (and with no WP:RS and removing existing WP:RS).

• While I was waiting, for weeks, for WP:RS, Oz346 was engaged in personal attacks against UMDP (talk · contribs) on another Talk Page, "You seem to be motivated in removing or downplaying ...". Again, the behaviour appears to be spilling over into the Article Page. e.g "Stop trying to turn the page into an article on ..."

In the Talk Page discussion I started, I don't recall any of those, above, opposed to the proposition, helping/advising Oz346 to cease the personal attacks. --Jayingeneva (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Support topic ban per the above. The repeated personal attacks and partisan editing means this user needs to be removed from this area of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please give an example of what you mean by my 'partisan editing'. Can anyone show me one distorted/partisan piece of editing I have done in this topic area. Every thing I have added to the pages are supported by sources, and I try to write in an objective manner. I do not whitewash or downplay any war crimes on any side. I just want all the facts to be correct. However, I can show you the clear partisan editing of Jayingeneva, if you delve into this particular content dispute and read through the first DRN. No objective, neutral person who reads through all the sources can defend the pushing of that one lower figure as the definitive 'UN official' figure. Are people going to read the content dispute, to see who is actually being partisan? To see who is being non-objective?

Also in regards to repeated 'personal attacks', some of those diffs that Jayingeneva has highlighted are not personal attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Me commenting on someones age was not a personal attack (that user had a significant social media presence and was of much younger age), I was an adult during these events, and he was too young to be familiar with them first hand. Unnecessary personal comment I agree however, and I should not have made it. I never meant anything derogatory by it. I did conclusively show in that particular discussion that there was a significant distortion. Read through the whole discussion, not just one diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1004273545&oldid=1004258867&title=Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Finally user UMDP made this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009479994 which is evidence of what I said. He removed all mention of anti-Tamil violence. Can someone please explain the motivation for that removal if it was not for the reason I had stated.Oz346 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS See all your posts accusing editors of being government agents, see every time you accuse anyone who makes an edit to this page you don't like of being out to hide the truth. You are 100% partisan and you are a detriment to this article because other editors have to spend so much time fighting with you (also read WP:BATTLEGROUND) that they don't have time to actually improve the article. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi I never accused everyone of being government agents, please cite your evidence for that. Some are working on their own. What I did make accusations of was of downplaying atrocities (accusations which I have decided to no longer do in the future when editing articles). Regarding whether something is the truth or not will be decided by the sources. It's nothing to do with what I like. It's about what is true. The so-called 'fight' I had with a previous editor was resolved with me finding evidence contradicting his figures, and he relented after seeing those. The contentions I had with this article were all to do with the accuracies of the facts, and if you want to discuss those we can do that.

"Other editors have to spend so much time fighting with you (also read WP:BATTLEGROUND) that they don't have time to actually improve the article"

I disagree completely with this. They were going to make the article worse with distortion of the truth/facts. Again if you want to discuss those individual points we can do that. If you are not willing to discuss those points, then how can you judge that the falsehoods they were going to push would have improved the article?

Why did you not respond to my earlier comments regarding your false accusations of me being a liar? There is nothing wrong with making a genuine mix up, I do not blame you for it. I think you did a good job on the DRN. Only at the very end did you not respond to my genuine query.Oz346 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The above is an excellent example of why I !voted the way I did. You seem to consider yourself the arbiter of WP:TRUTH, determined to paint everyone else as making the article worse, and accusing editors of "downplaying atrocities." You need some time away from this subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think I am the arbiter of the truth, but the overall evidence indicates overwhelmingly to any neutral person who studies this topic, that an estimate of only 100,000 deaths for the whole war is absolute nonsense. I invite you to read all the reliable sources mentioned in the article and DRN if you do not believe me. I am not saying the 100,000 figure should not be there, but it 100% should not be pushed as the definitive figure (it is very much a fringe belief). There is a reason why no UN report ever used that figure again. After the whistle blower leaks of 40,000+ dead, it was impossible to justify that fringe figure.Oz346 (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not respond because I responded over and over and over in the DRN- and I will not respond to them now either. I'm done explaining RS to you. I spent weeks explaining it- no more. Now- I'll just keep pointing out how much of a distraction and detriment you have become to this page. You seem to have one of the worse cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. You also seem to think that saying "These editors are hiding the truth... which is something the government is trying to do" That is insinuating they are working for the government. When you constantly bring up that the government is trying to hide the truth and hide these numbers in a discussion about other editors changing your numbers- that is an accusation that they are government agents!!! You're not coming out and saying "John Doe is a government agent" which is the only reason, I believe, you are not banned. But you are accusing them- and saying you are not is just more foolishness or lies. You need to find a new platform for your campaign- WP is not the place for you to force your version of the truth which is, I'm sorry, not the only version supported by reliable sources. You don't get to dictate which sources are most reliable. You have done that over and over and over at the talk page and the DRN. I do not intend to interact with you again- because I'm sure you will ignore this and pretend like everyone but you is crazy and we just can't see how you are the single harbinger of truth. But maybe, just maybe, this time you will see reason and realize the problems you are creating by perpetuating this pointless battle. There will be no clarity and agreement on this subject by reliable sources for years. Until there is agreement, WP will not pronounce anything "Truth," we will, instead, discuss the variety of sources and conflicting stories and how things are being analyzed to find truth. If you want to go proclaim truth- find. another. platform! Nightenbelle (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I will keep it very simple, you said:

"You are lying when you say I didn't address your questions."

You did not answer this concern:

The 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous.

I only mentioned it once at the end of the DRN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War.

This is the point which i said you did not answer, which spurred the lie accusations.

I give up as well, too much to address. But i will say i do genuinely believe there are editors who are downplaying atrocities. If an agent of the government is someone who supports the government's cover up (regardless of wherever they are paid or directed by the government), as per your definition (which is a very loose one). Then that would mean i believe that they are agents of the government. But i do not have the right to make that call publicly without 100% evidence, even though it is obvious to me through their editing history. I get that. I did a mistake. Oz346 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Evidence of partisan edit with no sources

• Oz346 requested, "Can anyone show me one distorted/partisan piece of editing I have done in this topic area. Every thing I have added to the pages are supported by sources ...". Here's a recent example, edit 1022832126, where two instances of text that had WP:RS were replaced by text with no citations. The "80,000-100,000" text was from 23 Dec 2019.
• Some more examples of personal attacks, "It is clear what your motive is. To cover up the death toll to aid the Sri Lankan government cover up" and "You are trying your best to cover up the slaughter". --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As Obi2canibe as already said, that was a revert of your attempt to push a fringe underestimated figure as the sole definitive figure of the cumulative death toll. And I have since removed that figure which had no citations, which as Obi2canibe has already clearly said was there for months. I did not create that text.Oz346 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Afterthoughts (Sri Lanka Civil War Dispute)

Since it now appears likely that nothing will be done, and that my limited proposal for a topic-ban on one editor who has made extreme allegations, that other editors are collaborating in a coverup of war crimes, I will make a few comments for the future, for when this topic comes up again.

Arbitration is for disputes which they community has been unable to resolve. This, unfortunately, appears to be a dispute that the community will not resolve. If, as seems likely, this case is closed without any formal action, it will come back sometime. So this statement is partly for the record for the ArbCom.

User:Oz346 - Now you claim that this is neither an urgent incident nor a chronic behavioral problem. If you believe that another editor is a foreign agent, isn't that an issue that you should have brought here? Either you believe that claim, or you don't. If you believe it, you should have raised that concern either here or with the ArbCom. If you don't believe it, and only made it in order to "win" a content dispute, then you were lying.

I do not feel comfortable saying what I believe anymore, because it can be interpreted as an 'extreme personal attack'. So I am going to be silent regarding this claim, and will not be involving myself in this particular content dispute anymore. I will no longer be speaking about the motivations of the other Sinhalese editors who want to downplay the atrocities committed by the Sinhalese security forces. I will just stick to the content. But please note the prior precedent of an agent hired by Sri Lanka: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861 Oz346 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Oz346 - Yes. If you do not feel comfortable saying what you believe anymore, perhaps it is because some things should not be said anyway, even if one believes them, such as unsubstantiated allegations of great wrong, or expressions of hate. There are some things that people should not feel comfortable saying, and those include unsubstantiated attacks on the motives of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Oz346 - I was about to make a further proposal that you be site-banned by the community for a truly extreme personal attack. Apparently the community is unable or unwilling to deal with your conduct.

User:Jayingeneva - You should have known. You acted like an experienced user, until you were told that your conduct was inappropriate, at which point you decide that you didn't know as much about vandalism as you thought you did. Either you had read the vandalism policy when you started calling other edits vandalism, or you should have read it. If you read it, you knew that the edits were not vandalism, and were yelling vandalism to "win" a content dispute, or you didn't understand the policy after all. The fact that you never reported the edits to the vandalism noticeboard makes me think that you did know better. You should have known that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, and that yelling vandalism when there is no vandalism is uncivil.

That is correct, I misunderstood what WP:VD meant and definitely didn't know there was a specific noticeboard. --Jayingeneva (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe - My comments to Jayingeneva also apply to you.

ArbCom: If the community doesn't resolve this dispute this time, you will get it. The plague of Wikipedia is nationalism, in this case where two nations share a nation-state. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert, salute to your remark, “...in this case where two nations share a nation-state.”; otherwise it would not have happened.Lustead (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate that this thread is now getting stale but as one of the users being reported I thought I'd add my comment. Contrary to what Jayingeneva has stated here and elsewhere, I did not add the 276,000 figure in the infobox. It had existed for months before Jayingeneva replaced it with the 80,000 figure which was the source of the dispute which ended up the WP:DRN. Not only is the 80,000 figure dubious, as evidenced at DRN, it goes against the spirit of the DRN compromise which was to include all reliably sourced figures. All I did was to revert back to the status quo that existed for several months whilst there was the ongoing discussion about this matter on the talk page.

I share Robert McClenon's frustrations - I've had to deal with these kind of disputes ever since I joined Wikipedia 12 years ago. It's never ending but banning a few editors won't solve the problem. Wikipedia is a mirror of real life and as long as there are disputes in real life about what happened during the civil war, these disputes will spill into Wikipedia. ArbCom may be the only answer.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The Article History doesn't agree with User:Obi2canibe. User:Obi2canibe reverted, with no WP:RS, back to the 2 week old "276,000" text from an IP Address. The "80,000-100,000" text was added to the Article in 2019.

• On 23rd Dec 2019, Wakari07 (talk · contribs) ensured the text corresponded with the citation that quoted the official UN estimate. i.e. "80,000-100,000"

• On the 5th Feb 2021, I foolishly started a discussion on the Talk Page because the body of the article contained various casualty estimates without citations. I asked, "Why are the references to the death toll contradictory on this page? The UN estimates 80,000 to 100,000 casualties due to the war.".

• Suddenly, on 15th Feb 2021, User:84.209.141.236 made edit 1006891705 with no WP:RS, changing the 80,000-100,000 to 100,000-276,000.

• On 28th Feb 2021, User:Obi2canibe made edit 1009458455 with no WP:RS back to 100,000-276,000.

• On 9th May 2021, User:Obi2canibe made edit 1022318321 with no WP:RS back to 100,000-276,000.

• On 12th May 2021, User:Oz346 made edit 1022832126 with no WP:RS back to 100,000-276,000.

• Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, User:84.209.141.236 made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.

This does not appear to be a content dispute anymore. The details above and Obi2canibe's claims such as "It had existed for months before Jayingeneva replaced it with the 80,000 figure" and "All I did was to revert back to the status quo that existed for several months" suggests characteristics of chronic, intractable behavioral problems that will continue if there is no intervention. --Jayingeneva (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptions to voice actors, anime, animation, with promotion of BenQ, Hitarchi, and Panasonic

There are several IPs focused on voice actors, anime, animation, dubbing, etc by adding unsourced biographical claims or unsourced casting with promotion for BenQ, Hitachi, Panasonic and perhaps others. These ranges capture good chunk of the disruptive editing which seems to have started around the March and April timeframe, but picked up momentum in May and June:

• 78.182.144.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 84.64.16.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 84.68.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Here's an example for one of the IPs in just the last two days:

• 84.68.49.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This account adds unsourced biographical claims and casting claims primarily regarding voice actors and appears to be adding promotional links for BenQ and Hitachi.

• BLP: Michele Knotz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced date of birth: [272]
  • Unsourced promotion of BenQ: [273]
• BLP: Alyson Leigh Rosenfeld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced filmography entry: [274]
• Anime TV series: Future Card Buddyfight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced addition of cast members with BenQ promotion: [275]
• BLP: Jake Paque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced place of birth: [276]
• BLP: David Gasman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced filmography entry with promotion of Hitachi: [277]
• Film: Ballerina (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced "Hitachi Cast": [278]
  • Adding back unsourced "Hitachi Cast" after reversion: [279]
• BLP: Laurie Hymes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced place of birth: [280]
• Animated TV series: Gremlins: Secrets of the Mogwai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unsourced BenQ casting: [281]

Some of the edits from the IPs and even a named account or two, are using primary sources in contravention of WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY for date of birth, place of birth, and birth_name.

There are some apparently good unrelated edits in those ranges, but most of them are disruptive. There are other individual IPs and accounts in play (perhaps socks). Is a temporary block on those ranges indicated? Is there anything else that can be done? 108.56.139.120 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT this is just bogus rather than promotional. I bet it's best dealt with by an edit filter. Nardog (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I would think that an edit filter could work on the explicit BenQ, Hitachi, Panasonic edits, but many of the edits are just BLP violations on birth date, birth name, and birth place and don't mention any of those companies. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WP:LTA/VCV? 108.56.139.120 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been occasionally reported on my Talk: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#User:84.68.10.246, User_talk:Star_Mississippi#User:86.64.17.253 and User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_3#User:84.68.93.179. I have no recollection of how it landed there, but Daniel_Case has suggested that a range block might help. Flagging/pinging here, and I had suggested HoanganhLe1234567890 take it to AIV next time as I'm not always on line at the same time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs) 22:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

99.242.98.170 on London, Ontario truck attack

The edit summary in this edit feels like a legal threat. They keep blanking content and then finally did it again with an edit summary that makes it appear they claim to be doing it on behalf of a court order. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if they aren't (and I have every reason to believe they are) the source has actually retracted on the claim mentioned in that diff, so it shouldn't be included per WP:BLP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and thank you for removing it from the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't have blindly reverted to reinsert it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that. It wasn't a "blind" revert but a misunderstanding. The edit summary didn't appear to reflect the deletions as what they removed was referenced to a news article and not court documents. Notfrompedro (talk)

The court documents in question were used in the CTV article until they retracted everything that was based upon them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I returned a portion of the material with updated sourcing. It doesn't appear that CTV retracted the statements because they believed them to be untrue, but rather because the documents on which they were based were released in error.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I can understand the suspicions as the IP editor had previously been removing content without explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Because they wanted the CTV source removed entirely. They came into -en-help a minute after their last edit and basically demanded we remove the source wholesale, even hinting that a lawsuit against CTV was being brought. We told him in no uncertain terms this wasn't going to happen. (If a lawsuit was indeed in the mix that would explain why CTV retracted, as well.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Probable socks abusing "thanks" functionality

There are a few accounts with zero contributions and no communication that spam editors with automated "thanks" hundreds or thousands of times:

• Check article here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Check-the-text (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Looktheinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LookArticThis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Browse-check-it (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Go-here-look (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems like they find a page and thank the most recent several hundred edits to it. This has been going on for a few years now, with two accounts being active in the last two days. One is already blocked and most have received a warning to cut it out. There's not a clear pattern in the articles but it feels very disruptive. The articles they use seem to be related to things like true crime (To Catch A Predator, Linda Collins-Smith, Christchurch mosque shootings, Alicia Kozakiewicz, Bernie Madoff, Anthony Sowell), US politics (Michael Flynn, Eric Lander), COVID (COVID-19 pandemic in Russia, COVID-19 pandemic in South America), and Russia (Antisemitism in the Russian Empire, Russian language, Andrei Platonov).Citing (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Go-here-look thanked me the other day for an edit I made in September 2007 that's about 2,200 edits deep in the history. I thought it was rather odd, but they had no other edits or logs. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

May not be related, but I got multiple thanks from User:DarleneEis (who has no live or deleted contribs here) for random edits I'd made to my userpage. Hog Farm _Talk 00:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's harassment (duh). As the header says, they're probable socks, so blocking probably won't do much good. Nevertheless, after checking the thanks logs, I have blocked the two accounts that have gone on a recent thanks spree, but left the others alone; they usually desisted (if only in the sense of creating a new account) after being warned. Does anybody know if blocked users can still use the thanks feature? WP:THANKS doesn't say. Also, perhaps a filter or other technical means could be deployed to disable machine-gun-like "thanks"? It's absurd that it should be needed, but still. Hog Farm, your DarleneEis has also behaved oddly, but in a more limited way; my sense is it's probably not related. Here is their thanks log. Bishonen | tålk 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC).

KIENGIR again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

KIENGIR just reverted his userpage on huwiki to restore the personal attacks. I have reverted it per hu:KSZT, but I'm not autoconfirmed on Meta so someone else needs to report him to m:SRG for crosswiki abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs)

KIENGIR'S rant was beyond the pale. English translation He attacked myself, @Cealicuca, Robert McClenon, Boynamedsue, Azur94, Rsk6400, Robby.is.on, David Eppstein, Indy beetle, Deepfriedokra, RandomCanadian, Obenritter, Cullen328, Arminden, Elvisisalive95, Biruitorul, and Power~enwiki: and @Schierbecker:. I have filed a global lock request. [282] I've never done this before, so if someone with experience would like to look it over and amend it if necessary, it would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good BMK, I'd just edit and remove the * ... line but the rest is good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I second RickinBaltimore‘s endorsement. Kiengir has had over two months post-ban to contribute to hu.wiki (where he’s fluent in the language), but he’s spent that time sniping and griping at perceived enemies from this project, in an increasingly unhinged tone. Enough. — Biruitorul ^Talk 00:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you, User:Beyond My Ken. I think it is the same as what he posted about two weeks in English on the Hungarian Wikipedia. I agree that it is cross-wiki abuse, and that is one of the reasons for global locks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: I for some reason can't edit the page over there, but I'd suggest you add a link to this discussion for reference. I note that I fully support the request. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What is this even related to? I only vaguely remember interacting with this user and don’t know why they bothered bringing me up. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle I suppose I better fulfil my alleged role as "useful idiot" and provide you with an answer. He was banned for a variety of situations which burned a massive amount of users' time, battleground behaviour, having competence issues and making it clear at AnI that he wasn't going to change his behaviour. It may be you interacted with him on a thread on nazi Germany which ended with an RfC on whether the nazis could be described as fascist? That was the straw that broke the camel's back.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to make a correction: KIENGIR wrote his rant in English on his hu.wiki user page, not in Hungarian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's mildly amusing that I am accused of saying that this editor has a "love of bludgeoning" in the midst of a lengthy rant that can be fairly be described as bludgeoning. Guilty as charged, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

What's the chance they'll get blocked or banned at hu.wikipedia? Seems likely that such a block or ban would assist in the global lock request. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that @Pallerti: is a CheckUser on hu.wiki, perhaps they might be able to give us a sense of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've left them a message on their hu.wiki talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Unfortunately, I don’t know the story in depth, KIENGIR has edited very little on the huwiki, currently only 144 edits despite being registered ten years ago. Hungarian is his native language, never had a problem with his communication in Hungarian, he communicates politely. The userpage policy on huwiki is similar to enwiki, it should not contain comments that offend other editors, of course we will pay attention to this. I asked KIENGIR on his huwiki talkpage, I would like to know about the conflict from his point of view as well. --Pallerti (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pallerti: After you get his point of view, you might want to check it against the banning discussion, which you can find here. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you very much, I was convinced of this, it is legitimate to ban it from enwiki. On the huwiki he did almost no editing, there is no basis for a block yet. We warned him not to use his user page as a battlefield, we will keep an eye on his edits, if he does again, we will block him. --Pallerti (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

English translation of KIENGIR's response to Pallerti on hu.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

10:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Hello, yes i see they started the nefarious witch hunt again but the joke about it is that a notorious sock puppet king (Iaaasi) started this when he reported me maybe a week on the english wiki but he did it after he wrote me a private email that how unfair that they were banned because then you could work with me and my edits were helpful and sympathize with me. Then after a while, hiding behind his usual IP address, he confused him with the ANI report (split personality, he's banned from everywhere, that's why I answered him openly, but he always comes back like a sock puppet in a double role, interestingly not). examined ...). That’s when I noticed that a completely new editor there, he started macerating my user page, even though I didn’t break any rules with it (that’s the point, I was banned by sympathy voting because it could only be, since I didn’t break a single rule, but those who worked hard on they disappeared, they just didn't like me to prove it, etc.), and I predicted to Szilas that I was going to write an informative summary of this event, but if that wasn't enough, as soon as I wrote it, I also informed Him about it, as a very important case study is the double standard of how organized groups try to manipulate and apply the rules by double standard. I’m not afraid of the public, but they are very, since they organized themselves against me with surreptitious correspondence and tried to jump in (the source comes from an editor who has tried to block me several years since I appeared, mainly because he didn’t like my objectivity and professionalism on a historical issue, but he could only fight this insidiously now, with various tricks, guides, jumps, etc.), but there was no way to achieve this, you see, it was not enough for them to be eliminated from there by conceptual methods, they are not left alone here either. What you are asking for is exactly the content they want to remove from my user page here (and even since I wrote this, several additional events have even doubled what I mentioned, which is extremely sad and supports the double standard I wanted to point to) , this is the most concise summary, even if a few diffs would lead too far. The case is complicated, intricate, so it’s an ideally concise summary you’d like, I don’t think it would be feasible, you’d rather ask if you’re more interested in something in detail. By the way, one of the (main) colossals has already launched the global block request, proving his boundless benevolence, but I am no longer surprised by this, and even the many nonsense they are trying to figure out or beat me right now (I can respond separately). I say even in this situation I smile more, human evil really has no limit ... A word like a hundred, run through my user page and ask calmly, I will answer as soon as I can, but be prepared that, as you can see in this report, with a full arsenal of people trying to falsify or misinterpret what happened, one goal to get everything out of me because my insight and summary of the phenomenon I just became the victim of (too much a step before I investigated things with an admin on the top forum of the wiki there) but it doesn't matter, this is also described or included in the relevant diff (and by wanting to remove it, it justifies me, because if there was a problem with me, it would be my writing that is proof of my own stupidity, which should just be advertised as a bad example). Hello (KIENGIR debate 13 June 2021, 00:10 (CEST))

• Comment - KIENGIR appears to be engaged in some post-block meatpuppetry and/or sockpuppetry on Category:Communist states and Category:Communism. Schierbecker (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  If you're talking about the Myanmar- and Brazil-based IPs, Proxy Checker doesn't seem to think that they're proxies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Interestingly, though, one of the Brazilian IPs which has an edit to Category:Communist states is also involved in a dispute on Pedro Pablo Ramírez about whether that Argentinian general was or was not a fascist, which is oddly somewhat reminiscent of KIENGIR's argument that Nazis weren't fascists. Not enough evidence to hang an SPI report on, unfortunately. (Of course, I just assume that KIENGIR is a Hungarian based in Hungary, when he could be a Hungarian living anywhere in the world, including Myanmar or Brazil.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Given recent events, I'd have doubts about most IPs from Myanmar... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

He just left a message on my talkpage on huwiki in hungarian, translation is here. He says it's inappropriate to give him an ANI report message, despite it being required. dudhhr_Contribs 22:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You were right to notify him, as it is required that you do so. Whether he likes the notification or not is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment In the event that this global ban doesn't go through, might I suggest that we simply deny K. the oxygen of publicity? The only audience for these increasingly bizarre rants is people on the English wikipedia. Nobody on the Hungarian wikipedia has the slightest bit of interest in what a non-contributing editor has to say about people they don't know. It is my strong recommendation that unless any sock activity occurs we simply leave him shouting into the void about conspiracies and making himself look silly. What he craves is being proved right, which is impossible, the second best thing is the ability to continue arguing he is right, thereby reinforcing his entirely inaccurate self-image. For that he needs to know he is being seen, and this process, based in policy though it is, is giving him exactly what he wants.

TLDR If we ignore him, he might go away, and if he doesn't, who cares? Ne etesse a trollokat. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I rather fancy the thought of him, 5 or 10 years down the line, maintaining his hu.wiki conspiracy blog, raving about how he was right all along — the best and yet the most misunderstood of editors, how a cabal of evildoers directed by one long-standing opponent organized his purge via e-mail, how the project had so much more to gain from his invaluable contributions. Meanwhile, some of us silently check in periodically, in need of a sad laugh, while his bewildered hu.wiki colleagues politely pretend not to notice the madman in the attic. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• KIENGIR left a 3rr message on my talkpage (again in Hungarian) despite my reverts being over 13 DAYS and threatened that I could get blocked for a day, and he thinks that I am harassing him and vandalising his user page. dudhhr_Contribs 17:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - My first and only business with KIENGIR was at DRN in this case, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_203#Romani_people_in_Hungary. This dispute was filed by User:Boynamedsue, and was a complex dispute over material in that article. The dispute was opened on 6 February 2021 and was closed by publishing an RFC on 7 March 2021. In my opinion, it was open for about two weeks longer than would have taken to get the issues identified and sent to the community via RFC, except that KIENGIR made everything take a long time. They wanted to roll the article back to six months before mediation started, which we don't do, because mediation (at least when I am mediating) proceeds from the article as it is seen by the readers. They also provided a confusing flowchart of different versions of the article that they would accept. Eventually I did publish an RFC. It seemed that they were stalling all the time, and I was trying to remain neutral because I was the moderator. I didn't take part in the later discussion that led to the ban. (I didn't look at WP:ANI for a few days, and by the time I looked at it, the discussion was closed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• Why are they commenting in English in the Hungarian Wikipedia? Probably because they are not there to improve the Hungarian encyclopedia, but only there to editorialize in English for an English-reading audience by insulting other English-writing editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• While their initial rant was in English, KIENGIR's reponse to Pallerti's question to him in Hungarian was answered in Hungarian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• The global lock request was turned down. "No evidence of extensive cross-wiki abuse". [283] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

West Bengal economy articles

• Economy of Kolkata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disclaimer: Although I became aware of this issue through the actions of two editors, I am raising an issue of a wider pattern of behaviour across many editors and not focusing on the conduct of these two specific editors.

Looking at recent changes this morning, I saw an edit war between Meltry Filok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MADdutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Economy of Kolkata article about GDP figures. Neither party cited sources, and I partially blocked both from that article. I noticed the GDP data was unsourced, so per WP:V, I removed it.

I was monitoring both editors' activity, and I noticed MADdutta edit the Economy of West Bengal article. Again, the topic in play was GDP, but it was a different cast of editing characters, whom I have not interacted with.

At this point, it seemed to be systemic, so I brought the matter here to get more eyes on the matter. I'm sure it happens with other economy articles, but I get the feeling that we may need some focused attention to economy articles in West Bengal? Does this topic fall within the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan discretionary sanctions, to where the articles can be placed under deeper restrictions like the 50/300 requirement for editors?

Again, I do not seek specific action towards either of the named editors through this thread. They were just the proverbial tip of what I think is quite the iceberg, so I'm looking for action related to these two articles plus other similar ones. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The disruption (at least to Economy of West Bengal) continues. pauli133 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They're still going at it. Is there a better venue, where this can get some attention? pauli133 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been fully protected, and I'm trying to drive some actual discussion on the talk page. However, it looks like the back and forth disruption is continuing at Economy of Kolkata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There are at least five accounts involved, I think. pauli133 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked Meltry Filok, Ronjon Das Gupta and Gopal bosu. They are all backing each other up across several articles. All three posted to my talk page, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather# and the two below, telling me to "Correct it quickly", "edit it quickly" and "fix it quickly" on the Economy of West Bengal. Also at User talk:C.Fred#GDP of West Bengal Gopal bosu says "Sir, I am an employee of the Ministry of Finance of India. I know the GDP of West Bengal. As of 2020, the GDP of West Bengal is 143 billion US dollars But some people are making wrong edits to increase their GDP. Correct it quickly. West Bengal's GDP is 143 billion US dollars.." and at my talk page "Sir, I am an employee of the Ministry of Finance of India. I know the GDP of West Bengal. As of 2020, the GDP of West Bengal is 143 billion US dollars. But some people are making wrong edits to increase their GDP. Correct it quickly. West Bengal's GDP is 143 billion US dollars.." by Meltry Filok. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• These are all socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blscholljim. I'll update the SPI with the newest batch of accounts shortly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on UK-related BLPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Barrow1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued disrupting biographies by changing subjects' national identities to British to enforce uniformity,[284][285][286][287][288] even after they were notified about WP:UKNATIONALS, which specifies that users should not do this.[289] KyleJoan^talk 09:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Though I agree with the changes to British, since those people are British. The newbie's going about it the wrong way. GoodDay (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the other articles, but there have been multiple consensuses to describe Christian Bale as English, and there was even one to oppose changing his national identity from English to British. Barrow1965 had been notified of this, but that didn't stop them from the revert shown in the second diff. KyleJoan^talk 09:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I checked some of the other articles, the user was wrong on some, perhaps correct on others; but they seem to blanketing all articles to "British", when the identity/ethnicity of the individual is stated (sometimes as in the case of Bale as quite an important clarification) clearly as "English" et al. Also I see the users private criteria changes depending on the articles, eg, the place of birth is important for one, but not another.Halbared (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• This user has been blocked twice before, the last time for one week, for disruption and for personal attacks. It is clear that they use at least one IP for socking (avoiding 3RR by doing so). I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous IP namecalling and unsourced data

Throughout the past few months, i've been responded to by an unknown IP who has been constantly using homophobic slurs and other uncivil words while reverting my edits or talking on talk pages. They seem to be just IP hopping, so I'm not sure what to do, but I'm positive its the same person.

It can be seen by 47.147.70.139 (talk · contribs) at the following edits:

• here
• here

Here by 47.147.78.75 (talk · contribs)

• here
• here

Previous attempts to discuss this with the user were just reverted by the IP. I've tried discussing our edits in a civil matter on certain article's talk pages, but with little to no luck. What should we do? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything unless the IP continues. So far, they've made only two edits, the personal attack (sorry about that, I'm sure it's unpleasant) and blanking their Talk page. The previous edits by the other IP happened almost a year ago, so it doesn't seem like it's a frequent occurrence. I have deleted the offensive edit summary so it won't show up in the history of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:RuPaul's Drag Race

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An unregistered user is edit warring at Template:RuPaul's Drag Race. I fear violating 3RR, so I could use help maintaining the status quo version of the template during an active Talk page discussion. I've shared a warning on the user's talk page and I've also removed their comments from my user talk page, which they've reverted. A little help? Template page protection? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Links:

• Template_talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race#International_spin-offs'_names_should_be_consistent_in_the_template
• Template_talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Edit_warring
• User talk:78.148.25.46

---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Another Believer initially reverted my edit, without giving any explanation whatsoever. After I remade the same edit, he invited me to start a discussion on the talk page - which I did. There, he said that he agreed with my edit, but that he reverted it because he didn't like a detail of it. The situation would have been very different if Another Believer would've just explained to me their revert or, even better, edited the template further to remove the detail they didn't like. I think it's a double standard to ask an user to discuss an edit before doing it, when Another Believer's revert was unjustified. If anything, they could've started a discussion. Since this is not my first interaction of this kind with Another Believer, I'm inclined to believe he may have ownership issues on some articles. The fact that they asked a third user to revert my edit, in order to avoid being flagged for edit warring, demonstrates that to me. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"There, he said that he agreed with my edit" -- that's not even true. Stop mischaracterizing. There are rules to follow and you should not be edit warring during an active discussion. Also, I'm allowed to remove your unnecessary comment on my user talk page. Another editor has restored the status quo version of the template. I strongly suggest you not continue with aggressive editing. Also, I do not have ownership issues. I will gladly accept and follow consensus, but you're not giving other editors time to weigh in on the ongoing discussion. Please be patient. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You agreed with me that there should be consistency within the template. My edit was aimed to unify the style of the template, which, as you said, should be consistent. Yet, you still reverted my edit originally - with no explanation. If you agree that there should be consistency on the template, then why revert an edit that aim to improve such thing? My interpretation is that you would like to keep the style that you like on the template, and for this reason you saw my edit as an attack to your "ownership" of this particular template. As I said, it's not the first time that I see this kind of behaviour from you. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

... I'm done here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: The editor continues to post at User talk:Another Believer, despite me asking them to stop. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not vandalising your main space. I am just replying to what you left on my user's talk page. I don't think you should delete my reply on your talk page only because you don't agree with it. Why do you think is it okay to start a conversation on my talk page, but then don't allow my reply to exist in yours? 78.148.25.46 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Users have the right to delete most content from their talk page if they desire; if someone's asked you not to post there, you should respect that rather than antagonising them. If you want to continue to discuss the content dispute, the place for that is Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race. — Czello 13:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if User:Underpaid Intern is the same editor? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It is. Some actions can only be done by registered users, but I mainly use my IP account. I hope this is okay --78.148.25.46 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that User:Another Believer's contributions to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RuPaul's Drag Race: The Mobile Game may be useful for admins when reviewing this complaint. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm being harassed/hounded/trolled at this point so I am going to excuse myself from interacting with this editor from now on. No longer worth my time. Happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support block If someone asks for no contact then quit using time to chase them. 4 identical talk page posts today -
  1. special:diff/1028865356/1028865395
  2. special:diff/1028864893/1028864964
  3. special:diff/1028867905/1028868032
  4. special:diff/1028868032/1028869512

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that removing content from talk pages was allowed. If you noticed, my last edit in User:Another Believer's talk page was actually of me reverting my own edit - and removing my comment from their talk page definitely (following what was said in this discussion). I apologise for that. However there is more to this discussion that has not been addressed, so suggesting a block for just one aspect of our (Another Believer and myself) interactions is a summary decision. 78.148.25.46 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for one week. As I explained on their Talk page, they cannot use an IP and a named account in this manner, even if they admit to being the same person. They are both editing the same AfD, among other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bergeronpp making a base personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After a heated exchange related to image placement of all things, where I repeatedly pointed to MOS:IMAGELOC, Bergeronpp (talk · contribs) made a base personal attack toward me on their talk page. I requested that the editor strike the comment among other things, and got a response of "cringe". I did not (and still don't) understand what that means, and the editor has continued to edit without apology or striking the comment. The way the editor was editing also appeared to be WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, better a base personal attack than an acid remark. EEng 04:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Or radioactive! At least when you put a base and acid remark together, you get water and a salt...and we don't want this to come to that. 04:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Walter Görlitz: I've removed that personal attack (just feels wrong to leave it there) - Bergeronpp should at least apologise, and if its okay with you, everyone can move on. Things can get heated when we disagree, but there's really no need for comments like that - TNT ^😺 04:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Still concerned the editor is NOTHERE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• FYI. I had independently opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bergeronpp (pending) as a direct result of the timeline, edits, and events. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) I'm reading "cringe" as mock subservience; or as uncommon (possibly regional) British slang roughly equivalent to "yuck", as in this 1987 song lyric. Narky Blert (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That thought crossed my mind, but the subject's interest in American sport leagues argues against any Britishisms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I am pretty sure cringe refers to vicarious embarrassment. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yet no actual apology. The editor is also ignoring this discussion and continues to edit without any concern for repercussions. I take it that incivility is now an acceptable and excusable form of interaction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• And here I thought I was old. "Cringe" is a term kids nowadays throw around to mean either "This is so bad I feel embarrassed for having seen it" or just plain "this sucks." It's often used as an insult, implying that the target is unaware of how embarrassing their post was. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• From the wisdom of Buck Flower: words are my love language! El_C 01:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:‎SP Eatcha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Sockpuppet(SP of Eatcha), that's not me. -- Eatcha 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• They are pretending to be me, I'm happy to be checked by a CU. -- Eatcha 06:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and probable sock IP

This IP has received many warnings (see their talk page), has been blocked once already, is likely the IP of a previous sockmaster (see below), and continues to make disruptive edits such as this and this at Moroccans (removing a major ethnicity from the lead). A relatively long block would be helpful, given the constancy of it over multiple warnings, blocks, and previous socking. Not sure what else to recommend.

With regards to socking: this IP is very likely the same user as the one reported in multiple sockpuppet investigations here. They're doing the same edits (adding Berber names or content, which is fine, or deleting mentions of Arab ethnicity, which is disruptive), and their edit summary here presumably refers to an earlier comment by 85.148.129.62 on my talk page here. I don't mind moving this to sockpuppet investigations instead if more appropriate, but I assumed that it's simpler to report it here since there can't be more than a temporary block on an IP anyways. R Prazeres (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by socks from Atharv Bakshi

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

SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atharv Bakshi

Atharv Bakshi seems to be determined to disrupt and change the images in infoboxes to their version of image. The socks are from IPs, which are dynamic. By the time an IP is blocked, the user seems to be done for the day and comes back in a day or two, with a completely new IP due to their ISP, Airtel. Bakshi doesn't show any signs of stopping. This is taking considerable resources of RC-patrollers/editors to report/revert and admins to block/revert the edits and the IPs. The SPI case does not list all of the IPs used by Bakshi, as some of them are already blocked for pure disruption, by admins uninvolved with Bakshi's case, or for sock-ing, by admins who are aware of Bakshi's SPI. I am looking for suggestions on better handling this and preventing further disruption. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Airtel ranges are usually crowded, wide, and have erratic assignment patterns (Despairtel might be a more fitting name), so a rangeblock would be largely ineffective while incurring significant collateral. I think a filter based on two or three combined factors might do the trick, but this hasn't been going on for very long so they might simply get bored if they keep getting reverted and blocked for a little longer. --Blablubbs|talk 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just reverted him editing from 106.213.34.58 (talk · contribs). Given his focus on Indian election articles, and the fact that there is regular vandalism and disruption from other IPs and new editors, I wonder whether semi-protection for Indian election articles (1998 onwards) might be worthwhile. Cheers, Number 57 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good suggestion. Let me know next time this happens. Deb (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Deb Happened today about an hour ago from the same IP. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

DaxServer, I've protected the 2007, 2009 and 2012 articles. If there are others that need to be protected, drop me a message. Deb (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Continous replacing of flag and coat of arms in article

• 2010F11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wallachia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User 2010F11 keeps replacing the flag and coat of arms of Wallachia [290] (this is the latest time, see history article). User seems not to have an actual valid reason to use these symbols, these are the arguments given by them: "I wanna add the 1831 flag in the info box!" "Probably many people would want to see it!" "Maybe everyone wants to see it!". I've explained to them they do not have stated any reason that complies with any Wikipedia policy to justify this change, but it seems of no use. To summarize what I said at Talk:Wallachia, the white flag with a crow (the one this user is not promoting) is by far the most common (there's not a source of this, because there's not a source that specifically says which flag of a dead state that had several others was more common), which you can see by simply looking up "Wallachia flag" on Google. Click on images, scroll down and you'll mostly see the white flag with a crow (or a blue variant which, as far as I know, is only a naval ensign) or some alternate (mostly not historical) variants derived from it. But you most likely won't see a red and yellow horizontal bicolor flag which is the one that this user promotes.

It is for this reason that I oppose using two flags (first of all because it's unnecessary, it would make sense if the state only had two flags, but it didn't) which have a clear difference in relevance at the same "level" if I explain myself. The red and yellow flag is simply not known by almost anybody, while the white flag is the most commonly associated with Wallachia. Which this user does not seem to understand. Regarding the coat of arms, this one (which this user promotes) is not contemporaneous to the principality (see description at the file's page), so it shouldn't be used. By the way, the white flag has been used since at least 2009 in the article [291] and it is used by Romanian Wikipedia (Wallachia is in Romania). The user has been warned because of their changes at their talkpage twice [292] and their changes were reverted by two other different editors [293] [294]. Super Ψ Dro 20:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Shizuha Nakano

Shizuha Nakano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In mid-April, there was an edit war at Kozo Iizuka (sorry to say but I was involved in it). To resolve the edit war, I stopped reverting on 19 April and started a discussion at Talk:Kozo Iizuka#Discussion to resolve edit war. To Shizuha Nakano and 2404:2D00:5000:841:59F8:4B44:59D7:DC15's reply, I stated my counterarguments (25 April) and closed the discussion as resolved (5 May) after there were no further replies for more than a week.

Since Shizuha Nakano reverted again on 23 May and 7 June (mentioning "NNTR at talk" on the latter date), I asked them again to discuss at the talk page and at User talk:Shizuha Nakano (8 June). The response of Shizuha Nakano is another revert on 16 June. That leaves me with no choice but to file a report here. ネイ (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Add userlinks ネイ (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This user has also been doing some bizarre, hateful stuff at Jessica Yaniv. They changed all the pronouns of a trans woman to who or whose and added an external link to an attack site in two unexplained edits (diff). They were reverted twice (once by me) and they re-reverted both times with not-great edit summaries. First re-revert: "Yaniv is Not operated transsexual. Should not decide he or she." Second re-revert: "WP:BOLD". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit is pretty bad too, for all sorts of reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Peace4worlds - NOTHERE

Peace4worlds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Based on the edits by user: Special:Diff/1029088632, Special:Diff/1029088632, Special:Diff/1029088632 (the claim is supported by 14 citations Special:PermaLink/1029088780#cite_note-24) and another edit Special:Diff/1025890795; I believe the user is pushing POV and is WP:NOTHERE. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Blackbear456

Blackbear456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has been reverted by no less than three different editors for relentlessly pushing blatant WP:PUFF and unreliable sourcing at Shawn Michaels. When informed that the sources he is using have been established by the community as unreliable, he wilfully restores them anyway.

User is simultaneously engaged in a WP:POINTY, vandalistic "revenge" project by removing well-sourced peer and journalist acclaim for Bret Hart (a career rival of Michaels).

WP:NOTHERE, other than to puff up the Shawn Michaels article into an unencylopedic fansite mess against the wishes of other editors. Cloudbearer (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This editor seems to be a bit of a SPA. He also seems to be willing to edit war and not engage in talkpage communication. I think a block for a while might get them to calm down.★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What is it with wrestling articles that brings this out? Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Glossary of professional wrestling terms#mark. Narky Blert (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A toxic fanbase, but perhaps we shouldn't venture into WP:FORUM. Cloudbearer (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's a bit like idol culture, fans can identify and get very attached to their favorites.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Look at the edit summaries. Almost all are mobile edits. So they probably are not seeing the comments on their talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't tell Drmies there's another wrestling thread at ANI, unless you are planning for the whole of Alabama to be powered by the steam that comes out of his ears. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, it's all about Euro 2020. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:B. Fairbairn reported by User:OuroborosCobra

• B. Fairbairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a six year break, B. Fairbairn has returned to their behavior of trying to sanitize any and all foreign relations and similar pages and sections of pictures involving US politicians. This behavior has gotten them blocked three times before, and there are at least four previous ANIs on this behavior for this editor [295] [296] [297] [298]. For some reason, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/B._Fairbairn&dir=prev&offset=20191024144335&target=B.+Fairbairn they are back at it, and if it continues again, it's just going to be a headache for someone to go through and revert everything again. This is by far not their first time doing this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I should add that the user page for the editor in question is basically a giant table guide to how they will keep doing this; it's a table of pictures of US politicians side by side with whether there is a corresponding Russia picture, followed by collections of Obama "hobnobbing" with other world leaders. It's continued presence, while not itself violating policy, shows an intent to continue with this disruptive editing that they have been told repeatedly in the past was unacceptable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know the backstory here so I can't comment intelligently on any past issues or warnings. However, looking at these specific edits, there doesn't seem to be any instance of 3RR and - insofar as the content of the edits themselves are concerned - it appears to merely be decentering the United States from articles on countries other than the United States. It has always struck me as strange that every article about countries other than the United States features an outsized number of photos of American politicians and American military units. (Functionally, I understand the reason behind that is because the U.S. Government spends a boatload on public affairs staff and releases all of their images into the PD. As a result, the U.S. Army has more Wikipedia-usable photos of Iraq than anyone.) Fairbairn's userpage definitely magnifies the problem WP has in this regard to a rather astonishing degree. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think an edit summary of "boring" for removing pictures long present in articles is an indication that they are approaching some large issue with intent on working with the community on this. Nor do their 3 blocks for specifically this behavior, and 4 ANIs against them for the same. They are literally repeating the same behavior, just with a six year break. That's why I provided links. Please, read the past behavior. If it was as simple as you are making it out to be, I would never have brought it here. This editor has had many, many warnings made against them (from administrators), and has not learned. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I've taken the time to sludge through this all now. "They are literally repeating the same behavior, just with a six year break." It appears three of his four past reports were for edit-warring, and the fourth was for WP:POINTY edits ("changing sides" to make a point). You said his previous blocks were for "specifically this behavior" but they were actually for edit-warring and harassment; the content being warred over didn't seem to be the problem, the warring itself was. In the above diffs I'm not seeing any 3RR, nor am I seeing evidence of pointy edits. He was previously blocked to arrest edit-warring and pointy edits, not to compel him to change his opinion on the centrality of images of Americans. He's certainly entitled to edit with that perspective as much as he fancies, provided he doesn't resume edit-warring, pointy editing, or harassment of other editors. If you disagree with his removal of these images, you can restore them, discuss the matter, or open an RfC. If you have evidence of 3RR it can be addressed to the WP:3RRN. As for "boring" as an edit summary; that seems not useful but I'm not sure it's a smoking gun. Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to Block this user M.Bitton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a request to block this user M.Bitton. Since the first time I wrote apparently about his tribe, he has been always deleting all my contributions, and the reason ? He's making some comment misrespecting me and some others that I can't even understand. I gave many resourceful evidences and each sentence I made I was bringing the talk of the scholar saying it, I put also the genetic study. Mr has deleted everything and all my different subjects I was talking about, and the reason? he wasn't personally agreeing on one idea according to his theory so he deleted everything. You can see this on this injutified deletion. I invited him to a debate with all possible evidence even though all the saying of the scholars I pu them as reference, he deleted my request on his page. Since then he's deleting every thing I write, maybe for one idea he don't agree with he delete all my editting even though they cover many subjects with evidences of course. I don't know whether he took things personnaly. All along his user page same problem is there with many users, so I am just asking to block him or at least prevent him from deleting everything he doesn't agree with. Plus, my information are always approved by other admins and appears, only when Mr came and then there is an automatic deletion. I started to get confused, I don't know how bringins full real evidence , in french and english, every sentence is proved, but the moment one idea don't please to him, everything is deleted. I just wanna know what kind of information wikipedia would accept then if not the ones of pure scholars sayings and that's why I inented him to a quick debate but always delete my requests and keep on his automatic deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeRobert93 (talk • contribs)

As it says at the top of the page in big red letters you must notify the user of this report, I have done so for you. Also remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~).Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LeRobert93! I have reviewed your "request to block this user" [M.Bitton]. "Deleting" (or reverting) another user's contributions is a normal part of the editing process on Wikipedia. From a review of the editor interaction analyzer, it appears M.Bitton has reverted you in four articles. In none of these cases was WP:3RR violated and in each case M.Bitton articulated a valid reason to do so. For instance, in this edit [299], you were reverted because M.Bitton said you misrepresented a source. Reviewing the source, that does appear to be the case. In the edit you cited, the revert was followed by an extensive and ongoing discussion on the Talk page, one in which you are participating. Given the very limited number of instances in which M.Bitton has reverted you and the apparent validity of each of those, I'm disinclined to believe that "the moment one idea don't please to him, everything is deleted" without further evidence. Thank you for working to expand WP's coverage of Berber-related subjects. Please consider visiting the WP:TEAHOUSE where additional guidance and advise on editing WP is available. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor deleting citations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Thethxrn has recently been reversing my researched citations for the La Crosse Aris FC page. Latest edit summary was inappropriate and disrespectful. Asking for action to be taken to put an end to the behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScottDL (talk • contribs)

@TheScottDL: when starting a discussion at ANI you must notify the other party. I have done this for you. Laplorfill (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that TheScottDL (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I see only one edit that involves removing references: Special:Diff/1028413599. However, Special:Diff/1028782961 is indeed a personal attack. They do seem to make unsourced changes as well in these two edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that this personal attack, this harrasment and this egregious vandalism make it very clear that User:Thethxrn is not here to build an encyclopedia. Laplorfill (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thorn personally believes that the above user does not know how to spell ("harassment"), and as a result, his criticisms are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thethxrn (talk • contribs)

• This is a homophobic insult and should be RD2'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  EDIT: Homophobic personal attack and blanking at Laplorfill's talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(non-administrator non-involved comment) Support indef block for egregious personal attacks and revdel the homophobic insult on the tp. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A note that @Bbb23: has indef-blocked Thethxrn. My thanks to Bbb23. Laplorfill (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Comment: One of the revisions I named above (Special:Diff/1028979236) still has to be RD2'd. It was made on the user's own talk page and makes a degrading comment about the LGBT flag. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: I have rev del it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Kambliyil

A user knwon as Kambliyil is daily spamming large amounts of wiki pages on a regular basis. kambliyil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is the biggest spammer in wiki and is changing and adding irrelevant content and is editting content in every minute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kambliyil Please check the history of this user and see that this user got too many warnings and is doing thousands of edits without any use. This person is completely changing the structure of large amounts of wiki pages to suit his personal or political agendas. This person should be banned from wiki. This person got too many warnings and still this user is continuing his spamming and changing and vandalizing too many wiki pages at a time. This user is adding wrong and irrelevant information in large amount of wiki pages. If this user is allowed to continuie, then the entire wikipedia will be changed as per this users political or personal agendas. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandyept (talk • contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alandyept: I noticed there was a problem and commented at their talk. I've been caught up elsewhere but I was planning on warning them that they would be indefinitely blocked if they do not respond to the problems mentioned on their talk. It would help if you were to give two or three short examples of what you mean, with a brief reason why the edits are a problem for the specific cases you mention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alandyept: Hi, can you give some example? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 08:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The user Alandyept is engaged in edit war on the page Kerala cuisine. The user reverts sourced edits. According to Alandyept, the Malabar cuisine is a derivative of Thalassery cuisine. However, it is not the truth. Each of the cities has their own local cuisine - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/what-is-the-real-malabar-biriyani/articleshow/65090374.cms. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I assume that the user with IP address 2409:4073:4E84:DB7:7080:FA92:B909:95F1 and the user Alandyept are same. Both of them do the same thing on the page Kerala Cuisine. The user with the above IP address appears to remove a section from the page continousely since 28 May 2021. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Just look at this users history and see how much warnings this user has got. I dont know why this person is doing disruptive and large scale editting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kambliyil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kambliyil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandyept (talk • contribs)

Johnuniq The user kambliyil is balming me for disruptive editing whenrin the same user is the one who is doing large scale disruptive editting to large amounts of wiki pages on a daily basis. You can check my history as I am not doing this kind of unexplained edits little by little without any explanations. The user kambliyil wants everythig according to his wishes. That cannot be allowed. In kerala cusine malabr biriyani is known as Thalassery biriyani as is the only type of biriyani in whole of Kerala and it originated from Thalseery, rest are copies. This is speciafically stated in this book Karan, Pratibha (2009). Biryani. Noida, India: Random House India. ISBN 9788184002546. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alandyept (talk • contribs)

@Alandyept: Hi, Please reply to this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/what-is-the-real-malabar-biriyani/articleshow/65090374.cms. The book you have shown dates back to 2009. The news report I have shown dates back to 2018. It is clearly mentioned in this report that the taste and flavour of the cuisine in each of the regions are different. The user Alandyept (talk · contribs) edits using several IP addresses those include:

• 2409:4073:4E84:DB7:7080:FA92:B909:95F1 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:4E16:1930:9598:46B7:E9FF:2713 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:20D:AE34:E473:637E:6C25:FF4F (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:495:BF58:5AC:9ACB:14ED:BFD6 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:2096:685A:7991:9B70:8970:F87 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:184:A9B1:D8FB:6DE3:F639:3AAC (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:219D:CA12:1527:C742:74E9:DF64 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:4D8F:7C4B:8C95:4506:CE19:220E (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:39C:E561:E438:5E:306E:51D4 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4073:380:D87D:8D65:8279:4035:1B8E (talk · contribs)

I think it is a sign of WP:SOCK as well as a violation of WP:EW. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kambliyil: That is not sockpuppetry. The editor likely just has a dynamic IP. The constantly changing IPs are not in their control. Please assume good faith. 122.172.236.3 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I asked for opinions at WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kerala dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq I want to say to the user kamliyil that there is huge difference between a ISBN published book and a news report. An intenrt article or news report must not be true or wont be that much trustable. These food items were here for ages. I mean before hundreds of years. What difference it makes between a 2009 or 2018 published article if the matter concerned is of hunderds of years old. If you want to refer to all version or copies of the same thing then there will thousands of copies of the same thing with little bit variations. That is not at all impotrant. Only original stuff should be here. Wikipedia should be informative with needed or required cotent. No use of putting irrelevent information in wiki. Johnuniq This user kambliyil is copying and pasting between wiki articles. For exmaple, several information is copied from Malabar wiki page and put into different wiki pages like Kerala cusine. Thst is not useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:2e82:7a44:c470:faa7:8125:cf16 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@2409:4073:2e82:7a44:c470:faa7:8125:cf16: Hi, you are true. That cuisine was there for hundreds of years. But nobody called it Thalassery cuisine. But the cuisine in each of the cities were different. The term Thalassery cuisine is used to denote the indigenous dishes of Thalassery. The news report I have mentioned above clearly states the differences between Thalassery cuisine and Kozhikode Cuisine. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambliyil (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Page removed for Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church

Wikipedia used to have a page for this topic, with really good information and references. Suddenly, it is gone. Can it be put back in place and protected? The people in this church are very secretive about the history of the church and probably asked for it to be removed; however, for the sake of knowledge and history, such information should be protected and available to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa.landen78 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lisa.landen78, I don't see any edit history at Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lisa, I'm not seeing that the page was deleted at all, as it was never created. Was this under another name by any chance? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also unable to find anything. We do have articles on Laestadianism and Laestadianism in the Americas, where the "Independent Apostolic Lutheran Church" is referred to as "Reedites" and "Pollarites", but no deleted articles there, either. Woodroar (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There's an article for Apostolic Lutheran Church of America. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor off the rails wrt Bigfoot video

• PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patterson–Gimlin film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PDMagazineCoverUploading seems to a case of WP:SBA, and could probably use some attention from an admin:

• "[I] am prepared to die on this hill & engage in a revert war with you"[300]
• "Yeah they do, asshole" [301]
• "Nope, fuck off" [302]
• etc.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly very out of line. I have given an only warning for personal attacks and they already have a final warning for edit warring. If another admin thinks this is actionable now, I have no objection. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Dab(h)i Rajput(s)

There's a bit of a situation involving two articles (basically just one), and two editors (probably also just one). I came across Dabi Rajput and Dabhi Rajput on the uncategorised list, and noticed that they're essentially the same. So I draftified them before this creates even more of a fork, and was planning to ask the creating editor to choose which one they want as the primary title.

Only I then realised the editors are different (well, maybe not, but technically yes): Dabi Rajput and Dabhi Rajput, respectively. I'm not saying there's any puppetry involved, I think it's just a misunderstanding — it looks like the accounts were created in order to create those articles. All the same, if the users are the same, they obviously need to be advised accordingly.

I don't know if there's also an issue with the user name: judging by the article, this Dabhi Rajput is a collective name for a group of people, so one could argue that a user name like that implies shared use?

Finally, I hope I've not made the mess worse by draftifying things, because now it seems there's a bit of a muddle with the way the pages and talk pages relate to each other. (If I have, sorry!). Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal from Illinois

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 107.19.24.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beep (Bobby Valentino song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I never know where to report these things, but as I'm looking at an IP user I believe to have been blocked repeatedly before, I'm bringing it here.

Could I persuade you to block this IP (or relevant IP range) from Cicero/Homewood/Chicago (Chatham), Illinois: 107.19.24.146. Their primary activity appears to be changing dates to something wrong but almost believable (e.g., making songs or albums come out four or five years later). For example:

• Beep (Bobby Valentino song) their favorite target, I think
• The Rebirth
• List of Yo Gabba Gabba! episodes

They often make a series of edits on each article, changing not only release dates or dates of birth, but also changing dates in ref cites including URLs and archive-URLs, even when they don't point to a real resource.

Usually I trip over their work in music articles, but today I saw something new: adding maintenance tags with long-ago dates to video game articles (not that the articles don't need more citations, but they add the tags, I believe, just to add the fictitious dates for them). Examples: NBA Live 06, James Bond 007: Nightfire.

Based on just a quick glance at the "Beep" (Bobby Valentino song): Revision history, it seems they've been doing this since at least January 2020 (see this series of 7 edits). As they change IPs periodically, they don't seem to get stopped for long. I do not know how you can efficiently block them, although some earlier incarnatations have been (and are still) blocked:

• 107.19.24.146 most recent edits, active March and June 2021 (incl. today)
• 173.15.3.77 March and June 2021
• 173.165.80.201 June 2021
• 73.110.34.48 May 2021
• 71.201.137.75 May 2021
• 73.110.34.79 May 2021
• 99.57.37.191 April 2021
• 98.227.243.98 April 2021
• 2603:300a:1e8f:d000:7cc6:c548:752c:fac6 April 2021
• 98.227.242.153 April 2021
• 108.252.133.42 February 2021, blocked for 2 years by User:Newslinger
• 2600:1702:3310:6c30:8c79:6b06:e097:e4a4 January 2021, blocked for 3 years by User:Materialscientist
• 108.228.72.35 July 2020. Strong behavioral match but in Memphis, Tennessee
• 2601:586:8400:e700:d04b:ae98:d119:defb June 2020. Behavioral match but in Miramar, Florida
• 2600:1702:3310:6c30:4b2:a034:e910:fec5 January 2020. Strong behavioral match but in Ashburn, Virginia; blocked for 3 years by User:Materialscientist

Again, this list is based on just one article, Beep (Bobby Valentino song). They also hit other Bobby Valentino and Jay-Z articles, as well as other artists'. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the most recent IPs and semi-protected some articles. I can try range blocks if they come back on the same IP ranges. For example, Special:Contributions/73.110.34.0/24 is obviously them, but it hasn't been used for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NRP, I really appreciate it. Um, is it expected that I "close" a thread that's been resolved? Or do we just wait until it gets archived in due course? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user adding copyrighted material

Source: https://www.istanbul.edu.tr/tr/content/universitemiz/tarihce Edit1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_University&diff=1029218632&oldid=1029217045 Edit2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_University&diff=1029215549&oldid=1029214716 Edit3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istanbul_University&diff=1029214436&oldid=1029209660

--V. E. (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP in question, 88.245.195.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked by 331dot (talk · contribs) for 3 days. I have redacted their comment and tagged the page to request revdel per RD1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:J. Jimenez Torres - blatant hoax and socking to remove CSD templates

The quacking is loud in here....

• Draft:J. Jimenez Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Conmebol32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Qatar221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fifa22concaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conmebol16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This hoax article has already been deleted under CSD G3 once today, but was then recreated by an obvious sockpuppet of the original author. Various socks of the avian and quacking variety have edit warred to remove the {{db-hoax}} template since. No meaningful dialogue has been had, despite warnings. I don't want to waste SPI time with this, or edit war with them over something which I realise is petty - could an admin nuke the article and block the quackers? firefly ( t · c ) 10:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thank ye kindly! :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Black Kite, sorry to butt in, but I noticed you only salted the Draft talk page. Probably not intentional? AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oops - fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've tagged the photo which was in the draft, File:Jorge Jimenez Torres in Arsenal.png, as a hoax - it's of Bernd Leno (Bernd Leno) of Arsenal. Narky Blert (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

IP resorting to insults and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admin attention please. IP 5.46.191.4 making PAs [304], [305], [306]. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you attacking Turkish pages as a Greek? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Naval_Forces explains why it was founded in 1081 on its corporate page. What will you do with your end comments? Do you intend to change the establishment date of the Turkish navy with your views? In your next step, will you claim that the Turks are actually Mongols? Mr Greek?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk)

This is getting absurd. 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible that this user is Banana6cake.? The overlap is extensive and one appeared to defend the other. 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Already being discussed at [307]. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks

Solarson919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the talk page of User:Bishonen a user named User:Solarson919 has been throwing false accusations for the last few hours, he has now started calling me false names and other derogatory remarks. All I did was reverted his unsourced misleading edits on the WP Jeypore. He has been harassing me since then. Odiahistory (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You can see his remarks under the section ( Possible Dummy or Puppet Accounts that needs your urgent action ) in Bishonen’s Talk Page. He has been baselessly accusing me of being sock puppet of Rodotype and RudpolhHitz, and so far I treated him with utmost respect. However, in his last reply he called me by false names and other derogatory stuff like “raging like an infant” etc. He has been harassing me for quite a while now. I could have insulted him as well, but thought of reporting it first. Odiahistory (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please notify Solarson919 of this report on their talk page, as the red text at the top of the page and the yellow edit notice when creating this section dictate. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've sent the ANI notice to the editor. Jerm (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Odiahistory is the one who actually started harassing me on Bishonen's talk page. I wasn't involved in the discussion there. The threw quite slanderous remarks my way, called me a sockpuppet of User: Sangramz and accused me of "peddling an agenda." Also his edit history suggests that his IDs been created to only "manage" Jeypore and related pages (less of the latter) and his language, mannerisms and an assumption (on which I've elaborated on Bishonen's talk page) gave me an impression that he indeed was User:RudolphHitz. Also the Odia rajput page in the talk page of which he accused me of "peddling some agenda against them" which was constructed purely on POV and has been subsequently deleted by an admin. I'd be obliged if you looked into it. Thank you Solarson919 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Blatant lying. Anyone interested in this matter. Please visit the talk page of User:Bishonen and have a look at the replies of User:Solarson919. Ever since I reverted his edit, he is trying to divert the attention by baselessly linking me up with User:RudolphHitz & User:Rodotype who also happened to have done a few editing. If you look at the comments you will find out who started slandering about me being a sockpuppet, which I have denied and also asked the admin to check IP addresses of mine & those two users he’s linking me up with.

I’ve just simply reverted his unsourced & misleading claims on Jeypore page that did not match with the source which he keeps on editing along with another user named User:Sangramz. He has given me false names & remarks like “raging like an infant” even though when it is quite clear that he is the one who has been raging all along at me. Half of his edits involve glorification or promotion of some “Khandayat caste”. If you see his talk page and edit history, you will just find most of it related to Khandayat.

On the other hand, you can check my edit history as well. I’m not denying that I did not edit Jeypore page. It is one of my topic of interest and I think I have the right to edit and improve it with reliable sources. He has brought his accusations even here, still accusing me of having links with Rudolph & Rodotype. Please check his history and take necessary actions because he has turned my whole day into some sort of silly war, where he denies his shortcomings and because he has nothing else to accuse me of, therefore, he continues to slander me of sockpuppetry and unnecessary rage ranting. I’ll try not to reply again because I am sick and tired of this behaviour. I hope you take necessary actions. Thank you. Odiahistory (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't done caste glorification anywhere. I'm saying this again and again that "kandha" and "Khandayat" aren't the same and on jeypore edit nowhere was the word Khandayat mentioned by either me or user: sangramz. Stop accusing me of caste glorification. Stop harassing me. I can't take any of it anymore. Please just stop it I'm begging you. I request the admins to take actions as he won't leave me alone now. Solarson919 (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha Don’t try to play the victim now. This is the complaint panel so will have to face it whether you like it or not. I can say the same about your baseless complaint on Bishonen’s page yesterday, who started that? Was that me? And What is Kandha and where is it written that the king was Kandha, can you explain? Just explain this to me (with sources) and I will take my complain back and never bother you again. Since yesterday you have created another propaganda that Kandha & Khandayat are not similar words, just for the sake of saving yourself. Whenever I ask you this question (which I did several times) you bring up that false accusations of sockpuppetry and insults and change the topic because clearly you don’t have an answer.

And this “begging you” , “can’t take it anymore” victim plea is another trick of yours to divert the attention of admins. You started with that false accusation complaining yesterday, then got enraged and personally attacked me, and now possibly afraid to face the outcome. Odiahistory (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm more surprised that neither of you can indent consistently. Please, can both of you read WP:INDENT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the indenting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

IP editors at Uday Samant

There's a range of several 157.119.84.* addresses that keep making the same unsourced BLP edit to Uday Samant, which keeps getting reverted. Any chance that range could be blocked from editing that particular article? (Note: I've not notified every one of those IPs of this ANI, only the most recent one. If I should have, mea culpa, and please advise.) Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Irritating. I placed a partial block. No worries about the notifications. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by CarrotJuice101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CarrotJuice101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite warnings on their talk page, the user continues to make disruptive edits bordering on vandalism. As I believe their contribs should show, they've achieved a 100% reversion return for they efforts. Most recently, CarrotJuice101 has repeatedly replaced the cover art at Lady Madonna with a version they uploaded to Commons, which shouldn't be there and certainly has no place in the Wikipedia song article. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. If someone could look into this, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. No pun! El_C 13:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent cheating by Mr.Rajvanshi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This is a vandal who repeatedly keeps trying to create the Abhishek Nigam article. The article was deleted via a deletion discussion. Sock puppets repeatedly keep recreating the article, but experienced editors and admins keep moving the article into a draft. Abhishek Nigam was then salted because of the repeated recreation. The disruptive editors then repeatedly resubmit the draft, but the draft has been repeatedly declined due to lack of notability. That's why Mr.Rajvanshi keeps trying other tricks: creating the article under different names to evade scrutiny. First as the repeatedly deleted Abhishek nigam, that is, with a lowercase n. This was eventually, again, moved into a draft in good faith by people not familiar with this case, which unfortunately resulted in two identical drafts under different names. Abhishek nigam was then deleted and salted. But Mr.Rajvanshi still keeps cheating and moved the draft into mainspace again against consensus, this time under yet another name, Abhishek Nigam ( actor ). This name was then changed again to Abhishek Nigam (Actor). This resulted in yet another deletion discussion. Mr.Rajvanshi then decided to try the previous trick and requested unprotection for Abhishek nigam, lying that they improved the page (no, they did not improve the page in any way, they just moved it into mainspace against consensus).

So, I think it's time to say enough is enough and block the user indefinitely. Editors and admins keep wasting their time cleaning up the mess caused by this user. As the vandalism policy explicitly says, gaming the system equals vandalism (recreating articles under different names and using sock puppets is even explicitly mentioned as a form of vandalism). The user is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to promote their pet subject(s) at all costs.—J. M. (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Aimbots are not allowed! El_C 13:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you also salt the article which you just deleted and plausible variants to prevent more shenanigans like this from this vandal?Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've WP:G4ed the targetless redirect Draft:Abhishek Nigam. An application of NaCl might not be misplaced. Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by Dornicke and clearly WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dornicke's most recent comments at Talk:Uyghur genocide caught my eye while I was checking my watchlist (thread). I initially intended to write this out directly on Dornicke's talk as a bit of unsolicited advice to encourage the user to reconsider their approach to editing, but after taking a closer look at Dornicke's contributions, I started to notice a clear pattern of tendentious/BATTLEGROUND behavior and what appeared to me to be attempts to right great wrongs that is egregious enough to warrant a block, in my view. Examples include [308], [309], Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, and this message to Jweiss11 from December, which I consider to be completely beyond the pale. Given the tenor of this user's edits recently, I believe they are a net negative to the project and are clearly WP:NOTHERE. At a bare minimum, considering the user's recent edits focusing on China-related articles, I think that a topic ban from articles relating to Uyghur genocide and China, broadly construed, would be appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I went back a couple years in their edits, I am seeing a regular pattern of accusing other editors of being anti-communist or anti-Chinese. They seem to be very combative when people disagree.

I am curious to see their response to these concerns. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: there are general sanctions in place for Uyghur genocide. The editor was only informed of the discretionary sanctions after their recent talk page posts were made, which began with this edit and ended with this edit. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: That's true, but my intention with the thread was to focus more on the WP:TEND behavior and harassment demonstrated by this editor, rather than the content issues surrounding the article in question. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense; just wanted to make sure any reviewing admins were aware of the sanctions regime being in place and the (lack of) applicability here regarding editor conduct. It also makes page-specific protections possibly come into play, even absent the awareness requirement being fulfilled, so I figured that this might be something to note. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Spare me the little theater and go on with your censorship, as you do with everyone who do not cope with American/anticommunist mandatory biased bullshit in this project. Don't pretend it has anything to do with rules, just show your true authoritarian face. Let people know your asking for blocking people for mereley pointing American bias in discussion pages, without a single edit in articles. Let people know you want to censor editors and stop of even talking about US political bias in talk pages. And China is the dicatorship, huh? Aahahaha. Anglophones... Dornicke (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you see that kind of talk is exactly the concerns that are being talked about here. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a place to hold up one ideology while bad mouthing another. Personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. If you are able to please tone down your rhetoric and try to assume good faith, if you are not able to you may not be here very long. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is unfortunate that you chose to post a jeremiad that can be summarized as, "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" in a thread that also includes statements accusing others of political bias and being anticommunist shills. Consant invocations of bias, and not one diff about it. There is a long tradition at ANI where BATTLEGROUND and disruptive editing concerns provoke posts that provide very clear evidence that the original concerns are justified. Good to see the tradition is being upheld. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you want me to pretend I believe this is somehow a serious "trial", unbiased. To make my role in the little theater LOL. Go ahead, censor, ban, do whatever you need to keep your government official narrative enforcer safe from non-Westerner narratives. Do what you need to keep Americans in the bubble, protected from ideas that are not alligned with your billionare corporative media. Forbid Africans, Latin-Americans, Asians of editing. "Make Wikipedia Great Again". Isn't that the point? Making this a chauvinistic, "patriotic", pro-American biased project, alligned with US government geopolitical narratives? Then go ahead, I'm not American, I'm not European, I'm your enemy. You need to protect your patriotic citizens from my dangerous, non-capitalist, subversive ideas of how there's no genocide in China. Who knows I may ask about where are Iraqi weapons of mass destrutction tomorrow, right? Go ahead, make the US Department of State proud. Ban me. Dornicke (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a place to hold up one ideology while bad mouthing another." - That's exactly what wikipedia is. A place where one specific ideology is forbidden. That's why there are no communists editing here, they are all banned. It's forbidden, it's a non written rule of this McCarthyst, chauvinistic, pro-American biased project that you guys try to pretend is a encyclopedia. It isn't. Now spare me the theater and go on with your censorship. Let's make a good use of taxpayer's money. Dornicke (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, as you say. I have indeffed this user. If they want to play nice in the future they can try to convince the community of this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turkish War of Independence

• Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 5.46.191.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 88.245.195.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Visnelma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as V.E. below)

We cannot make any changes because the page is protected.Our questions are not answered in the discussion section of the page. Even an interview made 2 weeks ago can be cited as a source.Black propaganda is constantly being carried out by one person. only anti-Turkish sources are added.I will give you a few examples. It is claimed that the Armenian Genocide took place in 1915, 1917. but the war of liberation started in 1919. The subject is deliberately distorted.after the Karabakh war. These attacks have increased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence#Influence_on_Nazis ""Nazilere göre Atatürk'ün başarısının en önemli nedeni Ermenilerin yok edilmesiydi"". Agos (in Turkish). Retrieved 16 June 2021. [110] This newspaper is an Armenian propaganda newspaper.

In this newspaper, the article of anti-Turkish writers of Armenian origin was cited as a source. Gündoğan, Kazım (4 June 2021). "Osmanlı ve Türkiye'de Yahudiler". gazeteduvar (in Turkish). Retrieved 8 June 2021.[64] none of them are historical documents and are just propaganda comments.

this causes wikipedia to be abused.This information is constantly being added by an editor without anyone responding in the conversation section. With the comments just 1 day ago or 2 weeks ago, this propaganda continues. please stop this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence#Ethnic_cleansing

almost all sources are the sources of an anti-Turkish Armenian writer. and these resources are repetitive and resource resources.

[97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [61]

The most recent source they added is an interview made 1 day ago. the previous source is an interview made 10 days ago and these are just comments.

propagandist : Visnelma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no indication Visnelma (talk · contribs) has been notified of this AN/I thread. I will correct that, but OP, I strongly suggest you stop accusing people of pushing propaganda. It makes you come across as just as much of a problem. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please review "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021" request i made few days ago. I tried to create counter argument with sources. Which was discredited due to one being news source and other being Lenin's direct words regarding the Independence War. First reason Contradicts with this users actions( He uses any source he can find the discredit the war). At the moment this user has the free reign to edit however he seas fit without challenge. That in itself is problem. Second reason is Very debatable considering direct words of someone who participated in the War being discredited due to being First Person Source. The problem is that there is systematic block on what the Turkish side can add to this site. If only one side has free reign while other side is blocked, then the term propaganda applies(Strongly). I sincerely hope that Turning page to propaganda is not the intention here at higher levels. --Oyond (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

you are telling the truth. but we have a message about this topic in the talk section. and it was never answered. deliberately only the discourses of Armenian writers who make anti-Turkish comments are added. This page is the Turkish War of Independence page. they exaggerated so much that the hitler started to open a headline and enter information under it because they took the Turks as an example. This is purely an intentional work. It doesn't serve the purpose of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The genocide happened. Just because that upsets you doesn't make it less true. Deal with it. 2001:4898:80E8:38:725E:9119:2DBD:B368 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The genocide you claim to have taken place took place in 1915, 1917. But the Turkish War of Independence started in 1919. What is wanted to be done here is to associate Turkey with the genocide. 1 of the sources is an interview made 1 day ago. another one is the interview made 2 weeks ago. In addition, almost 1 book is cited as a source about ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.46.191.4 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I wonder, has this IP ever been warned regarding WP:ARBAA2? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have one major question after having read this thread. Who is "we"? Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"We" would be the Turkish nationalists/genocide deniers summoned as meatpuppets by Turkish websites, see Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Topic is on turkish news and Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Possible planned vandalism by Turkish far right groups. The history of the article (and talk page) from that time show semi-protection is a wholly necessary intervention to prevent co-ordinated disruption. FDW777 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There are 9 sources in the article in which you claim ethnic cleansing.

[95] "It seems, in the end, unlikely that the Turkish nationalist leaders, though secular in name, ever had any intention of allowing any sizeable non-Muslim minority to remain." *// expresses an opinion and does not present a historical document. *// [96] "Many Greek men were conscripted into unarmed labor battalions where the death rate sometimes exceeded 90 percent" Basso, Andrew (2016). *// there is no claim of ethnic cleansing and there is no document about the qualifications of these people. [97] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [98] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [99] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [100] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [101] Kévorkian Armenian nationalist historian [61] Avedian, Vahagn Armenian nationalist historian

ethnic cleansing claims are made by prejudiced Armenian nationalist writers. Even today, we see this propaganda openly after the war in Azerbaijan. It is Armenia, which has been registered as an occupier by the United Nations. Instead, they describe Azerbaijan as an invader in their own newspapers and other propaganda. Do we believe in the decision of the united nations? Or Armenian propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.192.142 (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been used as excuse to block anyone who disagrees with their POV. If you follow discussion: the people like the user above said sources are denialist, then when counter argument is made they say you dont have sources and this is "IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". When I bring sources the ask to make edit is denied based on contradicting reasons. One news article from very minor website is used as excuse to block any edits(And keep it protected indefinetly). If I have to tell you about my political view its very left wing. Most of the people who object are left wing as far as I can see in discussions at the moment. Also few users including one above is acting in coordiated fassion in Wikipedia in order to modify any turkish related article as they can get their hands on. They have free reign to write anything they can without any challenge(specialy in Turkish War of Independence). If you wish me to go more into details I certainly can. --Oyond (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

if you are trying to portray the war that a country sees as a struggle for liberation as ethnic cleansing. this is a newsworthy movement around the world. On top of that, it is remarkable that the resources shown are the side that took part in that war and was defeated. The resources of a side that sees itself as justified despite being shown as an occupier by the United Nations even today. these sources are usually sources that include new newspaper interviews. These are the sources of the nationalist-minded writers of the side that entered the war and lost the war. Greece,France,United Kingdom,Armenia It is funny to say that a nation fighting against it was at that time starting a struggle to initiate ethnic cleansing.

Turns out all those liberation wars didn't involve the genocide of an entire people. Take your propaganda bullshit elsewhere. 2001:4898:80E8:8:6E40:B385:EEC:72A7 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Just because people like you think there was genocide doesn't mean it was done.Even today, although the United Nations has registered that Armenia is an invader, Armenian sources show Azerbaijan as an invader. Armenian propaganda today is a brief illumination of the past.just like you are hiding behind a proxy and saying that there was genocide in the liberation war.

Can anyone explain what does Azerbaijan have to do with this war? 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Good question. Maybe because one admin pointed out "has been notified of this AN/I thread."...Maybe unsigned users should be ignored for the moment I can see flocks coming pretending to be something else in order to deviate this Topic from the real issue here. Limited access to Turkish Users to modify anything, organized cooperation(border line crusade) against any topic related to Turkish History Oyond (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no limited access to Turkish users. Semi-protection of the article does not discriminate on race, nationality, gender, sexuality or anything else. FDW777 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In Every page that group is challenged, the extended protection status is placed by one admin(wont name unless needed). Afterwards only your group has the ability to edit without any challenge. Who has the ability to change without discussing the topic in the discussion form indicates intentional bias. What I don't know if is a system being abused here by the group I mentioned, or is it intentional. Maybe You can clarify it for me. Want me to provide examples? I have two in mind besides Turkish War of Independence, Kemalism is being another. Let me talk on personal level here. I wanted to add left wing anti-imperialist perspective that indirectly supports Turkish War of Independence(more so identifying nature of the war). The more I get involved the more similar(group movement, propaganda) trends I see in side topics. Done by the same group of people which you are involved. I could pull list of users here if needed --Oyond (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your use of "your group" to describe myself and unnamed other editors is nothing but battleground behaviour. It is also ignorant of facts, if I am part of some anti-Turkish group it wouldn't explain why I persistently report sockpuppets of blatantly anti-Turk editor Cypriot Chauvinist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to the extent they say "I really dont know your problem with Greece and Cyprus" and "I really dont know your issue on Greek pages", among other things. I am neither pro-Turk nor anti-Turk, but what I am against is the concerted campaign by several editors to attack the best referenced part of the Turkish War of Independence article, because they are personally (and often, as a country) in denial about the ethnic cleansing aspect of it. FDW777 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Actions speak louder then words and lets not victimize ourselves so easily. My questions are still not answered. Contributions and attitude and cooperations in both Turkish War of Independence and Kemalism speaks for itself. I dont have to the interest to dig into other past actions(At the Moment, though guessing more can be found), these are the only ones I see happening now.--Oyond (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't a hard science. There is always some degree of "I like it" or "I JDL" with social sciences. The environment on the talk page of this article is pure toxic goo. After I saw comments about the content UNDUE from editors who supported inclusion of the disputed content, seeing they were not "Turkish nationalist" meat puppets, I made the naive request of asking the editors to seal the deal with an RfC. I could not get out of there fast enough. Editors defending the content claimed that there was a consensus for it because all the oppose editors were meat puppets and they didn't count. I strongly believe uninvolved editors should discuss the merits of the WP:MEATPUPPETRY claims. I don't believe that all the editors were meat puppets, making it impossible to evaluate the consensus while this is ongoing. It's not in the interests of the project to allow involved editors to ignore opposing editors in talk page discussions based on unsubstantiated claims of meat puppetry. Spudlace (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

one more distortion: 12:13, 14 June 2021‎ Visnelma talk contribs‎ 52,327 bytes −85‎ Non-factual date. Tag: Visual edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Naval_Forces As you can see, the date is written on the coat of arms. but there is blatant vandalism and propaganda.Turks go to mongolia. Actually, you are not Turkish. Why are our eyes not slanting? are the sources cited for such accusations. Although the date of establishment is written on the flag, vadalism is practiced.

you mean to say that the Turkish navy had corvettes and submarines etc. Since 1081? Does that sound right to you? Personally it sounds hilarious that one should take the establishment date in 1081 seriously just because it's written on the coat of arms. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that armenian. If you knew the history, you would probably know the size of the navies of those times. You would also know that a submarine was not invented. (...)

Another propaganda war.: but this is noticed by another editor and the source is removed. He shares anti-Turkish sources on wikipedia without any ideas.his only defense is his own shared resource. its been on the air for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch#Ataturk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma is deliberately trying to make a propaganda.His method is to add anti-Turkish sources wherever he wants without anyone noticing. his only defense .is that the source he entered has been there for a long time.please stop the damage this editor has done to wikipedia. He is constantly making his own propaganda.it has an AN/I topic for it. However, he is not responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack and insult by 88.245.195.203 who also claims to be 5.46.191.4

The diff that contains insult written in Turkish and baselessly accusing me of "anti-Turkish propaganda"[310]. He also claims to be the one who started a discussion about me on this page[311]--V. E. (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The user continues his attack against me although being warned by other users in the article talk page. (personal attack)[312] (previous warnings)[313] This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.--V. E. (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

He is also adding non factual dates to the articles and ignores the concencus on the article by doing so. He also continues his attack against me on his edit summary.[314]--V. E. (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a complaint for you. reply to the complaint above. You should respond to the complaint about your blatant black propaganda against the Turks. In addition, the history of Istanbul University began in 1453. Celal Şengör is a geologist and has no expertise in history. Madrasahs were established by Fatih Sultan Mehmet in 1453 and the foundation of Istanbul University was laid. Just as it did not start directly from Oxford university as a university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch#Ataturk

As can be seen in the discussion, this is a systematic attack. and is constantly adapted by other editors. but after a while it keeps doing the same thing again.trying to change all Turkish articles from a source book that is generally anti-Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• The IP has tried to carry this dispute to a completely unrelated discussion on Talk:Beer Hall Putsch in which Visnelma is involved. [315], [316], [317], [318] The IP's comments have been removed per WP:NOTAFORUM, and I warned them on their talk page that further disruption will result in their being referred to admins for sanctioning. [319] Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Bro, As you can see, he is trying to show the anti-Turkish extreme theories as real. continues to do this everywhere. This is not a personal attack. It is the disclosure of his black propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk)

The user still continues to harass me on my talk page. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He was warned several times but he is still doing that. I kindly request him to be blocked.--V. E. (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you. I just said that I would expose your propaganda. You are using anti-Turkish sources. Even the German editors who see these sources express their surprise. they see these sources as extreme ideas and delete them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch#Ataturk This is exactly what I write in Turkish. I will refute your anti-Turkish propaganda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk)

"As you can see today, you have come to the end of the propaganda you have been making for a long time. Let me tell you frankly. I will show people all the anti-Turkish sources and extreme theories you showed, and those people will delete these sources of yours. I made good progress from day one. Establishment dates of universities and institutions, linking the Nazis with the Turks I see that you are trying to make a lot of propaganda like this. In addition, the German editors realized what they were trying to do. It will be a very good reference point for me."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk)

Is it possible this user is Banana6cake.? 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Very. A look at the IPs and Banana6cake shows no overlap between their editing times, with Banana and 5.46 editing on alternating days. Something indeed smells rotten here, and given the behaviour and the fact I've already warned the IP about discretionary sanctions I would take this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ALso https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazycomputers&diff=prev&oldid=1029233125 user admits to being 88.245.195.203 2001:4898:80E8:1:CDCA:4AB9:52C0:DDF2 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

5.46's been blocked for 72h (same as the other IP). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

IP attacks against more editors

I was being target of IP attacks at Talk:Turkish Naval Forces which I just reported here in a new section at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_resorting_to_insults_and_personal_attacks but I was unaware of the present discussion here. It was brought to my attention [320] by fellow user User:General Ization. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Both the IPs used in this thread are blocked. Are there any other IPs that have been harassing you? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if you take a look at the resources I wrote there instead of asking me why I changed my ip address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfsdfsdeef (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

We know why you're changing IPs/usernames. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

TBan for User:Banana6cake.?

Based on what the IPv6 said above, I did a little bit of digging. I'm fairly certain that if the IPs aren't IP socks of Banana6cake. (talk · contribs), the difference is academic:

1. Banana6cake. and 5.46 edit on alternating days, and there is likewise no overlap in editing times between Banana6cake. and 88.245.
2. Their editing styles are similar - compare [321] to [322].
3. Both have a fixation on complaining about the use of Armenian sources - compare [323] to [324]

I am therefore proposing a topic ban from the Turkish War of Independence for Banana6cake. and any sockpuppets they have for the obvious IP sockpuppetry and for their nationalism-based battleground behaviour. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I have filed an SPI. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Look. You call us Turkish nationalists. One of those who say this is a Kurd. One is Armenian and one is Greek.

I am sending a source for the establishment date of Istanbul University.In the history of the university, he states why the foundation date is 1453. but you are writing your own claims again by telling us that we are vandalism. You don't even accept the history of the university. There is an intentional anti-Turkish attitude here.In the same way, you react against the intervention of the Germans. I've told you this over and over, but you just blocked me. You are the real nationalist here and it is obvious that you are anti-Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.194.180 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly evading blocks with IPs only damages your case. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBan from everything Turkish, broadly construed for Banana6cake and all connected IPs. Enough of this disruption in a subject area that is already fraught. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan per above (Beyond My Ken). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Question If, and I am not saying I know this to be true, that these IPs are sock puppets of this user, then why not just block? Topic bans are typically for editors with a history of otherwise good work who are problematic in a certain area. Users with few edits who resort to sock puppetry are typically not afforded this, but are rather blocked. I have not made a determination as to if these IPs are socks of this user but if they are then a block of indefinite duration would make more sense. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't checked the editors for any contributions outside of Turkey topic areas. My experiences with them were on the Turkey topic area. If that's not the case, then I support an indef. block per HighInBC, instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if an admin decides to indef block Banana6cake for sockpuppetry or other disruptive editing, then this proposal would be moot. I don't see it as preventing normal admin action should it be warranted, just a step that the community itself can take to rein in the disruption in the absence of admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBan from everything Turkish, broadly construed I agree with Beyond.--V. E. (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas

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

1. MOS:HON, MOS:POSTNOM Talk:Plowshares movement#Honorifics and postnominals
2. MOS:HON, MOS:POSTNOM
3. Roman Catholic Talk:Philip Berrigan#Roman Catholic
4. MOS:PEOPLANG, WP:NPOV, WP:V Talk:Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart (Josephites)#Tagged
5. WP:EGRS
6. WP:EGRS
7. WP:EGRS
8. WP:V, WP:EGRS Talk:Trayce Thompson#"African-American"
9. WP:V, WP:EGRS
10. WP:EGRS Talk:Klay Thompson#African-American Talk:Klay Thompson#Catholic
11. MOS:PEOPLANG Talk:Amanda Gorman#"black" and "black Catholic" are not proper nouns
12. Roman Catholic
13. Roman Catholic

Natemup has been insistently flouting consensus all over the place, edit-warring to push the POV and MOS errors (WP:3RRN: one, two, three times), denies that anyone is right about policies and guidelines in all this. As the record shows, I have started numerous talk page discussions in order to resolve the disputes, but the disputes have several common themes and the topic areas are wide and there is no centralized discussion. Recently on COIN due to citing himself and editing articles with which he has a close affiliation, brought to WP:RSN regarding the same self-published blog, a current discussion on WP:NPOVN regarding "Roman Catholic", continuing a current discussion on WikiProject Catholicism about "Roman Catholic", we typically hunt common vandals who remove "Roman Catholic"; frankly we are Romaned out here. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen in the links above, there is no consensus on the Catholic vs Roman Catholic debate. I've only removed the term in places where it was either inaccurate, awkward, or otherwise unnecessary. The other matters are also currently in dispute (or settled), and Elizium has made a habit of trailing my edits to revert them regardless of merit or consensus. The issue may be personal moreso than canonical. natemup (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What about the disputes you have had with @Avatar317:, @Binksternet:, @Hijiri88:, @CorbieVreccan:, among others? Elizium23 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Not that I feel the need to respond on a noticeboard to every editor dispute I'm involved in, but the edits I made on the St Joseph page were eventually integrated after other more level-headed editors got involved. The edits I made on the Yasuke page have not yet had that sort of intervention, but I plan to make an RfC or something soon. The issue (with you) on "Black Catholics" could also use a similar treatment, but I'm content with that situation for now. Generally speaking, the matter is whether one intends to improve a page or rather impede a user (or edits) they don't like. Your refusal to make even the slightest attempt to improve pages (with which I'm involved) without reverting edits seems to speak for itself. As they say, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. natemup (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Natemup: Sometimes the quicker action to improve articles is to prevent junk from being added to them, or to remove otherwise poor quality content. I contribute to many articles, but it takes more time to read several sources, cite them, compose a good summary, and figure out where it fits in an article than to keep "junk" out of articles. Just because YOU want an article to be bigger or have better coverage, doesn't put an obligation on others to do that. If editors add a poorly written summary of a Reliable Source, I'll generally reword it; but it is DEFINITELY not my obligation to search out sources if no good ones are supplied by the editor adding the text. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I never said it was. I was replying to Elizium. natemup (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I first saw Natemup at Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy, with Natemup disrupting the article so severely that his edits were revdeled.[325] More recently, Natemup showed up at the Catholics for Choice article to shoehorn in a contemptuous term – Cafeteria Catholicism – as if it is a neutral term for dissenting Catholic.[326] Natemup appears to be WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to further a dogmatic Catholic agenda. The most effective solution for NOTHERE editors is to ban them. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't shoehorn the term. I linked "dissenting Catholic" to it because they're synonymous concepts (regardless of wording; it's literally the description in the first line of the Cafeteria article). There's no point in pretending otherwise. Also, no editor is involved in that matter (or any other) without bias; I made an attempt to normalize an awkward adjectival mash-up and an ideological dispute is holding it up. In any case, the idea that my contributions overall are to damage Wikipedia or that I deserve a ban is patently ridiculous and clearly a matter of personal disagreement. natemup (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

My point is that you are trying to force a dogmatic Catholic viewpoint even when that is not an accurate representation of the literature. The literature allows that Catholics may hold contradictory viewpoints, but the dogmatic church stance is that the Roman Catholic church is monolithic: there is only one way, their way. You have been trying to force that viewpoint across Wikipedia, rather than trying to accurately summarize the literature. As such, you are working against the WP:Neutral point of view policy. You are WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia in its stated mission. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You're making things up. I have done no such thing here or anywhere else.

I am in total agreement that Catholics hold a variety of viewpoints, and the literature is in agreement that those who dissent from Catholic dogma or doctrine are colloquially called "Cafeteria Catholics". That said, I think there should be a page on "Dissent from Catholic teaching"; since there isn't, and Cafeteria Catholicism is basically the same topic by a different name, I added a wikilink.

The dispute on the St Joseph's page—where various anti-Catholic editors (unsuccessfully) attempted to shoehorn their own viewpoints into a page under the guise of a source none had read—is totally unrelated to the charges you're attempting to bring against me here. In fact, most of the issues being collocated above by Elizium are unrelated to one another and are an attempt to silence me rather than improve Wikipedia. natemup (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I first encountered Natemup about two weeks ago when he reverted my removal on American Solidarity Party of a large amount of material sourced to Facebook, reddit, and blogspot posts, then added additional "sources" (blog posts written by himself). I have had essentially two disputes with him over sourcing issues. Another editor has weighed in supporting my removal from American Solidarity Party, and the Reliablilty discussion of his blog at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_BlackCatholicMessenger.com_a_Reliable_Source? seems to also be getting to consensus against him. If he respects the consensus, and abides by Wikipedia's policies, then I will have no issues with him, but if he edit-wars against these consensuses, then I will agree with Binksternet, that he is WP:NOTHERE. I'll report back in a week or so. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Nateump is grossly misrepresenting what he did on the St. Joseph's Indian School article. Natemup's initial edits there were to repeatedly blank sourced content, removing "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" with no edit summary or new sourcing added.[327][328][329][330] I reverted them as vandalism, and warned them on their talk page.[331][332][333] [The CNN source, already in the article, clearly cites, " St. Joseph’s Indian School – a 200-person boarding school in Chamberlain, South Dakota, that’s affiliated with a Roman Catholic charity based in Wisconsin." (bolding added) (Source:U.S. Indian school’s fundraising letters sent to millions signed by fictitious kids. David Fitzpatrick and Drew Griffin, CNN Investigations. Updated 9:53 PM EST, Mon November 17, 2014).]

Natemup then proceeded to edit war in an attempt to whitewash the article to remove sourced content on abuse of children, often using misleading edit summaries, and refusing to engage on user talk or article talk. Many of these diffs are at the 3RR board.

• Deletes sourced content on child sex abuse lawsuits as "irrelevant"

This POV push has now been joined by North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has been active on talk for a long time, pushing the same POV, and claimed he was not going to edit the article. Now he is editing aggressively, as well. This school is well-documented to spend millions on p.r., and we have had a series of paid editors come to the article. Some disclose their connection, most do not.

Natemup only engaged on article talk after Elizium brought him to the 3RR board. As his first edits had been blanking, then removal of sourced content without consensus or discussion, I had reverted him as a vandal and warned him extensively on both user and article talk. But by the time I saw the 3RR report, Bbb had already called it - Due to it looking like a edit war at first glance, Bbb had declined to block him then and just protected the page. And it was late and I was too exhausted to go through and explain it all with diffs.

Natemup refuses to take any responsibility for his actions, as seen in his statement about his actions here: "I did not violate any rules and my edits were not even all reverts (or directly related to the dispute)."[334]

Natemup is clearly here to POV push, and is willing to misrepresent his actions even when the evidence is right there in front of everyone. He particularly has no interest in working in collaboration, or respecting policy. I agree he is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not, to my knowledge, obligated to use in a Wiki article the exact terminology used in a source. In fact, we are encouraged to put the content in our own words, and in this case the words established on this site as a sort of norm. It really doesn't matter what we call the Church, but the page for it here is titled without "Roman" (though it does mention it as a secondary name and devotes an entire section to explaining why the secondary term exists). It is fairly established on Wikipedia that "Roman Catholic" is only to be used in restricted settings, not in every reference to the global Catholic Church. Right or wrong, my removal of that term is hardly vandalism.

Plus you skipped the part where you (unsuccessfully) fought on the St. Joseph's page for the "source" you included without reading (as it's literally unreadable/inaccessible), claimed not to know how the source got into the article, and were defeated by consensus in the talk page. You also skipped my addition (and your removal) of a reliable source and additional info countering the info allegedly from the aforementioned phantom source. You and others proceeded to (unsuccessfully) argue against the reliable, readable source on the grounds that it's Catholic. My other content removals on that page concerned information that did not appear to have anything to do with St. Joseph's.

I encourage any and everyone to peruse the edit histories of that page as well as the extensive dialogue on the talk page. I have nothing to hide. I have a habit of using reverts rather than talk pages when dealing with obscure Wikis, as it more quickly gets other editors involved. I probably shouldn't do that, but I don't know of a better way at this point. Maybe RfCs or something? I should work on that.

In any case, your characterization of my overall contributions to Wikipedia (and to the St Joseph's page in particular) are manifestly false. natemup (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It is fairly established on Wikipedia that "Roman Catholic" is only to be used in restricted settings, not in every reference to the global Catholic Church. Please specify exactly where this is "fairly established". I have an ongoing interest in this topic and I never heard of such a thing. In fact, editors who remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic" are regularly blocked as vandals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In the discussions cited above by Elizium, and elsewhere. I have no doubt that other editors have vandalized articles along these lines, though. Like the wording itself, it's case-by-case. natemup (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are two discussion, one on a WikiProject talk page, and one on the NPOVN page. They are not RfCs advertised Wikipedia-wide in order to get the views of the entire community, and they therefore "establish" nothing. (The first has a section labelled "RFC" but it was not even registered as one, and only attracted a small number of participants, while the second also is a discussion among a small number of editors, some of whom also participated in the first discussion.) Your "elsewhere" is pure hand-waving, I asked for specifics. The long and the short of it is that it is not "established" in any way, and your actions in upholding it are therefore not valid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

My idea that it is fairly established comes not from the results (or nature) of those discussions, but from what the participants related about previous discussions and practices. I also viewed a number of closed/failed proposals that included similar comments. Clearly there is some sort of practice in place, though it is clearly inconsistent and contentious. Of course, if there is *nothing* established in any way on the topic, then I don't see why the topic is even up for discussion here. Several (and perhaps most) of my edits on this matter had to do with wikilinks to the page entitled "Catholic Church" that nevertheless read "Roman Catholic [Church]" on their respective pages; that seemed like an obviously appropriate kind of edit to me. natemup (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, RFC registered in October 2020 and expired 30 days later. Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, which is not indicated anywhere in the RfC. Was it advertised on WP:CENT? In any case, less than a dozen people participated, and the RfC was never closed, so it established nothing definitive, which is what Natemup is claiming. It certainly does not justify the removal of "Roman" from "Roman Catholic". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the type of bafflegab and derailing Nate engages in. I don't even know which sources he's talking about, and he's not describing my actions. He tends to lump everyone he disagrees with into one person and ascribe different people's actions to other people entirely. There is a very disturbing, concerted POV push going on on that page, removing or minimizing content around abuse of children, including trying to exclude testimony of survivors, and even Catholic sources when they include sad truths about the abuse that's happened at this, sadly typical, Indian boarding school. It's pretty ugly. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since it seems like consensus is moving in the right direction here (and I therefore no longer need to fear ... what I fear, feel free to ask me in private), I will chime in and say that, if anything, Natemup's edits to articles that have little to nothing to do with Catholicism are worse than the ones alluded to here.[335][336] I am not sure if this is because WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR with regard to what counts as a reliable source for a scholarly topic like medieval Japanese history, but the result is the same. Therefore, I suspect that anything short of a site-wide block would only make this problem worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  There has been only one user to participate in this discussion that was not directly involved in one of the disputes (and literally tagged into the discussion by the OP). And the only users tagged were of course the ones who opposed my edits. Surely that's not consensus, and it surely isn't the point of creating a noticeboard discussion. In fact, how is that different from canvassing?

  As to Corbie's response, I again have nothing to hide. The talk page on the St Joseph's article speaks for itself and I haven't edited the article since it was locked. Corbie added a source from a Dr. Landrum to establish that students at St. Joseph were kidnapped, assimilated, and forced to convert to Catholicism. She's never read the source, the source is inaccessible, and it has since been removed by consensus—which Corbie is characterizing as oppression.

  You, on the other hand, vandalized the page for "Yasuke" by refusing to allow him to be referred to as a samurai, despite nearly every source in the article and on the internet calling him such. You were called in to do so by another editor, who is assisting in blocking the edits now that you have backed out due to personal issues. If I should be banned for fighting that fight, so be it. natemup (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The above accusation of "vandalism" (actually agreeing to the restoration, by User:Goszei and separately User:Havsjö, of the long-term status quo of the article in question, and seemingly in accordance with the consensus of professional historians -- I may be wrong about this latter assertion, as the topic is very obscure and I am reading between the lines of, among other things, Professor Oka's blog and Professor Kaneko's book, but, per this and, more importantly, CorbieVreccan's comment below, this is irrelevant) is typical of this user's behaviour. I posted a non-comprehension grab-bag of diffs of similar remarks here. He has been warned about this countless times both on his user talk page and on the article talk pages where he has repeatedly made such comments. I would advocate that he be removed from the project, since either he is incapable of understanding how disruptive his behaviour is or he is willfully pretending to be incapable of understanding how disruptive his behaviour is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As we see, Nate refuses to even acknowledge this is not about the details of his multiple content disputes, but about his refusal to follow basic WP policies. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

As I went past the handful of vandalism reverts and warnings into reverting more involved edits with this user and attempting to dialogue with them on talk, I am asking an uninvolved admin to please make the call and finish this. I think everyone who has weighed in with diffs has shown it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, and that these responses by Natemup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have only reinforced that conclusion. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pizzafan300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Pizzafan300 seems to be a sockpuppet account to the blocked user Jonah250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Both are aggresive editors who just want the pages for themselves, undoing edits and offending other users. Pizzafan300 appeared just two or three days after Jonah250 was blocked and started editing in the same pages as him (like Child's Play (2019 film) or Sing 2 pages).

Adjunting both contributions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pizzafan300
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jonah250

You can see the same aggresive behaviour and even Pizzafan300 talks about Jonah250 in one of his recent contributions despite not knowing him. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: Pizzafan300 revealed he is Jonah250's brother. But still with the same aggresive behaviour and edit warring.

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Disruptive account should be blocked. ♟♙ (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE, though this was a duck screaming into a megaphone to me. "Brother", sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, while Jonah250's userpage says "retired", the account isn't actually blocked, FWIW. Probably could be as a really obvious sockpuppeting scenario, up to you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it, since that account is "retired" I'll leave it as is for the moment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

And that account and others were blocked as socks. This can be closed up now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive behaviour

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

This is a request to deal with the user Mwiqdoh who is tracking other users' contributions and even harrassing them (example), mimicking their edit summaries and sending false accusations like here and here. He is also removing content from these users' talk pages despite being told to stop doing so (he removes the warnings being sent to him).--Sakiv (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is this [337] considered harassment? Take it your own way, but I was pretending that we were in a editing competition on how could make the better edits and I said that I made a good edit and he did too so he is trying to bounce back. [338] You already explained that this was not appropriate [339] and I understood and moved on (and as you can see, I never did it again). I am not tracking anybody's contributions, I just check whoever's user page I'm on's contributions just to see what they're editing and see what things I should edit. It's not like I check the same person's contributions to stalk them. (People give me ideas!) For example, I quickly checked out Sakiv's edit history and came across List of countries by average annual precipitation, and thought that would be fun to improve. And I ended up improving it a bit. [340][341][342][343] I'm not very creative so I need ideas on what to edit. You're actually tracking MY contributions. [344] I don't mimick people's edit summaries. If I like an edit summary I'll use it, that should be taken as a good way. I am not sending false accusations, I can prove that SteveMc25 sent that a few seconds before the game ended, what I can agree is I pushed it a little too far, but it wasn't a lie at all. [345] I'll be nicer in approaching someone who did a harmless edit. [346] I don't mean to remove content to other people's talk pages. I have reasons for doing so though. 1. They were my edits. [347] (removed literally 8 minutes after adding, not like it was an age-old message that everyone saw). 2. Nobody replied to them. [348] And I do remove warnings sent to me. If I have a warning, I read it, learn from it, and move on (same with disambiguation links). Also, the warnings you gave me were extremely unfair (just like Stevie fae Scotland's warning). [349][350] On, England national football team results (2020–present) there was a discussion between me and you between adding yellow cards. [351] Then you were ignoring me [352] so I removed them, [353] and you warned me. [354] So you ignore me for the discussion but when I remove it myself you warn me of vandalism (even though there is an ongoing discussion about it). Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

They (the cards) were already there before any discussion began between us and you should have waited to reach a consensus before removing them. You have been told to stop mimicking by SteveMc25 and I also warned you that it is inaproppriate. You have been given more than one chance but unfortunately you can't change this behavior. It's clear that you don't know the purpose of why we are all here.--Sakiv (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's what I would've (and was doing) with the cards, [355] but when you ignore me [356] [357], it's not really a productive discussion. I'm not mimicking him! Is there a rule that says editors are not allowed to use the same edit summaries as other editors, even if it's a good edit summary? Mimick means to imitate (someone or their actions or words), especially in order to entertain or ridicule, [358] which I am not [359]. The only thing you warned me that was inappropriate was this, [360] which I listened to you [361] and I didn't do that again. [362] You never told me using a valid edit summary in an appropriate situation was wrong (just because someone else uses it). It's not about chances, everything I've done wrong I've been told about, and had never been done again. Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

He has just accused me of cheating.--Sakiv (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really, I'm still editing my comment as you can see, [363] once I am done you can judge it however you'd like. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh, it's really past time for you to stop stirring up disputes and then attempting to turn them into emotional bru-ha-has. I've had my own interaction with you recently, in which I asked you to stop a certain behavior and you attempted to convert it into a personal, emotional issue. Editors here are not just judged by the quality of their edits, but on how well they can collaborate with other editors and, from time to time, resolve disputes. A big part of that is graciously accepting correction from other editors who have more experience. Sakiv has been editing here for more than 5 years and has contributed more than 30,000 edits. Assuming this is your only Wikipedia account, you have been editing here for less than a month, and have contributed less than 2000 edits. It's just possible that Sakiv knows some things about editing here that you do not yet know. You might stop arguing with everyone who offers you guidance, about either the substance or the tone (as you perceive it) of the request or warning, and listen to what they are trying to tell you. I can assure you that if you do so it will make your career as a Wikipedia editor much more pleasant, if not longer. General Ization ^Talk 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't base this on your personal experience with me, read my responses, please. I provided 26 pieces of evidence (which you are free to look at). I do listen to sakiv when I am told I've done something wrong (look at my response with all my sources and claims), but I haven't done anything this time, truly. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Then move on, and stop repeating the same pattern of persistent bickering in response to simple warnings. General Ization ^Talk 04:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't even about that. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

AGain, if you read my response, you'd see I said "I read my warning, and moved on." It's that he's trying to BAN me. Do you not want me to defend myself or give reasoning? Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No one is going after you. Stop pretending to be targeted. You persisted in your undesirable behavior and as a result I made this request.--Sakiv (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say you were, I'm just saying that if someone's requesting to ban you, you need to defend yourself. My behavior is not undesirable as I explained in my responses. Occasionally I may do something wrong and I just need to be reminded that I can't do that, but what have I done here? Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Mwiqdoh's Allegations

- Harrasment – [364] Mwiqdoh's response: Not even harassment. Explained here: [365] and was told that it was a bit unnecessary and looked weird [366] and I listened.

- Lying – User_talk:Mwiqdoh#False_reverts. Mwiqdoh's response: Was an overreaction but not a lie. Explained here: [367] and said that I'd be nicer (which I have done so far): [368]

- Deleting talk page content – [369] Mwiqdoh's response: Was something I did wrong. But, it is an inappropriate use of talk pages (WP:OWNTALK) stating, "talk pages aren't social media websites" and what I said was improper usage so I deleted it.

- Removing Warnings – [370] Mwiqdoh's response: Clean-ups are allowed. Especially, if you already read and understood the warning.

- Mimicking – [371] Mwiqdoh's response: Using the same edit summary as someone else appropriately, is not mimicking someone.

- Tracking people's contributions – Mwiqdoh's response: "I am not tracking anybody's contributions, I just check whoever's user page I'm on's contributions just to see what they're editing and see what things I should edit. It's not like I check the same person's contributions to stalk them. (People give me ideas!)"

Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

What Mwiqdoh has done

Talk page removal - Mwiqdoh has removed things he said on other people's talk pages.

Arguing - Mwiqdoh has argued and bickered over small things.

Removing Warnings - Mwiqdoh has removed warnings (but there isn't anything wrong with that)

What Mwiqdoh hasn't done

Harassing - [372] does not meet the harassment guidelines. It may be unnecessary (which he has been notified here [373]) and he followed the heads-up. It was not harassment though

Lying - Mwiqdoh has been placed in the argument section for the stevemc25 incident, but it was not a lie. (As proved here [374])

Mimicking - Mwiqdoh has not mimicked any user in a humorous matter. Anytime he had copied someone's edit summary was in a valid situation, as such: [375].

Answered honestly by Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Since no admin appears to take it as a priority to review @Mwiqdoh's 38 pieces of "evidence" (which I thoroughly understand) and either admonish them or praise them, I will simply offer one additional (unsolicited) observation for the editor to consider. As in real life, when someone here seems to chronically find themselves in conflict with others, and then consistently to claim that they've been misunderstood or are being treated unfairly, it usually means that they have misunderstood how to interact with other Wikipedia editors and avoid conflict (or, sometimes, that they are actually seeking conflict, consciously or otherwise). I cannot say for certain that any of these are the case here. However, it is not considered a virtue to take up a considerable amount of admins' time to moderate and/or defuse minor squabbles that expand to become major incidents as a result of failure to get the point or drop the stick. The editor would do well to spend more time reviewing Wikipedia policies, listening to what other editors have to tell them, and occasionally walking away from conflict even if they think they are right or are being misunderstood. (No reply expected, nor will debate be undertaken.) General Ization ^Talk 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: But I just want to know what I did wrong here that requires admin to get involved. Mwiqdoh (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Appears to me that, whether or not you violated Wikipedia policies, you persistently annoyed at least one and possibly several other editors. See above my suggestion for how to avoid doing this in the future. General Ization ^Talk 15:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: OK, thanks for your advice. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to block LouisianaDavis and Caux9 for repeated Sockpuppetry lie and dishonest behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears that despite LouisianaDavis’ previous denials in a sockpuppet investigation [376], LouisianaDavis is a sockpuppet and among others? of Caux9 see : [377]

LouisianaDavis tried to hide the connection that unmasked him here : [378]

• Both accounts LouisianaDavis and Caux9 are editing on the same article Étienne de Perier
• Aggravating circumstances: Caux9 is not a newbie in Sockpuppetry: he is blocked on French Wikepedia for that (also on the Perier Family) see : [379] [380]

• I request the indefinite block of the sockpuppet account LouisianaDavis
• I request Caux9 be blocked at least one month (as in French Wikipedia) as the last warning for this repeated dishonest behavior.

Thanks --Belyny (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

For information @Bbb23:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range of Indianapolis IPs puffing up music arranger Belford Hendricks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2600:1700:B401:9D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using a range of IPs from Indianapolis has been puffing up the legacy of music arranger Belford Hendricks. They have coatracked promotion of Hendricks into other articles.[381][382] They have been using peacock words such as "talented" (every arranger with a biography on Wikipedia can be described as talented) and they have added lots of unreferenced, unverifiable claims. They have edit-warred at the same articles,[383][384] added claims that are contradictory or verifiably false, for instance here claiming that Hendricks arranged the song just a few lines below a description of someone else arranging the song. And here where Hendricks supposedly arranges the song but the article already says that there was no arranger. And where Hendricks is inserted despite a verifiable source saying a different guy arranged the song.

One thing this person has not done is respond to any communication, or initiate communication. Can we apply a rangeblock to stop the disruption and perhaps get a conversation going? Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the /64 range for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Camila_Maciel_Estefani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User removing wikipededia editings without prior notice or discussions about the topic. User alsos flags wikipedia's editors accounts as spammers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexCoelho (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• AlexCoelho, the formatting was wrong, you didn't sign, you didn't notify the editor, and that editor's name must be wrong. Will you please read the instructions first, and employ proofreading skills? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I suspect this may be related to a situation on the Portuguese wiki, where the filer was recently indefinitely blocked CiphriusKane (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: Take a look at this. It's a revenge filing CiphriusKane (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Estefani has never edited enwiki. That shows the complaint to be harassment by AlexCoelho who is carrying their WP:BATTLEGROUND here from ptwiki. WP:BOOMERANG indef applied. Cabayi (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks y'all. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• (post-closure non-admin comment) I dropped a heads-up notification on the Portuguese blocking admin's TP. In my admittedly limited experience, ptwiki is pretty much on the ball. I remember alerting a different ptwiki admin to a cross-language collection of garbage which was being picked off piecemeal in enwiki and ptwiki, and their version of WP:AFD saw their side of it off in short order. I declined an invitation to comment, on the grounds that I only read the language, but neither speak it nor know their rules (which seem similar to WP:N), and they were doing very well without me. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential WP:HOAX (or COI) concern/s

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I would be grateful if an admin(s) with a close interest in Wikipedia hoaxes could take a careful look at the concerns regarding potential HOAX / COI raised at Talk:Anthropocentrism#unverified content: possible WP:HOAX (or WP:COI)? and Talk:Man of Science, Man of Faith#unverified content: possible WP:HOAX (or WP:COI)?, where I have expressed perplexity regarding recent edits made by User:RoopeM / User:Rudolfian (apparently the same individual, given that, in the past, User:Rudolfian appears to have routinely blanked content on the user talk page of the similarly-named User:RoopeM; see [385]). I would prefer not to get involved any further. Thank you, 86.186.168.245 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• It's now clear to me that this is not a problem of WP:HOAX, but rather of COI / WP:SPS, and (possibly?) gf usage of multiple usernames. (Communication about such matters is not really my thing :) 86.186.168.245 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• I wish the user 86.186.168.245 had contacted me directly about any potential concerns. There is obviously no reason to suspect COI/HOAX/etc. Please see edits/contributions for context. I hope this is not a retaliatory action from a disgruntled user getting their content deleted or edited, but I'm happy to discuss any such matters. -- RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I hope this is not a retaliatory action... Fwiw, no (just an annoying waste of time). 86.186.168.245 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding ISBN 978-952-94-3600-2 the only reference to this I've been able to find is here. Book: Rudolf, R. M. . 2020. Circulus Vitae: Ruminations on the Value of Truth. New York, NY. RMR New York Publishing . 978-952-94-3600-2 SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • sigh and that is just because it is a mirror of Wikipedia. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• RMR New York Publishing = R.M. Rudolf. This is absolutely a self-published source, and a conflict of interest for the editor who keeps adding it. Woodroar (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• comment Rudolfian's first edits were to promote a website owned by someone with a name virtually identical to the other editor. Now that second editor is pushing edits for someone named R.M. Rudolph. They appear to be doing each others promotional work to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• I do have concerns about them being socks though. Rudolfian's first edit was to RoopeM's talk page tinkering with what appears to have been a draft in progress there. And again Rudolfian's first edit after a long break was editing RoopeM's talk page again. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for working on this. You might have assumed correctly that Rudolfian and I know each other personally as we work at the same university. However, there has been no cross-promotional intent and any such incident must be coincidental as we're obviously familiar with each others work. Thanks again for helping to clear this up. Happy to elaborate if needed -- RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • RoopeM, I think y'all do a bit more than "work at the same university", and I can say that with some technical evidence to back it up. So you haven't explained why the other account is cleaning up your talk page (which is just weird for another person to do), nothing has been cleared up yet, and "cross-promotional intent" is irrelevant: your edits are promotional. I'm not sure what the best way forward is. I'm inclined to block the Rudolfian account since that's the newest, or we could block both accounts since those promotional edits are not acceptable. Woodroar, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, none of this adds up. A "Philosopher" working at a university—I guess we're to assume a professor—makes up their own publishing company and releases a crank psychology paper/book (which is outside their field, by the way) and their colleague thinks "I'll just spam Wikipedia with this psychology source by my friend in the Philosophy department". I've heard of publish or perish, but this is ridiculous. And because publishing is so important in academia, it's inconceivable that neither the professor nor the paper/book would show up in Google searches. Then you've got the editing history of Rudolfian (talk · contribs), who less than four years ago was spamming "lawbots.info" across Wikipedia (1234). The Internet Archive doesn't have the entire site archived, but what they do have says things like automated legal services, awards for robot lawyers, best lawbots, free lawbots for startups, free legal services. That doesn't sound like any professor to me. Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It seems that some clarification and context is needed. There were 3-4 psychology articles in total that had numerous factual errors and misleading information about Anthropocentrism that had to be corrected. This might have been otherwise acceptable but the previously provided information and sources weren't relevant to the article/section. That said, please see the entire edited text and investigate the edits from the anonymous user 86.186.168.245 who also coincidently started the conversation about this account after the appropriate edits were made. I wonder if this temporary account might be linked to the irrelevant sources that were repeatedly planted in this section of the article (9 times in total within 2 paragraphs and across other articles). These irrelevant sources were deleted in the process of fixing the erroneous/irrelevant information. I apologize for upsetting this user but the section was so bad that changes had to be made. One of the new sources added while fixing these articles (and the one debated here) is a limited edition book mostly compiled (but considerable expanded) from the university lectures. This is an original work so it seems to be the best source for the information added in the article. The second mention of the source was merely an interesting curiosity mentioned in a TV episode article (not part of the fixed academic articles above). On a side note, we would still like to be able to correct erroneous information in the future. Apologies if some rules were broken in the process. For somebody who is not that knowledgeable on this process here, please also advise how to appeal these decisions. (The website mentioned was a legal information site managed by a non-profit Access-to-Justice organization and part of the work was to create awareness around legal automation.) -- RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 4:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
      • The present anonymous user created/developed that section with some care (completely legitimately, under multiple ip addresses); cf. [386][387]. If User:RoopeM had merely intended to challenge/discuss the content, that would have been absolutely fine. Instead, both there and elsewhere, there was a concerted effort to introduce promotional content (including the apparently phantasmatic red link, "R. M. Rudolf"[388]). Imo, the blatantly self-promotional approach displayed by these two accounts (as described/documented above) is damaging to Wikipedia and a waste of time and energy of multiple gf contributors. I would support an outright ban for both accounts. Of note, I only stumbled on their (suspicious) recent changes by chance. 86.186.155.210 (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Just for the sake of clarity and transparency, are you the same person as 86.186.168.245? Based on your writing style and account activity, it seems so. I think I'll have to start investigating this further. RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Yes, User:RoopeM, fwiw, I'm clearly the OP (though I'd far rather not have been - sigh). 86.186.155.210 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
          • You should have disclosed that. And which parts of this article are your contributions? Are you the original creator of this article or the section in question here? You seem overly protective over certain sources that seem irrelevant to the article/section. Also, there are still no promotional inclusions anywhere; the fact that somebody is more familiar with certain sources does not imply that (simply googling your sources is not good scholarship). But I see a certain bias how the sources (especially the irrelevant ones) are used in these abovementioned articles and the articles seem to be in need of an overhaul. RoopeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
            • User:RoopeM, I already provided the requested links above (ie [389][390]; and my editorial approach to reliable sourcing was appropriate - cf WP:SCIRS, including WP:SCIRS#Choosing sources). Please note that this is not an appropriate place to intitiate content disputes (and anyway your apparently ad hominem approach to content criticism may be considered inappropriate). Regarding "promotional inclusions", I have no conflict of interest there, but there is real reason to believe that you do have in your editing of those two pages (as well as in the rest of the history of the two closely related accounts). Hence this thread. I think you need to address those concerns rather than threatening to go after ("start investigating") the editor who raised them. 86.186.155.210 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest indef block of both RoopeM and Rudolfian. The technical evidence says the accounts are connected, per the comment from Drmies above. There's also COI and IDHT, with RoopeM adding articles (supposedly) written by Rudolfian and refusing to understand why that's a problem. Or there's CIR, for the crank psychology claims about "Holy Ghost complex" (added by RoopeM but attributed to Rudolfian's work) and a "psychological phenomenon" named after a character from Lost, all cited to an academic article that was (supposedly) self-published by Rudolfian and can't be found in Google. Anybody who knows anything about academia would understand how ridiculous that sounds. Or the defense from RoopeM that Rudolfian refspamming lawbots.info is that it was a "legal information site managed by a non-profit Access-to-Justice organization". Even though the site is down, the Twitter account and lack of online evidence show that's false as well. There's plenty more but I'm not interested in outing anyone here. The on-wiki behavioral evidence should be enough. Woodroar (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• RoopeM, you are now blocked, temporarily, for harassing the editor who reported you here. This whole "are you the same as" when it's clear as daylight that a. they are and b. it's completely irrelevant is beyond irritating: it's harassment. "You should have disclosed that" is ridiculous, and "I think I'll have to start investigating this further" just adds to that. In the meantime, I note that this lengthy post failed quite spectacularly to address any of the questions that were asked of you--it's an exercise in deflection, nothing more. Now, Woodroar presented some more evidence of you and your fellow researcher not being here to improve our beautiful project, and I am going to look into that, with an indefinite block for the both of you being a possible outcome.

  Finally, let me pose a rhetorical question: do you really think we are this dumb, and that you can just boss other people around, threaten them, and refuse to answer direct questions?

  Update: the Rudolfian account is blocked; I'll add, for the record, that this was CU-confirmed, and that no one here believes that that is not the same person as RoopeM. It seems, rather, that the one was used to spam Lawbots.info, and the other to spam the person's own article/publications. Putting all that together and adding the harassment here I think there is enough reason to block the RoopeM account indefinitely also. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• And 86.186.155.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), thank you for doing the heavy lifting here, something you were clearly not interested in doing but which helped us improve the editing atmosphere. And thank you for your article edits. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you all (and for the understanding - really not my preferred activity :) 86.186.155.210 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deception

User:Micahhadar is deceptively adding content. He said he added content copied from Caste system in Kerala 1. But he added content ""descendants of Assyrians, Jews and that they were Upper castes,"" as his own opinion with zero sourcing which is not in the page. Some copied sources cant be clicked. Admin block him.2402:3A80:51A:268D:0:65:70B4:9A01 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, you are required to notify anyone about whose editing you bring complaints to this page; see the notice in red near the top of the page. You have not done so. Admins will not block anyone until they have at least provided an opportunity to hear both sides of the story. General Ization ^Talk 18:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I say speedy close. A purely editing dispute, with no discussion in article talk page whatsoever. IP, you are required to try resolving the disagreement in the article talk page first. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This also seems to be a content dispute than conduct right now. Has there been any discussion of this anywhere? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Only in a personal attack by a seemingly related IP at User talk:Micahhadar and in the ES which that user included while reverting it. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If anything, I see a potential WP:BOOMERANG, as the IP seems to think it's appropriate to use rotating IPs to pursue a dispute here, and to attack an editor whose edits they disagree with:

• • 2402:3A80:521:C05F:0:70:77F3:2E01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Personal attack on Micahhadar's talk page)
  • 2402:3A80:529:A0:0:65:70B3:E001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Reversion of edits at Caste system among South Asian Christians
  • 2402:3A80:51A:268D:0:65:70B4:9A01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (ANI report without notification to the subject of the report) General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Range block placed. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)